On religion

[d000hg]

Apart from Sasguru, I think this discussion has been remarkably civilised.

[speling bee]

As I said, you misunderstand the term. The bible says God is unchanging and eternal. His unchanging nature is a key feature of Christian/Jewish theology.

Interestingly the Neo-platonists believed in a perfect God, and that God was unchanging rather than dynamic. As thought changes, then they had God devoid of thought, but as a source of power, just as the sun gives out power every days but is not (in the historic view) diminished or changed.

It is hard to see Yahweh as unchanging. Does he not repent of causing the Flood? That shows a change. Yahweh is more dynamic that the neo-platonist view of deity.

[speling bee]

Apart from Sasguru, I think this discussion has been remarkably civilised.

Is this where you burn us at the stake?

[NotAllThere]

Interestingly the Neo-platonists believed in a perfect God, and that God was unchanging rather than dynamic. As thought changes, then they had God devoid of thought, but as a source of power, just as the sun gives out power every days but is not (in the historic view) diminished or changed.

It is hard to see Yahweh as unchanging. Does he not repent of causing the Flood? That shows a change. Yahweh is more dynamic that the neo-platonist view of deity.

Up until around the 1900s, it was pretty much orthodox that God is unchangeable and impassible - i.e. he's not affected by what happens in the world. This really was due to the lingering greek influence on Christian thought in the early years. Then came along two world wars, and theologians such as Moltmann came to the view that a theology that doesn't address human suffering - or promotes a God unaffected by human suffering - is utterly useless. He (and others) challenged the notion that perfect = unchanging. He said that the Father was changed by the Son's crucifixion, and therefore those who've lost a loved one or have suffered unjustly themselves can be comforted by the fact that the Father and Son understand and have identified themselves with these things.

Some German bloke wrote a book called something like "a history of dogmatics", that traces how greek philosopy influenced Christianity, and started attempts to produce a theological structure without that influence - presumably more like "the original" theology of Paul and others.

[speling bee]

Up until around the 1900s, it was pretty much orthodox that God is unchangeable and impassible - i.e. he's not affected by what happens in the world. This really was due to the lingering greek influence on Christian thought in the early years. Then came along two world wars, and theologians such as Moltmann came to the view that a theology that doesn't address human suffering - or promotes a God unaffected by human suffering - is utterly useless. He (and others) challenged the notion that perfect = unchanging. He said that the Father was changed by the Son's crucifixion, and therefore those who've lost a loved one or have suffered unjustly themselves can be comforted by the fact that the Father and Son understand and have identified themselves with these things.

That challenges the unchanging nature of God. Does it challenge perfect = unchanging?

[NotAllThere]

If you read his book, you'll find that he does. I don't recall the arguments - I covered it in the course I did last year. This year I'm doing New Testament and the Philosophy of Religion.

The idea was that God is perfect. Any movement in God is therefore a move away from perfection. Moltmann talks about God changing while retaining perfection.

[d000hg]

Since when has any thread on cuk ever kept on topic?

Anyway, if religion is what you place highest in life, what is your religion?

For Sas, apparently it's CUK. Talk about sad.



NAT I don't agree with you there. Unchanging in this context doesn't mean crystalised and steady-state (as SP talks about), but unchanging in character... God is always loving and always good and always just. The crucifixion didn't take God by surprise!

I also don't think 'unchanging' in this context means impassive because that would suggest God isn't really interested in our pain.

[speling bee]

If you read his book, you'll find that he does. I don't recall the arguments - I covered it in the course I did last year. This year I'm doing New Testament and the Philosophy of Religion.

The idea was that God is perfect. Any movement in God is therefore a move away from perfection. Moltmann talks about God changing while retaining perfection.

I can't read books as I'm too sleep deprived so will take your word on it. Now. I can see that nature can change with experience (loss) and remain perfect, because nature exists within the context of perfection.

But flooding the earth and then repenting of it doesn't work for me. You could say that the experience of flooding the Earth changes God so his nature changes. But it does not strike me as perfect to do something that you later repent of.

[MyUserName]

Hang on I reall am confused now:

Is God all powerful?

If not, what limits his power (please note that self imposed limits do not count)?

[speling bee]

Hang on I reall am confused now:

Is God all powerful?

If not, what limits his power (please note that self imposed limits do not count)?

Only logic may limit his power, but we cannot know because our comprehension is limited by logic.