Why would God create a flawed creation?

[Dave Ellis]

you are saying your "semantics" has potential, therefore its perfect

that is my point

It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of you trying to redefine words.

Perfect is perfect.

If something merely has the potential for perfection, that means it is not perfect.

For example, it's completely possible that I will never make another mistake of any kind for the rest of my life. Since the potential for perfection exists, does that mean I'm now perfect?

 

[Gottservant]

It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of you trying to redefine words.

Perfect is perfect.

If something merely has the potential for perfection, that means it is not perfect.

For example, it's completely possible that I will never make another mistake of any kind for the rest of my life. Since the potential for perfection exists, does that mean I'm now perfect?

in principle, yes

its entirely consistent, within the frame of reference in which you describe yourself

your problem is that you are like all the other people who rejected Christ before they knew how much potential for perfection He had, and then crucified Him for how much perfection He proved had potential

you don't know whether you want perfection now or later (is that perfection?)

 

[Dave Ellis]

in principle, yes

its entirely consistent, within the frame of reference in which you describe yourself

your problem is that you are like all the other people who rejected Christ before they knew how much potential for perfection He had, and then crucified Him for how much perfection He proved had potential

you don't know whether you want perfection now or later (is that perfection?)

What does that even mean?

Tossing out a bunch of rambling nonsense still isn't going to allow you to redefine what the word perfect means, which is what you're trying to do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Posting blind here...

If God was omniscient and omnipotent, then he wouldn't have knowingly created a flawed creation.

Simple -- a perfect creation has no need for Him. You can't "save" people who don't need saving.

 

[ananda]

Simple -- a perfect creation has no need for Him. You can't "save" people who don't need saving.

So you're saying he has a savior complex?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So you're saying he has a savior complex?

I'd say that the cosmic melodrama which allowed humanity to be "saved" was not only planned form the start, but unnecessary.

If we accept God as omnipotent and omniscient, then we must also accept that He can never be put in a position where He "must" do anything -- therefore, anything He does do must be by choice.

It's a core part of Christian doctrine that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was necessary for mankind's salvation -- in spite of this self-evident truth. God chose to accept Jesus' sacrifice, and could have just as easily chosen to reject the sacrifice, or even redeem mankind without a sacrifice.

What does God gain from the cosmic melodrama, then? An audience -- something the other options lack.

So, you tell me if He has a savior complex or not.

 

[Gottservant]

What does that even mean?

Tossing out a bunch of rambling nonsense still isn't going to allow you to redefine what the word perfect means, which is what you're trying to do.

You asked a question, I answered it

admitting that its possible you could stop sinning is a form of perfection

you honestly don't see believers emulating that?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You asked a question, I answered it

admitting that its possible you could stop sinning is a form of perfection

you honestly don't see believers emulating that?

No, that's not a form of perfection, that's an admission of imperfection.

 

[Gottservant]

No, that's not a form of perfection, that's an admission of imperfection.

which justifies perfection

and is therefore perfect

as perfection is perfect (your tautology (in context))

 

[Ken-1122]

If you made it impossible for her to avoid touching it and even made it enticing, yes I would put the blame squarely on you.

If you leave a hot stove or any dangerous situation unsupervised in the reach of a small child, you are negligent.

Ken

 

[Gottservant]

If you leave a hot stove or any dangerous situation unsupervised in the reach of a small child, you are negligent.

Ken

negligence is not punishable by death.

 

[Ken-1122]

negligence is not punishable by death.

The analogy is about God being neglect, not weather or not he deserves death.

Ken

 

[Gottservant]

The analogy is about God being neglect, not weather or not he deserves death.

Ken

the fact that it is not punishable by death necessitates that you show leniency or imply clemency, with your words

so far I have not read that, in what you have written

 

[Dave Ellis]

which justifies perfection

and is therefore perfect

as perfection is perfect (your tautology (in context))

So basically you're trying to argue that imperfect things are perfect.

I'm speechless.

 

[Gottservant]

So basically you're trying to argue that imperfect things are perfect.

I'm speechless.

no I'm saying things with the potential for perfection are perfect

do you call your children "imperfect"?

are you speechless when they do things perfectly?

 

[Dave Ellis]

no I'm saying things with the potential for perfection are perfect

And you're just flat out wrong.

do you call your children "imperfect"?

If I had children, then yes, I would. They're bound to make a mistake sometime in their life. On that note, I am also imperfect, as are you.

are you speechless when they do things perfectly?

No, because imperfect people can still sometimes score 100% on individual activities. If you get 100% on one test and 95% on another test however, you are not perfect (although you did very well).

 

[Gottservant]

you are obviously threatened for meaningless reasons, since you do not explicate them (despite my repeated efforts to share with you the truth)

That which has the potential of perfection, is perfect with respect to most of that perfection (selah)

If that were not so, you could argue that once we sin, we could be condemned forever.

Yet Christ lives - how is that possible if having become sin there was no caveat that allowed for a return to the perfection of the potential that remained?

Your answer to the contrary will be largely senseless.

 

[Ken-1122]

the fact that it is not punishable by death necessitates that you show leniency or imply clemency, with your words

How did you come to this conclusion?

Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

you are obviously threatened for meaningless reasons, since you do not explicate them (despite my repeated efforts to share with you the truth)

That which has the potential of perfection, is perfect with respect to most of that perfection (selah)

If that were not so, you could argue that once we sin, we could be condemned forever.

Yet Christ lives - how is that possible if having become sin there was no caveat that allowed for a return to the perfection of the potential that remained?

Your answer to the contrary will be largely senseless.

That's just flat out laughable.

I've explained quite clearly why your argument is silly, however I'll do it again.

If something has the potential for perfection, that means it is not yet perfect.

If a hockey player has the potential to score 30 goals this season, that means he has not yet scored 30 goals. You're only a 30 goal scorer once you've scored your 30th goal.

Likewise, you're only perfect once you've obtained perfection. If you have not yet done that, then you are not perfect, it doesn't matter what your potential is.


Why is it you people feel the need to redefine what words mean in order to make your arguments work? The best you can hope to accomplish is an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Ken-1122]

which justifies perfection

and is therefore perfect

as perfection is perfect (your tautology (in context))

How do you conclude and admission of guilt justifies perfection?
And how do you conclude perfection justified means it exists?

Ken