How do you define "perfect" with respect to your god?

[Grega]

Well there are different types of love, as in friends, parents and children, lovers, etc.

I suppose when we say God loves you (off the top of my head), it means God unconditionally deeply cares about you. This sort of love can be a feeling and a choice I would say. Actually, what about loving meaning, you want the best for them?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

I suppose when we say God loves you (off the top of my head), it means God unconditionally deeply cares about you. This sort of love can be a feeling and a choice I would say. Actually, what about loving meaning, you want the best for them?
Allow me to substitute "us" for "me"...do I interpret this as god wants us all to be well fed/nourished/etc?...doesn't want any of us to die or suffer?...will let us all into heaven when we do die; even those languishing in Hell?...enjoys our company?...is always doing kind things for us?...

Please elaborate

 

[solarwave]

I suppose when we say God loves you (off the top of my head), it means God unconditionally deeply cares about you. This sort of love can be a feeling and a choice I would say. Actually, what about loving meaning, you want the best for them?
Allow me to substitute "us" for "me"...do I interpret this as god wants us all to be well fed/nourished/etc?...doesn't want any of us to die or suffer?...will let us all into heaven when we do die; even those languishing in Hell?...enjoys our company?...is always doing kind things for us?...

Please elaborate

It means the best for us eternally. This life is still important, so God provides for us (food, etc). God doesn't want us to suffer, but there more important things than lack of suffering in the grand scheme of things. Death isnt the end, matter and doesnt matter in some ways. God very much enjoys our company, He gave His Son so that we could know Him. He does kind things if it benifits us overall (like a parent does nice things for a child, but only if it doesnt make them a spoiled brat lol).

God wants us all to go to heaven, this is how I think about hell. Heaven is perfect, so only perfect things can be in heaven. So no sinful person can be in heaven. God is just so sins must be paid for. They can be forgiven by Jesus who paid the price for us or not be forgive and so go to hell because there is nowhere else. Hell is separation from God who is everything that is good.

 

[Grega]

It means the best for us eternally. This life is still important, so God provides for us (food, etc). God doesn't want us to suffer, but there more important things than lack of suffering in the grand scheme of things. Death isnt the end, matter and doesnt matter in some ways. God very much enjoys our company, He gave His Son so that we could know Him. He does kind things if it benifits us overall (like a parent does nice things for a child, but only if it doesnt make them a spoiled brat lol).

God wants us all to go to heaven, this is how I think about hell. Heaven is perfect, so only perfect things can be in heaven. So no sinful person can be in heaven. God is just so sins must be paid for. They can be forgiven by Jesus who paid the price for us or not be forgive and so go to hell because there is nowhere else. Hell is separation from God who is everything that is good.

Hmm...just one small iddy biddy point that may be relevant to my response to this post...do you believe in Satan?

 

[solarwave]

Yes, lol

 

[Grega]

Yes, lol

It means the best for us eternally. This life is still important, so God provides for us (food, etc)...
well...not everyone! clicky

...God doesn't want us to suffer, but there more important things than lack of suffering in the grand scheme of things...
I suppose that depends on a) how grand you think the scheme is and b) how you see yourself fitting into that scheme if say you're an atheist like me...in fact I'd say suffering tops my list of things I wouldn't want to happen. Furthermore if you believe in a literal fire and brimstone version of hell then I suppose that would be a place of spiritual suffering to top up the suffering they'd grown accustomed to back down on Earth

...Death isnt the end, matter and doesnt matter in some ways. God very much enjoys our company,
What if we keep saying he doesn't exist though...or annoying him like those folk in Soddom and Gommorah...did he enjoy their company?

He gave His Son so that we could know Him. He does kind things if it benifits us overall (like a parent does nice things for a child, but only if it doesnt make them a spoiled brat lol).
With respect to those dying of horrific deseases or starving/freezing to death...who benefits?

You are welcome to consider these responses rhetorical


God wants us all to go to heaven, this is how I think about hell. Heaven is perfect, so only perfect things can be in heaven. So no sinful person can be in heaven. God is just so sins must be paid for. They can be forgiven by Jesus who paid the price for us or not be forgive and so go to hell because there is nowhere else. Hell is separation from God who is everything that is good.
Hmm...where did Satan come from exactly?

 

[solarwave]

I typed the whole response then lost it

It means the best for us eternally. This life is still important, so God provides for us (food, etc)...
well...not everyone! clicky

The answer to this is in the link. The world is richer than it has ever been and has more technology than it has before. The link even calls for 'political will and resolve'. The problem is not God, but us. We can help but don't.

