Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God just IS and we have no idea whatsoever what attributes He actually possesses.
If your God is somehow totally inscrutable as you suggest, then all your statements, including that he 'just IS', are also unfounded and probably wrong.
You claim his attributes cannot be known, then proceed to list a bunch of attributes.
If your God is somehow totally inscrutable as you suggest, then all your statements, including that he 'just IS', are also unfounded and probably wrong.
You claim his attributes cannot be known, then proceed to list a bunch of attributes.
The insistence that something once made perfect cannot be corrupted is just not true. It's like saying a virgin was never really a virgin if she ever loses her virginity.
The insistence that something once made perfect cannot be corrupted is just not true. It's like saying a virgin was never really a virgin if she ever loses her virginity.
No, that's not like it at all.
An aspect of perfection is that it cannot be corrupted. Otherwise, what, exactly, makes it perfect? If it is corruptible it is fallible, and therefore, not perfect. Otherwise we are ALL born totally perfect.
He would have been had He given in to temptation, which is why Satan tempted Him. He resisted all temptations and remained perfect. Satan never had a chance with the Son of God, but he was foolish enough to believe he did. Satan has fallen far, far, far from perfection. Consider this, two thirds of the angels remained loyal to God's will, but given Eternity, might not more of them fall? That is why, I believe, they have lost their inheritance and now saved man is joint heir with Jesus to all of God's Kingdom.
An aspect of perfection is that it cannot be corrupted. Otherwise, what, exactly, makes it perfect? If it is corruptible it is fallible, and therefore, not perfect. Otherwise we are ALL born totally perfect.
Or was Jesus was, then, corruptible?
As an analogy, and actually doctrinal one, the Christians did (and many still do) hold that the virginity had to be perpetual, no matter what a battering it took because otherwise the sinless perfection of the virginity was not perfect. It had to insist on a mysterious mystical and absurd doctrine otherwise the whole claim became unsustainable.
seems to be it's the same with adam. Our apologists here have to insist that, because God could not create create imperfection, Adam had to be perfect even though he clearly wasn't. The imperfection had to be blamed on something outside or (absurdly on Adam himself, who could hardly help the way he was made) and so we have the attempt to argue that perfection can be open to flaw but still perfect, like a perpetual virginity that can't be.
If your God is somehow totally inscrutable as you suggest, then all your statements, including that he 'just IS', are also unfounded and probably wrong.
You claim his attributes cannot be known, then proceed to list a bunch of attributes.
*knock knock?*
Not so. Our reality is the only observable aspect of God we have . . . but we DO know a lot about it and how it operates through our scientific investigations. There is a LOT that remains inscrutable . . . but NOT everything. We can ONLY attribute those things to God that we have discovered about our reality . . . but that is quite a bit . . . NOT "nothing."
At this point one is just redefining what perfection means moment-to-moment.
Perfection, even in our modern usage of the term, usually refers to an end state . . . not a beginning or intermediate state. But despite Arequipa's attempts to undermine it . . . the fact remains that for the time in question, the term translated as "perfect" did mean "mature" (as in no longer immature or incomplete).
Perfection, even in our modern usage of the term, usually refers to an end state . . . not a beginning or intermediate state. But despite Arequipa's attempts to undermine it . . . the fact remains that for the time in question, the term translated as "perfect" did mean "mature" (as in no longer immature or incomplete).
But relating to God's supposed creation including the first man is not 'modern' usage of the term nor the way you prefer to use it. I fail to see how you can be so sure the term was used in your preferred meaning (out of many others, Mr Strong undermining your attempts to rewrite the Bible rather than Arequipa's) rather than in the sense that I suggest seems clear from Genesis -that a perfect God making a man would logically make it perfect. The potential to sin is an imperfection, so Adam was not perfect.
The only question (from the Christian theology discussion view - I accept that Jews have their own view of the matter) is whether God is fallible (and therefore not perfect) or whether man was deliberately made imperfect, in which case his fall was intentional and it is unjust to dump all the blame on him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
