Change & Perfection

[BadWolf]

Reading through some older posts... I noticed a theme... That rather than tacking onto Im hoping some people will help me thrash out.

I believe that change is required for perfection. That the moment in which change ceases, perfection is lost. Omnipotent = Change at Will.

What Im reading, however, is a lot of change = imperfection.

???

I've come across the concept occasionally in the OT/NT. I always just took "immutable" to be a failure of language. A way to express that God is not Zeus cum Jupiter cum et cetera. Not omnipotent except every 2nd Tuesday in even months, so transgress then, if you must. Not omniscient unless you're in a ring of salt. God is everywhere, all things, forever & always immutable. Not static, incapable of change, limited immutable.

Thoughts?

Doctrine?

BW

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps I missed the threads you are referring to, can you be more specific about how you feel people are suggesting not changing is best?

The other thought though, is that not all change is good...it depends on the direction. For example if you pray regularly and then one day you decide to stop, that is a change, but not a good one. :)

[BadWolf]

Whoops, sorry. On the sublime field.

God is perfect therefore doesn't change

vs

God is perfect therefore does change

No. Definitely not all change is good, though all change may be needed. I don't know. But spectrum wise:

Entropic decay <---> Creation

Lol. With all our decisions somewhere in the middle.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Ohhhhhh! I see...tricky subject. I'm not going there, LOL!

[bytebear]

I always thing of perfection as complete to the point of replacing the word in my reading of the scriptures. "Be ye therefore complete, even as God is complete."

God is perfect because He isn't changing in nature or ability. He has completed all he needs to complete to be God. We have a long ways to go.

[sarah331]

In Jews and the Lotus, a rabbi, in a discussion about Noah and the flood, mentions that God was "young" then. I kind of like that answer. The foreknowledge and omnipotence comes into play a lot, too, but I have to wonder if, if we're talking eternal progression literally being eternal, if there isn't some truth to God changing/growing. But I would say those changes would be beyond our comprehension in a lot of ways, since we've still got a lot of progressing to do to even get to a "young" God point.

Does any of that make sense? It's actually something I've been contemplating lately, how that rabbi's comments might fit into Mormonism. But it's obviously not something I'm well articulate about.

[sarah331]

Also, Bad Wolf, I would maybe change "a failure of language" to "a failure of translation." I'm positive there are concepts/words/ideas in Bible that weren't translated to the fullest understanding because of our limitations as humans.

[Guest arorastat3456]

perfection is without faults or defects; complete; total.

no change at all would mean nothing exists. but then nothing WOULD exist. so no change is impossible. but maybe impossible is perfect.

constant change would mean there would be no time to live life. i think there is constant change to every one, as every second we are alive, we grow wiser; older. but that isn't perfection. my only conclusion is that perfection is perfect, and that perfect is a term used for what we cannot reach. if we could reach a 'perfect' state, it would not be perfect. would it? does that mean that perfection does not exist?