...God doesn't want us to suffer, but there more important things than lack of suffering in the grand scheme of things...
I suppose that depends on a) how grand you think the scheme is and b) how you see yourself fitting into that scheme if say you're an atheist like me...in fact I'd say suffering tops my list of things I wouldn't want to happen. Furthermore if you believe in a literal fire and brimstone version of hell then I suppose that would be a place of spiritual suffering to top up the suffering they'd grown accustomed to back down on Earth

By grand scheme I ment there are more important things if you look at everything. If your an atheist God loves you and wants to get to know you. So you would rather us to be meaningless robots that don't suffer? I value free will, relationship with God and the soul (just some examples) over suffering. Well I think hell is separation from God, who is the source of all good, I dont know other than that.

...Death isnt the end, matter and doesnt matter in some ways. God very much enjoys our company,
What if we keep saying he doesn't exist though...or annoying him like those folk in Soddom and Gommorah...did he enjoy their company?

No one comes to the Father except through the Son. I don't want to judge what happens to who after death. God loves the person, but hates the sin. If those people had turned from their ways God would be happy to have them.

With respect to those dying of horrific deseases or starving/freezing to death...who benefits?

They are a same reality of life. Bad things happen, and action have their consequences, human action and nature must take its course for the earth to work properly.

Hmm...where did Satan come from exactly?

God created the Angels, one of which Satan once was.

 

[Grega]

I typed the whole response then lost it



The answer to this is in the link. The world is richer than it has ever been and has more technology than it has before. The link even calls for 'political will and resolve'. The problem is not God, but us. We can help but don't.



By grand scheme I ment there are more important things if you look at everything. If your an atheist God loves you and wants to get to know you. So you would rather us to be meaningless robots that don't suffer? I value free will, relationship with God and the soul (just some examples) over suffering. Well I think hell is separation from God, who is the source of all good, I dont know other than that.



No one comes to the Father except through the Son. I don't want to judge what happens to who after death. God loves the person, but hates the sin. If those people had turned from their ways God would be happy to have them.




They are a same reality of life. Bad things happen, and action have their consequences, human action and nature must take its course for the earth to work properly.



God created the Angels, one of which Satan once was.

The answer to this is in the link. The world is richer than it has ever been and has more technology than it has before. The link even calls for 'political will and resolve'. The problem is not God, but us. We can help but don't.
But see, surely your god would notice that this is a logistical, political, and economical problem that will not be solved by 'us'...I say that it can be looked at from the position of game theory, a subject that I will not be in a position to talk about in any detail for at least one maybe two years. I say 'we' won't even arrive at a significant improvement of their plight, the many obstacles that tand in the way of this will not be broken, there are many subtleties (I'm one of those pesky annoying realist types) ...therefore your god should step in...and he doesn't

This response of mine was slightly off topic though I thought it very much worth answering, as was perhaps yours (whether or whether not I instigated it) so I shall not respond to your other points (at least within this thread) save to comment on your final point...

God created the Angels, one of which Satan once was.
God is supposedly perfect, Heaven is also supposedly perfect...God created Satan, and by being perfect resided in heaven...but then Satan rebelled against your god, this implies satan wasn't perfect since I conceive of an Angel called "Satan" that didn't/couldn't rebel, something more "perfectly" created than the supposed Satan that did exist...I'll leave it to you to decide what else I will then conclude

 

[solarwave]

But see, surely your god would notice that this is a logistical, political, and economical problem that will not be solved by 'us'...I say that it can be looked at from the position of game theory, a subject that I will not be in a position to talk about in any detail for at least one maybe two years. I say 'we' won't even arrive at a significant improvement of their plight, the many obstacles that tand in the way of this will not be broken, there are many subtleties (I'm one of those pesky annoying realist types) ...therefore your god should step in...and he doesn't

Actions have consequences and the world has to work properly, God can't get in the way everytime, it would prevent free will and a world run by laws.

God created the Angels, one of which Satan once was.
God is supposedly perfect, Heaven is also supposedly perfect...God created Satan, and by being perfect resided in heaven...but then Satan rebelled against your god, this implies satan wasn't perfect since I conceive of an Angel called "Satan" that didn't/couldn't rebel, something more "perfectly" created than the supposed Satan that did exist...I'll leave it to you to decide what else I will then conclude

I can conceive a perfect being. Existance is better than non-existance, therefore this being must exist. This (very simply) one version of the ontological arguement for Gods existance, and as you can see its a pretty bad one. The fact that you can conceive something does not make it true. Also the perfection of Angels, I think, is simply being sinless and nothing to do with lack of temptation. According to Genesis humans were once perfect but could still be tempted.

