Perfection doesn't imply god creating something imperfect and paying attention to those issues to perfect them. Perfection doesn't mean "I'll prove to the devil that Job is a true believer who loves me." Perfection isn't the actions or suggestions of the old testament. Perfection is pretty simple, it's being complete, without flaws, being perfect.

What's amusing is that you still have yet to actually define perfection.

Edit: You ninja edited. Response below.

"Perfection is being complete." -- How do you intend to measure or demonstrate "incompleteness"?

"Perfection is without flaws." -- Against what standard are you measuring flaws?

"Perfection is being perfect." -- Ummmmm... yeah.

http://www.access-jesus.com/Deuteron...uteronomy_32_4

Dunno if you understand how definitions are done as a standard, so I'll just skip by the foolishness of your last post. I basically defined perfection exactly as the bible has defined perfection (and that was just off the top of my head). If you think those things are subjective, and pettiness, viciousness, and vengence are the actions of a perfect being, then go you! If you want to argue this further, do it with someone else, I've adequately defined it, and I think anyone of logic who reads this will agree with my position, any further debate is entertaining desperation.

The fact that you fail to see the relevance of the creation of objective standards for "perfection" for a logical argument, then I'm not sure there's anywhere for this conversation to go.

Not really. At least, the word "complete" doesn't seem to suggest anything close to the verse that you quoted. Although it *does* reflect the wikipedia description (which is also the first link if you google "perfection"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

So I'm somewhat doubtful that you pulled it off the top of your head, although I admit that it's possible that you went in that direction instead of the more dictionary direction for perfection:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfection?s=t

----

I've already demonstrated that "perfection" seems to imply a certain level of "pettiness" when you look at the meaning of the words. It's also hard to argue from the definition of perfect that "viciousness" is a logically impossible trait (and similarly "vengeance").

Anyone of logic will recognize that your position actually amounts to an emotional argument. You are basically characterizing actions using emotionally loaded words and are drawing your conclusions based on those emotions as opposed to constructing a logical foundation and building from there.

I agree that the conversation has no where to go, but for different reasons, which is why I said what I did in the last post. I disagree with you on this issue, and having argued with you before, I know that neither of us will benefit from rambling about perfection. I still stand by everything I said, and I don't intend to further the argument because as said, I don't think either of our positions on this will change.

Oh, and I did pull it off the top of my head. I hate lying and being lied to.

What would it take for you to change your position?

God would probably have to tell me itself. I don't think any human can change my interpretation of the word perfect, nor my understanding of gods decisions depicted in the bible as being imperfect. It's not so complex that my understanding of the word can be lacking. Likewise, the difference between perfection and the things god does in the bible are so far apart that it's ludicrous to believe otherwise.

I guess it would be like reading a story about puff the magic dragon taking on the persona and actions of vlad the impaler and saying he's a being a perfect being. First, the crazy story has to be true. Then, our definition of perfect has to be wrong somehow. Lastly, the definition of perfect that is actually true has to encompass a ton of things which are negative, perhaps even "evil" things.

Honestly, now that I think about it, if god told me he was perfect I'd probably think he was just some advanced alien creature or something, that's very petty, and feels the need to prove itself to it's subjects. It'd probably further convince me of gods imperfection. There's just no way that the claim of perfection can be correct, and that's that.

I find this hard to comprehend, simply because words are used as tools with which we communicate with other humans, and the success/utility of that communication rests upon shared and common understandings or "interpretations" of the meanings of words.

Seems to me that you are admitting to being closed minded.

No, quite the opposite. Let me make it easier to understand. Assume you adopted the position that the earth is round, you've sailed around the earth, you've seen the earth from space, you've utilized math based on the earth being round, and you completely understand the simplicity and truth of the world being round. If someone decided to tell you that the world was flat, what would it take you to change your position? Probably, incontrovertible proof.

The word perfect isn't a mystery. It's not complex. It's a simple word, with a simple definition. Even if we stretched that simple definition incredibly far from its core, it would not be a word that applies to the god of the Christian bible. It would be like me telling you that poison is the healthiest thing you can digest, then you debating the word healthy. Not only would that stance be unhealthy, but the very basis of the definition of healthy would have to change to the opposite in order for such a statement to be true.

Basically, it's a Clinton move, define is.

Hmm, I'm confused what we are arguing about, since I agree with pretty much all of what you just said. I must have misread something, my bad...

With all due respect, this makes no sense. The word "perfect" is anything but absolute. What is perfect to me might be very different to what you would think was perfect in any specific case.

For that matter, the world is not really round, unless you are very clear about what you mean by round. I agree it is not flat, except of course locally.

Words are very dependent on a shared understanding of meaning. I cannot even see how that is debatable.

In fact, I am not even sure about the rotting flesh. Your body is quite tolerant of abuse of that type. Depending on the specific nature of the microorganisms there might not be any health implications from eating a piece of rotten meat. Of course, that depends on what you mean by "healthier". Rotten meat would be distasteful but that isn't a health issue. Then again, if you were truly starving, you might not even think the term "distasteful" actually applies to rotten meat any longer. So it certainly depends on your situation and the context of the question.

I suspect you're having a reaction to the tone of his statements more than the content.

All good.

I understand that words are based on a collective understanding of the meaning. I'm saying that the collective understanding and my understanding are not different, and anyone who wants to argue semantically about this is just dodging. Can you give me an honest understanding of the word perfect where the actions of god are at all in line with the word? Defining perfect doesn't matter, we all know what it means. If we took away this god debate and put up two definitions, one that is just a basic, world recognized understanding of the word perfect, and the other which included exemptions for all the insanity of the Christian god, a incredibly vast majority would agree with the first definition.

That's not up for debate. These things are just facts. The only way to argue from this point is to define perfect in a way to account for all of gods pettiness, viciousness, vengefulness, and utter insanity. Then we can start a thread under some false account, and see which definition wins the day, by an incredibly large majority. Hell, I bet even if we gave people a bias by included the argument that one definition accounts for god and the other doesn't, people would still choose the correct understanding over the foolishness of defining perfect in any which allows for the Christian god to fit that bill.

Once again, I'm not being close minded. It's like you telling a scientist that evolution is fake. He's not close minded for saying "Give me incontrovertible truth that agrees with your position."