lpetrich

Thanx, Hinduwoman. I may try to read it some time; I've seen some online translations in various places.

And yes, I agree that much of the Bible loses badly in what is normally considered morality, though some of it I find OK; much of what is passed off as "Biblical morality" has little to do with the Bible except as a result some rather contrived "interpretations".

For example, the Old Testament takes polygamy for granted; nobody in it thinks it a great wrong; some OT prophets denounce various kings for sins like worshipping pagan deities, but they never find fault with those kings having several wives. This ought to give absolute monogamists some pause, but it doesn't.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Kat_Somm_Faen

This question is mostly directed towards Albert Cipriani and if he is to read it and answer I would be most grateful.

First I would like to congratulate you on some fine points as well as theophilus and sticking to discussion rather than "hit-and-run" posting.


Now lets get to the point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Keenavin,
You argue:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any THOUGHT of becoming imperfect would contradict the whole nature of being perfect, would it not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your hidden assumption here is that a thought can be contradictory. A thought cannot be contradictory, no more than an orange can be contradictory. Rather, as it takes two to tango, it takes two thoughts to contradict.

As Immanuel Kant said (N.B. Ender!), "Thought is insipient action." Thoughts, even two contradictory thoughts, in and of themselves are merely potentialities. Ergo, a perfect being has the potential to become an imperfect being not by entertaining contradictory thoughts (being tempted) but by willing, expressing, acting out that contradiction.

Atheists tend to deflate man into a merely intellectual being, forgetting that we are also willful beings. Action is where man's intellect and will kiss. Action proves who we are. If Adam was perfect, only through action could he become imperfect. Not through mere thought, as you suggest, but through contradictory thought expressed by his will in the form of a contradictory action.

To argue that a perfect being is incapable of an imperfect thought is to argue that a perfect being is incapable of potential. BUT ONLY GOD HAS NO POTENTIAL. All things, by definition, necessarily have potential. Indeed, one of the best descriptions of creation is: things that have potential to be things that they are not. This describes the physical (Law of conservation of matter) and spiritual (the Fall) realms.

So the refutation of your argument distills as follows:
1) Every perfect thing must not think imperfect things.
2) But every thing has the potential to be that which it is not except God.
3) Ergo, you are arguing that every perfect thing is God or that every perfect thing is not a thing.

-- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
-------------------------------------------------

Most of this was about your statement about Satan being perfect ( arguing from his initial state of being an angel and deciding to disobey God, I guess ).

I read you point as stating that Adam or Satan ( or some other perfect being ) can have thoughts about being imperfect but it is its actions that make him/her so ( imperfect ). And in addition this is a one way street ( I m not sure if I am reading this correctly ), at least by administering punishment.

Now are we, humans, created ( as in the moment birth or conception, not as a concept in Creation ) perfect or imperfect? When I was little bitty baby, was I perfect or not? Was any other man/woman? I am inclined to read your post as saying NO.

And what is the point of "imperfection"? Does it have any consequence? What does it mean? I am really ithcing to get the answer because I have some interesting questions for you.

THX

LinuxPup

If this is the case, why do you attack Christianity? It's no less valid than Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

lpetrich

Hinduwoman was quoting the Bhagavad Gita without claiming endorsement of it; LinuxPup was essentially quoting that BG quote out of context.

And someone whose religion has traditionally taught exclusive salvation has no right to complain about negative assessments from others.

LinuxPup

You just used an exclusive statement to refute exclusivism. That's self-refuting. All wordviews are exclusive to one another. Buddhism is exclusive to Hinduism, Atheism to Theism, etc. In fact, all truth claims are by nature exclusive. This is the Law of Non-Contradiction, a first principle of logic, which essentially says "A cannot equal non-A". This principle is unrefutable, as all attempts to refute it, must in fact use this principle.

theophilus

Like most of what Augustine said (only Jesus is infallible), this is rather to the point.
Have Christians ever killed/raped/looted/etc.? Unquestionably, the answer is yes.
Are such actions consistent with the "system" which these individuals claim to believe? The answere is just as surely, no.
The same question posed about Islamic malefactors would have to be Yes (their actions are consistent with the system they follow).

theophilus

This is a case of not dealing with the real world. To suggest that "atheism" is only one component of Communism is like saying Mohammed is only one element of Islam.
The only communism we know anything about is the atheistic kind and atheism, rather than being just one component,is the foundation for the system.
The brutality of Soviet/Chinese/NKorean communists is the very outcome of their atheistic view of the individual vs the state.

lpetrich

Calling atheism a necessary part of Communism is absurd. Communism and religion can mix, though the religion would have to be some state religion whose hierarchy is mixed in with the Party and state hierarchy. A bit like the Russian Orthodox Church during the Tsars.

lpetrich

However, some Hindus believe that the Buddha is an avatar of the god Vishnu, as Krishna is; I would not be surprised if some believe that about Jesus Christ.

phlebas

At long last, it's time to move this lumbring thread Off to Misc Religion Discussions.