Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems With God's Perfection.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 16 of 58 (460888)
03-19-2008 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Critical Rationalist
03-15-2008 12:54 AM


Hi, Critical Rationalist; welcome to EvC!
Critical Rationalist writes:
  1. People are individuals and have different perspectives on issues.
  2. God is perfect.
  3. God can do all things which are not a contradiction in terms.
  4. Therefore, a perfect God would be different according to people’s different perspectives. (1,2)
  5. Therefore, God cannot fulfill all people’s requirements of perfect as this would inevitably lead to contradictions. (3,4)
  6. Therefore God does not exist. (2,5)
I see a major flaw in this argument: the truth isn't reliant on our knowing it for it to be truth. When two people hold belief systems that are mutually irreconcilable, the only conclusion that we can actually draw is that at least one of them is wrong. But, there is no rule that says that somebody has to be right.
Just because God doesn't match any existing paradigms, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
Critical Rationalist writes:
The key issue which this argument examines is Gods perfection. Perfect for who?
Scriptural scholars and theistic PhD's have argued essentially this forever: What did God mean when He said _________? Obviously, if God said "I'm perfect," He was clearly using His own definition of perfect. It's not too hard to imagine that He could fill his own definition without filling somebody else's: a lot of people have stupid beliefs about what "perfect" means. We just have to accept that, whatever He ends up being like, that fits His definition of "perfect."
Edited by Bluejay, : I changed "perspectives" to "paradigms": I've always wanted to use that word!

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-15-2008 12:54 AM Critical Rationalist has not replied

  
Critical Rationalist
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 17
From: Australia
Joined: 03-15-2008


Message 17 of 58 (460889)
03-19-2008 10:39 PM


Your point is well taken Bluejay and I've tried to, somewhat artificially, to create a response that would generate some further discussion.
If then God is perfect by his own point of view, would not this then inevitably create a conflict with some persons point of view of perfection. Then it would be the case that the person(s) is wrong and it is possible that all people are wrong. So then could not all our ideas about acting 'good' with a propensity to be perfectly 'good' then be wrong anyway?

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 03-20-2008 2:14 PM Critical Rationalist has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 18 of 58 (460935)
03-20-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Critical Rationalist
03-19-2008 10:39 PM


Critical Rationalist writes:
If then God is perfect by his own point of view, would not this then inevitably create a conflict with some persons point of view of perfection.
I agree with you. But, I don't understand what difference it would make. If people are wrong, people are wrong: God certainly shouldn't be expected to cater to somebody's wrong opinion. To believe so would suggest that we have some sort of power over Him
Critical Rationalist writes:
Then it would be the case that the person(s) is wrong and it is possible that all people are wrong.
That's the general idea of my argument. If I described my wife to you right now, your belief that she is a redhead (when, in fact, she is blonde) would not make her a redhead. If somebody else on EvC thought she was a brunette, somebody else thought she was black, and others thought she was Asian, Hispanic, Eskimo, brown-eyed, buck-toothed or Polynesian, none of you would be right. But, that doesn't mean she doesn't exist.
Criticial Rationalist writes:
So then could not all our ideas about acting 'good' with a propensity to be perfectly 'good' then be wrong anyway?
Well, this would be the case for moral codes stemming from belief in God or gods. However, many people subscribe to moral codes without feeling that it was given them by a deity. I think such people have superior morality: they do what they consider to be "good" just because the consider it "good," not because they'll go to heaven for it, or that they'll finally rid themselves of the cycle of rebirth into a polluted and sorrowful world. Furthermore, these moral codes don't come with the superiority complex inherent in us who follow religious moral codes.
We religious people naturally believe our own religion to be the only true religion. If you believe your religion is true, you cannot also accept that a religion that is different is also true, without completely trivializing the word "true." Thus, because I am Mormon, I must reject Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxism, Buddhism and all other forms of religion as at least partly wrong. I grew up looking down at people who drink beer, or who don't go to church on Sunday, or who believe their minister when he preaches that reading the Book of Mormon pollutes one's soul. I was a missionary in Taiwan, and I described their local religions as a smattering of superstitious nonsense and their philosophies as stupid and unfounded.
Of necessity, every religion must denounce every other religion, or trivialize the importance of their own religion. Therefore, when we get down to it, if any existing religion is right, it will only include a small fraction of the human race. From the diversity of opinions and beliefs I've seen in my own religion (some of us believe in evolution, some believe in magic and some believe in bits and pieces of both), I can only assume that, even if one religion is found to be correct in its beliefs about God, only a small fraction of its membership will be allied to the truth, while most of the rest are still wrong.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-19-2008 10:39 PM Critical Rationalist has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 19 of 58 (460947)
03-20-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Critical Rationalist
03-19-2008 8:38 PM


