Christians, your God cannot be Perfect.

[Bad Writer]

So, Drich, you disagree that the Bible speculates on the perfection of your god because of the way it was translated to English?

[Mudhammam]

I haven't read MFM's thread, but it seems you are assuming there is only one perfection, which I don't think can be justified. If we imagine a perfect circle, and a perfect sphere, it's evident that both can be examples of perfection without being identical.

As I said, I mean Perfect in the Anselmian sense, which many Christians enthusiastically endorse, that is, "the conception of God as the greatest conceivable being." Can anything be greater than that? How about an infinite number of greatest conceivable beings?

[xr34p3rx]

Meh...

It seem there is a re occouring theme in your threads, in that it seem that you believe the bible to have originally written in English and that it must be read interpreted and accepted only from the English.

The Hebrew word for "perfect" when used to describe God is
tamiym
Pronunciation
tä·mēm'

It means:
complete, whole, entire, sound

complete, whole, entire

whole, sound, healthful

complete, entire (of time)

sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity

what is complete or entirely in accord with truth and fact

The word in The Greek is:Transliteration
teleioō
Pronunciation
te-lā-o'-ō (Key)

It means
to make perfect, complete

to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to an end

to complete (perfect)

add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full

to be found perfect

to bring to the end (goal) proposed

to accomplish

bring to a close or fulfilment by event

of the prophecies of the scriptures.

You are trying to force this English defination of the words used above to describe God:
a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless <a perfect diamond>
b : satisfying all requirements : accurate
c : corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept <a perfect gentleman>
d : faithfully reproducing the original; specifically : letter-perfect
e : legally valid

With that in mind I now ask why can't God be good and perfect?

its not a matter of semantics
its rational thinking

let me emphasize: he was saying that in order for something to be perfect, his outcome must also come to be perfect.
If the painting is bad, then its a bad painter, but if a painting is good, then the painter is good.

make sense?

[Angrboda]

I haven't read MFM's thread, but it seems you are assuming there is only one perfection, which I don't think can be justified. If we imagine a perfect circle, and a perfect sphere, it's evident that both can be examples of perfection without being identical.

As I said, I mean Perfect in the Anselmian sense, which many Christians enthusiastically endorse, that is, "the conception of God as the greatest conceivable being." Can anything be greater than that? How about an infinite number of greatest conceivable beings?

Then your argument doesn't make sense, because either you're equivocating on the meaning of perfection, or asserting that a maximally great perfection cannot create a lesser perfection, which has no foundation in anything you've said. Correction, you assert that only God can be perfect. However this appears as little more than a bare assertion, to which I've already provided counter-examples. It looks like you're equivocating.

[Mudhammam]

Then your argument doesn't make sense, because either you're equivocating on the meaning of perfection, or asserting that a maximally great perfection cannot create a lesser perfection, which has no foundation in anything you've said. Correction, you assert that only God can be perfect. However this appears as little more than a bare assertion, to which I've already provided counter-examples. It looks like you're equivocating.

Is anything but equivocation possible when God is the subject? My argument is that God could create NOTHING but imperfections, using an idea of Perfection, however vague, that has been argued and defended by philosophical theology for centuries. Whether or not it was coherent to begin with, well, you'd have to take that up with anyone who has adopted Anselm's ontological argument over the last millenium. You offered two examples of Perfection but clearly theologians don't define God as a geometric shape.

[Drich]

As I said, I mean Perfect in the Anselmian sense, which many Christians enthusiastically endorse, that is, "the conception of God as the greatest conceivable being." Can anything be greater than that? How about an infinite number of greatest conceivable beings?

Then your argument doesn't make sense, because either you're equivocating on the meaning of perfection, or asserting that a maximally great perfection cannot create a lesser perfection, which has no foundation in anything you've said. Correction, you assert that only God can be perfect. However this appears as little more than a bare assertion, to which I've already provided counter-examples. It looks like you're equivocating.

Sho-nuff.

[MindForgedManacle]

I haven't read MFM's thread, but it seems you are assuming there is only one perfection, which I don't think can be justified. If we imagine a perfect circle, and a perfect sphere, it's evident that both can be examples of perfection without being identical.

The reason I thought he was talking about what I did in my thread was because he brought up perfection and God's ability to create things. However, my thread is a counter-apologetic, the "Platonic-Theodicy Dilemma".

[Cinjin]

[Mudhammam]

To put it another way: God is defined as the greatest conceivable being; therefore everything else that exists is less than the greatest conceivable being. But if all actuality is created by God and less than the greatest, God's acts aren't the greatest and therefore an even greater conceivable being could exist: a being who only creates the greatest conceivable beings.

[Drich]