Re: Surprise

From: George Andrews Jr. (gandrews@as.wm.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2000 - 16:59:37 EST

  • Next message: Joel Z Bandstra: "RE: Surprise"

    Hi Moorad;

    Moorad Alexanian wrote:

    > Dear Burgy,
    >
    > The sense in which I say that God is not embedded in time, is in the same
    > sense that Gauguin is not "embedded" in his paintings. Time is a creation
    > and God cannot be constrained by His creation, e.g., time. The incarnation
    > of God is hard for humans to understand. God sustains the creation, time
    > included, and that we also do not understand. Some topics are hard for
    > humans to comprehend. The interplay of God's omniscience and human free will
    > is another such puzzle.
    >
    > Take care,
    >
    > Moorad
    >

    I agree with you that time is a part of creation but it really is a result or
    an epiphnomena of the created universe in that time is a functional of physical
    change; no physical change implies no time. If we take this view of tme, than
    God is outside of time (as we define it!) if s(h)e doesn't change but can be
    thought of as in time if s(h)e does. Just what is time let alone immutability?
    To say time is another dimension, a la general relativity, to the physical
    universe is not fully correct for time must be multiplied by speed to get the
    right relativistic metric making up the fourth dimension in four-space. But
    this latter point has more to do with invariant transformations (math) than
    with common notions of time (i.e. thing get old).

    Burgy is clear and - in my opinion correct - in his insistence on being
    Biblical; God did in fact express surprised and even "repented" thereby for
    some of his earlier actions. It is also recorded in scripture that God also
    changed his(er) mind based upon the supplication of the righteous. I believe
    classical theology deals with these scriptural reference by distinguishing
    between God's person and his relationship to humanity in what changes. This may
    or may not actually satisfy the intents of scripture but that is another
    question. The point here is these scriptures are the "data points" that
    Judia/Christian/Islamic theism must fit, and I perceive Burgy attempting to do
    just that.

    Sincerely;

    George A.





    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 24 2000 - 16:57:15 EST