(August 23, 2022 at 2:45 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(August 22, 2022 at 11:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: So something can't be perfect unless it's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? Ordinarily, perfect means 'without flaws'. I wouldn't say not being all-powerful is a flaw.
Edit: Sorry for the double post.
I am using the word perfect the same way scholastics and some classical pagan philosophers would have....in the absolute sense that only applies to the All, or One. Barbasol may be the 'perfect' for its intended purpose as an inexpensive
and effective shaving cream but that is not the sense theologically.
So God could have created a Barbasol-perfect human being, and a Barbasol-perfect serpent but chose to create Adam, Eve, and the serpent of the garden instead. I don't get why you are applying a theologically-narrow definition of 'perfect', so narrow it can only be applied to one thing, to what God is supposed to have created. No one expects God to create more omnipotent beings, they're wondering why he couldn't or didn't create beings perfectly fit for their purpose.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
