Is God 'allowed' to change his mind?

There's a chapter in The Brothers Karamazov (Dostoyevsky) that you might find illuminating. I don't remember what the chaper title is but the passage is about a Russian Orthodox priest who recieves a visit/vision of Jesus - and winds up rejecting Jesus to his face when Jesus's message is too different from Orthodox dogma.Very amusing.

Not to quibble, but there's some 500 or so documented instances of homosexual conduct in various species of animals. I understand that octopi (octopusses?) are particularly prone to male same-sex sexual play.So it's not just humans. That it happens in animals too suggests a biological basis for the behavior. And evolution would predict that behaviors that don't significantly affect reproduction will continue to be expressed. Also it's a sex-linked trait (as far as the evidence suggests) so females can be "carriers" of the "gay gene" without themselves being gay.Anyway there's plenty of people who, while otherwise gay, enter and maintain sexual relationships with the opposite sex. Generally this is because they live in communitites where they are expected to marry and produce offspring. Or they may be so personally revolted by their own sexual preferences (because of religion, for instance) that they try as hard as they can to "force" themselves to be heterosexually active.The point is, just because somebody has the "gay gene" doesn't mean that they'll never have kids. For that matter, it doesn't even mean they'll always be gay.My question is, why did you advance the logic of a 9-year-old child on a board populated by educated adults? Did you really think we'd be impressed? One more thing I'd like to address. Assuming God exists and the Genesis account of man's fall is accurate:1) God makes man without knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, man is essentially as a child - can't be held accountable for his actions.
2) God makes Eden for man to live. It's a great place, no apparent dangers. The whole area smacks of being a paradise designed for man's benefit.
3)... except for a dangerous tree right in the middle of it. If man eats of this fruit, he or she will die. God warns man, but man doesn't understand the evil of disobeying, plus all of Eden is a delicious paradise where none suffer. Why should this tree be different?
4) Predictably, man eats the apple. Now God is pissed and kicks them out, and dooms them to painful childbirth and death.
5) Why isn't this all God's fault?Let me try by analogy: I'm a parent. I take my two perfect, beautiful children who I love, and build them a playroom. It's filled with every toy they could imagine. Nothing there can hurt them or scare them. It's filled with candy that is nutritious and will never rot their teeth. It's great. Except, I leave my cordless circular saw right in the middle of the room. Now, no matter how much I admonish them not to play with it, it looks exactly like all the other toys, so it's no surprise when little Billy inadvertantly cuts off Sally's arm.Of course I go to jail. That's criminal incomptetence to have left that saw there. No court in the land will find me anything but an unfit parent.So why is it different with God? He made the garden, he made man, he made the tree. If he didn't want us to eat it he shouldn't have left it there, and had it look exactly like all the other delicious fruit in the garden. Clearly, god is an unfit parent.Of course, I don't have to answer this little riddle because I know that the book of Genesis is just a story designed to confrim what we all know is true - people desire what they can't have. You're the one who says it's all a literal account so it's really up to you to show how God is anything but a criminally incompetent, unfit parent (he is God the Father, is he not?)

Wasn't he? He was like a day old. He clearly lacked knowledge of good and evil. Even if he didn't appear to be a child, from what we know about him from the story he was definately child-like. How can you argue he was an adult? Oh, right. Like, if you dad walked in right now (no matter how old you may be now) and said "stop chewing gum", the first words out of your mouth wouldn't be "Why?" That's the universal child reaction to any parental command.If I'm older than, like, 10 or so, I DO need a reason for such a stupid command. "Cuz I say so" only works until I'm so old. Have you seen a cordless circular saw these days? They're little things, brightly colored, and made mostly from plastic. They're almost cartoonish. They look a lot like toys. Generally the elicit that reaction from the guys who see them - "That looks like a toy saw. But for some reason, I want one."

That's clearly not what we're talking about.You asked "why are some sexual acts committed?" not "Why are some sexual acts morally acceptable?". The answer to the first one is "humans are motivated by pleasure." The answer to the second one is the much more complex area of human morality. Clearly, none of us have advanced this logic. That said, let me challenge you - if two (or more) adults agree to engage in behaviors that you personally may not like, but that bring physical and mental harm to no one, what's the rationale for saying that it's not ok? The commandments of your god don't count, especially because not everyone - not even most - think that your god prohibits certain acts. So the answer is "no, it doesn't". We never said it did.

