We are defined by our changes.

[bricklayer]

A process is a prescribed sequence of changes.

Biological life is a process.

We are intellectual, emotional and willful processes.

I am struck by the contrast between the Creator, Who is defined by His unchanging nature,
and His creatures, who are definded by their changes.

 

[juvenissun]

A process is a prescribed sequence of changes.

Biological life is a process.

We are intellectual, emotional and willful processes.

I am struck by the contrast between the Creator, Who is defined by His unchanging nature,
and His creatures, who are definded by their changes.

Very good. Thank you.

Should our changes stop at an appropriate time?
If we stop changing, are we still we?

 

[bricklayer]

Very good. Thank you.

Should our changes stop at an appropriate time?
If we stop changing, are we still we?

I am left to believe that the chief end of man is to enjoy the Lord forever;
that sounds like a process to me.
God's purpose for His creation is the revelation of His glory.
God's glory is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
It serves reason that the revelation of an infinite would be never ending.

 

[juvenissun]

I am left to believe that the chief end of man is to enjoy the Lord forever;
that sounds like a process to me.
God's purpose for His creation is the revelation of His glory.
God's glory is the inviolate balance of His infinite perfections.
It serves reason that the revelation of an infinite would be never ending.

That is very good.
Thank you.

You are a process. I am also a process. However, your process might be different from my process. And I assume this difference makes you different from me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Didn't Jesus change?

 

[bricklayer]

Didn't Jesus change?

As a man, Jesus changed. As a man, Jesus had biological, intellectual, emotional and willful processes.
As God the Son, Jesus sovereign.

 

[underpressure]

My interpretation of the bible is that God was constantly changing, and sometimes even showed remorse for his actions.

 

[bricklayer]

My interpretation of the bible is that God was constantly changing, and sometimes even showed remorse for his actions.

Attributing to God a chronological sequence of emotions is called an anthropopathism.

Attributing to God a chronological sequence of ideas is called an anthropoisis.

These are forms of anthropomorphisms.

 

[underpressure]

An unchanging God is a God that does nothing and could do nothing, an unchanging God would be incapable of starting a universe, since if at point x in God's existence there was no universe, God would have to do 'something' at point y to create or be the catalyst for a universe, therefore a change must occur, otherwise we'd have an eternal universe or an eternity of nothing, and both of those turn out to be false.

 

[juvenissun]

An unchanging God is a God that does nothing and could do nothing, an unchanging God would be incapable of starting a universe, since if at point x in God's existence there was no universe, God would have to do 'something' at point y to create or be the catalyst for a universe, therefore a change must occur, otherwise we'd have an eternal universe or an eternity of nothing, and both of those turn out to be false.

Within a day, you are not going to change. But you do this and do that, modify this and modify that. You would even regret in the evening on what you have done in the morning. All these changes do not mean you changed a bit. Tomorrow morning, you are still you.

So, do not mixed this change with that change. They are different. God does different things at different time to different people. That does not mean God changes.

 

[underpressure]

Within a day, you are not going to change. But you do this and do that, modify this and modify that. You would even regret in the evening on what you have done in the morning. All these changes do not mean you changed a bit. Tomorrow morning, you are still you.

So, do not mixed this change with that change. They are different. God does different things at different time to different people. That does not mean God changes.

I can assure you that over one day, even one millisecond, you aren't exactly the same person as you were before. Not unless you've been frozen or something! And if you were frozen you'd be incapable of doing anything.

 

[quatona]

Attributing to God a chronological sequence of emotions is called an anthropopathism.

Attributing to God a chronological sequence of ideas is called an anthropoisis.

These are forms of anthropomorphisms.

Thanks, I love to learn new words!

 

[quatona]

Within a day, you are not going to change. But you do this and do that, modify this and modify that. You would even regret in the evening on what you have done in the morning. All these changes do not mean you changed a bit.

So, what changes would mean I changed?
And when even I am incapable of changing - what is so special and remarkable about god not changing, either?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So if it has a long name then the theory behind it must be sound?

 

[juvenissun]

I can assure you that over one day, even one millisecond, you aren't exactly the same person as you were before. Not unless you've been frozen or something! And if you were frozen you'd be incapable of doing anything.

You got the idea.
That is me. God will not change.

 

[juvenissun]

So, what changes would mean I changed?
And when even I am incapable of changing - what is so special and remarkable about god not changing, either?

It is critical.

If God does not change, and if the Bible is God's word, then what has been said in the Bible is still valid today.

And, since everything is changing, it is critical to know that there is one thing which does not change. That defines the term "absolute".

 

[bricklayer]

An unchanging God is a God that does nothing and could do nothing, an unchanging God would be incapable of starting a universe, since if at point x in God's existence there was no universe, God would have to do 'something' at point y to create or be the catalyst for a universe, therefore a change must occur, otherwise we'd have an eternal universe or an eternity of nothing, and both of those turn out to be false.

God cannot effectively change; He can, and does however, affect change.

God does not come to know; God knows necessarily.
God's knowledge of a thing is not contingent upon the existence of a thing;
He knows all things apart from their existence.

 

[underpressure]

God cannot effectively change; He can, and does however, affect change.

God does not come to know; God knows necessarily.
God's knowledge of a thing is not contingent upon the existence of a thing;
He knows all things apart from their existence.

Apart from the fact this doesn't make any sense, how do you know?

 

[bricklayer]

Apart from the fact this doesn't make any sense, how do you know?

God cannot effectively change in His will, His emotions, or His thoughts.
God cannot effectively change the characteristics attributable to Him
or the inviolate balance of those infinite perfections.

God can, and does, affect change by acting.
The triune nature of an act is intent-affect-effect.

We creatures are the effect of the affect of the intent of God's unchanging thoughts, feelings and will.

God is necessary; everything else is contingent.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is critical.

If God does not change, and if the Bible is God's word, then what has been said in the Bible is still valid today.

And, since everything is changing, it is critical to know that there is one thing which does not change. That defines the term "absolute".

Why is it critical to know that there is something that does not change? And if there is something that does not change, why must it be the personal deity of Scripture and not something else entirely?