Is God perfect?

[Acriku]

Yeah ok TMA, when this "perfect" being shows up I'll be sure to give it a hardy handshake ::)

[TMA_1]

I hope you will repent so that is possible. :)

[nemafakei]

Is perfection in the morals or the logic in which it is to be applied, or both? If the first (or both), it is indeed subjective, and perhaps indefineable, except by the being itself, wherefrom we may or may not have been communicated such morals.

[Phage]

The Christian idea of a perfect, unchanging god ultimetly contradicts itself.

First off why would a perfect unchanging being create anything? It is perfect meaning it needs or wants nothing, for if it wants it lacks something. Secondly the act of creation would suppose the perfect creature changed, reacted, and hence is not unchanging.That God is now temporal, not absolute.

Another way the Xian god contradicts Itself is that it is supposed to be perfect and wholly above mankind, yet in the Bible the God is said to posses certain emotions, like anger, wrath, regret(before the flood), jealousy(ten commandments), love, etc.

Meaning the God is open to change, mistakes, hurt (obviously if you feel negative emotions, you are hurt) etc.

This makes God imperfect in that a perfect being is complete in itself, and hence unfeeling. This makes God changing, instead of absolute. This makes God reflect a certain amount of humanity instead of total transcendence.

[Dude_Doc]

First off why would a perfect unchanging being create anything? It is perfect meaning it needs or wants nothing, for if it wants it lacks something.

Why not create? You have the power to do whatever you wish, so why not create something? See how your creation evolved, invented, explored and every other thing.

Another way the Xian god contradicts Itself is that it is supposed to be perfect and wholly above mankind, yet in the Bible the God is said to posses certain emotions, like anger, wrath, regret(before the flood), jealousy(ten commandments), love, etc.

Then again, what do we as humans understand? We understand anger, wrath, regret, jealousy and love. To make us understand, He would have to tell us in the ways He did.

[Acriku]

Why not create? You have the power to do whatever you wish, so why not create something? See how your creation evolved, invented, explored and every other thing.

Sure, if you're imperfect. But a perfect being is complete.

[Navaros]

obviously God can not be perfect since the Bible has factual contradictions all over the place.

[TMA_1]

nav you are the one that calls some christians bad ones, you dont know what the hell you are talking about you crazy old man.lol

Acriku, you are undoubtedly a smart guy, hell a lot smarter than I am. You have a lot of potential but you just dont listen. I have constantly asked questions about my faith, ahve talked to people of other religions such as buddhism, a teacher of mine was a tibeten buddhist. Mormonism, hare krishna (yup.lol), Islam, and certain forms of hinduism. I had a bias obviously, but at least I saught out my information with an attempt to find other wisdom. You seek out other ideas only to destroy them man. THat isnt right, it is just destructive. Not to the peoplewho believe what you dont, they just laugh. It is self distructive. We all do that in certain points of our life, I just think that you are overdoing it. you need to realize that your ideals might be flawed and you might just be wrong. Humble yourself and your ideas. That doesnt mean you have to completely hold your ideas up in the air, you can still fully believe in them. All I am saying is if you are as rational as you say you are, you would humble your ideas and look at all ideas without questioning them to the point of ripping them apart with preconcieved ideas. I would understand ripping a religion apart that you totally understood for sure, but you dont know christianity.lol you take what other people say, that is so immature and could be apart of another discussion inanofitself.

[Phage]

TMA all your last argument was simply a cheap personal attack. How did that refute a single thing Acriku said?

And anyways what's with this "all you do is destroy other ideas"?

That's just a way to avoid having your ideas be criticized. If we went by what you said no ideas would be criticized, save by experts, and no false ideas would be rooted out. To grow with your ideas you need to be willing to rip up the ideas of others. Remember this forums was made for those who take sides, not for the "weak minded" who are afraid of having the problems with their position brought out in the open.

And what's with this "you need to understand everything before you criticize?" First off Christians when stated their positions de facto reject the positions of others without understanding. If I say "I have a soul" I am at that time saying "Materialism is false" without understanding materialism completely. Xians do this all the time.

And I'm not saying that's wrong. Just that you can't demand someone have complete knowledge of a position before making a claim.

For the most part there are two ways to approach intellectual problems:

1) The perfectionist method: the method where you try to learn everything you can so you never make a mistake. Where you never confront a viewpoint until you spent years studying it, etc. Since nobody hs this level of understanding though and often times only achieves it through years of study, this method is very slow and leads to stagnation.

2) The self-correcting method: Where you do study a method before hand but don't demand complete or deep knowledge before criticism. This position aknowledges you will make mistakes and demands you correct your mistakes later on. Just like life.

Now I believe number 2 is better as the method is more active, and more open. Method two makes you bring the arguments to the believers themselves, to defend from you or criticize you directly. Instead of simply sitting on the sidelines.

You can't just sit there planning for every little possible problem as it crops up, you have to deal with problems as they arise. Of course you can/should some planning, and excercise some caution, just like you look both ways before you cross the road, that's common sense. But you shouldn't stand there paralyzed until you are an expert on the subject or someone decides you know enough, that's like demanding GPS confirmation no cars are coming before crossing the street. I'm not extreme, I believe caution is a fine thing, as is study, but I don't let that paralyze me.

I also believe study should be critical, where you actively look for merits and flaws, as well as compare new ideas to current ones. Or judge them by established standards. Not passive acts of non-critical acceptance.

As Aristotle said "The mark of an educated man is that he can entertain an idea without accepting it."

The self-correcting method does not warrant the extreme of blindess or missionary dogmatism, of course. You have to be willing to listen to another's viewpoints(not just hear but listen), admit when you are wrong(not right away of course but over time), and this often times demands being polite and objective. It's not an open check to spam, ignore or be rude. However it is more constructive then simply waiting until another person believes you "understand enough" before making a point.

One also needs to recognize arguments aren't like magic bullets. You are not going to change another person's mind concerning deeply entranched and cherished beliefs over night. No matter how good your argument is. Very rarely does this happen and it's because human nature is more conservative on issues of philosophy and major ideas. This is because the ideas were developed and established over years, and throwing out so shortly is pre-mature. No belief systems are perfect, and flaws are going to crop up a person never thought of. This doesn't mean we jump shit at the first sign of a leak, since many times such things will be false alarms, and if we abandon ideas that quickly we will never have a stable foundation on which to build or correct ourselves. The situation would be chaotic and arbitrary. That is why human being do not and should not change their core or most general ideas over-night. Just because a person doesn't change his mind quickly when faced with the evidence doesn't mean they are somehow evil or stupid or irrational or dishonest. They are just making an honest mistake and following their nature. They are thinking about the issue carefully and seeing if there is a way around it they are not yet aware of before consenting.

This also means though that over times, with enough argument/crtiical interaction/rational discourse, a person's philosophy or ideas can and should change. But this process may take hours, days, weeks and years. Depending on the person, the evidence, and the issue.