This isn't entirely accurate. It would be more accurate to say that animals commit acts that are survivalistic in nature from their perspective right at that moment.For instance, if a rabbit eats the carrot in my trap, was that ultimately survivalistic? Not from my perspective, because now I've killed and eaten that rabbit. From the rabbit's perspective, eating the carrot was a great idea - the rabbit was just mistaken.Who's to say that a lot of human actions aren't simply survivalistic instincts (maximizing personal resources, maximizing surviving progeny, eating as much as possible at any given sitting) that are no longer relevant to civilized society? We haven't been concious, social creatures for nearly as long as we were non-concious, survival-oriented animals. There just hasn't been enough time for those instincts to have disappeared. Heck, in some situations those instincts are great for surviving! Just ask a soldier.I don't think anyone's arguing that human social conciousness, to the degree that we express it, is not a unique trait. But under that veneer of civilization lies the animal nature that we all must generally control in order to be functional, social humans.

More specifically, he said "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (KJV)So, does that make God a liar? Because Adam didn't die that day, he died 900 years later or whatever.More interesting:

quote:

---

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

---

So the serpent is the one telling the truth! For they did become like god, knowing good and evil. Don't hang out with too many kids, do you? Kids come up with names for stuff. Generally they're stupid names, but still.Clearly Adam could talk - no one's saying he was infantile. But clearly he was as a child. Never underestimate my ability to take sarcasm at face value.

Is that your literal interpretation? Because I don't really see that supported in the text. That's certainly not what God said. Better than a non-truth, which is what they got from God...

God told them they would die the day they ate that fruit. The serpent told them they would not die, but would gain the wisdom to tell good from evil.What happened? They ate the fruit, did not die that day, and gained the wisdom to tell good from evil.Who's story was most accurate? Obviously, the serpents. It's pretty simple, and the only conclusion a literal reading can arrive at. I forgot what I was talking about. How old is the youngest child in your family? Did you mean 2nd oldest, or 2nd youngest?If you meant 2nd oldest, that should make your youngest sibling something like... less than three, I suppose? I'm just estimating.The point is, in your family, do you tell a less-than-three year old child not to play with guns? Or do you lock your rifle cabinet? (Well, probably both.)If your parents left the guns out and loaded, and one of you shot yourselves, guess who's going to be in trouble.If god is the Father (or, parent at least) why can't he/she be held to the same responsibility?P.S. That's a lot of brothers and sisters. My dad's family is like that. I have way too many cousins. My fiance has none. It's going to make our family reunions a little one-sided.

I think you're misunderstanding what some of us believe. I (for one) don't blame god for human actions, because I don't believe in gods. I'm just trying to point out the contradiction involved in stating that while God may have created us (as parents create their child), he's not responsible for what we do. So far I have yet to hear an argument that lets god off the hook for what we do that doesn't also apply to similar human relationships (parent-child, commander-soldier, etc.)If these kinds of relationships are indicative of the relationship god is supposed to have with us (as a father and lord), then they are also indicative of the relationship of responsibility. Parents are responsible for the actions of their children (up to a point), commanders are responsible for the acts of their men, kings are responsible for the acts of their servants. Why isn't god responsible for our acts?Of course, if god doesn't exist, then that's why. Ergo, I agree with you that human acts are humans' responsibility.I just don't see how you yourself can hold such a position. Personally, yes I do. The thing is, most acts that are regarded as immoral have survival benefit in some situations. Therefore whhy assume those behaviors would be extinguished just because we punish them in some situations?We may have been a separate species for millions of years but there's no evidence we've been intelligent, social creatures for nearly that long - maybe something like 20 thousand years. Not nearly enough time to extinguish instinctual behaviors that, let's face it, are sometimes useful.I don't believe in the existence of sin, anyway. It's an arbitrary method of condeming actions without reference to harm or victims. The "sin" model just makes some things plain wrong without adequate justification.