Can morality exist without God cont..

[dougangel]

Close... however you did the wrong paragraphs... it's giving me my own responses to respond to.

That being said, I agree completely with everything in this reply [/QUOTE]

Ok. who said miracles couldn't happen ? JJ.
I have gone to a lot of effort for you to understand the christian point of view.
So thanks for saying that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I haven't got the time or energy to go into this really deeply and go around get exact dates. so i said that from memory. I don't think I should of said bc thats where I have got mixed up but that was a bit rough I'll stand corrected.
I was talking about when they lived and made the laws not when the books were cannonised which is well after the prophets. Abraham is around 2000bc - Moses around 1200 bc. That's when I was pointing out the patriarchs. Are you sure your not a fundamental christian ? I am finding you very literal and pedantic

If you're making incorrect claims, I'll correct you on them. There's a big difference between 3,000BC and a couple hundred years BC.

Likewise, modern scholarship, including Christian and Jewish scholars don't generally believe Abraham and Moses were real people.

The Jewish scriptures aren't nearly as old as you may think they are.

The old testament isn't just about morals. It's about Israelite history Prophecies,stories ectra. Personally I don't go to the Old testament for my morals. The were under another covenant (agreement with God) than myself. I follow the apostle pauls teaching on that.
John 8:36New International Version (NIV)

36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Slavery is not doing unto others as you would like it done to
yourself.

Luke 4.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor

God your god change?

If he does not, then if he believed slavery was acceptable at one time in the past, then he believes slavery is acceptable today.

So slavery is not a christian principle

Slavery is never outlawed in the new testament, in fact the only commentary on it can be seen to still endorse the practice. "Slaves obey your masters", etc.

Christ changed it so I don't think it was wanted by God. So I would say yes.

Well, if you think the bible is wrong on the issue, fair enough.

Your telling me lol. I'm amazed about the confusion among Christians. Especially on here.
But that's the nature of God. You have to earnestly seek him.

Hebrews 8:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
1st Corinthians 9:19 - 22

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel that I may share in its blessings.

Paul who is a Jew is not under the (Old Testament) law. But Paul is under Christs Laws. Or Paul is under New Testament laws. Paul is still under Christ’s law

2 Corinthians 3 New King James Version (NKJV)

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

The ministry of death written and engraved on stones. Pretty strong stuff. Paul is talking about the 10 commandments here not just Levi law.

Aren't the 10 commandments Old Testament? Wouldn't that make them under the old covenant and therefore not applicable to Christians?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok. who said miracles couldn't happen ? JJ.
I have gone to a lot of effort for you to understand the christian point of view.
So thanks for saying that.

It was a joke, the only things in your reply before you fixed it were the words I wrote.

I was joking saying I agree with everything in your reply, since it was my words

 

[dougangel]

If you're making incorrect claims, I'll correct you on them. There's a big difference between 3,000BC and a couple hundred years BC.

Likewise, modern scholarship, including Christian and Jewish scholars don't generally believe Abraham and Moses were real people.

The Jewish scriptures aren't nearly as old as you may think they are.

That's not mainstream thinking. That's very controversial.
The scriptures must of been conceived when the people were alive and handed down in various forms. Well before the books were put together or they wouldn't exist.

God your god change?

If he does not, then if he believed slavery was acceptable at one time in the past, then he believes slavery is acceptable today.

I have given you an answer to this. I'll say this as simple as I can. You still don't seem to get it.

What the Israels said and did in the OT isn't Gods best. Because God had to send his son to straighten things out. Then he was rejected and Killed. Most Israelite's at Jesus's time were so wrong they went through the diaspora later on and lost there country and national temple and site. Which has a mosk on the site today.

Jesus was the rightful King and High Priest of the Israel. The agreement was broken by the Israelite's. He could make changes to the law and he did because he was King and high Priest and the agreement had been broken. He didn't criticise the OT scripture but he made lots of changes to it so there were definable things wrong with it if changes had to be made.

Slavery is never outlawed in the new testament, in fact the only
commentary on it can be seen to still endorse the practice. "Slaves obey your masters", etc

There are reasons for that.
The Romans had enslaved Israel and Christians were being persecuted.
Christ said to obey the Authorities. That's why paul says "obey your masters".
Basically if you spoke out about slavery the Romans would kill you.
It was a system of wealth for a long time. It took a long time to break it in the western world system.
As others have said in the post, Christians lead the abolishment movement in the 1800's
Paul does say to a christian brother you shouldn't do that.But your right he isn't forthright about it.

