Does anybody seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument?

[tango]

Not necessarily. It just means God decided to change the rules later on.

No. God said these rules were "permanent" and then decided that they were not. This is not trivial. 

I don't think I ever said it was trivial. It's a matter of whether God is allowed to change things later on. You're saying no, I'm saying yes. This may be something where we will never agree.

So I guess we're stuck with the issue of whether God is allowed to change his mind.

Numbers 23:19 (NIV) "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

When God called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac he provided an alternative so that the boy didn't have to actually die. When God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah he agreed to spare the cities if ten righteous people could be found. When he called Ezekiel to cook his bread using human excrement as fuel he responded to Ezekiel's objection by allowing him to use animal dung instead.

[Sojourner]

The Lord also changed His mind about killing Moses. (Exodus 4:24-26)

[RabbiKnife]

God is inscrutable

God never lies

So if God says A
Then God says B
Then we must in faith trust God that A and B are compatible no matter how little understanding we have

[IMINXTC]

The law still takes people to hell. Christ fulfilled the Law by living in perfect righteousness then dying for all under the Law.

Christ met the demands of the Law without spot or blemish.

To reject Christ is to die under the Law.

No paradox, no contradictions.

[Fenris]

I don't think I ever said it was trivial. It's a matter of whether God is allowed to change things later on. You're saying no, I'm saying yes.

I'm saying that when God says that something is "forever", that's exactly what it means. God didn't have to include such strong terms for permanence, yet He chose to. If that doesn't mean "forever", what more should God have said?

When God called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac he provided an alternative so that the boy didn't have to actually die.

God didn't tell Abraham to kill Isaac. He actually said "bring him up as a sacrifice", which Abaraham did.

When God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah he agreed to spare the cities if ten righteous people could be found.

Because God already knew that there weren't 10 righteous. The point was for Abraham to ask.

When he called Ezekiel to cook his bread using human excrement as fuel he responded to Ezekiel's objection by allowing him to use animal dung instead.

I can't believe that we're having this discussion, but anyway, it was symbolic.

And the Lord said, "So will the children of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I shall drive them."

Ezekiel points out that he himself had never eaten unclean food, and God said that for that reason, he could bake bread with animal excrement instead. It's a symbolic act. It's not a permanent command of God.

Again. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

[Fenris]

The Lord also changed His mind about killing Moses. (Exodus 4:24-26)

If God meant to kill Moses, he would be dead. God did this to spur Moses to do something that he should have done.

 Again. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

[Fenris]

God is inscrutable

God never lies

So if God says A
Then God says B
Then we must in faith trust God that A and B are compatible no matter how little understanding we have

God's mind may be inscrutable to man, but His communication with us must be comprehensible, otherwise what's the point?

This is why I have observed that while it's difficult to be Jewish and follow all the laws, it's theologically simpler than being a Christian. God didn't "change his mind" or say that something is "forever" when it wasn't actually forever.

[Fenris]

The law still takes people to hell.

My bible lists many punishments for disobedience to God. "Hell" is not one of them. Pardon me for sounding abrupt, or even rude, but all you've done is created a problem and then produced a solution.

[tango]

I don't think I ever said it was trivial. It's a matter of whether God is allowed to change things later on. You're saying no, I'm saying yes.

I'm saying that when God says that something is "forever", that's exactly what it means. God didn't have to include such strong terms for permanence, yet He chose to. If that doesn't mean "forever", what more should God have said?

Interesting you should ask that, given the comments on my examples....

When God called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac he provided an alternative so that the boy didn't have to actually die.

God didn't tell Abraham to kill Isaac. He actually said "bring him up as a sacrifice", which Abaraham did.

So when God said "bring him up as a sacrifice" what God really meant was "bring him up but he's not actually a sacrifice"?

When God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah he agreed to spare the cities if ten righteous people could be found.

Because God already knew that there weren't 10 righteous. The point was for Abraham to ask.

