A changing timeless God?

[McCulloch]

Modern physics views the universe as being more than just energy and matter. Time and space are seen as being part of the universe, not the framework that the universe exists within but part of the fabric of the universe itself.

It has been claimed that God is the creator of the universe. In order to be the universe's creator, God must therefore exist somehow beyond time and space.

But it is also claimed that God changes his plans; that God has repented of certain decisions or actions that he had made. How is this possible?

Either God created time and exists outside of time; God is eternal and changeless OR God exists within time; God can change and repent. If the latter, God did not create time; God did not create the entire universe. If the former, God cannot be said to repent or change his plans.

Is there a way out of this paradox other than atheism?

[Justin108]

Do you have any substance to your argument? Anything more than speculation? Anything more than "what if the wine was just Kool-Aid"?

All that is necessary is to debunk a thing one time, as I do not need to debunk the claim over and over again - once is enough.

Wait... I must have missed something. When did you debunk it?

Changing water into wine is not a big deal, and in the 1st century it was even less of a deal.

Again...

John 2:11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

The part in bold tells us it was a big deal.

Changing water into wine is not a big deal

Turning water into actual wine and not just Kool-Aid is a big deal.

If we look at the story as told in the Bible then the people did not seem so surprised and they went on with their party, and no one saw the boy Jesus as some magician or mystic because that is not what happened

Again...

John 2:11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

And maybe it was not powder, as He might have had a bottle of 100 proof grain alcohol in His pocket and that spiked the water just fine for the party.

There is just no reason to view water into wine as magic, while it can still be a miracle.

So having booze on hand when you need it is a miracle?

Please explain how it is natural for a donkey to talk

That is a separate subject, so there are many alternative interpretations for that too.

The donkey could just be like Jonah and the big fish as an old Jewish fable which was never meant to be taken literally.

Do you have anything to back up your claim that it was meant to be a metaphor? Or is this more baseless speculation?

as they are not intended to be taken as literally true when they are just fables

How do you know the intentions of the authors?


Next:
- The splitting of the Red Sea. How was that natural?
- Walking on water. How was that natural?
- Global flood. How was that natural?
- Jesus curing a man's blindness. How was that natural?
- The resurrection. How was that natural?

[JP Cusick]

Do you have anything to back up your claim that it was meant to be a metaphor? Or is this more baseless speculation?

It is not necessary to back up that metaphor claim.

The donkey speaks for itself.

Do you get it = the donkey speaking for itself = ha ha ha ....

LOL ................ RoFL ...............

How do you know the intentions of the authors?

It is not the point nor purpose to know or to find the intention of the author(s).

Some people can try to do that, just as many people are vain or foolish.

When we see some story to be a fable then it does not matter whatever the author meant or intended, and yet fables can still have meaning and significance.

What did the author of "Jack and the Beanstalk" really intend? ~ It meant = do not let the Giants catch you ~ of course. :2gun:

Next:
- The splitting of the Red Sea. How was that natural?
- Walking on water. How was that natural?
- Global flood. How was that natural?
- Jesus curing a man's blindness. How was that natural?
- The resurrection. How was that natural?

They are natural because nothing ever breaks the laws of nature just as nothing ever breaks the laws of God - human folly set aside.

You just need to stop viewing miracles as being magical because magic is not the same as a miracle.

[Justin108]

Do you have anything to back up your claim that it was meant to be a metaphor? Or is this more baseless speculation?

It is not necessary to back up that metaphor claim.

Yes it is.

The donkey speaks for itself.

Do you get it = the donkey speaking for itself = ha ha ha ....

LOL ................ RoFL ...............

Is this the disability your profile is referring to?

How do you know the intentions of the authors?

It is not the point nor purpose to know or to find the intention of the author(s).

It is when you claim "as they are not intended to be taken as literally true when they are just fables"

In order to know whether these verses were intended to be taken literally, you need to know the intentions of the author.

When we see some story to be a fable then it does not matter whatever the author meant or intended

It does when you claim "they are not intended to be taken as literally true".

Next:
- The splitting of the Red Sea. How was that natural?
- Walking on water. How was that natural?
- Global flood. How was that natural?
- Jesus curing a man's blindness. How was that natural?
- The resurrection. How was that natural?

They are natural because nothing ever breaks the laws of nature just as nothing ever breaks the laws of God - human folly set aside.