Aren't the 10 commandments Old Testament? Wouldn't that make them under the old covenant and therefore not applicable to Christians?

I approach what Christ said about the moral laws in the sermon on the mount.
Not what Moses said. There are differences.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's not mainstream thinking. That's very controversial.
The scriptures must of been conceived when the people were alive and handed down in various forms. Well before the books were put together or they wouldn't exist.

No, actually that's the scholarly consensus that they didn't really exist, even among Christian and Jewish scholars.

The oldest books of the bible date from roughly the 7th century BC.

I have given you an answer to this. I'll say this as simple as I can. You still don't seem to get it.

What the Israels said and did in the OT isn't Gods best. Because God had to send his son to straighten things out. Then he was rejected and Killed. Most Israelite's at Jesus's time were so wrong they went through the diaspora later on and lost there country and national temple and site. Which has a mosk on the site today.

Jesus was the rightful King and High Priest of the Israel. The agreement was broken by the Israelite's. He could make changes to the law and he did because he was King and high Priest and the agreement had been broken. He didn't criticise the OT scripture but he made lots of changes to it so there were definable things wrong with it if changes had to be made.

Wasn't god's best? How does a perfect being produce anything that isn't absolutely perfect? That's self contradictory... If your god is perfect, then this world must be exactly as he wants it, and there should be no reason to "straighten things out". The only time things need to be straightened out was if there was some kind of mistake.

There are reasons for that.
The Romans had enslaved Israel and Christians were being persecuted.
Christ said to obey the Authorities. That's why paul says "obey your masters".
Basically if you spoke out about slavery the Romans would kill you.

So, god's moral law takes a back seat to Roman and Jewish cultural practices? Why would your god do that?

People were also being killed all the time, using the same justification, god also should not have commanded us not to kill. Why is he willing to compromise his moral law on this one particular issue?

It was a system of wealth for a long time. It took a long time to break it in the western world system.
As others have said in the post, Christians lead the abolishment movement in the 1800's
Paul does say to a christian brother you shouldn't do that.But your right he isn't forthright about it.

Christians also overwhelmingly lead the pro-slavery movement as well, and their churches were noticeably quiet during the civil rights struggles as well.

I approach what Christ said about the moral laws in the sermon on the mount.
Not what Moses said. There are differences.

Well, the sermon on the mount has some good parts, and some bad parts. What are you referring to specifically?

 

[dougangel]

I tried to honestly explain the bible and the difference between OT Israel and NT Christ and put alot of time and effort in it for you. There quite complex, dry, difficult topics. That's ridiculous that The Old testament was just made up nearly 800 years later. It's too complex to do that. They had writings. I mean have you read it.

Are you for Real ?For my time and trouble you seem to be teasing me and twisting my words. For example the Gods best thing. Did you read that properly. It's the Israelite's that got God wrong. Not God. The Israelite's are imperfect not God.

I don't really want to spend anymore time on it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I tried to honestly explain the bible and the difference between OT Israel and NT Christ and put alot of time and effort in it for you. There quite complex, dry, difficult topics.

I agree, and thank you for that... however your explanations make no sense.

That's ridiculous that The Old testament was just made up nearly 800 years later. It's too complex to do that. They had writings. I mean have you read it.

Nearly 800 years later than what?

Are you for Real ?For my time and trouble you seem to be teasing me and twisting my words. For example the Gods best thing. Did you read that properly. It's the Israelite's that got God wrong. Not God. The Israelite's are imperfect not God.

I may have misunderstood what you meant by that.

Regardless, is the bible god's holy word, or is it just a fallible mish-mash of writings that ancient people authored and put together?

If it's god's holy word, or god inspired, then my objection still stands in principle.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This has nothing to do with my post, it is a red herring.

Do you have an objection with the points I raised? Once you address my post, I'll be happy to address what you wrote.

I don't think it is a red herring because it goes back to the OP. But again, I don't think there is anything immoral about indentured servitude in times of severe economic distress as long as they treat the servants like Christ would treat them.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't think it is a red herring because it goes back to the OP.

You weren't addressing the OP, you were writing a response to my post. As such, it is a red herring, you didn't address what I said.