"Hey, if you meet this criteria that I know you can't meet, maybe I'll do something else". Why not just say the place is a pit of corruption and be done with it?

When he called Ezekiel to cook his bread using human excrement as fuel he responded to Ezekiel's objection by allowing him to use animal dung instead.

I can't believe that we're having this discussion, but anyway, it was symbolic.

And the Lord said, "So will the children of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I shall drive them."

Ezekiel points out that he himself had never eaten unclean food, and God said that for that reason, he could bake bread with animal excrement instead. It's a symbolic act. It's not a permanent command of God.

Presumably God already knew that Ezekiel had never eaten unclean food, and wasn't caught off guard by the sudden realisation of what he has asked of his prophet. I'm not sure how it doesn't count as changing his mind to tell someone to do one thing and then shortly afterwards tell them to do something else instead.

Again. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

And yet it seems God has either changed his mind, or plays mind games with people telling them one thing knowing the plan is really not to do that thing.

[Sojourner]

If God meant to kill Moses, he would be dead. God did this to spur Moses to do something that he should have done.

"Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death." God does not seek to do something without the intent of doing so. It was Zipporah's performing of their son's circumcision that changed the circumstances, causing God to "release" Moses. The fact that Zipporah performed the rite rather than Moses suggests that he was unable to do so--perhaps incapacitated due to some physical malady.

Again. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

You often emphasize context in determining the meaning of a passage, but fail to do so in this case. In this passage, Balaam is denying Balak's petition to curse Israel, because that would amount to God reneging on His promise to bless His people. Balaam is saying God is not a man that he should lie or vacillate regarding a promise. That doesn't negate the idea God has the capacity to relent or change His mind about something.

The Hebrew denoting the "change of mind" in Numbers 23:19 is the same as used in Genesis 6:6 to denote the regret God felt in making man after he proved incorrigible. Grieved in His heart over the intrinsic wickedness, He decided to wipe out everything that drew breath with a global flood. Yet He changed His mind when He saw the faith and virtue of Noah--destroying most of humanity, but preserving its seeds in Noah and his family. Clearly, it's within the divine prerogatives of God to change His mind if He chooses to do so. This point represents another instance where our faiths simply diverge. I'm fine with that.

[IMINXTC]

The law still takes people to hell.

My bible lists many punishments for disobedience to God. "Hell" is not one of them. Pardon me for sounding abrupt, or even rude, but all you've done is created a problem and then produced a solution.

The universal and final punishment for sin is death and all have sinned. That death is further revealed by Christ as condemnation in a place of burning as the human soul continues to exist in banishment.
A clear message understood for milennia  by believers, Jew and Gentile alike, with little to no variance.
Be as blunt as you care to. You have previously stated in so many words that the types, shadows and prophesies concerning Christ are possibly the result of later manipulations of the original readings of the inspired text.
Regardless of how one interprets or even accepts the NT revelation of hell, death is coming and is the curse of sin.
 Where does the human soul go after death?

[Fenris]

Interesting you should ask that, given the comments on my examples....

And yet no answer is forthcoming.  If the terms "eternal statute" "throughout your generations" "wherever you may live" doesn't mean "permanent and forever", then pray tell, what does? If God wanted it to mean "permanent", what else should He have said?

So when God said "bring him up as a sacrifice" what God really meant was "bring him up but he's not actually a sacrifice"?

The Hebrew says "Bring him up for a sacrifice" not "sacrifice him". Abraham did as God requested and so passed the test, as the text helpfully tells us.

"Hey, if you meet this criteria that I know you can't meet, maybe I'll do something else". Why not just say the place is a pit of corruption and be done with it?

Genesis 18: Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? "

The text here separates Abraham from Noah.

Noah was given a mission, to save the world. And he fulfilled his mission. He built the ark. What he didn't do was plead with God to spare the world. And so, Noah "walked with God" as the bible tells us.

Abraham was a greater person, who did plead on behalf of people. And so the bible tells us that he walked "before God". This is why Abraham's descendants were given a special mission; because of his greatness.

