P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
My idea was his attitude was due to no one attempting to understand him or come to play alongside him. I attempted and failed. My amiable questions were met with hostility which I found quite, quite strange.
I am still of the opinion that the derision he finds thrown his way has had such an effect as to make almost every (if not every) comment put to him to appear one of venom and offense (eg. calling me a “bigot” from my comments would take a very acute imagination prone to seeing offensive at every opportunity.)
Anyway, I had an interesting exchange with Eduk that I hope can be taken up further with more thought (I’ve some ideas already that may be fruitful for us both I hope), so it wasn’t just about taking a small glimpse at a overly defensive position and a failed attempt to reconcile the discussion.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
viewtopic.php?p=296900#p296900
Dark Matter wrote:In short, I’m through with your hypocrisy.
- JohnHermes
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: July 31st, 2018, 1:07 pm
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
And yet, while the "I" is not God, the Absolute, it is infinitely greater than we have imagined it to be before the light dawned upon us. It extends itself far beyond what we had conceived to be its limits. It touches the Universe at all its points, and is in the closest union with all of Life. It is in the closest touch with all that has emanated from the Absolute—all the world of Relativity. And while it faces the Relative Universe, it has its roots in the Absolute, and draws nourishment therefrom, just as does the babe in the womb obtain nourishment from the mother. It is verily a manifestation of God, and God's very essence is in it. Surely this is almost as "high" a statement as the "I Am God" of the teachers just mentioned,—and yet how different. Let us consider the teaching in detail in this lesson, and in portions of others to follow.
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
I like that - especially about pure awareness. I AM THAT I AM.JohnHermes wrote: ↑September 17th, 2018, 10:11 am God, according to the gnostics is just pure awareness. Perception itself is the core of existence. But however, the individual, is the focal point of that absolute awareness.
Maybe there are 3 ways of looking at God -( actually many more but mainly these...)
1) Intelligent design
2) Awareness/spirit/desire (and part of that is Tillich’s idea of ultimate concern) &
3) Relationships of action - we answer each other’s prayers.
The 3rd is more conditional than the other 2 - people let one another down which, IMO, is why many turn to the illogical herd mentality of atheism.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
On the contrary DM. Spectrum has gone to great lengths to describe his perception of perfection, and has even separated perfection into different categories; absolute perfection and perfection. I propounded my view, that because perfection necessarily describes an absolute state, the term absolute perfection is only used for emphasis, but he argued that there was a meaningful difference.
I was thinking about this recently, and I thought, is there any difference between something which is perfect and something which is absolutely perfect? Since both things are perfect, where does one draw distinctions?
I don't think that if God exists it "imperatively" has to be perfect, it just needs to be powerful. I think that it is difficult to quantify perfection in terms of objectivity, because perfection is so closely related to perception, which varies from person to person. From my perspective, the only way God can be objectively perfect, is if it is maximally great in every aspect of it's being, but then if such a being has no limitations, how could it ever achieve maximal greatness? Even if such a being exists, there's no meaningful difference in claiming that such a being is perfect or absolutely perfect, because they both mean exactly the same thing.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
Redundancy aside, Spectrum doesn't know what "perfection" is or what it entails any more than I or any other finite creature. Nor does God need to be "powerful" in the usual sense of the word. (Read The Weakness of God by John D. Caputo)Fanman wrote: ↑November 16th, 2018, 3:05 pmOn the contrary DM. Spectrum has gone to great lengths to describe his perception of perfection, and has even separated perfection into different categories; absolute perfection and perfection. I propounded my view, that because perfection necessarily describes an absolute state, the term absolute perfection is only used for emphasis, but he argued that there was a meaningful difference.
I was thinking about this recently, and I thought, is there any difference between something which is perfect and something which is absolutely perfect? Since both things are perfect, where does one draw distinctions?
I don't think that if God exists it "imperatively" has to be perfect, it just needs to be powerful. I think that it is difficult to quantify perfection in terms of objectivity, because perfection is so closely related to perception, which varies from person to person. From my perspective, the only way God can be objectively perfect, is if it is maximally great in every aspect of it's being, but then if such a being has no limitations, how could it ever achieve maximal greatness? Even if such a being exists, there's no meaningful difference in claiming that such a being is perfect or absolutely perfect, because they both mean exactly the same thing.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
Human beings are at the bottom of the list with some overlapping (maybe).1. Absolute perfection in all aspects.
2. Absolute perfection in some phases and relative perfection in all other aspects.
3. Absolute, relative, and imperfect aspects in varied association.
4. Absolute perfection in some respects, imperfection in all others.
5. Absolute perfection in no direction, relative perfection in all manifestations.
6. Absolute perfection in no phase, relative in some, imperfect in others.
7. Absolute perfection in no attribute, imperfection in all.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
Interesting that you are now recommending Caputo. What do you find there? Do you think it squares with Thomistic philosophy?Read The Weakness of God by John D. Caputo
I was just flipping though my copy of “More Radical Hermeneutics: On Not Knowing Who We Are” in order to refresh my memory and found a $20 bill tucked in the pages. What I had read in not the only thing I seem to have forgotten. What I do remember may be from “Modernity and Its Discontents”, but is based on the same theme of aporia and undecidability. These are not faults to be overcome but the conditions for the possibility of faith.
His "radical hermeneutics" may be helpful for those who feel the desire to seek God but are put off by the claims of the theological tradition. It may also be of use to those who wish to interpret and see the New Testament in a new and different way. As an engagement it is not passive seeing but active being, a new and different way of being in the world here and now.
From "The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event"
The desire for God—that is the root of the trouble I have bought for myself. I have taken God, the name of God, what is happening in the name of God, as my subject matter. With or without religion, with or without what ordinarily passes for theology, the name of God is too important to leave in the hands of the special interest groups. That is why I freely own up here to a certain theological gesture, to a theological desire and a “desiring theology,” as Charles Winquist would have put it, which is undeniably a desire for God, for something astir in the name of God, a desire for something I know not what, for which I pray night and day. I am praying for an event.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect
(1) I find something that comports with my understanding of divine simplicity.
(2) I don’t know (though “in the High Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas would treat the suggestion that God could alter the past, good or bad, as a flat-out contradiction in terms and would deny, on those grounds, that it was possible.”)
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023