But again, I don't think there is anything immoral about indentured servitude in times of severe economic distress as long as they treat the servants like Christ would treat them.

And I repeat again, if someone has the financial ability to sustain a slave, they have the financial ability to hire free citizens.

Selling yourself as property, or buying another human being as property is immoral. There is no moral justification for it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You weren't addressing the OP, you were writing a response to my post. As such, it is a red herring, you didn't address what I said.



And I repeat again, if someone has the financial ability to sustain a slave, they have the financial ability to hire free citizens.

Selling yourself as property, or buying another human being as property is immoral. There is no moral justification for it.

First, indentured servitude is not selling yourself as property. You still get to keep most of your rights and you can leave anytime you don't like it anymore, ie see the verses I cited about escaping to sanctuary cities. You can not have any permanent damage to your body by your master as cited in the verses posted earlier. But chattel slavery does allow you to anything to the slave, that IS immoral and the bible does not allow you to do that. But when the economy gets bad enough even the "wealthy" people cannot afford to hire free citizens. Second you have not objectively proven that either form of servitude is immoral.

 

[Dave Ellis]

First, indentured servitude is not selling yourself as property. You still get to keep most of your rights and you can leave anytime you don't like it anymore, ie see the verses I cited about escaping to sanctuary cities. You can not have any permanent damage to your body by your master as cited in the verses posted earlier. But chattel slavery does allow you to anything to the slave, that IS immoral and the bible does not allow you to do that. But when the economy gets bad enough even the "wealthy" people cannot afford to hire free citizens. Second you have not objectively proven that either form of servitude is immoral.

The bible allows both types of slavery, and both types are immoral. Are you willing to argue that slavery is moral?

And if the economy goes bad, the wealthy still has to feed, shelter and clothe slaves. If they can't afford to pay someone, they can't afford to provide the necessities of life to them either. Your objection doesn't work.

 

[dougangel]

The bible allows both types of slavery, and both types are immoral. Are you willing to argue that slavery is moral?

And if the economy goes bad, the wealthy still has to feed, shelter and clothe slaves. If they can't afford to pay someone, they can't afford to provide the necessities of life to them either. Your objection doesn't work.

Matthew 7:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is a mind blowing sentence if you get it.
So to explain and paraphrase this.

Christ the son of God, God's perfect representive comes at a period time in history and he's says (in other words)
You know what? Every thing that went before, the law the prophets ( the old testament ) You know what sums that up.
Treat people the way you want to be treated.
So after the cross this is Christian law.
Putting people into slavery isn't doing this.So although it was a Jewish practice. It isn't a Christian principle.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Matthew 7:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is a mind blowing sentence if you get it.
So to explain and paraphrase this.

Christ the son of God, God's perfect representive comes at a period time in history and he's says (in other words)
You know what? Every thing that went before, the law the prophets ( the old testament ) You know what sums that up.
Treat people the way you want to be treated.
So after the cross this is Christian law.
Putting people into slavery isn't doing this.So although it was a Jewish practice. It isn't a Christian principle.

Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Colossians 3:22 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Are those not Christian texts?

Nowhere in the new testament is slavery abolished, and many passages, like the ones above endorse the practice.

 

[dougangel]

Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Colossians 3:22 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Are those not Christian texts?

Nowhere in the new testament is slavery abolished, and many passages, like the ones above endorse the practice.

I've given reason for this. Do you think this is new to me. Do you not think other atheists haven't thrown those scriptures at me.
Jason delisle gave a very good explanation for this.

God hated divorce:
"For I hate divorce!" says the LORD, the God of Israel. "To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty," says the LORD of Heaven's Armies. "So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife." (Malachi 2:16)

But God allowed divorce:
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house," (Deuteronomy 24:1)

God hated divorce, but He allowed it to happen for a reason:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (Matthew 19:8)

God despised slavery, however He allowed it because it was a consequence of a sinful world.

Jesus said Moses compromised and allowed divorce for anything. Christ changed it to being only allowed for adultery.
So this is another example where Christ changed old testament law to New testament law.

