Communicating Annuls Perfection

[greenberg]

Perfect...
Perfection...

But what is "perfect", "perfection"?
One would have to be perfect oneself in order to be able to make a valid definition of "perfection".
An imperfect being cannot but make only imperfect definitions of perfection.
An imperfect being is not equipped to asses perfection.
So for an imperfect being to try to define perfection is a waste of time and energy.

Inconsistency is not perfection if your intent is to deliver the truth. Look, I'm not trying to be smart but I expect much more from a perfect being than what is authored.

I see nothing right with inconsistencies unless they are intended to deceive. Success at deception would defintely incorporate false doctrine.

I don't think so.
I find it quite possible that the imperfections we perceive in scriptures serve a certain purpose that eventually delivers the truth.

The "intention to deceive" is not necessarily criminal. If you ever had anything to do with little children, you will probably know that it sometimes requires quite a bit of deception to make them stop crying incessantly, to get them to eat vegetables and other foods that are good for them, to get them to clean their room, to teach them this or that. They won't do it if you tell them directly, but "Do it for mommy", or dancing with them, and so on might do the trick, for example.

And later, if you ever tried to teach yourself something, a skill or a subject matter, or if you ever worked on changing your habits, then you will also know that it requires some deception to do so. For example, if you are trying to quit smoking, and when you get the urge to smoke, you eat a carrot. It's a deception, but it can lead you to not smoking.

I find it quite possible that what appear to be deceptions in scriptures, can be utilized for a good purpose too. Provided that the reader has faith that in some way, it all makes sense.

 

[greenberg]

I'm suggesting that any game "creator" that has the ability to make a world where such pain is unnecessary and still insists that pain be a part of the game - well, said creator is evil.

Such a creator is not necessarily evil.

If the pain and suffering are due to a choice humans have made in their free will (and a choice that could have been made otherwise, too),
then the existence of pain and suffering are not proof that the creator is evil.

If people would experience pain and suffering and had absolutely no free will about that, then this would be proof of an evil creator.

One could of course argue that a creator who creates beings that have the ability to choose their own misery and demise, is evil (and that those beings are evil, too).
In the case of arguing such, however, I think it is necessary to look closer into the nature of suffering - how suffering exists, how human beings exist, what is the self, are we our bodies ...

Also, Western thinkers, such as Erich Fromm have noted that freedom can be perceived as a terrible burden, and that people will even prefer to behave as automatons than bear this burden of freedom.
I think this perception that freedom is a burden is quite common and we are often not even aware of it (as we are so used to it). And I think it is this perception that freedom is a burden that makes us resent the notion of being created such that we have free will, and also resent such a creator.

 

[Myles]

A less convoluted approach to imperfections in scripture would suggest the obvious; they are imperfections because they have been badly or carelessly written. To suggest that the imperfections we perceive have some deeper meaning is an unnecessary complication which suggests a need to believe what is not there, rather than accept the obvious conclusion.

Your comments on deception are less than convincing. If your analogy is valid, it suggests that god is treating his creatures as if they were imbeciles. Why the need for mystery, when we could have been created with the ability to understand what is being said instead of our having to go all round the houses and argue amongst ourselves as to what a particular passage of scripture means. It could equally be said that god is a lousy communicator but that would be unacceptable to the religious who have put temselvers in the position of having to defend their god as a perfect being.

The basic question to which there appears to be no rational answer is why god communicates in a manner which is less than clear. This seems to another of his mysteries. " I shall create beings who will not understand what I tell them but I will enjoy watching them trying to make sense of my utterances. Why give them a straightforward message when a mystery will do ! "

Your analogy of the smoker and the carrot is silly. There is no deception involved in eating a carrot when I feel like a cigarette. I am merely knowingly substituting one oral activity for another.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

To suggest that the imperfections we perceive have some deeper meaning is an unnecessary complication which suggests a need to believe what is not there, rather than accept the obvious conclusion.

Its not actually a "deeper" meaning, it's very simple, and accessable at all levels of our existence. It is actually more complicated and unecessary, to view it as an unecessary complication

Your comments on deception are less than convincing. If your analogy is valid, it suggests that god is treating his creatures as if they were imbeciles.

