Does anybody seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument?

[Fenris]

Genesis 6:5-7 according to the tanakh:

5 And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.    
6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart.         
7 And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them."

I see in this text a heartbroken God deciding to destroy humanity--along with everything else that drew breath. What's your interpretation?

To say that God is "surprised" or "learns something" or "expresses regret" is to say that God is somehow constrained by time in the same way that we are. It means He is not all powerful or all knowing and is in fact held in check by time, which is a creation of His.

And how do we get from that scenario to preserving mankind through Noah, unless God changed His mind about wiping it all out?

God doesn't "change His mind". Again, Numbers 23: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. God never intended to wipe out all of mankind.

[Fenris]

I have not created a problem. You cannot define "death" outside of a vague interpretation of the OT,  conveniently called "my bible."

A very apropo challenge forthcoming, LORD willing.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

[Fenris]

Then that would be your dilemma not mine

I don't think so.

Any "later work" can "clear up" "difficulties" in some "earlier work". That doesn't make said "later work" correct or even true. Christians do not accept the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the "28 Fundamental Beliefs" of the SDA as authoritative, even though they come after the NT and can be seen as "corrective" in some ways.

[Fenris]

It's still coming back to the question of whether God can change his mind or not.

I think that's part of the issue, but not all of it. God used very specific language about biblical laws. "Eternal statute", "throughout your generations", "In anyplace that you dwell". Those sound very, I don't know, "permanent". If God didn't intend for them to be permanent and knew, or even thought, that He was going to be "changing His mind", why did He use such language?

If I discarded the Law under the premise that God "changed His mind", and then came before Him in the hereafter, and He asked me why I did such a thing after He used such strong language about the Law's permanence, what excuse would I have? None.

[Fenris]

Jona 3:10 - When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.

Prophecies are a different matter entirely. The whole reason to have the prophet communicate God's word is to have people change their behavior so that God doesn't have to punish them. Otherwise why send the prophet in the first place?

[Fenris]

After telling Hezekiah he would not recover from his illness and was about to die, God changed His mind, healing him and adding 15 years to his life.

Again, as I said about the case of the prophet, above. The whole reason to have the prophet communicate God's word is to have people change their behavior so that God doesn't have to punish them. Otherwise why send the prophet in the first place?

[Fenris]

ASIDE:These things reveal man's free will (freedom to obey or not) and the LORD's willingness to respond to repentance, in both testaments.
Free will being man's greatest, God-given attribute.

That's right. God doesn't "change His mind", He gives human beings the opportunity to change theirs.

[Sojourner]

Genesis 6:5-7 according to the tanakh:

5 And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.    
6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart.         
7 And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them."

I see in this text a heartbroken God deciding to destroy humanity--along with everything else that drew breath. What's your interpretation?

To say that God is "surprised" or "learns something" or "expresses regret" is to say that God is somehow constrained by time in the same way that we are. It means He is not all powerful or all knowing and is in fact held in check by time, which is a creation of His.

And how do we get from that scenario to preserving mankind through Noah, unless God changed His mind about wiping it all out?

God doesn't "change His mind". Again, Numbers 23: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. God never intended to wipe out all of mankind.

I don't see how deciding to show grace and mercy instead of the judgment He had planned diminishes God's divine attributes.

If God decided to wipe out all of humanity from the earth, but then, out of grace, opted to preserve it and start over through the righteous Noah and his family, how is that not pursuing a different course of action?

[tango]

It's still coming back to the question of whether God can change his mind or not.

I think that's part of the issue, but not all of it. God used very specific language about biblical laws. "Eternal statute", "throughout your generations", "In anyplace that you dwell". Those sound very, I don't know, "permanent". If God didn't intend for them to be permanent and knew, or even thought, that He was going to be "changing His mind", why did He use such language?

If I discarded the Law under the premise that God "changed His mind", and then came before Him in the hereafter, and He asked me why I did such a thing after He used such strong language about the Law's permanence, what excuse would I have? None.

If the intention was that the rules would last long enough that they might as well be considered permanent by mortals it makes little difference if God says "forever" or "until further notice". If he said "until further notice" people would be endlessly watching for the further notice and there would be arguments over what it might look like. What practical difference would it make if he said "forever" or "for 4000 years or so"?

As for regaridng the rules having changed, if you believe that Jesus is God then Jesus gets to change the rules if he wants to. If Jesus isn't God then Christians will probably have bigger worries than whether we observed a festival or not, and if Jesus is God then we can point to the things he said.

[Fenris]

If God decided to wipe out all of humanity from the earth, but then, out of grace, opted to preserve it and start over through the righteous Noah and his family, how is that not pursuing a different course of action?

If God decided to wipe out humanity, we wouldn't exist. Nothing happened to make God "change His mind". He was not given any additional information. He's God, He already knows everything.

[Fenris]

If the intention was that the rules would last long enough that they might as well be considered permanent by mortals it makes little difference if God says "forever" or "until further notice".

It makes all the difference in the world. If God had said "until further notice" (or anything else implying non-permanence) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As for regaridng the rules having changed, if you believe that Jesus is God then Jesus gets to change the rules if he wants to.

Actually, no, he can't. Deuteronomy states that "it is not in heaven". God gave the bible to man, and it is ours now. Even He can't change it.

[Sojourner]

If God decided to wipe out all of humanity from the earth, but then, out of grace, opted to preserve it and start over through the righteous Noah and his family, how is that not pursuing a different course of action?

If God decided to wipe out humanity, we wouldn't exist. Nothing happened to make God "change His mind". He was not given any additional information. He's God, He already knows everything.

Since you neglected to address the point, I'll present it again:

5 And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.   
6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart.         
7 And the Lord said, "I will blot out man, whom I created, from upon the face of the earth, from man to cattle to creeping thing, to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I made them."

In the above, I see a heartbroken God saying He was going to wipe out humanity because it was hopelessly corrupt, and He regretted bringing it into existence. How do you interpret the text, and how do you explain Him not doing what He said He was going to do?

[Fenris]

In the above, I see a heartbroken God saying He was going to wipe out humanity because it was hopelessly corrupt, and He regretted bringing it into existence. How do you interpret the text, and how do you explain Him not doing what He said He was going to do?

How does the story end? In fact, what is the very next verse? "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."  God spares a righteous remnant to start over with. So obviously God did not intend to wipe out humanity, because otherwise He would have done so.

[Sojourner]

In the above, I see a heartbroken God saying He was going to wipe out humanity because it was hopelessly corrupt, and He regretted bringing it into existence. How do you interpret the text, and how do you explain Him not doing what He said He was going to do?

How does the story end? In fact, what is the very next verse? "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."  God spares a righteous remnant to start over with. So obviously God did not intend to wipe out humanity, because otherwise He would have done so.

I made the point earlier that Noah's faith and righteousness is precisely the reason God decided to preserve humanity rather than wipe it out. Had Noah been evil and corrupt like everyone else, God would have destroyed all life as He originally intended. It's within God's divine prerogatives to respond to a change in circumstances, even if He already knows what the circumstances will be. This is yet another instance in which we'll have to agree to disagree.

[RabbiKnife]

In the above, I see a heartbroken God saying He was going to wipe out humanity because it was hopelessly corrupt, and He regretted bringing it into existence. How do you interpret the text, and how do you explain Him not doing what He said He was going to do?

How does the story end? In fact, what is the very next verse? "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."  God spares a righteous remnant to start over with. So obviously God did not intend to wipe out humanity, because otherwise He would have done so.

In all fairness that is a bit circular