04 Feb 08
We ought to keep in mind that the notion of 'perfection' has changed.
It now commonly means 'without flaw,' but it hasn't historically meant
that. It used to mean 'whole' or 'complete,' and that man was imperfect
means that he needed God to become perfect, whereas God is complete
and doesn't need man for anything (cf. St Matthew 5:48).
Nemesio
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by NemesioDoes the Bible claim that God is either of those meanings? I mean in the original Hebrew / Greek etc.
We ought to keep in mind that the notion of 'perfection' has changed.
It now commonly means 'without flaw,' but it hasn't historically meant
that. It used to mean 'whole' or 'complete,' and that man was imperfect
means that he needed God to become perfect, whereas God is complete
and doesn't need man for anything (cf. St Matthew 5:48).
Nemesio
05 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy do you want to know from the theists? Isn't the Bible clear enough regarding the topic, or do you think further revelation is available via the opinion of theists?[/b]
[b]I would like to know from the theists out there whether God (the Judaeo-Christian one) is perfect.
Why do you want to know from the theists? Isn't the Bible clear enough regarding the topic, or do you think further revelation is available via the opinion of theists?
It seems to me that He isn't... well not according to the theists at any rat best place to obtain answers to those pesky questions currently upsetting your psyche.
I don't consider the Bible an authority as you do. Theists profess to know their religion so it is reasonable for them to answer questions regarding it.
So far, so good...
So far, so good...
Oops! Blew it already. And to think you were only two steps into your theory, too!
This is a conclusion not an argument.
Your ignorance of theology is appalling. Unless you are from a remote village which has been cut-off from society at large for a few generations, I can't imagine a plausible excuse for such wanton empty-headedness.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning. You haven't addressed the point at all. This village sounds like a Christian one by the way.
God doesn't "get" anything. Nor, from the sound of it, do you--- although with a completely different meaning.
The phrase "Vengeance is His Alone" not ring a bell? *"The Old Testament tells of a number of times when God became Angry at some individual and then "smote" whole armies in retribution."
Not quite. The present visible creation you see around you was re-created in six days.
So it took six days?
You've been corrected on this point already, so I won't belabor the issue.
News to me.
I can do one better than that. Here's just one thought: go do some study on theology from the Enlightenment period forward and then decide whether a chess web site is really the best place to obtain answers to those pesky questions currently upsetting your psyche.
Here's just one thought: go do some study on medicine from the Enlightenment period forward and then decide whether a hospital is really the best place to obtain answers to those pesky questions currently upsetting your body.
*http://www.mb-soft.com/public/angrygod.html
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Feb 08
1 edit
As Nemesio already objected, the current usage of "perfection" differs from traditional versions. Medieval theology described perfection as the property of being wholly self-actuated. St. Thomas of Aquinas, for example. used this term (or, rather, the Latin equivalent) to denote God's existence as self-explained and independent of any other cause. Translations of his work are dense, but here is a quote to illustrate his point:
Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.
Simply put, Aquinas regards existence as the highest perfection. As God effects his own existence, and all else, he is therefore perfect. While people have a degree of perfection, they lack total perfection because their existence is received from another.
EDIT: The corrolary of his argument was that God is also infinite, omnipresent and therefore omnipotent and omniscient. So the distinction between the historical and present-day meaning is probably irrelevant. A perfect being, as Aquinas conceived, should posses the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI am not convinced that Aquinas is using perfection as 'whole' or 'complete' rather than 'without flaw'. In fact it is not clear to me what he means by it.
[quote] Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of ...[text shortened]... gree of perfection, they lack total perfection because their existence is received from another.
In fact I find his logic lacking in "for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection."
But then isn't Aquinas famous for his rather flawed logic?
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Green PaladinI don't consider the Bible an authority as you do. Theists profess to know their religion so it is reasonable for them to answer questions regarding it.
Why do you want to know from the theists? Isn't the Bible clear enough regarding the topic, or do you think further revelation is available via the opinion of theists?
I don't consider the Bible an authority as you do. Theists profess to know their religion so it is reasonable for them to answer questions regarding it.
So far, so good...[/b ...[text shortened]... currently upsetting your body.
*http://www.mb-soft.com/public/angrygod.html
This is nothing more than meaningless semantics, and you know it. Your intent is to show contradiction between what a theist confesses and what "their religion" allegedly proclaims. And how do you intend to show the contradiction? Why, by taking a verse from the Bible (you know, the one you don't consider authoritative) out of context and rubbing their nose in it, of course!