Re: Absolute perfection.
Your model of the man who chooses his own destiny concurrently supports my inquiry. You state that 'perfect forgiveness' can be vetoed by Gods 'perfect promise keeping' this is still a contradiction in my logic, Straggler has pointed out why.
I didn't say 'veto' I said 'inapplicable'. Forgiving someone simply means paying the price of their offence against you yourself. Perfect forgiveness means paying the price yourself perfectly. As in completely. As in: in total. As in: with no element of the debt left outstanding. As in: slate wiped clean.
When God forgives someone he does so perfectly. But when forgiveness doesn't apply to a situation there can be no talk of it's perfection or imperfection. It simply doesn't apply to the situation.
You said:
CR in the OP writes:
God can do all things which are not a contradiction in terms.
God cannot cause a man to be with him in eternity (by means of forgiving a man his sins) whilst at the same time permitting a mans will to be done in the direction of man choosing to remain separate from God (by means of having his sins unforgiven).
That is: to ensure a man would be with God whilst giving a man the choice not to be with God (for eternity) would be a contradiction in terms
-
Technically speaking, forgiveness eliminates sin from a mans life.
I'm not sure I understand this, what do you mean by "technically speaking?" Although I am keen to keep this is as more a general theological, western monotheistic tradition, discussion without getting into specific dogma, I am interested to better know your point of view.
It simply means that any debt due to God justice for sin committed against his justice has been discharged. It means that Gods justice system has no juristicion over a person whose sin-debt has been discharged. Sin and the wages due for them have been eliminated from the mans slate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Critical Rationalist, posted 03-19-2008 8:38 PM Critical Rationalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Legend, posted 03-20-2008 4:52 PM iano has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 20 of 58 (460960)
03-20-2008 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
03-20-2008 3:19 PM


I can't just sit back and watch this any more
iano writes:
When God forgives someone he does so perfectly.
sorry to barge in, but I distinctly remember numerous conversations with you on various threads whereby you repeatedly alluded that God forgives you only if you accept certain terms & conditions, namely the theory that Jesus is his Son who died for our sins.
Now, how can you sit there straight-faced and claim that God forgives 'perfectly' ?! You seem to be equivocating constantly, almost from one post to the next.
iano writes:
Forgiving someone simply means paying the price of their offence against you yourself. Perfect forgiveness means paying the price yourself perfectly. As in completely.
...............................................................
It simply means that any debt due to God justice for sin committed against his justice has been discharged.
Again, we had this discussion before and every single time you failed to explain what -if what you say above is true- is the point of accepting Jesus as your saviour and everything else your theology dictates?
If the price/debt has been paid and we are 'perfectly' forgiven -as you claim- then it doesn't matter whether one accepts, or even knows Jesus at all! We're all forgiven, we're all going to heaven, christians, muslims, atheists, everyone and their dog!
Here's another chance to clear up this confusion, although I'm not holding my breath.
Alternatively you can just be honest and admit the God you worship isn't perfect at all but rather a..ahem..idiosyncratic and quirky god.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 03-20-2008 3:19 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 03-21-2008 5:33 AM Legend has not replied
 Message 25 by iano, posted 03-21-2008 7:06 AM Legend has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 21 of 58 (460977)
03-20-2008 7:15 PM


Who said a God must be perfect or has to be? Interestingly enough, none of the religious texts of the world's monotheistic religions explicitly describe God as a perfect being incapable of error. Divine Perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, etc are all ideas developed through the ages by Theologians and Philosophers, not religious mystics, prophets, or scribes.
One could infer from the Biblical story of the flood that God made a fallible error in judgement when creating mankind. "...God saw that man was wicked." If God was omniscient and omnipotent, he wouldn't have had to have seen that man was wicked, he would have known that man spelled trouble ahead of time and could have saved all the effort by simply not creating man to begin with. It's as if God was disappointed with his handiwork and was saying, "Bad idea...."

