Problems With God's Perfection.

Hi Critical Rationalist.Justness springs to mine. Perfect justice would ensure that every single offence was brought before court to be dealt with according to law. No one would escape the law. This in contrast to imperfect justice where crime frequently pays.All the facts in every case would be available to the judge: the circumstances of the offence, the motivation of the accused, the influence and complicitness of others, the level of knowledge of right and wrong available to the accused, the damage caused etc. There would be no miscarriages of justice, no plea bargaining, no partiality in judge or jury. Each and every offence would attract the exact price due for it under law. Justice: fair, square and blind-Forgiveness is another area where perfection would contrast with the way we can experience forgiveness. The general principle in forgiveness is that the offended party pays the price of the offence. It elimates 'but' from the phrase "I forgive you but.."For example: a friend calls to my house to see my new BMW M3 (I wish). I get called away for an hour and leave him admiring it but: "I'm afraid you can't have a spin in her - I've not got insurance yet".He decides to take the uninsured BMW for a quick nip around the block - just to get a bit of a feel for it. He loses it at a bend and wraps the car around a tree. The cars a total loss but he's alright.Forgiving him means I pay the cost of a new car (or do without one). It means that I bear my friend no ill will nor hold a grudge. It means I carry on with my friend as if he had never taken my car in the first place. He could call around to my house to see the next car I get and I would leave the keys with him if called away just as I did the first time.It's not that we cannot approach such a level of forgiveness at times ourselves. We can. Some people have forgiven incredible things. It's just that perfect forgiveness involves God doing it time and time again and never failing to do it. I do the equivilent of "smashing car after car" and God keeps on forgiving me. And he promises that he won't ever stop forgiving me.

Perfect forgiveness applies when forgiveness is on the agenda. When it is not on the agenda, it's not being on the agenda isn't the result of any imperfection in forgiveness. It's the result of inapplicability of forgiveness to the situation at hand.Suppose that God made a promise that he would allow a man to (effectively) choose his eternal destiny: man with God or man apart from God. God, being a perfect promise keeper, can never break that promise. No matter what.If man (effectively) chooses to spend eternity apart from God, then forgiveness doesn't find it's way onto the agenda. Technically speaking, forgiveness eliminates sin from a mans life. It wipes mans slate clean. But sin is the thing which keeps man apart from God - it acts like a solid wall of separation. It should be clear then, that in order for a man to have his choice maintained for eternity (and ensure Gods promise keeping is perfect), a mans sin cannot be forgiven... for eternity.Forgiveness is on the agenda for those men who (effectively) choose to be with God for eternity. In order to fulfill his promise, God must forgive sin so as to remove the sin-barrier erected between man and God. That he forgives perfectly simply means that barrier is completely destroyed and man is permitted to enter the place where God himself dwells. Not in the outer courts, nor inner sanctum. But in the holy of holies itself. That's what perfection in forgiveness achieves.Perfection in forgiveness should not be confused with some sort of Universal Amnesty - which would destroy man having a say in his eternal destiny. Such a thing could hardly be said to be perfect - given what perfection in forgiveness entails: whether by God or by me with my M3-thrashing friend.

I didn't say 'veto' I said 'inapplicable'. Forgiving someone simply means paying the price of their offence against you yourself. Perfect forgiveness means paying the price yourself perfectly. As in completely. As in: in total. As in: with no element of the debt left outstanding. As in: slate wiped clean.When God forgives someone he does so perfectly. But when forgiveness doesn't apply to a situation there can be no talk of it's perfection or imperfection. It simply doesn't apply to the situation.You said: God cannot cause a man to be with him in eternity (by means of forgiving a man his sins) whilst at the same time permitting a mans will to be done in the direction of man choosing to remain separate from God (by means of having his sins unforgiven).That is: to ensure a man would be with God whilst giving a man the choice not to be with God (for eternity) would be a contradiction in terms- It simply means that any debt due to God justice for sin committed against his justice has been discharged. It means that Gods justice system has no juristicion over a person whose sin-debt has been discharged. Sin and the wages due for them have been eliminated from the mans slate.