If you want to know what a "theist" believes, go the source of their belief: the Bible. In addition to the Bible, do as suggested by both myself and jaywill: get your hands on some commentaries on theology.
This is a conclusion not an argument.
Actually, it's a statement about your bone-headed conclusion. No argument (or conclusion from the same) has been offered as of yet.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning.
There is nothing deceptive about the statement, and it stands as originally put. Your statements, however, are textbook deception. You know perfectly well the positions which you are attacking, feigning ignorance of the same. Assuming your ignorance is legitimate, such a vacuum of comprehension related to theological basics is mind-boggling.
This village sounds like a Christian one by the way.
Decisively not. Although entitled as the Spirituality forum, far more atheists and agnostics frequent here than Christians. The topics covered are nowhere near spiritual; we can't even get past the basics of whether or not God exists!
The phrase "Vengeance is His Alone" not ring a bell? *"The Old Testament tells of a number of times when God became Angry at some individual and then "smote" whole armies in retribution."
See what I meant in the first paragraph of my response? If you're looking for commentary on language of accomodation, anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms, those particulars of orthodox interpretation are another topic altogether.
So it took six days?
Let's just say He used six days to recreate.
Here's just one thought: go do some study on medicine from the Enlightenment period forward and then decide whether a hospital is really the best place to obtain answers to those pesky questions currently upsetting your body.
What this has to do with the topic, I'm not sure, but who here declared that a hospital dispensed authoritatively and/or correctly issues related to the human body?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by Conrau KI should have given a reference to the quote.
As Nemesio already objected, the current usage of "perfection" differs from traditional versions. Medieval theology described perfection as the property of being wholly self-actuated. St. Thomas of Aquinas, for example. used this term (or, rather, the Latin equivalent) to denote God's existence as self-explained and independent of any other cause. Translati ...[text shortened]... ect being, as Aquinas conceived, should posses the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.
Summa theologicae 4.1 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 Feb 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not convinced that Aquinas is using perfection as 'whole' or 'complete' rather than 'without flaw'. In fact it is not clear to me what he means by it.
I am not convinced that Aquinas is using perfection as 'whole' or 'complete' rather than 'without flaw'. In fact it is not clear to me what he means by it.
In fact I find his logic lacking in "for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection."
But then isn't Aquinas famous for his rather flawed logic?
I think what he means is that a perfect being has no potential unfulfilled. Everything of God's being is existent and independent of anything else (as in, he does not require anything else so that he might exist.)
In fact I find his logic lacking in "for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection."
The more "actuated" the more perfect. If it lacks any imperfection, then it is perfect. The quote you cite is an example of a tautology. And it becomes a real head-spinner.
05 Feb 08
1 edit
=================================
The phrase "Vengeance is His Alone" not ring a bell? *"The Old Testament tells of a number of times when God became Angry at some individual and then "smote" whole armies in retribution."
==================================
Palidin reminds of God saying "Vengence is Mine. I will repay."
This is an important truth because it reveals that our sins against our fellow man are ultimately offenses against God.
When you grasp that the sin against you is not against you so much as it is against God, it is a very liberating thing. Likewise to realize that the mischief you wish to do your neighbor is actually a transgression you are scheming against God, is a cautionary thing which can strongly regulate your actions.
Vengence is Mine says the Lord. I will repay.
It is the teaching of the Bible to leave your vindication up to God. Don't worry about getting "even". God will repay. God will vindicate.
This wonderful truth is liberating and freeing. It frees a man or woman from the damaging effect of holding offenses in one's heart. You hold unforgiveness in your heart to your own aging. It only makes you grow older quicker.
But to confess - "Lord God, this offense was not against me. It was against You dear God. You will balance the scales. You will rectify the matter. If there is repayment You will handle the repayment.
That vengence is God's also can soften our hearts to pray for our enemies. For coming before God is inevitable. It may tarry. It may take a long time. But we will stand before God.
Look at your watch. Look at a clock. Every second brings us closer to the time when we will each stand before God.
So the truth of vengence being God's and that He will repay is very liberating and also regulating.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is nothing more than meaningless semantics, and you know it.
