Philosophies that Deny the Unchanging Automatically False?

[Kei]

Would philosophies that deny the unchanging automatically be incorrect as soon as a truth claim of higher reality is made? For, if everything including this higher reality changes, then the statement, even if true at the point in time said, would at some point be false, no?
Here’s what I mean. If in Buddhism, Guanyin was a boddhivista at some time x, but is changing, then at some point y, Guanyin will no longer be a boddhivista. Even if it takes thousands or billions of years, eventually, the claim will be false.

 

[rossum]

Here is the Book of Genesis from the Bible of the Unchanging God:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fifth day…

The God of the Bible changes. If there is an unchanging God, then he/she/it/they are very restricted in what they can do, and whatever they do they cannot stop doing it because to stop something is a change.

Is a God who cannot start doing anything new an omnipotent God? “I’m sorry, Moses. I cannot part the sea for you today because I didn’t part it yesterday and I cannot change.”

Being unchanging imposes a great many restrictions on the unchanging entity.

rossum

 

[Kei]

That’s a bit beside the question at hand, but in regard to the parting of the red sea, that would only apply if you understand unchanging to mean always doing the same thing and believed God to be within the Universe as opposed to being transcendent.

Concerning the immutability of God, the Bible says something very strange, at least to one of your understanding. Hebrews says: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.” How very odd, surely, you must think. For, this Jesus Christ he is speaking of not only was born, grew from a babe to a young child, from a young child to an adolescent, from an adolescent to an adult, and then not only moved from working with his father as a carpenter to teaching but, eventually, this Jesus Christ also died. So, clearly, this is a statement that does not mean He did the same thing all the time. In this example, it does not even mean that He was unaffected by time, for clearly Jesus acted within history. So, what then does this mean?
The Bible also says that God is Love. But what is love, and what does it mean for One to be it? Love means to will good for the other. How then, can one be love if one is not dynamic and consistently willing this good? If one is Love, then surely this means that one cannot be static, as love is action to that which is good, which of course would change to a changing world. One would not treat a hardened criminal the same as a child. So then, could it be this, God being Love and Justice, that does not change, over the idea that any specific action cannot be changed to a different one, even though it would be an action within time and creation to a timeless God?

 

[rossum]

That’s a bit beside the question at hand, but in regard to the parting of the red sea, that would only apply if you understand unchanging to mean always doing the same thing and believed God to be within the Universe as opposed to being transcendent.

If you want to redefine “unchanging” as meaning “can do different things at different times” then you are using the Humpty Dumpty argument. Words have meanings, and unchanging has a standard meaning, which I am using.

If God is not “within the universe” then God is not omnipresent, obviously. At least part of God must be within the universe, otherwise both the parting of the sea and Jesus would be impossible.

As you correctly point out, a portion of the part of God that is within the universe must change, in the standard sense of the word.

rossum

 

[Kei]

Once again, this is a different topic, but forced to reply am I.

I agree words have meaning. That is why it is important to understand what is meant when someone makes a claim. The claim is that God is unchanging. The question then becomes what is meant by that.
The Bible makes that odd claim, that Jesus is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. The author of this surely knew that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, rose again, and lived among men. Then, what is not meant–what cannot be meant–is that Jesus cannot change in this manner.

However, what if I told you that in doing all these things, Jesus isn’t changing, but in fact, God is doing one thing unceasingly forever without end? That is in being love and Justice, etc. The nature of Love is dynamic, and yet this consistent act of love or charity remains unchanged, taking shape in different forms or ‘actions’.

I am not a professional philosopher or theologian or nothin’ likes dat, but this seems to me to make sense and like what we are presented with.

When I say God is not in the Universe, I mean He is not contained within it: He is transcendent. Every moment is sustained by Him, however, as He can be said to be existence. In everything, yet not everything.

 

[rossum]

The Bible makes that odd claim, that Jesus is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

To me, that claim is very obviously false and illogical. As you correctly say, Jesus changed during His lifetime.

When I say God is not in the Universe, I mean He is not contained within it: He is transcendent.

That depends on your definition of “universe”. God is present both within and external to the scientific material universe that started at the Big Bang. However, we can define the universe in a more philosophical way as: the universe is all that exists (ATE). Since God exists, then He is a part of the ATE universe, and the ATE universe is itself eternal and uncreated, just as God is.

rossum

 

[Kei]

I suppose various theologians decline to say that God exists for good reason.

But, in His perfection, the eternal God grows not any better or worse, or more loving or less, for He is love. Or more just or less, for He is justice.