(November 30, 2017 at 3:27 pm)Hammy Wrote:(November 30, 2017 at 3:23 pm)SteveII Wrote: For you proposition to be true, God would have to be pretty much a machine--not a person.
Isn't it absurd to call God a person if he's supposed to be perfect?
Lol yes. Steve seems to have a very bizarre version of Christianity that I've never heard anyone else have before. Christians do generally believe that God created humans to have a relationship with them but they don't generally believe he was imperfect and lacking beforehand lol. God is normally supposed to be eternally perfect, not perfect in every way except missing companionship and then making himself perfect. God is supposed to be incapable mistakes and every action he takes and every state of being he is in is supposed to be perfect . . . so for him to have to become perfect just makes no sense if he's supposed to be perfect.
You're basically completely refuting yourself Steve, you're saying that God had to become perfect which just admits that he isn't eternally perfect and he did at least used to be imperfect. Which even puts into question whether he is still perfect, since his original state of being wasn't good enough, we can't really trust that he's reached perfection thereafter.
You're basically proving my point that if God was truly perfect he wouldn't have created humanity.
No, no no. You are putting words in my mouth to fit your stupid premise. Where did I say God was imperfect? You are the one that thinks/asserts lacking an experience is an imperfection. There is no basis at all for making that leap. In fact, you have just made the definition of 'perfect' meaningless, because there is no conceivable entity that could experience everything (and therefore always be lacking something).