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 03-20-2008 10:30 PM Grizz has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 22 of 58 (460997)
03-20-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Grizz
03-20-2008 7:15 PM


Grizz writes:
Interestingly enough, none of the religious texts of the world's monotheistic religions explicitly describe God as a perfect being incapable of error.
I don't know if this counts as "explicitly describing God as a perfect being incapable of error," but there is a little statement from the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:48):
quote:
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Mormon scripture has even more references to perfection that are even more direct. Half of our scriptures are written in early 19th century English (Joseph Smith's time), instead of King James English, so they're slightly more intelligible than the Bible.
Grizz writes:
One could infer from the Biblical story of the flood that God made a fallible error in judgement when creating mankind. "...God saw that man was wicked." If God was omniscient and omnipotent, he wouldn't have had to have seen that man was wicked, he would have known that man spelled trouble ahead of time and could have saved all the effort by simply not creating man to begin with. It's as if God was disappointed with his handiwork and was saying, "Bad idea...."
The Mormon belief of God is very much like the idea from Bruce Almighty: He can't interfere with free choice. Therefore, we, as Mormons, do believe that God is somewhat limited (at least in some sense). However, we still hold the belief that He is omniscient.
We belief God is primarily a teacher, and His purpose is to prepare us to be like Him. Therefore, He puts up with us and all our wickedness (as opposed to destroying us or having not created us) because His main goal is to teach us how to become like Him, a process in which this life is the first step.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Grizz, posted 03-20-2008 7:15 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Grizz, posted 03-22-2008 5:38 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 23 of 58 (460999)
03-20-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
03-19-2008 6:52 AM


Re: Absolute perfection.
Straggler writes:
So God will forgive everything except for forsaking him. Is that right?
Surely the very fact that there is an 'except' in the statement above means that this is not 'perfect' forgivenes?
We are born foresaking God so strictly speaking, no.
See my post to CR a couple of posts up on perfection
-
There are many Christians I know who believe that regardless of whether or not someone follows the Christian God or any God at all they will eventually be judged on their intentions and actions in much the same way as you described 'perfect' justice above (without the seeking forgiveness proviso)
Whilst I would disagree with a gospel that spoke of a person being saved based on their deeds (for that describes a works based salvation) I would agree that there is no need for a person to formally be a Christian or to "follow God" in order that God save them.
In my view, forgiveness need not be asked for. That a person might well do so is subsequent to their being saved and results out of their being pressed to do so by God. There is no reliance on man working his way up to asking. A man seeking Gods forgiveness is like a man finding himself expressing his love for a woman. Love presses his words out of him. It is love (rather, her loveableness acting upon him) that is responsible for his expression.
Forgiveness is part of Gods tearing down of the dividing wall between man and God. Because it is a post-salvation affair, talk of it being imperfect because it is not applied to an unsaved man ignores that forgiveness has a place and time and function. In its correct setting it is perfect: the forgiveness is so complete and full that no brick in that wall is left standing.
Try to wrench it out of that setting then sure, it will sound real clunky.
The issue shifts from forgiveness (for it is post the point of salvation) to salvation. And why doesn't God save everyone. Is the salvation mechanism imperfect because God doesn't save everyone? I think it is perfect. But that's a different issue.
-
What do you believe happens to those who, quite justifiably, just cannot bring themselves to accept something as big as God on faith alone and how does this fit in with your concept of perfect forgiveness?
God doesn't expect anyone to accept something as big as God on faith alone (I'm assuming your talking the kind of blind strawman faith beloved of Richard Dawkins and his ilk).
Besides, the mechanics of salvation would appear to involve man merely (if I may use that term) believing what God attempts to convince him of. There is no need (that I can see) that a man know it is God who is attempting to convince him. Nor that God make himself known to man post-man believing what God is attempting to have him believe. Nor that the topics God utilises to convince the man be particularily 'religious'
I do believe something fundemental in a man would alter upon his conviction by God - God does take up residence and begins to steer that mans life afterall. What words a man would put on that would vary depending on culture and education and era. The first thing I knew of it was a sure sense that "everything is going to be okay". This in a far deeper sense that could be reached by the various material, success-seeking, drug and sex methods I had tried to attain "okay-ness" with previously. I suppose the sheep herder on the side of a mountain in Tibet could experience the same thing as me. I subsequently found out the mechanics of things. The sheep herder might not. We are both saved.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2008 6:52 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 03-25-2008 6:41 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 24 of 58 (461014)
03-21-2008 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Legend
03-20-2008 4:52 PM