I will need you to be more specific. You explained what "actually" happened with Jesus and the wine (Kool-Aid), now please explain what "actually" happened in the above instances? Or do you suggest that healing blindness by rubbing spit in someone's eye is a perfectly viable medical procedure?

[JP Cusick]

Is this the disability your profile is referring to?

A sense of humor and laughing is not a Disability.

And Disabilities are not to be viewed as a joke.

It does when you claim "they are not intended to be taken as literally true".

If you or anyone wants to search for the author's intention then that is fine by me.

It is just not necessary.

I am satisfied that the author of a fable thereby intended it to be a fable.

And if I am mistaken in that intention - then a fable is still just a fable.

If you want to say that it was a literal talking donkey - then so be it.

I will need you to be more specific. You explained what "actually" happened with Jesus and the wine (Kool-Aid), now please explain what "actually" happened in the above instances? Or do you suggest that healing blindness by rubbing spit in someone's eye is a perfectly viable medical procedure?

I will be happy to go over every one of those but I do not want to so completely derail this thread topic.

And rubbing spit included spit with something else, so there are old home remedies for everything including for a persons eyes, and so for the 1st century that was indeed a perfectly viable medical procedure.

Another miracle without any magic.

[Justin108]

It does when you claim "they are not intended to be taken as literally true".

If you or anyone wants to search for the author's intention then that is fine by me.

No that would be your job as you are the one claiming to know what the author's intentions were.

It is just not necessary.

It is if you want to make the claim that the text was not intended to be taken as literally true. In order to make this claim, you would first need to know the intentions of the author.

I am satisfied that the author of a fable thereby intended it to be a fable.

How do you know that that is what the author intended?? If I made the claim that the Bible was intended to be used to control the masses and to make lots of money, would I not need to support this claim?

I will need you to be more specific. You explained what "actually" happened with Jesus and the wine (Kool-Aid), now please explain what "actually" happened in the above instances? Or do you suggest that healing blindness by rubbing spit in someone's eye is a perfectly viable medical procedure?

I will be happy to go over every one of those but I do not want to so completely derail this thread topic.

Feel free to do so here: viewtopic.php?t=32982

As the author of that thread, I give you my full permission.

And rubbing spit included spit with something else

John 9:6
After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes.

That "something else" was mud. Is healing blindness by rubbing spit and mud in someone's eye a perfectly viable medical procedure?

so there are old home remedies for everything including for a persons eyes, and so for the 1st century that was indeed a perfectly viable medical procedure.

I am unaware of any old home remedies that can cure blindness. Can you perhaps inform me of home remedies that can cure blindness?

[JP Cusick]

Feel free to do so here: viewtopic.php?t=32982

Okay - I will comment there - and I like that at first glance.

But I am not always very fast at such things.

That "something else" was mud. Is healing blindness by rubbing spit and mud in someone's eye a perfectly viable medical procedure?

I am unaware of any old home remedies that can cure blindness. Can you perhaps inform me of home remedies that can cure blindness?

Since it says that this procedure worked - then yes it was a wonderful miracle and a medical procedure.

What more do you expect? - the mud and spit worked - so cheers.

[Justin108]

That "something else" was mud. Is healing blindness by rubbing spit and mud in someone's eye a perfectly viable medical procedure?

I am unaware of any old home remedies that can cure blindness. Can you perhaps inform me of home remedies that can cure blindness?

Since it says that this procedure worked - then yes it was a wonderful miracle and a medical procedure.

What more do you expect? - the mud and spit worked - so cheers.

So if I were to smear mud and spit into a blind man's eyes, it will cure him of his blindness?

[JP Cusick]

So if I were to smear mud and spit into a blind man's eyes, it will cure him of his blindness?

If you had faith then it might do.

Or if the blind person had their faith then it might do.

But without faith it is just spit in the mud.

[JP Cusick]

So if I were to smear mud and spit into a blind man's eyes, it will cure him of his blindness?

If you had faith then it might do.

Or if the blind person had their faith then it might do.

But without faith it is just spit in the mud.

I failed to add:

If you could do magic then that might work too.

[Justin108]

So if I were to smear mud and spit into a blind man's eyes, it will cure him of his blindness?

If you had faith then it might do.

Or if the blind person had their faith then it might do.

But without faith it is just spit in the mud.

But you said that miracles are completely natural. How would faith influence the effect spit and mud had on someone's blindness?