We are born foresaking God so strictly speaking, no.See my post to CR a couple of posts up on perfection- Whilst I would disagree with a gospel that spoke of a person being saved based on their deeds (for that describes a works based salvation) I would agree that there is no need for a person to formally be a Christian or to "follow God" in order that God save them.In my view, forgiveness need not be asked for. That a person might well do so is subsequent to their being saved and results out of their being pressed to do so by God. There is no reliance on man working his way up to asking. A man seeking Gods forgiveness is like a man finding himself expressing his love for a woman. Love presses his words out of him. It is love (rather, her loveableness acting upon him) that is responsible for his expression.Forgiveness is part of Gods tearing down of the dividing wall between man and God. Because it is a post-salvation affair, talk of it being imperfect because it is not applied to an unsaved man ignores that forgiveness has a place and time and function. In its correct setting it is perfect: the forgiveness is so complete and full that no brick in that wall is left standing.Try to wrench it out of that setting then sure, it will sound real clunky.The issue shifts from forgiveness (for it is post the point of salvation) to salvation. And why doesn't God save everyone. Is the salvation mechanism imperfect because God doesn't save everyone? I think it is perfect. But that's a different issue.- God doesn't expect anyone to accept something as big as God on faith alone (I'm assuming your talking the kind of blind strawman faith beloved of Richard Dawkins and his ilk).Besides, the mechanics of salvation would appear to involve man merely (if I may use that term) believing what God attempts to convince him of. There is no need (that I can see) that a man know it is God who is attempting to convince him. Nor that God make himself known to man post-man believing what God is attempting to have him believe. Nor that the topics God utilises to convince the man be particularily 'religious'I do believe something fundemental in a man would alter upon his conviction by God - God does take up residence and begins to steer that mans life afterall. What words a man would put on that would vary depending on culture and education and era. The first thing I knew of it was a sure sense that "everything is going to be okay". This in a far deeper sense that could be reached by the various material, success-seeking, drug and sex methods I had tried to attain "okay-ness" with previously. I suppose the sheep herder on the side of a mountain in Tibet could experience the same thing as me. I subsequently found out the mechanics of things. The sheep herder might not. We are both saved.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Given that I frequently use the example of Abraham in explaining salvation mechanics (I did so at the end of the post above although I didn't refer to him by name) and given that Abraham didn't know Jesus died for his sins (yet) I must conclude your memory not-so-distinct.I have said that in order to be saved you must believe (what God is trying to convince you of - which is not primarily that Jesus died for your sins). Perhaps that's the root of the problem - what it is you must believe.The couple of posts of mine in this thread outline the application of forgiveness and it's perfection so I won't repeat it here. Again I point out that you don't do anything. You are done unto. Are you asking me what the point is of God bringing to believe that Christ is your saviour etc? If indeed. And if it has not been - for you as an individual at this time - then not. I fully expect folk of all persuasions and none to be saved. Not because of their religion but in spite of it. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

double postEdited by iano, : No reason given.

You excluded God acting in contradictory fashion in your OP - indicating contradiction to be imperfection. You have been presented with perfect forgiveness that doesn't contradict.?

...and leave no means of escape from his clutches?That wouldn't be fair.

