D
- Status
L
Lucretius
Guest
When we say that God is immutable, we mean that He has no privation, no lack: He doesn’t need to move towards a perfection, because He already contains all perfection. Keep this in mind.
I see this passage as an shadow of how the inner life of God, the Trinity, relate and interact with each other. Moses is interceding with the Lord similarly to how the Son intercedes for us, and as how the saints, the adopted children of God, relate to the Father.
And, with that said, let me specifically answer your question: God isn’t “changing” here in a way that would indicate moving towards becoming more just nor merciful. He is however changing in the particular way in which He enacts His perfect justice and mercy, instead of justly destroying His people, He instead looks to the merits of the saintly: Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Moses himself, as balancing the scales of justice instead. Remember how I mentioned that Moses is relating to God like the Son relates to the Father? Well, Christ’s merits for the forgiveness of our sins and quelling the Divine justice we so greatly deserve works in a similar way.
I see this as a reminder of a purpose of Divine Justice: it is purgative, not for mere punishment or revenge. But anyway, the sin was no longer present, and so the His anger no longer cried out. God didn’t stop being just, the city stopped being sinful.
Neither of these examples reveal God to be lacking perfection, but rather reveals our own lacks and weakness.
I think you should start viewing Divine immutability as a result of perfection, and not as a lack. Think about it: God is truth, and truth is a sturdy, unmoving foundation from the storm to build a home. God will never stop loving us, He will never stop being merciful, He will always keep His promises*, etc.
Christi pax.
*Moses even invokes God’s own promises and implied immutability/refusal to break them, to plead for His pardon in the chapter you quoted!
L
Lucretius
Guest
Father Knox thinks that this passage should be read analogically: that if God were a human agent, we would regret His creation. Of course, He’s not, but the passage helps illustrate then just how sinful men had become then.
So let me rewrite it: “men had become so sinful that if God were a man, he would regret and repent of making them.” The passage says less about God and more about just how evil men were at the time. It is the next few passages that speak more about God’s justice in relation to this.
I see this as a species of the more general question “why would God create imperfect volitional beings if they have the possibility of sinning?” And, of course, you should keep what I have written above in mind.
Christi pax.
L
Lucretius
Guest
I don’t see how one passage being literal makes all passages necessarily literal.
The anthromorphisms of the Old Testament serve as a sign of the Incarnation: God is shown acting like a man, because, at some point, He will eventually share in our humanity.
Christi pax
T
Tomdstone
Guest
So even though God is unchangeable and His wisdom is boundless, He may change the way He enacts His justice and mercy? Also, if God is unchangeable, how was it that His heart was broken when He realized that He had made a mistake in creating man? Genesis 6:6? Before He had made man, His heart was fine. But after He realized His mistake, His heart was broken? Does not that indicate a change in the status of His heart?
L
Lucretius
Guest
Some options are equally good. For example, I went to Olive Garden the other day, and there were several options on the menu that were good, and none that were bad. A similar situation exists in vocations and career choices: in many circumstances there really aren’t good or bad choices, just choices. Even more simply, when you go to the grocery store and encounter two unblemished apples, there isn’t really one that is better than the other, as they are both equal.
What I’m saying then is that the different ways to enact divine justice and mercy here are equal in the same way. This is my interpretation at least.
I already began to address your second post, don’t worry: and my response is already posted
Christi pax.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t know any Protestant who claims that all passages are literal or that all passages are figurative. However, I do know some unbelievers who think that much of what is in the Bible are stories designed to help people live better lives and do good works, but are not to be taken literally.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Also, although God is immovable according to the philosophers, nevertheless, according to Scripture, God was observed moving and walking around in a garden during the daytime. Genesis 3:8.
H
hasantas
Guest
Thank you for that. That is what Muslims cannot explain to a Christian directly. Christians think that Muslims attack their faith. But indeed there is a problem with definition of philosophers for God. And that point is the reason why people diverge from faith and religion. Because they see conflicts and that make their faith weak.
The doctrine is product of philosophers and they try so much to illustrate as if it is from Bible or at least from revelation which is not in Bible but in custom. But the doctrine can be accepted just by strained interpretations.
When Muslims pray they also pray for people who have faith no important which religion they have. Faith and religion are not same. Ofcourse both are embeddedness but the religion is the way of living or application of faith and that may be different for times and places.
H
hasantas
Guest
God can/see all times. Your interpretation that God had not known what people would do is lack. God awaken people that if people do not rebel and correct their faults so God would not punish them. That is law of God and do not change. God said that God would punish them but after good deeds of people God did not do. Otherwise wisdom of God is eternal.
Some verses of Bible were written by people. I do not mean that they wrote verses by themselves but they wrote revelation with their words. So there should be many metaphors belong to people indeed God self use some metaphors in revelation. So we must regard whole revelation when we interpret a verse.
E
e_c
Guest
Okay folks, here you are.
newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm
Go bananas. I’m happy to answer any questions.
newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm
Go bananas. I’m happy to answer any questions.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I see it as different cultures having different perceptions of God. The God of the Old Testament was very Semitic, a god of laws and also very emotional (kind of like a Jewish mother
) When the Greek philosophers talked about God they talked of a god of ideals, perfect in every way. The New Testament reflects both the God of the Old Testament and the new ideas about God from the Greek philosophers. Same God though.If we get away from that area of the world, we see that the American Indians thought of God as the Great Spirit, a god who was very close to nature. People who lived in Persia perceived God as a Good in combat with Evil. I could go on, but I won’t. You get the idea.
God is the same everywhere, but each culture put their own spin on how they perceive Him.
L
Lucretius
Guest
I know some believers who think this too.
I think the claim is too vague and general to be affirmed or dismissed (especially considering that both a literary and figurative interpretation can be true for some parts). I perfer to get concrete and discuss how specific parts are literal and/or figurative, analogical, etc.
Christi pax.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Exactly.
L
Lucretius
Guest
This passage is certainly personification, in my mind. I think most of Genesis before the stories of Abraham describe literal events but are written in mythological and theological language.
For example, I see this passage as a shadow of the truth also expressed in the parables of the lost sheep and the good Shepard:
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
The Lord searches everywhere for the lost sinner, the lost sheep, us, just as he searched for the sinful Adam.
Christi pax.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Right. I bet there are very few people who take the Bible stories literally, but there is great wisdom in the stories. This is what makes the Bible such a good read. Greek philosophers are very interesting, but not really as interesting to read as the Bible!
L
Lucretius
Guest
I agree, and I do think many events are more historical then many toady would like to admit. For example, we know that there was a human, whom all have descended from, that mortally sinned in some way due to the influence of the devil. The recording of this event is in mythological and symbolic language.
But like I said before, I don’t see Genesis as teaching a more literal approach to historical events until the stories of Abraham.
Christi pax.
U
Usagi
Guest
Even if we want to take that episode 100% literally, that God is inherently unmoving (because He is everywhere and there is nowhere else for Him to go) does not prohibit Him from manifesting a humanoid form in a particular place and time to interact with His creatures. Indeed, we see Him do that in a later Genesis account of a meeting with Abraham to announce his imminent fatherhood. And, of course, as Jesus He ultimately becomes a human being while remaining God.
Heck, we mere humans can emulate that feat right now. Many is the time I have played a multiplayer computer game and traveled great distances in the virtual world, interacting with friends as though we were all there as our avatars, while sitting solidly on my butt for hours.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is everything we know about God a “personification” to some extent; i.e., something that the human believes should be true about God?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Only in the sense that we say there are 2 concepts of the US President presented. One is a man named Barack Obama, and the other is a male, lawyer, graduate of Harvard.
- Status