It had nothing to do with changing God's mind. It has everything to do with teaching us about who Abraham was.

Presumably God already knew that Ezekiel had never eaten unclean food, and wasn't caught off guard by the sudden realisation of what he has asked of his prophet. I'm not sure how it doesn't count as changing his mind to tell someone to do one thing and then shortly afterwards tell them to do something else instead.

Because God values human input. We're not of Islam, which means "submission (to God's will)". The very name "Israel" means "struggles with God".

And yet it seems God has either changed his mind, or plays mind games with people telling them one thing knowing the plan is really not to do that thing.

I'm not a Christian and so don't have to believe that God "changed His mind".

[Fenris]

"Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death." God does not seek to do something without the intent of doing so. It was Zipporah's performing of their son's circumcision that changed the circumstances, causing God to "release" Moses. The fact that Zipporah performed the rite rather than Moses suggests that he was unable to do so--perhaps incapacitated due to some physical malady.

The point is that it was a warning. God is not limited in any way, if He wanted Moses dead then he would have been dead. And human history would likely be very different. But that's another discussion.

You often emphasize context in determining the meaning of a passage, but fail to do so in this case. In this passage, Balaam is denying Balak's petition to curse Israel, because that would amount to God reneging on His promise to bless His people. Balaam is saying God is not a man that he should lie or vacillate regarding a promise. That doesn't negate the idea God has the capacity to relent or change His mind about something.

I don't see how this changes God saying "forever" and then saying "I didn't mean that".

Clearly, it's within the divine prerogatives of God to change His mind if He chooses to do so.

God is not bound by time as we are. God knows all of human history and every decision that every person will make throughout all of time. God can't "change His mind" because that implies that God was presented with new information that He previously did not possess. Which is not possible.

This point represents another instance where our faiths simply diverge.

And also an example of why Jews find the Christian arguments unconvincing.

[tango]

Interesting you should ask that, given the comments on my examples....

And yet no answer is forthcoming.  If the terms "eternal statute" "throughout your generations" "wherever you may live" doesn't mean "permanent and forever", then pray tell, what does? If God wanted it to mean "permanent", what else should He have said?

Honestly Fenris, it seems like you're playing semantic gymnastics here, between this and your responses to other examples.

So when God said "bring him up as a sacrifice" what God really meant was "bring him up but he's not actually a sacrifice"?

The Hebrew says "Bring him up for a sacrifice" not "sacrifice him". Abraham did as God requested and so passed the test, as the text helpfully tells us.

So "bring him up as a sacrifice" might, or might not, mean that he is supposed to be a sacrifice.

Presumably God already knew that Ezekiel had never eaten unclean food, and wasn't caught off guard by the sudden realisation of what he has asked of his prophet. I'm not sure how it doesn't count as changing his mind to tell someone to do one thing and then shortly afterwards tell them to do something else instead.

Because God values human input. We're not of Islam, which means "submission (to God's will)". The very name "Israel" means "struggles with God".

What value is human input if God might not, you know, consider that human input and change his mind? And what is there to struggle with, if your opponent is utterly unyielding and will never change their mind? The best you can do is resist before submitting.

And yet it seems God has either changed his mind, or plays mind games with people telling them one thing knowing the plan is really not to do that thing.

I'm not a Christian and so don't have to believe that God "changed His mind".
[/quote]

Nobody has to believe it, it's just good to have a bit of consistency in whatever you believe. The possibility of God changing his mind works with all the scenarios we've mentioned. In your stance where God will never change his mind it seems you have to perform semantic gymnastics to make it work, where "eternal" must mean "eternal" and can never change but a sacrifice might not actually be for sacrificing and a very clear instruction can become a different instruction if you come up with a compelling reason to protest it.

[RabbiKnife]

And let’s not talk about why God establishes the Leviticus sacrificial system in the Law yet later speaks through the prophets saying how he is sick of their sacrifices and doesn’t want them