It's not that the Bible doesn't contain truth. It's that the truth it contains can be written off as being such on account of it's being old. Or on account of it 'suffering' from translational issues (which disguise if not hide truth). Or on account of it being determined to have been written at times which don't tally up in the mind of someone who considers such things as a means to deny it's truth content. The person who is to be damned requires a fitting means whereby they can enable themselves to be damned. Means of persisting in denial of truth seem to have been provided.You don't need freewill in order to plump for damnation of your own accord (with an assist from satan) - as was argued in our first discussion. As to the other destination we can end up at? You say yourself that it is the truth that sets us free. Gods truth does indeed to that - with only our choice for it not to do so preventing it doing that.- I don't know if your familiar with Jaywill? If you are, you might know that he is a person who has spent the last 40 years or so unveiling truths in the Bible for himself. The way he describes it is as I find it at my earlier state in proceedings. We are both miners digging for gold nuggets. Although the gold might be buried in translational error, the problem seems to me to be more one of oversupply. Gold nuggets lie jammed in position by other gold nuggets.The truth is not so much withheld. Rather is it that people are blind to what is gold. Even an original copy of all the biblical letters placed in their hands wouldn't permit blind people to see any better than they already can't. Even those who were blind but now can see see as through a glass darkly. A lifetime spent studying Gods truth wouldn't reveal all there is too it.- The gospel is described as "the power of God unto salvation for all who believe". There doesn't appear to be any reliance placed on the persons ability to comprehend. The power running the salvation engine is Gods. Otherwise the unintelligent, the very young, the intellectually disabled, the deaf etc... couldn't be saved. Whereas God so loved the world..A simple reading of what constitutes perfect fairness would insist that everyone get the same chance as everyone else to be saved - irrespective of where or when they live. The gospel of God (power unto salvation) can do this and one of the delivery methods for the gospel of God is the written word of God. Not that that's the only means of delivery at Gods disposal.There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of understanding required in order that a person be saved. The stripped down truth a person needs to arrive would seem to be only this:"I need God"If this is what God is attempting to convince them of and if they believe God on this (even if they don't believe in God) then God will, as he did with Abraham, credit that belief as righteousness.No accurate translation required.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : tidy upEdited by iano, : No reason given.

