A perfect god?
In the bible, Matthew 5:48, it says something to the effect of "be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect."
So then according to Christianity god is a perfect being. To be perfect implies that you have no needs, wants, desires, flaws, or any need to change at all from your state of perfection. Therefore god would have no need, desire, or any other reason to create us. But we do exist, therefore a perfect god cannot. Obviously a non-perfect god could still exist, but then the bible must be soundly rejected as the word of god, since it contains a mistake about god's nature(among countless other mistakes and contradictions but let's focus on this for now).
This argument probably has been made many times but it's been on my mind. Welcoming discussion.
Well I clearly do not believe that.
A perfect god wouldn't have a need to do things that please him. What are you not understanding about perfection? He would already be perfectly pleased, perfectly happy, perfectly balanced in all ways. And since he is eternal right? He would have been eternally perfect. No need to create us, but you and I do exist, therefore a perfect god cannot.
Right... I don't think you understand that God is a person and can do what pleases him (not necessarily because he needs to). Where is the issue?
You're trying to argue a completely different thing now. Is god perfect or is he a person?
Yes he is perfect and a person (I'm not saying he is a human being, maybe you don't understand what I'm saying)... I'm just refuting the case you're making, you can think what you want obviously, but I guess I don't know where the issue with my logic is. You're insisting that God is not perfect because he could have a want. I'm saying that I think it's reasonable to think before sin he only did what pleased him, not out of a "need" to do things. After sin he could want to do things because of the implications of it.
Think about what it means to be a perfect person. If I ask you how you're doing and you say perfect. Then I ask "need a glass of water?" You'd again say "no, I'm perfect"
"How bout a snack?" I'd ask and again you'd say "No, I'm perfect."
"How about a hug? Need a blanket? Maybe a hot towel?" I'd keep pestering and again you would insist you are perfect.
But I'm persistent and I can think of a lot of things you might need so I'd keep asking. Eventually you'd get annoyed and say something like "I told you I'm perfect, I have no needs, wants, desires, wishes, or any will whatsoever for the status quo to change! What can you not understand about that?"
Think about what it means to be a perfect person. If I ask you how you're doing and you say perfect. Then I ask "need a glass of water?" You'd again say "no, I'm perfect"
"How bout a snack?" I'd ask and again you'd say "No, I'm perfect."
"How about a hug? Need a blanket? Maybe a hot towel?" I'd keep pestering and again you would insist you are perfect.
But I'm persistent and I can think of a lot of things you might need so I'd keep asking. Eventually you'd get annoyed and say something like "I to
God has agency and is a person though, what's the issue with him doing something because it pleases him?
Again, a different argument there about god being a person. One I've not really heard a lot though so feel free to expand I guess but the point I'm making is this.
A perfect being would be perfectly content in all ways, it would have no needs, no desires, no wishes. No pleasure seeking attributes because it is already fully pleased. There would be no impetus at all for the being to act, it would just remain constantly perfect and eternal.
Again, a different argument there about god being a person. One I've not really heard a lot though so feel free to expand I guess but the point I'm making is this.
A perfect being would be perfectly content in all ways, it would have no needs, no desires, no wishes. No pleasure seeking attributes because it is already fully pleased. There would be no impetus at all for the being to act, it would just remain constantly perfect and eternal.
You're saying that perfection means God must be always perfectly content and would not want to do anything, but what's the problem with God doing something that pleases him even if he is perfectly content?
God being a person, I don't know if I can expand on that, it's just the natural implication of the word. He's the Father, he is an actual person (again, I'm not saying he's a human being).
I guess I don't really know what it would be like to be perfectly content and then to do something that pleased me, but logically what is the problem with it? If you have agency and are in a state where you are perfectly content what is the issue with then doing something that pleased you?
You're saying that perfection means God must be always perfectly content and would not want to do anything, but what's the problem with God doing something that pleases him even if he is perfectly content?
God being a person, I don't know if I can expand on that, it's just the natural implication of the word. He's the Father, he is an actual person (again, I'm not saying he's a human being).
Continuing to seek pleasure when you are already fully content is the behavior of an addict. Doesn't seem like a quality a perfect being would have to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
A person is generally defined as an individual human, yet you said god is perfect which we know no human can be. Again you're claiming god is two opposite things.
Continuing to seek pleasure when you are already fully content is the behavior of an addict. Doesn't seem like a quality a perfect being would have to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
A person is generally defined as an individual human, yet you said god is perfect which we know no human can be. Again you're claiming god is two opposite things.
God as described in the Bible is a person. He has agency and other qualities like we have, we are made in his image. (once again, I'm not saying he's a human being)
If I had a perfect stomach, would that mean it doesn't want food?????? If I had perfect eyes, does that mean I don't want to see anything???? If I had a perfect brain, does that mean I don't want to figure out the answers to certain things???