Why?
He treats his creatures according to their level of spiritual awareness.
As soon as the child understands how to climb down the stairs as well as up, without endangering itself, off come the stair-guard gates.
Again, this is a simple but effective reality which exists on all leves of understanding.

Why the need for mystery, when we could have been created with the ability to understand what is being said instead of our having to go all round the houses and argue amongst ourselves as to what a particular passage of scripture means.

We have the ability to understand, do we not?
Therefore we can choose or not choose what we wish to try and understand.

The basic question to which there appears to be no rational answer is why god communicates in a manner which is less than clear.

It not really a rational question. It assumes that god cannot clearly communicate. For all you know there may be load of folks to whom god is not the mystery you percieve him to be, and as such can understand his communication very clearly.

This seems to another of his mysteries. " I shall create beings who will not understand what I tell them but I will enjoy watching them trying to make sense of my utterances. Why give them a straightforward message when a mystery will do ! "

Or, I shall create beings with the ability to understand at every level, should they choose.

Your analogy of the smoker and the carrot is silly. There is no deception involved in eating a carrot when I feel like a cigarette. I am merely knowingly substituting one oral activity for another.

There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control.

jan.

 

[Enmos]

Does God destroy his aura of perfection by communicating with His creations?

Does asking a question of your creations somehow blow away the spectre of perfection surrounding God? If God knows all, why communicate with us? What possible difference can our talks with God make in an unalterable plan, in which every move is known by the originator before it happens?

When God declares he is the beginnng and the end, how insignificant or unimportant are we? Would a perfect God need to make that announcement? If so why?

When God asks questions of us, again what does it really matter in the great scheme of things how we answer?

Perhaps God needs imperfection just to be perfect.

A perfect God should not be seen or heard from. In fact it might not be necessary for God to exist at all or at least give the appearance of such, once things are set in motion. If I believe in a perfect God is it necessary for Him to tell me He's perfect?

According to the bible God DID communicate with us.
And millions of believers claim that He is still communicating with them today through prayer.

 

[Myles]

Myles,



Its not actually a "deeper" meaning, it's very simple, and accessable at all levels of our existence. It is actually more complicated and unecessary, to view it as an unecessary complication


If it's so accessible, why so much argument as to what is meant ?


Why?
He treats his creatures according to their level of spiritual awareness.As soon as the child understands how to climb down the stairs as well as up, without endangering itself, off come the stair-guard gates. Again, this is a simple but effective reality which exists on all leves of understanding.


Here we go again.Why did he not create us all with an appropriate level of awareness.? I'm sure you have a clever answer.

We have the ability to understand, do we not? Therefore we can choose or not choose what we wish to try and understand.

Nonsense. Look at the number of religions. each of which offers a different take on god. Are you honestly saying that such groups do not wish to understand ?

It not really a rational question. It assumes that god cannot clearly communicate. For all you know there may be load of folks to whom god is not the mystery you percieve him to be, and as such can understand his communication very clearly.


There are indeed people who claim to understand what god wants but they are a bit short on evidence when they are questioned. My question is rational; the available answers are not.

Do you believe the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Ian Paisley, Mohammed, Hidus, Sikhs, inter alia ?. Of course not, you make a choice and attempt to defend it.


Or, I shall create beings with the ability to understand at every level, should they choose.

Why the need to choose. If every textbook were written with the sme lack of clarity as the scriptures, we'd still be living as we dis thousands of years ago.


There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control.

I disagree. The bodily craving is interpreted by the brain but that same brain knows that a carrot is being eaten. Do you believe we cure a headache by deception when we take a pill ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

Its not actually a "deeper" meaning, it's very simple, and accessable at all levels of our existence. It is actually more complicated and unecessary, to view it as an unecessary complication


If it's so accessible, why so much argument as to what is meant ?

People arguing, has nothing to do with accesibility.

Why?
He treats his creatures according to their level of spiritual awareness.As soon as the child understands how to climb down the stairs as well as up, without endangering itself, off come the stair-guard gates. Again, this is a simple but effective reality which exists on all leves of understanding.


Here we go again.Why did he not create us all with an appropriate level of awareness.? I'm sure you have a clever answer.

Having the ability to understand is absolutely apropriate.