Paul is compromising because Christ taught to obey the authorities. Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's.
But the main reason is. To speak against slavery in roman times was sedition. If they spoke against slavery they would be put to death. If Christians didn't obey the system whole villages would be put to the sword or crucified.
this where you have to interpret the history and culture of the time to understand the scriptures. No where does Paul say slavery is a good thing. This is a period where there was severe persecution for Christians. In Corinthians he tells them its better that they don't get married. That's a message for Corinthians at the time because of the persecution going on not for everyone through the ages. It needs to be interpreted properly not just literally.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I've given reason for this. Do you think this is new to me. Do you not think other atheists haven't thrown those scriptures at me.
Jason delisle gave a very good explanation for this.

No, actually it wasn't convincing at all. What's your reasoning?

Jesus said Moses compromised and allowed divorce for anything. Christ changed it to being only allowed for adultery.

So this is another example where Christ changed old testament law to New testament law.

But isn't god unchanging? If that's the case, how can he change?

Paul is compromising because Christ taught to obey the authorities. Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's.
But the main reason is. To speak against slavery in roman times was sedition. If they spoke against slavery they would be put to death. If Christians didn't obey the system whole villages would be put to the sword or crucified.

That's simply not true. There were groups who were opposed to slavery, such as the Stoics and Cynics. Seneca the Younger (one of the more famous and influential Roman Philosophers) was a stoic. They viewed slavery as degrading to both the slave, and slave master.

You need to learn your Roman history and stop making up "facts" to back your argument.

this where you have to interpret the history and culture of the time to understand the scriptures. No where does Paul say slavery is a good thing. This is a period where there was severe persecution for Christians. In Corinthians he tells them its better that they don't get married. That's a message for Corinthians at the time because of the persecution going on not for everyone through the ages. It needs to be interpreted properly not just literally.

Likewise, there was no severe persecution of the Christians on an empire wide basis in the history of the Roman Empire, ever. There were localized persecutions from time to time, however they typically lasted no more than a couple years, and often shorter. The persecutions usually stemmed from the fact that the Christians refused to sacrifice to the pagan gods, which often lead them to be blamed when something went wrong.

Paul taught that the Corinthians were better off not getting married, because he believed the end of the world was right around the corner, and wanted people to focus on getting ready for Jesus return, and not to worry about raising families. It had nothing to do with persecution. In Paul's day the christian church was microscopic compared to the more established religions at the time, they weren't well known enough to persecute.

 

[dougangel]

No, actually it wasn't convincing at all. What's your reasoning?

Well for the 3rd time.
It's christian principle not to go against authority. Jesus obeyed the authorities.
If a slave ran, things probably wouldn't be to good for him in the Roman empire.IT was Pauls advice to those churches that it was better not for them to rebel or run.

In the Roman Empire, though the heterogeneous nature of the slave population worked against a strong sense of solidarity, slave revolts did occur and were severely punished.[2] The most famous slave rebellion in Europe was led by Spartacus in Roman Italy, the Third Servile War. This war resulted in the 6000 surviving members of the rebellious slaves being crucified along the main roads leading into Rome.[3] This was the third in a series of unrelated Servile Wars fought by slaves to the Romans.

But isn't god unchanging? If that's the case, how can he change?

I've lost count how many times I've answered this.

God doesn't change. His nature doesn't change. He can't change into an elf. But he can change his agreements and laws with mankind because.

• Jesus was the anointed King and high Priest he fulfilled the old testament law and what the prophets said about him perfectly. The King and high Priests made the law and could make changes to it.
• The agreement or old covenant with the ancient Israelite's was conditional on them obeying the statutes.
• The ancient Israelite's broke this agreement so many times and were given so many chances by God.

That's simply not true. There were groups who were opposed to slavery, such as the Stoics and Cynics. Seneca the Younger (one of the more famous and influential Roman Philosophers) was a stoic. They viewed slavery as degrading to both the slave, and slave master.

You need to learn your Roman history and stop making up "facts" to back your argument.

Are you trying to tell me slavery wasn't a common thing in the roman empire ????

http://necrometrics.com/romestat.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire

Your examples there, were not common or normal. Also Romans were treated different to foreigners.

Paul taught that the Corinthians were better off not getting married, because he believed the end of the world was right around the corner, and wanted people to focus on getting ready for Jesus return, and not to worry about raising families. It had nothing to do with persecution. In Paul's day the christian church was microscopic compared to the more established religions at the time, they weren't well known enough to persecute.