You asked for some qualities of God that were perfect and I supplied a couple (justice and forgiveness). You said this about them: In response I went on to explain how there was no contradiction, which involved explaining what forgiveness is (no matter who is doing the forgiving) and what perfect forgiveness is (no matter who is doing the forgiving). One could call that dogma or one could call it mechanics of rational approach: seeing where forgiveness fits in a larger mechanism and how it works perfectly within that larger mechanism.If not employing such an explanation then we are left with a contradiction arising out of (I suspect) dogma of another type. Take this dogmatic statement for example: The speed of light from my lightbulb is an (effective) absolute except when the light switch is turned off. Does the inapplicability of the speed of light in the turned off situation impinge on it being an absolute when applicable? Clearly not.You would need to to examine what forgiveness is in order to see whether is it applicable and whether there can be talk of it being perfect or otherwise. If my friend who trashed the M3 nipped around to the garage and bought a replacement before I got back then there can be no application of my forgiveness. And no talk of levels of perfection regarding it.It simply doesn't exist in order that it be examined. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Seeing as it is not possible to plump for salvation of your own accord I see no contradiction. Freewill (to my mind) involves the ability to make choices in opposite directions: me at a fork in the road and able to choose equally for left fork or right fork. But a will which can only express itself in one direction cannot be described as freewill. Such a uni-directional will is the one I believe all men are born with.Such a will can plump for damnation of it's own accord simply by expressing itself. That's what "plumping for" means: the sinful will expressing itself - in this case to the point where God says "Thy will be done".{AbE} Naturally we have free will in the arena of plumping for forks in the road. The area of no free will I am referring to is in the spiritual realm: good/evil sin/righteousness etc.- "I need God" appears to be pinpoint of the truth to be arrived at if a man is to be saved. It is not so much designed to answer questions as it is designed to save men. That it is this stripped down indicates that all men can (at least potentially) access it - certainly if it God who has set himself the task of attempting to bring all men to this saving truthCertainly it is possible to get into further detail about how the mechanism of the gospel works and why it works the way it does. But I think we might be talking crossed purposes here so I'll leave off. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I would have thought that in order to discuss attributes of God that might or might not be perfect you would assume for the sake of arguement that God exists. There is no need to believe that God exists in fact however.You would also need to have some idea of the God you wanted to talk about. For instance, you indicate God as a personhood who does things(in your OP). Where did you get this idea if not by assuming some or other dogma for the sake of argument?The example you gave and I responded to didn't necessitate the introduction of Christian dogma (although I did expand in that direction). It simply took forgiveness as we understand it and suggested perfect forgiveness an extention (unto perfection) of our everday, imperfect attempts at forgiveness. This in response to what you called a contradiction. Or to put it another way: it argued against perfection in forgiveness being solely in the mind of the beholder. In the other example I gave (where God is perfectly just) I said that all offences would be dealt with perfectly and the due justice issued for the offience. There is no need to define what is or isn't and offence so there is no need to worry about what you or I consider an offence. We are not the judge.If no attribute can be introduced due to it being considered dogma then I'm not too sure what kind of discussion you want to have. You started out questioning me on the logic behind the assertion of perfect attributes and now seem to reject discussion of attributes at all.- I can experience God through my senses via what he has made. You can get to know a lot about a mind by the way it expresses itself.I'm not sure how anyone can determine that God cannot be experienced in the mind (and by extension via the senses). They might speak for themselves of course, but they would be in disagreement with both myself and the Christian God.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Whilst God's intent for man arriving at the truth: "I need God", is to set a man free, it's answering of a mans question cannot be avoided. Man arriving at the truth: "I need God" is man arriving at the answer to his question "what do I need?". That it might only be after the provision of the answer that a man realises he had the question is neither here nor there. How often it occurs that you realise you have found what your looking for - after you have found it.In answering questions, truth automatically frees. Frees from untruth, or miscomprehension or ignorance. It seems to me that you can't have the one without the other, that the distinction you draw above is a false one.I'm not sure that this doesn't interrupt the flow of your point.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not sure if "what do I need?" qualifies as a mechanisic question. But supposing that it does.My point was that God carrying out his intent in this case inevitably results in our associated question being answered. My intent might be to drive a nail into wood but the noise you hear as a by-product is specific to that nail, that wood, that hammer and that way of hammer striking. The two are inextricably entwined. My intent cannot alter that.Question answering is a by-product of freeing truth (or freedom the by-product of true answers to questions - if you prefer).You seem to be arguing for separation between the two but I cannot see how that is possible. The nature of truth is it's nature and it's nature is to both answer questions and to free.- In an earlier post I pointed out that Jaywill had spent 40 odd years digging out gold nuggets of Gods truth. And that I had spent somewhat less time doing the same thing. Indeed, part of the sheer thrill of the quest is the piecing together of the mechanistic jigsaw that might be called "Gods plan".This is not to say that truth cannot just drop out of the sky on you. I read a book by a guy called Allen Carr some years back. The book was called "The easyway to stop smoking". If you are or ever were a smoker or know of someone who is hooked, you'll realise that 'easy' and 'quitting smoking' are not usually considered bedfellows.But I found it easy to stop. And so have an estimated 10 million others. It's a slim volume written in simple English and all it does is tell the truth about smoking. And the truth about why smokers smoke dispels all illusions smokers have for why they continue to smoke. It was utter revelation to me. In the case of cigarette smoking, the instant result from Allen Carrs calculator is far more important that all the failed attempts of the smokers who have died agonising and premature deaths to figure out the answer for themselves.- In the case of a persons salvation, the gospel of Gods grace says that man cannot arrive at the truth about his position before God by his own power. That God must (attempt to) bring man to this truth. A perfect God would allow man to work for truth workable for. And would give man truth unworkable for, for nothing.There is greater and lesser reward in heaven for the work man puts in, truth being the wages of work I think. But entrance to heaven in the first place? A gift from God.- What is most unique and defining about us? Our freewill? As you know I don't hold we are born with one. In which case God is asking us to give up our sinful will. Which would seem like the sensible thing for us to do. But as with smokers so with sinners. Both blinded by illusions and lies.But our will is unique and defining for all that - for it is our own. It's just that what it can be exchanged for, is so very much better. What we get it still a will - make no mistake about that - but it becomes a will which is to be finally freed from the ability to choose for sin.Some would call that will 'captive'. Not a will worth the name at all. One would have to wonder at the mind that would demand the freedom to continue to eat the putrid fruit of sin. And wonder what that mind is captive to and why it could be called a free will by some.