Any serious Christians left?

Arella Mae wrote:

Okay Timber, please understand I am not trying to be a smart alec, etc., in asking you these things. I am trying to make sure I understand this all and can hold a good discussion with you on it.

Quote:

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type

My question is who defines the definition of an ideal type here? I'm sure you know as well as I do that the concept of God is not the same as one person's or the others.

Irrelevant; nothing pertaining to God or to "ideal type" is at discussion - soley operative is that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:

Quote:

2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement

3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose

Wouldn't this be subjective to the person in the situation Timber?

No, for the purpose of this discussion not at all; no being, human or devine, and neither purpose nor situation are relevant to the core concept behind that attribute defined by the word "Perfect", which word and concept are all that is at discussion.

Quote:

Quote:

4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings
5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail
6. thorough; complete; utter
7. pure or unmixed
8. unqualified; absolute
9. expert; accomplished; proficient.
10. unmitigated; out-and-out; of an extreme degree

Quote:

I don't personally have a problem with any of the definitions but from discussing this with others it would seem that they do. That's why I pointed this out.

First, I'm not interested for the moment in what other people think, I'm discussing this with you, seeking your ideas. Second, whatever problem others mught have is between those others and The English Language as it is written and understood - nothing either of us can do about that, but as it is irrelevant to this discussion, it is of no consequence in this discussion. All that is at discussion here is that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:

Quote:

Mirriam-Webster Online: Perfect

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect, flawless
1 b: satisfying all requirements

Quote:

In this case, speaking for myself I'd say yes. But again, isn't this subjective to the person in the situation? What they feel may be a requirement not met may not be what another or God would feel as a requirement not met?

Subjectivity is no consideration here, we're discussing only that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:

Quote:

1 c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept

Who decides what that concept is?

Irrelevant; neither "who decides" nor what any concept might be are at discussion here, all we are concerned with is that atribute defined by the word "Perfect"

Quote:

2: Expert, proficient
3a: Pure, Total
3b: Lacking in no detail
3c: Complete

Synonyms: PERFECT, WHOLE, ENTIRE, INTACT mean not lacking or faulty in any particular. PERFECT implies the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing frequently as an unattainable or theoretical state <a>. WHOLE suggests a completeness or perfection that can be sought, gained, or regained <felt>. ENTIRE implies perfection deriving from integrity, soundness, or completeness of a thing <the>. INTACT implies retention of perfection of a thing in its natural or original state <the>.

Quote:

American Heritage: Perfect

1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

5a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
5b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.

6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool. 7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.

8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.

Quote:

Encarta: Perfect

1. without faults: without errors, flaws, or faults
in perfect condition

2. complete and whole: complete and lacking nothing essential

3. excellent or ideal: excellent or ideal in every way
That's the perfect word to describe him.

4. especially suitable: having all the necessary or typical characteristics required for a given situation
the perfect candidate for the job

5. skilled: very proficient, skilled, or talented in a particular area
a perfect host

6. utter or absolute: used to emphasize the extent or degree of something
a perfect nuisance
perfect happiness

7. exact as reproduction: exactly reproducing an original
a perfect likeness

Does that about sum up the definition of "PERFECT" as you understand it?

Quote:

To me, God does meet all of those definitions. Now, I would venture a guess and say to some He doesn't, right?

Right or wrong, "does" or "doesn't - all that is irrelevant; you and I, not you and others, not I and others, not you and I and others, just you and I, are discussing that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:

So, isn't this all a matter of perception until (and I'll say if for those that don't believe) we meet God at the end of it all?[color]

Perception does not enter into this discussion of that attribute defined by the word "Perfect", nor does belief or disbelief, and neither does any God or gods; we are discussing only that attribute defined by the word "Perfect" in no particular context, with reference to nothing, simply itself, by itself.

Quote:

Can any of these questions be answered to 100% of anyone's satisfaction? I don't think they can be, Timber.

Any question other than what is meant by the word "Perfection" is beyond the immediate scope of this discussion, and any quality or degree of satisfaction with the answer to any question other than the meaning of the word "Perfect" is entirely irrelevant. The only matter currently at question is that attribute defined by the word "Perfection.