We have the ability to understand, do we not? Therefore we can choose or not choose what we wish to try and understand.

Nonsense. Look at the number of religions. each of which offers a different take on god. Are you honestly saying that such groups do not wish to understand ?

I'm saying, they are using their ability to understand. If they contradict each other, that doesn't mean the source is contradictory.

It not really a rational question. It assumes that god cannot clearly communicate. For all you know there may be load of folks to whom god is not the mystery you percieve him to be, and as such can understand his communication very clearly.

There are indeed people who claim to understand what god wants but they are a bit short on evidence when they are questioned. My question is rational; the available answers are not.

From this statement it would appear you know what you want to hear in the form of answers, and you reject that which does not conform to your understanding. Ultimately you will accept only that which fits your view.
What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.

Do you believe the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Ian Paisley, Mohammed, Hidus, Sikhs, inter alia ?. Of course not, you make a choice and attempt to defend it.

What do you mean by 'do I believe them'?

Or, I shall create beings with the ability to understand at every level, should they choose.

Why the need to choose. If every textbook were written with the sme lack of clarity as the scriptures, we'd still be living as we dis thousands of years ago.

We are living as we did thousands of years ago.
In what way have we changed?

There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control.

I disagree. The bodily craving is interpreted by the brain but that same brain knows that a carrot is being eaten.

How does the brain know?

Do you believe we cure a headache by deception when we take a pill ?

I believe we can if we want to.

Jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

You're talking abotu a gamne we are in.

I'm suggesting that any game "creator" that has the ability to make a world where such pain is unnecessary and still insists that pain be a part of the game - well, said creator is evil.

well since you can walk away from the game when you sincerely want to, where does the duty of care lie?

 

[lightgigantic]

I shall take the same evidentiary approach religion takes to apply God's existence. Here goes:


That should do it. The end.(I wonder if I should have mentioned metaphor, oh well)



Whether Rapunzel was the only babe imprisoned in a tower with long hair strong enough to hold the weight of humanity has been discussed at great length(catch the pun) and it's been decided by the learned scholars who study the situation that she was always there. No Rapunzels before or after. There can only be one. As God is evidenced in the Bible, so too is Rapunzel evidenced in the sacred Book of Grimm.



You can say that again. It kind of transcends reality when you think of it. Rapunzel is from some other place that no person could physically be in, therefore incomprehensible. She's back there right now. Tough to get a personal appearance though.



As its been stated previous, it is blasphemous to even consider Rapunzel never happened, it can't be questioned. I've violated that sanctity just trying to explain it, so it does happen unfortunately, present company included. Either you are Rapunzelist or you are ARapunzelist, there are no other choices. It can't be tested either way, you just have to believe in Rapunzel.



According to the experts, Rapunzel will return for a sequel. There is a clue for this blesssed event.....remember, she was impregnated by a Prince. If not Rapunzel then Her child shall return to make a mockery of all those who doubt her existence.

how is all this getting around
"it means that you have no issue of application or direct perception - IOW atheism is all simply theory"

It seems you are just answering challenges of application with more theory (theory along the lines of correlation = causation btw)

 

[Myles]

Myles,




People arguing, has nothing to do with accesibility.



Having the ability to understand is absolutely apropriate.



I'm saying, they are using their ability to understand. If they contradict each other, that doesn't mean the source is contradictory.



From this statement it would appear you know what you want to hear in the form of answers, and you reject that which does not conform to your understanding. Ultimately you will accept only that which fits your view.
What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.




What do you mean by 'do I believe them'?



We are living as we did thousands of years ago.
In what way have we changed?

There is some deception. Part of you would be craving for nicotene, and part of you would do something to act as a replacement, decieveing the part of the mind that craves, until the craving is gone. Mind over matter, until matter comes under control.



How does the brain know?



I believe we can if we want to.

Jan.

Let's cut to the chase. God has created a right mess , what with all that squabbling about scripture. He should not have delegated the job.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

how is all this getting around
"it means that you have no issue of application or direct perception - IOW atheism is all simply theory"

It seems you are just answering challenges of application with more theory (theory along the lines of correlation = causation btw)

Are there no towers, are there no maidens?