Re: I can't just sit back and watch this any more
Legend writes:
sorry to barge in, but I distinctly remember numerous conversations with you on various threads whereby you repeatedly alluded that God forgives you only if you accept certain terms & conditions, namely the theory that Jesus is his Son who died for our sins.
Now, how can you sit there straight-faced and claim that God forgives 'perfectly' ?! You seem to be equivocating constantly, almost from one post to the next.
Given that I frequently use the example of Abraham in explaining salvation mechanics (I did so at the end of the post above although I didn't refer to him by name) and given that Abraham didn't know Jesus died for his sins (yet) I must conclude your memory not-so-distinct.
I have said that in order to be saved you must believe (what God is trying to convince you of - which is not primarily that Jesus died for your sins). Perhaps that's the root of the problem - what it is you must believe.
The couple of posts of mine in this thread outline the application of forgiveness and it's perfection so I won't repeat it here.
Again, we had this discussion before and every single time you failed to explain what -if what you say above is true- is the point of accepting Jesus as your saviour and everything else your theology dictates?
Again I point out that you don't do anything. You are done unto. Are you asking me what the point is of God bringing to believe that Christ is your saviour etc?
If the price/debt has been paid and we are 'perfectly' forgiven -as you claim- then it doesn't matter whether one accepts, or even knows Jesus at all! We're all forgiven, we're all going to heaven, christians, muslims, atheists, everyone and their dog!
If indeed. And if it has not been - for you as an individual at this time - then not. I fully expect folk of all persuasions and none to be saved. Not because of their religion but in spite of it.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Legend, posted 03-20-2008 4:52 PM Legend has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 25 of 58 (461016)
03-21-2008 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Legend
03-20-2008 4:52 PM


double post
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Legend, posted 03-20-2008 4:52 PM Legend has not replied

  
Critical Rationalist
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 17
From: Australia
Joined: 03-15-2008


Message 26 of 58 (461022)
03-21-2008 8:45 AM


I'll reply with my thoughts on perfection tomorrow (its 10:36PM Brisbane time) when I can properly look over whats been said.
Bluejay on a side note you say you're a Mormon, correct me if I’m wrong my education on the subject is basically that from which I can absorb from TV; but don’t Mormons believe that Jesus Christ went to America, practice polygamy and have some other bizarre beliefs? If so do you believe in these and why?
Further more you seem to be very rational and intelligent and appear to have no proselytising inclination.

  
Critical Rationalist
Member (Idle past 5847 days)
Posts: 17
From: Australia
Joined: 03-15-2008


Message 27 of 58 (461024)
03-21-2008 9:06 AM


You know what I’ll stay up, it won't take me long as I’m asking questions.
Perfection and Gods forgiveness have to me already thrown up some elements which are problematic and 'flimsy'.
I want to ask a base question first before I leep into things, in what ways is God perfect?

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by iano, posted 03-23-2008 6:33 PM Critical Rationalist has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 28 of 58 (461137)
03-22-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Blue Jay
03-20-2008 10:30 PM