Quote:

I believe God is perfect and because of that belief I can accept the answer to many questions as, "because He's God" and leave it at that. Now, I realize that not everyone does, can, will, etc., do that. Some require that evidence. Some require more evidence than others. Throughout all my posting on A2K if I could have one question answered it would be, why do you need evidence and I don't? That's another question I don't know if I will ever get an answer to.

Fine, you " ... believe God is perfect" - to save time and effort here, we'll stipulate to whatever meaning you prefer as pertains to the word "God", which is not at discussion right now anyway; what is at question, and only that which is at question, is that attribute defined by the word "Perfect".

Quote:

But yes, I believe God is perfect but I do understand how others may view Him differently. That's why I asked about parts of those definitions. Because I do realize that it's different for everyone. I guess that's why religion is such a personal thing.

We are not discussing "God" at the moment, we are discussing specifically precisely and only that attribute defined by the word "Perfect". The issue here is to establish a common understanding of that attribute defined by the word "Perfect", that, only that, apart from any other consideration.

In further interest of saving time and effort in this amazing journey to arrive at a mutually acceptable definition for that common, pre-gradeschool-level vocabulary English word, "Perfect", I'll ask you to define - with reference to and dependent on nothing else, not God, not "Others", not the relative fat content levels of assorted brands of pet food, just "What does the word 'Perfect", by itself - applied to nothing else, reference nothing else, compared with nothing else, subject to nothing else - mean to you? May we agree the sense of the word itself, apart from any consideration of to what or to whom it may be applied, embodies and entails the concept of absolute completeness, as in without flaw, lack, fault, want, need, restriction, limitation, imperfection, or other qualification?

You are assuming[ that a perfect being (according to your definition of perfect ) would not want to do anything. Why do you assume that a perfect being would be completely passive, and not want to do anything?

You want to shoehorn your definition of perfect into the definition of the God of the Bible, and then claim that the God of the Bible could not logically exist because He doesn't fit the definition you've crammed in there.

Yours is a circular argument.

Conversely, if God is imperfect, that perforce invalidates the central, key, foundational proposition entailed by the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, thus foundationally invalidating the entire Ambrahamic Mythopaeia itself.

timber has made this same circular argument regarding perfection previously. Nothing new here.

real life wrote:

You are assuming[ that a perfect being (according to your definition of perfect ) would not want to do anything. Why do you assume that a perfect being would be completely passive, and not want to do anything?

I assmed nothing, made no reference to anything but that attribute defined by the word "Perfect" other than to take pains to make explicit the only concept at discussion was that attribute defined by the worf "Perfect"

Quote:

You want to shoehorn your definition of perfect into the definition of the God of the Bible, and then claim that the God of the Bible could not logically exist because He doesn't fit the definition you've crammed in there.

Yours is a circular argument.

Not my definition, rl - don't blame me for what a simple English word means to people who understand, read, write, and speak the English Language. . I simply made clear, through stipulation, cite and quote, that A M and I were using the word in the same sense. In debate one has niothing if one does not have a fixed understanding of terms - of course, from the religionist perspective, terms can be interpreted in what ever manner as may be most convenient to the religionist proposition neing forwarded at the moment - that's what Theology is all about; its self-permissively unhindered by circular argument as it by its own authority proceeds from circular argument.

timberlandko wrote:

Conversely, if God is imperfect, that perforce invalidates the central, key, foundational proposition entailed by the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, thus foundationally invalidating the entire Ambrahamic Mythopaeia itself.

What is the central proposition of the myth? (God's inerrancy?)

OK, I can get along without "want", if you want to.

Now that we've defined terms, stipulated whatever meaning you care to assign to the word "God" and established that sense of the word "Perfect" embodies and entails the concept of absolute completeness, as in without flaw, lack, fault, need,
restriction, limitation, imperfection, or other qualification, we can move on.

The word "Perfect", by itself, apart from any other consideration, embodies the concept of absolute completeness, as in without flaw, lack, fault, need, restriction, limitation or other qualification, leaving any and all other definitions or embodied concepts as adjunct, secondary, of lesser significance and/or application. Perfect by definition is an absolute,
subject to no qualifier or limitation. Perfection entails completion, lack of any imperfection, flaw, need, error, imperfection, or other stricture or limitation.

With that, your proposition is perfectly demolished.

