Replies

That which is perfect doesn’t change, Quix.

THAT notion assumes that PERFECTION would not, did not, maybe could not have as HIS design . . . a component of PERFECT CHANGE.

I don't presume to put God in such a tiny box.

It appears that there's a . . . philosophical unwillingness . . . or some such . . . to imagine beyond 4 dimensions, so to speak--vis a vis change. I realize that these are very tricky philosophical issues. And, that we don't have more than a very limited, tiny, finite perspective from which to assume, infer, extrapolate.

A parent will likely tell a child--I will always be your Dad. That will never change. I will unchangeably be your Dad. Yet, many things about my relationship with you as Dad, will change.

There is the narrative--from at least one Heavenly visit--about babies who have died . . . and are in school, in Heaven.

Certainly GROWTH, EXPANSION, CREATIVITY, FLOWERING . . . all such involve change. GLORIOUS CHANGE. There's nothing in Scripture which describes a dead, changeless state as an aspect or encompasing state of PERFECTION.

Yet, God's NATURE DOES NOT, WILL NOT CHANGE. GOD'S QUALITY of being PERFECT IN ALL HE IS AND ALL HE DOES will not change.

That which does not change . . . essentially . . . is considered dead.

GOD is the OPPOSITE, of that. God is VASTLY BEYOND TOO EXPANSIVE AND LARGE for all eternity to be about every creature in Creation sitting in the Lotus position endlessly contemplating God's navel with the same endless loop of the same redundant thoughts--regardless of how many eons the loop would take to recycle.

THAT notion assumes that PERFECTION would not, did not, maybe could not have as HIS design . . . a component of PERFECT CHANGE

Does God get older? Does He get wiser? Does He get better? Does He get kinder? Does He get holier?

Is God not Justice? Is God not Truth? Is God not all that is Divine? Is God not Love? Can any of these "change?"

So what does God change into? What does Justice morph into? What does Divinity become? And Love?

It is shackeling God with anthropomorphic terms that places Him into a human-sized box. The Age of reason did that very well, when it humanized God and deified man. Western legacy.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and thank you for your encouragments!

Though I think it was truncated in a spot or two.

Indeed, I realized almost immediately after mashing "post" that I didn't explain how the fractal examples illustrate the dynamics between permanence and flux.

In the coastline example, the coastline itself is "permanent" but the length of it - will change (flux) depending on the length of the ruler being used to measure it.

In the Mandelbrot set example, the set itself is both infinite and permanent, but what you see of it is finite, it changes (flux) based on the choices you make.

Permanence and flux would make for a good thread, IMHO - as the spiritual meaning is pregnant. Ditto for the last section pertaining to corruption, the physical v spiritual realms and Adamic man. Oh well, this thread is already soooo long.

I don't presume to put God in such a tiny box.

Truly - although we can say that God does not change (permanence) we cannot say that all change (flux) is of necessity, evil.

We can say that flux is not a property of God and it is a property of the Creation, both spiritual and physical - which includes man of course.

It is possible that we will be permanent in the new heaven and earth – it is also possible that God will provide for flux or change. But I’m very sure there will be no evil at all in the new heaven and earth, i.e. no evil flux.

Or perhaps there will be permanence in heaven for only some of us? This is the promise to the church of Philadelphia:

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name. – Rev 3:12

Compare that to this promise to the church of Ephesus:

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. – Rev 2:7

Fascinating. God did not make us to be “cookie cutter” Christians. After all, there are twelve very different gemstones representing the very different apostles in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

The leaning I have in the Spirit is to the church of Philadelphia, the apostle John and a burning desire to be transparent in Christ so His Light may shine unobstructed by me. Perhaps I shall be a column in the temple? Perhaps kosta50 whose testimony on the desire to be transparent in Christ will be a column, too?

And perhaps you, Quix, will be one whose personality remains in flux (albeit a good flux) as you dwell in the Paradise of God?

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. - I Cor 2:9

We'll see...

That which is perfect doesn’t change, Quix.

I think kosta50 is right abut this, Quix: If a thing is already "perfect," how, in what direction, could it change? You don't get "more perfect" than perfect. Perfect implies a certain completedness in time, and thus something that is static: something impervious to time and change. But we do not have completedness in creation before the final Judgment, which is where the perfection of God's creation is achieved -- not before. God created a "good," not a "perfect" creation, as He Himself says.... "Goodness" accords with His purpose; "perfection" would leave no room for development toward God's end or goal in creating. There would also be no role for man, for human free will in a "perfect" universe.

Of course, if creation were not involved in a time process (according to God's Will), then we wouldn't need to be discussing such things.... But since creation is involved in a time process (i.e., it develops or evolves in part in collaboration with man), Augustine's remark -- "The perfect is the enemy of the good" -- seems both faithful and reasonable to me.