In the interest of staying within the context of my original premis, that the story of God and everything associated with it is more or less a Fairy tale then I see know reason to even try. To look like a buffoon as theists seem prone to be when they attempt to rationalize their belief with the world is not in my repertoire. Sorry but I will not fall into that trap. I'm quite happy with my little satirical piece.

The Possibility lives on in the Realm of Probability. No one can go there and no one can understand it. Sound familiar?

 

[Simon Anders]

Are there no towers, are there no maidens?

In the interest of staying within the context of my original premis, that the story of God and everything associated with it is more or less a Fairy tale then I see know reason to even try.

That phrase seems unnecessarily abstract. You think you can assess liklihood without engaging in certain kinds of activities. Light Gigantic is saying you can't. It is not a matter of an 'interest in staying in the context of your original premise' but a lack of new information so your opinion stays the same.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

It is not a matter of an 'interest in staying in the context of your original premise' but a lack of new information so your opinion stays the same.

What I would give for real information on a true God? There isn't anything, zero, zilch, nada. Philosophize all you want, there's nothing to go on.

On the assumption that God actually communicated in written form, the inference that His word is imperfection means that whenever God communicates with us in any way He always risks revealing it. Prove me wrong, you can't. Why? Because there's nothing to base your opinion on, no hard facts. The communicative word is full of holes and would not support it. I feel like a theist, I don't have to prove anything.

It is better to believe God is beyond our mortal existence, somewhere over the rainbow.

 

[Simon Anders]

What I would give for real information on a true God? There isn't anything, zero, zilch, nada. Philosophize all you want, there's nothing to go on.

I think you missed the point of my post and the point of the thread.
My post: All you were saying is that since the time you wrote your other posts you had not investigated, had no more information and had the same opinion.
The thread: to truly test various religious hypotheses it might be necessary to engage in certain practices.

You don't want to, fine. Don't. But your post was, essentially, off topic.

Convincing by philosophizing was precisely not the point.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Simon...This is off topic and & I'm sorry......if I wanted to inject more info I would have had to make it up, pretty obvious I think. Threads tend to go off topic at times, I don't like it and for the most part I try to get back to it. But I'm no different than anyone else.

Basically LG and I usually disagree which makes things more interesting. He knows what I think of religious philosopy. LG isn't stupid and is very cagey. One tactic is to throw you off topic, plain and simple. I find it a lot of fun to try and get inside his head. He knows I deliberately say things to get a response and he handles it well, sometimes I guess right but most times I'm wrong. 'Nuff said.

I'll delete this post tomorrow, hopefully before LG reads it.

 

[Simon Anders]

Simon...This is off topic and & I'm sorry......if I wanted to inject more info I would have had to make it up, pretty obvious I think. Threads tend to go off topic at times, I don't like it and for the most part I try to get back to it. But I'm no different than anyone else.

Basically LG and I usually disagree which makes things more interesting. He knows what I think of religious philosopy. LG isn't stupid and is very cagey. One tactic is to throw you off topic, plain and simple. I find it a lot of fun to try and get inside his head. He knows I deliberately say things to get a response and he handles it well, sometimes I guess right but most times I'm wrong. 'Nuff said.

I'll delete this post tomorrow, hopefully before LG reads it.

I didn't mean

you are off topic so you are bad.

I wondered if you really got the ideas in the thread. (not that you would agree with them if you got them. I think it is pretty clear you would not, but it did not seem like you were quite responding to them.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.

jan.

 

[Myles]

Myles,

What do you know about God, and his method of communication, why you believe you are qualified to ask such a question, and only demand answers that you deem worthy?
The answer to that question will, in my opinion, determine whether you question is rational or not.

jan.

What qualifications does one need to ask questions ? In what way are you qualified to talk about god and his method of communication ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What qualifications does one need to ask questions ? In what way are you qualified to talk about god and his method of communication ?

As I thought, your question is irrational.

Qualifications?
To talk about anything, one only need to be able to talk.

Jan.

 

[greenberg]

What qualifications does one need to ask questions ?

For starters, the qualification that one deems the things one is asking about truly important to oneself.
Otherwise, one is simply an idle chatterer, a nuisance, not worthy of a decent reply.