Paul taught that Christ wouldn't come back until the man of perdition showed up I can get you the quote if you want it.
Paul didn't make any predictions. ( I don't agree with the TV programe that was saying that)
He did hope Christ would come back. We are told as Christians to expect it. he did live his life as Christ was coming back. As christian we are told to do that.
that was a terrible time to be a christian in the early church. 10 of the apostles were martyred. Paul was martyred They were going through many trials. Thats why Paul wrote the things he did to those churches.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, actually it wasn't convincing at all. What's your reasoning?



But isn't god unchanging? If that's the case, how can he change?



That's simply not true. There were groups who were opposed to slavery, such as the Stoics and Cynics. Seneca the Younger (one of the more famous and influential Roman Philosophers) was a stoic. They viewed slavery as degrading to both the slave, and slave master.

You need to learn your Roman history and stop making up "facts" to back your argument.



Likewise, there was no severe persecution of the Christians on an empire wide basis in the history of the Roman Empire, ever. There were localized persecutions from time to time, however they typically lasted no more than a couple years, and often shorter. The persecutions usually stemmed from the fact that the Christians refused to sacrifice to the pagan gods, which often lead them to be blamed when something went wrong.

Paul taught that the Corinthians were better off not getting married, because he believed the end of the world was right around the corner, and wanted people to focus on getting ready for Jesus return, and not to worry about raising families. It had nothing to do with persecution. In Paul's day the christian church was microscopic compared to the more established religions at the time, they weren't well known enough to persecute.

Numbers 23:19New International Version (NIV)

19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well for the 3rd time.
It's christian principle not to go against authority. Jesus obeyed the authorities.
If a slave ran, things probably wouldn't be to good for him in the Roman empire.IT was Pauls advice to those churches that it was better not for them to rebel or run.

In the Roman Empire, though the heterogeneous nature of the slave population worked against a strong sense of solidarity, slave revolts did occur and were severely punished.[2] The most famous slave rebellion in Europe was led by Spartacus in Roman Italy, the Third Servile War. This war resulted in the 6000 surviving members of the rebellious slaves being crucified along the main roads leading into Rome.[3] This was the third in a series of unrelated Servile Wars fought by slaves to the Romans.

Christians went against authority all the time. The example I raised in my previous post about refusing to sacrifice to the roman gods was one such example, and was the primary cause of any persecutions against them.

I've lost count how many times I've answered this.

God doesn't change. His nature doesn't change. He can't change into an elf. But he can change his agreements and laws with mankind because.

• Jesus was the anointed King and high Priest he fulfilled the old testament law and what the prophets said about him perfectly. The King and high Priests made the law and could make changes to it.
• The agreement or old covenant with the ancient Israelite's was conditional on them obeying the statutes.
• The ancient Israelite's broke this agreement so many times and were given so many chances by God.

• 
  

Changing your laws or agreements is a change. It's a change in values, or opinion. Under any possible definition, god changed his course of action. That requires a change in order to happen.

Are you trying to tell me slavery wasn't a common thing in the roman empire ????

http://necrometrics.com/romestat.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire

Your examples there, were not common or normal. Also Romans were treated different to foreigners.

This is a strawman

When did I argue that slavery wasn't a common thing? I never made that argument.

You said those that spoke out against slavery would be crucified due to sedition. I have shown that was not true, in fact there were rather well known schools of philosophy which did not agree with slavery.

There was never a widespead emancipation movement that I'm aware of, however there certainly were people that were publicly against the practice (i.e. Seneca the Younger), and no harm ever came to them. That disproves your point.

Paul taught that Christ wouldn't come back until the man of perdition showed up I can get you the quote if you want it.
Paul didn't make any predictions. ( I don't agree with the TV programe that was saying that)
He did hope Christ would come back. We are told as Christians to expect it. he did live his life as Christ was coming back. As christian we are told to do that.
that was a terrible time to be a christian in the early church. 10 of the apostles were martyred. Paul was martyred They were going through many trials. Thats why Paul wrote the things he did to those churches.

Sorry, I typoed in my original post. I didn't mean to say Paul taught that, I meant the church of Corinth taught that at the time. I should have re-read my own post

As for the martyrdom of the apostles and Paul, there's actually no evidence to support that they were actually martyred. It's very likely this story was invented by later Christians to give themselves more credibility.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Numbers 23:19New International Version (NIV)

19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

Based on the biblical narrative, that would actually disprove this piece of scripture.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Based on the biblical narrative, that would actually disprove this piece of scripture.

◄ Malachi 3:6 ►

New International Version
"I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.