 

[Grega]

Actions have consequences and the world has to work properly, God can't get in the way everytime, it would prevent free will and a world run by laws.




I can conceive a perfect being. Existance is better than non-existance, therefore this being must exist. This (very simply) one version of the ontological arguement for Gods existance, and as you can see its a pretty bad one. The fact that you can conceive something does not make it true. Also the perfection of Angels, I think, is simply being sinless and nothing to do with lack of temptation. According to Genesis humans were once perfect but could still be tempted.

Actions have consequences and the world has to work properly, God can't get in the way everytime, it would prevent free will and a world run by laws.
I say that disagree with you on this and adjourn our arguments until a more relevant thread (should I choose to rehash this argument...which I probably won't)

I can conceive a perfect being. Existance is better than non-existance, therefore this being must exist. This (very simply) one version of the ontological arguement for Gods existance, and as you can see its a pretty bad one...
This is indeed a bad argument!

The fact that you can conceive something does not make it true.
but if "the given" is that something exists or has existed, that has the property of being perfect then I should not be able to conceive of something more perfect since this would contradict the point that such a thing that existed was perfect. That is the point I was making

Also the perfection of Angels, I think, is simply being sinless and nothing to do with lack of temptation. According to Genesis humans were once perfect but could still be tempted.
See, I infer from the statement that someone is sinless, and that if they are in heaven perfect that they are incapable of not being sinless (else they wouldn't be perfect) but by what seems to be one of the definitions of sin, even "thinking" sinful things is a sin and so for them to be tempted they must have first sinned which again seems to contradict the notion that they are perfect.

 

[solarwave]

I suppose it comes down to how you define a perfect angel. I would say sinless but potentially sinful. Though sin can't stay in heaven, in the book of Job, God allows Satan into heaven to talk to God. This shows that while sin can't stay in heaven, it can for a short time while God allows it. This means that Satan had time to sin.

The thing is this is talking about stuff we barely know anything about. The bible doesn't a lot of angels, satan, heaven, etc, to give a good enough picture to say, this is what is exactly what is happening.

 

[Grega]

I suppose it comes down to how you define a perfect angel. I would say sinless but potentially sinful. Though sin can't stay in heaven, in the book of Job, God allows Satan into heaven to talk to God. This shows that while sin can't stay in heaven, it can for a short time while God allows it. This means that Satan had time to sin.

The thing is this is talking about stuff we barely know anything about. The bible doesn't a lot of angels, satan, heaven, etc, to give a good enough picture to say, this is what is exactly what is happening.

I suppose it comes down to how you define a perfect angel. I would say sinless but potentially sinful.
So you would not consider an angel that was sinless without the potential to sin "more perfect" than an angel with the potential to sin?...fair enough!...I can make use of your defintion here
I should ask if others agree

Though sin can't stay in heaven, in the book of Job, God allows Satan into heaven to talk to God. This shows that while sin can't stay in heaven, it can for a short time while God allows it. This means that Satan had time to sin.
I thought Satan was in heaven...until he rebelled, ah well the details of this aren't particularly relevant to this thread I'm prepared to accept without response your answer to this one.

The thing is this is talking about stuff we barely know anything about. The bible doesn't a lot of angels, satan, heaven, etc, to give a good enough picture to say, this is what is exactly what is happening.
I see...

 

[solarwave]

I suppose it comes down to how you define a perfect angel. I would say sinless but potentially sinful.
So you would not consider an angel that was sinless without the potential to sin "more perfect" than an angel with the potential to sin?...fair enough!...I can make use of your defintion here
I should ask if others agree

Well it depends if Angels have free will. I guess they must so I consider free will better than no free will, and with free will comes the potential to sin. Maybe no potential to sin is 'more perfect' then being just perfect but with the potential to sin, but this is only when you look at only sinless perfect and nothing else. Free will is one of those other things.

I thought Satan was in heaven...until he rebelled, ah well the details of this aren't particularly relevant to this thread I'm prepared to accept without response your answer to this one.

He was until he rebelled, but the case i spoke of was after he rebelled.