I don't know if this counts as "explicitly describing God as a perfect being incapable of error," but there is a little statement from the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:48):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I meant perfect in this context to be omnipotent and omnisicient - not just error-free or scoring 100%.
Regarding Mormonism, I know next to nothing about the belief system and you obviously now more than I. Since I trust what you say, apparently there are writings that explicitly spell out God's properties. I guess I was wrong.
Regarding the Biblical quote provided, without knowing the translation from the extant texts, who knows what the context of the Greek word was that is used to denote 'perfect' in English. Only a reading in the original language would answer this definitively. Everything we read in the Biblical texts is simply the best attempt to translate meaning from one language to another. Some Greek words don't translate well to English, others are context-specific, and still others have no direct translation and are approximations of meaning. It gets even worse when things are translated from Hebrew to Greek to English or Aramaic to Greek to English.
Without knowing the translation, I highly doubt the intention of the original author was to call for man to be a perfect being(omnipotent and omniscient). The verse is extolling man to do something -- this 'something' cannot be omnipotence or omniscience, since by definition man is capable of neither. In early Christian circles, I would think it would be rather blasphemous to suggest man could be like God, so I do not see this verse as an explicit statement of God's properties. Since I doubt the original community would endorse blasphemy, it must have meant something that was attainable by Man. Deferring to the theology of the early Christian community, I would say this was an attempt by the author to call for man to strive to live without sin, rather than a call for man to be like God. Although it would also be blasphemous to suggest man is capable of living without sin, calling for man to strive for this state certainly would not be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 03-20-2008 10:30 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 03-22-2008 7:47 PM Grizz has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 29 of 58 (461147)
03-22-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Grizz
03-22-2008 5:38 PM


Grizz writes:
In early Christian circles, I would think it would be rather blasphemous to suggest man could be like God, so I do not see this verse as an explicit statement of God's properties. Since I doubt the original community would endorse blasphemy, it must have meant something that was attainable by Man. Deferring to the theology of the early Christian community, I would say this was an attempt by the author to call for man to strive to live without sin, rather than a call for man to be like God.
Well, I can't argue with that. Except that, since we rely on third-degree translations of the Bible that span hundreds of years, several languages, and very little archeological/historical evidence outside of it, I'm not so sure we can state with any kind of certainty what the early Christians did or didn't believe.
What was always interesting to me is that most Christians think it's blasphemy to compare oneself with God, yet they all refer to themselves as the children of God. But, don't children grow up to be like their parents?

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Grizz, posted 03-22-2008 5:38 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Grizz, posted 03-22-2008 8:36 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 30 of 58 (461149)
03-22-2008 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
03-22-2008 7:47 PM


Well, I can't argue with that. Except that, since we rely on third-degree translations of the Bible that span hundreds of years, several languages, and very little archeological/historical evidence outside of it, I'm not so sure we can state with any kind of certainty what the early Christians did or didn't believe.
What was always interesting to me is that most Christians think it's blasphemy to compare oneself with God, yet they all refer to themselves as the children of God. But, don't children grow up to be like their parents?
Well, all we have to go by are the written accounts of the period. I am far from an expert on the subject but I do know Biblical scholars and historians have placed early Christian writings in chronological order and Paul's letters pre-date the appearance of the Gospels. Outside of a few sparse comments by Josephus, Paul was the first one to really write anything of significance about Christianity or Jesus. If we want to know what people believed, Paul is the source to go to.
Scholars also believe prior to Paul's written works, everything was relayed by word of mouth, kind of like campfire stories - the 'Q' source. As more and more verbal information was circulated, there likely was editing and error in transmitting the information - no doubt a lot of 'tabloid' type stuff. There are tons of apocryphal gospels out there with some really wild stories and sayings mixed in with a lot of the common themes you see in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Even if one accepts the Canonical Gospels as inspired, one has to admit there were a lot of very active imaginations at work in some of the written accounts we know circulated.
Since we don't have access to any verbal 'Q' source, the earliest and least 'tainted' written source available regarding Christian theological beliefs of the period is Paul -- he was obviously preaching to various established Christian communities scattered around Asia.
Even though the figure of Jesus was the impetus for the belief and the existence of the movement, I would think it is proper to say Paul is really the individual who 'founded' Christian theology and gave it substance. Although Paul broke with many Jewish traditions(food, ritual, marriage, various theologies), the 'serious' prohibitions still applied -- idolatry, blasphemy, sexual practices etc. Given this, it would indeed be blasphemy for someone at the time to proclaim that it is possible for one to be equal to God or have the same properties as God. It is this reason that I think the word 'perfection' is probably an improper translation.
Also, I think 'Children of God' in a theological context is simply a metepahor for a creative force that gives birth to something new, it does not imply a direct lineage or inheritance. Just my humble opinions of course. Everthing I am saying could be complete BS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 03-22-2008 7:47 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 03-23-2008 4:21 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024