Now, either God is perfect, or not; there can be no inbetween. A perfect god would be, in and of itself, absolutely complete, without flaw, lack, fault, need, restriction, limitation, imperfection, or other qualification, subject to no improvement, degradation, addition, or subtraction.If perfect, then, given the attributes inherent to perfection, such a being would have no impetus, need, reason, or cause to create - or for that matter to destroy or otherwise alter - anything whatsoever(let alone create anything that would go extinct or otherwise cease to be a functioning component of creation). Conversely, if God is imperfect, that perforce invalidates the central, key, foundational proposition entailed by the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, thus foundationally invalidating the entire Ambrahamic Mythopaeia itself.

Either way, from a dispassionate, wholly objective, purely logical, demonstrably rational perspective, it doesn't look good for the God of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia; the necessary propositions plainly do not stand to logic.

Whether religionists care to recognize or acknowledge that or not, that is plain, simple,

irrefutable logical necessity; not one iota of "Perfect" may be changed, limited, enhanced, reduced, or otherwise altered without invalidating the entire proposition of perfection.



Of course, thats precisely is why humankind came up with theology. Without theology, it could not be said that "None of that matters to God; God is all perfect, all powerful, and God works God's will in mysterious ways to God's own ends, which include the salvation of humankind provided only that humankind accept God's salvation". That too precisely is why religious faith cannot be objectively differentiated from superstition; the two asolutely are functional equivalents. The only distinctions that may be offered are the entirely artificial constructs of social convention and personal preference.

Nonsense.

You are trying to equate perfection with passivity.

It is true only if one accepts YOUR definition of perfection.

That's why it's a circular argument.

echi wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Conversely, if God is imperfect, that perforce invalidates the central, key, foundational proposition entailed by the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, thus foundationally invalidating the entire Ambrahamic Mythopaeia itself.

What is the central proposition of the myth? (God's inerrancy?)

No, "Inerrancy" is but a component of the myth. That there be a "Perfect Entity from which might proceed a Divinely Revealed Truth" is the central, key, foundational proposition of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia; without that, there's nothing on which to hang the rest of the proposition.

Uh, but what if He WANTED to? :wink: According to man's definition Timber, I see your point. I won't argue with you there. But God's ways are higher than man's ways. Like I said, the answer "He is God and I am not" answers a lot of questions for me. If it doesn't for you or others, that's cool. It's your decision, belief, etc.

I may not understand everything God has done or does, but I accept that He is just and perfect. So, no, I don't find any flaw, etc., in Him.

Of course, thats precisely is why humankind came up with theology. Without theology, it could not be said that "None of that matters to God; God is all perfect, all powerful, and God works God's will in mysterious ways to God's own ends, which include the salvation of humankind provided only that humankind accept God's salvation". That too precisely is why religious faith cannot be objectively differentiated from superstition; the two asolutely are functional equivalents. The only distinctions that may be offered are the entirely artificial constructs of social convention and personal preference.

Thanx for taking the time to go through this with me Timber. It is appreciated.

Couldn't a "believer" salvage the idea by claiming that God is beyond accurate description?. . . that no word is "perfect" enough to describe Him (so to speak)?

Of course, thats precisely is why humankind came up with theology. Without theology, it could not be said that "None of that matters to God; God is all perfect, all powerful, and God works God's will in mysterious ways to God's own ends, which include the salvation of humankind provided only that humankind accept God's salvation". That too precisely is why religious faith cannot be objectively differentiated from superstition; the two asolutely are functional equivalents. The only distinctions that may be offered are the entirely artificial constructs of social convention and personal preference.

. . .Without theology, it could not be said that "None of that matters to God; God is all perfect, all powerful, and God works God's will in mysterious ways to God's own ends, which include the salvation of humankind provided only that humankind accept God's salvation". That too precisely is why religious faith cannot be objectively differentiated from superstition; the two asolutely are functional equivalents. . .

In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).

timber wrote:

. . .Without theology, it could not be said that "None of that matters to God; God is all perfect, all powerful, and God works God's will in mysterious ways to God's own ends, which include the salvation of humankind provided only that humankind accept God's salvation". That too precisely is why religious faith cannot be objectively differentiated from superstition; the two asolutely are functional equivalents. . .

Why is this not a recognized illness?