John V,
My apologies - you are correct - I did misread your response.
Frankly - I am mystified by it. I chose Christian values to measure God by - the seven deadly sins are not my invention - they are of the church and, whilst not biblical, appear very early on in church history.
"The Bible claims that god is perfect. If this were not so, it wouldn't matter if you could identify imperfections."
And so we are proving that the Bible was wrong and God isn't perfect (which is rather the point).
" We can't identify imperfections without a definition of perfection. It's not really a shift of focus."
Er...nonsense? My car is making a funny noise - I do not need to know the exact combination of frequencies that come out of it normally to recognise that fact.
Arsenal's goalkeeper is not good at dealing with crosses.
Communism doesn't work.
The taxi is late.
All easily identifiable imperfections without any reference to perfection.
"No, you have asserted that we should use the seven deadly sins. I have not agreed that those are applicable to God. My position is that we should go to the Biblical claims of God's perfection and see what they are. Unfortunately for you, those claims are tautological: his ways are perfect. "
Well this is where you are obfuscating merely to cover your position. Any being claiming to be perfect can be measured against known or recognised imperfections. In this case we are using Christian ones - were we using mine we might have a different set. I chose the Christian ones deliberately to avoid this situation.
Surely you see that the above makes a mockery of your counter-argument which you yourself describe as tautology:
God's perfect because God's book says God's perfect.
My apologies - you are correct - I did misread your response.
Frankly - I am mystified by it. I chose Christian values to measure God by - the seven deadly sins are not my invention - they are of the church and, whilst not biblical, appear very early on in church history.
"The Bible claims that god is perfect. If this were not so, it wouldn't matter if you could identify imperfections."
And so we are proving that the Bible was wrong and God isn't perfect (which is rather the point).
" We can't identify imperfections without a definition of perfection. It's not really a shift of focus."
Er...nonsense? My car is making a funny noise - I do not need to know the exact combination of frequencies that come out of it normally to recognise that fact.
Arsenal's goalkeeper is not good at dealing with crosses.
Communism doesn't work.
The taxi is late.
All easily identifiable imperfections without any reference to perfection.
"No, you have asserted that we should use the seven deadly sins. I have not agreed that those are applicable to God. My position is that we should go to the Biblical claims of God's perfection and see what they are. Unfortunately for you, those claims are tautological: his ways are perfect. "
Well this is where you are obfuscating merely to cover your position. Any being claiming to be perfect can be measured against known or recognised imperfections. In this case we are using Christian ones - were we using mine we might have a different set. I chose the Christian ones deliberately to avoid this situation.
Surely you see that the above makes a mockery of your counter-argument which you yourself describe as tautology:
God's perfect because God's book says God's perfect.