[b]I don't consider the Bible an authority as you do. Theists profess to know their religion so it is reasonable for them to answer questions regarding it.
This is nothing more than meaningless semantics, and you know it. Your intent is to show contradiction between what a theist confesses and what "their religion" allegedly proclaims. And how do yo ...[text shortened]... l dispensed authoritatively and/or correctly issues related to the human body?[/b]
I don't know where semantics enters the debate except maybe in the definition of 'perfect.'
Your intent is to show contradiction between what a theist confesses and what "their religion" allegedly proclaims.
No, my intent is to cite a number of logical inconsistencies in the bible that would be impossible (for me) to reconcile were I a Christian.
And how do you intend to show the contradiction? Why, by taking a verse from the Bible (you know, the one you don't consider authoritative) out of context and rubbing their nose in it, of course!
Not trying to rub anyone's nose in 'it'. I don't think its unreasonable to quote the principal text in an argument about the text. Would you hesitate to show inconsistency in the Origin of Species in a debate about evolution even though you don't regard this work as authoritative?
If you want to know what a "theist" believes, go the source of their belief: the Bible. In addition to the Bible, do as suggested by both myself and jaywill: get your hands on some commentaries on theology.
Investigating the bible wouldn't answer my question: How do Christians reconcile in their minds what to me are obvious contradictions?
No argument (or conclusion from the same) has been offered as of yet.
Right you are.
There is nothing deceptive about the statement, and it stands as originally put. Your statements, however, are textbook deception. You know perfectly well the positions which you are attacking, feigning ignorance of the same. Assuming your ignorance is legitimate, such a vacuum of comprehension related to theological basics is mind-boggling.
This "vacuum of comprehension" relates to how Christians believe what they do.
Decisively not. Although entitled as the Spirituality forum, far more atheists and agnostics frequent here than Christians. The topics covered are nowhere near spiritual; we can't even get past the basics of whether or not God exists!
The village I was referring to was "a remote village which has been cut-off from society at large for a few generations." Sounds like Christianity to me.
See what I meant in the first paragraph of my response? If you're looking for commentary on language of accomodation, anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms, those particulars of orthodox interpretation are another topic altogether.
Why not this topic? Did God become angry and "smite whole armies in retribution" or didn't He?
Let's just say He used six days to recreate.
Which brings us back to the original question.
What this has to do with the topic, I'm not sure, but who here declared that a hospital dispensed authoritatively and/or correctly issues related to the human body?
My analogy here was twofold: (1) A hospital has doctors, a chess website has Christians. (2) Your doctor doesn't tell you to go and get a medical degree before he treats you. Admittedly, some of this may have been lost by the contrivance of substituting words into the original sentence.
06 Feb 08
Originally posted by Green PaladinNo, my intent is to cite a number of logical inconsistencies in the bible that would be impossible (for me) to reconcile were I a Christian.
This is nothing more than meaningless semantics, and you know it.
I don't know where semantics enters the debate except maybe in the definition of 'perfect.'
Your intent is to show contradiction between what a theist confesses and what "their religion" allegedly proclaims.
No, my intent is to cite a number of logical inconsistencies in ...[text shortened]... t by the contrivance of substituting words into the original sentence.[/b]
Then perhaps you should make such statements at the outset.
Be that as it may, you will be hard pressed to cite even one logical inconsistency found within the Bible. Previous attempts by others at the effort have fallen miserably short of giving any reason to even raise an eyebrow. Why? They fail for two reasons, both of which apply to your efforts.
First, the totality of the text is not considered thus rendering proper interpretation an impossibility. Secondly, they mix apples with oranges and then decry an inconsistent sum. That is to say, one verse or situation is singled out then compared with half of the truth of another proposition--- failing to see both the situation within context as well as the antecedent for the second proposition.
This "vacuum of comprehension" relates to how Christians believe what they do.
In light of your obviously limited understanding, this makes sense.
The village I was referring to was "a remote village which has been cut-off from society at large for a few generations." Sounds like Christianity to me.
Again, in light of your understanding, such a stance makes sense. In light of reality, however, holding such a position is considered detachment.
Did God become angry and "smite whole armies in retribution" or didn't He?
God doesn't "become" anything, so no, He did not.
Your doctor doesn't tell you to go and get a medical degree before he treats you.
Neither do I approach my doctor and tell him what an idiot he is when I am seeking his treatment.