It seems "perfect" is being conflated with being self-contained in some arbitrary extreme way. Why is that perfect? If there is multiple beings, why would one being that is perfect by some conception not want to relate to the other beings? Being perfect does not imply being utterly isolated, does it? This conception of "perfect" seems to mean, "Well, obviously if you're perfect you wouldn't want to experience anything, sense anything, do anything, etc." Where is that coming from?
Perfect means "without flaw or defect, having all desired characteristics, as good as it can possibly be" ... etc. It doesn't mean "wanting nothing" unless that "want" is the other meaning of "lacking" something. Then you have a contradiction. So unless one is playing a word game, "You can't lack something and be perfect."
Maybe this idea of perfect is being conflated with "perfectly self-contained." Then you could say "you can't be perfectly self-contained and want anything." That would be more legit, I think.
Maybe the perfect version of a god, or a person, is one very much in need of companionship.
It seems a bit like the omnipotent claim. It's just made up. When questions start surfacing about what that would mean, it's a wild goose chase. Can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? It's all built on a spurious, fictional foundation and the answers don't lead to anything about reality. Spurious: "not being what it purports to be, false." As in the perfect claim.
There would never have been any impetus for a perfect, eternal being to change at all.
Unless perfection includes change. Rationality hates seeming contradiction, but rational truth is not the highest truth.
Your pushback is valid. God is divided. What I mean, God is simultaneously perfect and imperfect.
By the way, deucedeuces, I think you might not be taking into account that the God of the Bible is love.
1 John 4:8 (KJV) - He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
I think this might be referring to the Father, by the way, and I think the only time the Bible speaks this way about God it might be in reference to the Father only (you would have to go further on your own if you wanted to based on what's written in scripture).
You're saying that perfection means God must be always perfectly content and would not want to do anything, but what's the problem with God doing something that pleases him even if he is perfectly content?
God being a person, I don't know if I can expand on that, it's just the natural implication of the word. He's the Father, he is an actual person (again, I'm not saying he's a human being).
Multiple times now you’ve said God isn’t a human being. This is false, as the incarnation reveals.
Perfection is unconsciousness. Is unconsciousness better than consciousness?
Is the highest form of life a sleeping child who never wakes up?
Whatever is better than perfection is perfection.
The son and the father become one. Since the father is spirit, the son is spirit. Since the son is human, the father is human.
The Father isn't human and as far as I know the Bible doesn't give any indication that he is going to become human. Jesus became human when he was sent into the world to die for our sins.
The Father isn't human and as far as I know the Bible doesn't give any indication that he is going to become human. Jesus became human when he was sent into the world to die for our sins.
“I and the father are one.” If you don’t believe me, then believe the words of the one you claim to follow.
There isn’t anything true about Jesus that isn’t true about God the father.
“I and the father are one.” If you don’t believe me, then believe the words of the one you claim to follow.
There isn’t anything true about Jesus that isn’t true about God the father.
Colossians 1:12-17 (KJV)
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This was written after Jesus became a man, and here God is referred to as "the invisible God". I don't think that is indicative of someone who is human. Jesus and the Father are one, but like I said he became human when he was sent into the world to die for our sins. I don't think you are using Jesus' language in a way that's consistent with what he meant.
Colossians 1:12-17 (KJV)
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invis
Again, it’s not one or the other. It’s both. God is visible and invisible. Man is visible and invisible.
If you can’t hold contradiction, then you can only rationalize about the idea of God’s perfection and the imperfection contained in his will. The one who can hold paradox is brought into silence, which is a more truthful response to this than the rationalization you’re displaying in this thread.
Again, it’s not one or the other. It’s both. God is visible and invisible. Man is visible and invisible.
If you can’t hold contradiction, then you can only rationalize about the idea of God’s perfection and the imperfection contained in his will. The one who can hold paradox is brought into silence, which is a more truthful response to this than the rationalization you’re displaying in this thread.
So you're saying that you think that God (the Father), is a man? I disagree.
Numbers 23:19 (KJV)
19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Do you think God became a man when Jesus did?
2 Corinthians 4:5-6 (KJV)
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
Also,
John 4:21-24 (KJV)
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Other versions seem to say "God is spirit", and from biblehub that might be what the Greek says.
You have made rationality and non-contradiction your god. Even God must submit to it for you.
Is there some other way I should have written those messages? You were saying the Father was human.
Check again. Did I say God is human and not spirit, or did I say God is both? You respond by posting about how God is spirit, which I’ve already affirmed.
My criticism of you remains. The reason why you are denying the incarnation and unable to hold my claim is because you have made rational non-contradiction your god. Your idea of God is limited by what your god (rationality) filters and approves for you.
