Since we've gotten told to stop talking generally about religion twice in the Homosexuality and Religion thread and were told that, if we want to talk generally about religion, we need to make a new thread, I have made a new thread.
Full disclosure: I am an agnostic atheist and anti-theist, but I'm very interested in theology and religion.
Mod Edit: All right, there are a couple of ground rules here:
- This is not a thread for mindless bashing of religion or of atheism/agnosticism etc. All view points are welcome here. Let's have a civil debate.
- Religion is a volatile subject. Please don't post here if you can't manage a civil discussion with viewpoints you disagree with. There will be no tolerance for people who can't keep the tone light hearted.
- There is no one true answer for this thread. Don't try to force out opposing voices.
edited 9th Feb '14 1:01:31 PM by Madrugada
Grr... <3
There is a type of perfection defined by not making any mistakes. For example, a true theory is perfect, and a theory with a flaw is imperfect.
I don't think this type of perfection is applicable to living creatures.
It's a bird.
I don't see why. Especially not if "good" is just an arbitrary list of things that I had no part in putting together.
If you happen to think that all the things God has decided to make "virtuous" are desirable to you, then good for you I guess, but this was never guaranteed to be the case. Would you still want to be virtuous if it wasn't beneficial to you in some way?
Same as the above. "A life of virtue" wouldn't necessarily be "better" at all.
Bribes?
What purpose? How?
Some people like raisins.
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
Who Am I?
I dont think that absolute concepts like "perfection" can be objectively defined at all.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Defining the objective specifics of the concept of "perfection"? Most certainly impossible with our imperfect minds (because really, if our minds were perfect, we wouldn't be having so much trouble with this issue). But we can surely define the concept in a broad sense, like "to be perfect is to be free from all flaws whatsoever". Whether that counts as Shaped Like Itself is debatable.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
"Perfection" can only really be defined with any sort of reliability when you set specific parameters. The more specific, the easier it is.
Anything that relates to a moral perfection or w/e is not reliable.
Grr... <3
Hmmm... Definition is a human concept. That's when we put words in a dictionary.
Absolute concepts like the cartesian plane, the numbers i and 1, and infinity can be objectively defined. We can recognise that they are absolutes, and that they represent singular, specific things. Identifying those singular things constitutes an objective definition.
Perfection is not an absolute concept. It has multiple definitions. Each definition referring to something else. In general, I think only those things we can't identify are undefinable. Some of the things perfection means we don't know precisely what they are.
There is also the concept of personal perfection. In this case, perfection itself is a subjective phenomenon. And not absolute at all, therefore.
Who Am I?
By "Absolute" I meant "without variation". There is no such thing as a little bit perfect. By "objective" I meant "exist as an obervable object." Nothing in the material universe could ever be perfect. Hence, we can never really know what perfection is, except conceptlly, and pure conceptual definitions boil down to semantics if you analyze them enough.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
What exactly about matter precludes perfection?
Who Am I?
Tell me what "perfect" means when applied to matter and I'll tell you.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
Grr... <3
That is an interesting question. And it hilights the many different definitions.
For example, I can think of nothing wrong with matter. Therefore it is perfect.
I am beginning to feel like the entire universe is perfect, but this implies there are no flaws with the universe. And this is the problem of evil.
So that's two. Three, if you consider my perspective. Personal perfection.
edited 22nd Nov '16 6:53:38 PM by war877
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Oh there is something definitely "wrong" about matter (at least, the kind we do see around us): It decays due to entropy, just by doing nothing.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Well in a slight change of subject, here's the trailer for Silence
, Scorcese's new film (adapting the 1966 novel) that deals with the persecution of Christians in 17th century Japan.
Depends on the context. Buddhism has enlightened beings such as Bodhisattvas being "perfect" largely due to achieving specific traits.
I don't mind labeling Bodhisattvas as purrfect because even Jesus didn't promise rescuing everyone from hell.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
The law in the night
I will just leave this here.note
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
Who Am I?
Well, God has a point. Very few people today would exhange places with a randomly chosen human being from even 100 years ago.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
The law in the night
Well and European a 100 years ago was still having it better than a peasant in Cambodia a 100 years ago.
If you exclude the WWI.
Inter arma enim silent leges
Grr... <3
I don't think the variance has moved much. Yes, the wealth gap has been widening, but the super rich don't skew the curve much because money has a much smaller effect on a person's welfare among the rich. Both rich and poor in this world have been seeing gains over time.
United Earth
Wealth's effect on happiness is logarithmic, not asymptotic.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Formerly G.G.
I have some questions/thoughts:
1. Concerning the argument, "Why would God allow evil to exist to do these things if he is benevolent" what would be a valid response or inquiry about to that argument?
2. I was once a thread about how "we shouldn't mock God or else we will die horribly" statement, I wonder if the whole mocking God is just making God seem petty?
3. Does the Bible truly have any contradictions to it? Or is it all just flawless?
"Analay, an original fan character from a 2006 non canon comic. Do not steal!"
To be honest I think an indifferent or imperfect God is more plausible in that situation.
It becomes a lot easier to reconcile God's behavior, whether it's the christian God's or any other, if there is no pretense of him being infallible.
1. and 2. are eternity questions that have no real answer.
The Bible, as any collection of religious writing, has a massive amount of contradictions. It's not just one book, it's anything between 66 to 81 books depending on what branch you belong to. They were also edited heavily over the centuries, along with translation issues.
edited 9th Dec '16 8:38:14 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
The question you're talking about is called "The Problem of Evil" also known as "Theodicy". And (speaking as an atheist) I've yet to hear a valid response.
Yes. To elaborate a bit more a (hypothetical) omnipotent and omniscient deity should be capable of dealing with things with (at the very least) a proportionate level of response (aka keeping their finger off the smite button). One who does not is at the very least lacking in the qualities of omnibenevolence that the Abrahamic god is said to possess.
No but seriously. The Bible is full of contradictions. Genesis contains two, mutually contradictory accounts of creation, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (I think) contain separate (and again mutually contradictory) genealogies for Joseph and that's just the beginning. The Skeptics Annotated Bible has an entire subsection dedicated to the Bible's internal contradictions for example.
edited 9th Dec '16 2:43:14 PM by KnightofLsama
Today, I learned that Maui was a serious dick to the sun.
edited 9th Dec '16 5:54:36 PM by SpaceWolf
This is a signature.
Depends on it perfection is objective or subjective.