Albert Cipriani

Dear Code Mason,
Thanks for the correction. I meant Non-contradiction. You are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation when you argue:


You equate a perfect being with its temporal aspect. That's like saying a perfect fish makes the ocean perfect. I can tease no sense out of your concept "temporal aspect." It stands as an Audiatur et Altera Pars defect.

Putting it plainly, time is a means, not an entity. And only entities are perfect. A means can only be a context for what is perfect. A means cannot be identified with what is perfect as you attempt to do by stating: "the temporal aspect of its being must be wholly perfect." Sorry, no cigar. -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Chicken Little,
Yes. Perfection is relative to context in the sense that I'd rather have an imperfect horse than a perfect Ferrari in the context of crossing the American continent in the 19th century.

Yes. Perfection can be seen as being completely filled (as in my cup runneth over) with all that is needed to fulfill one’s design.

No. Whatever we came from bears no moral responsibility for who we are or become. Why? Because morality requires volition and that which is merely responsible for our existence does not exercise volition in our existence.

No. No state of being is guaranteed to remain in the same state of being, that goes for what is perfect AND for what is imperfect. That is what is meant by salvation, the means whereby imperfect beings make the transition to perfect beings.

Actually, the sky did fall once or twice, circa 750 BC and 1500 BC. Read "Worlds in Collision" by Immanuel Velikovsky. Just one more example of how myths turn out to be true. -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

CodeMason

Albert, the entity is contained within the three dimensions of space. Of course all of its spatial aspect must be perfect (say, a perfect dog can't have an imperfect leg.) Time is merely an additional dimension. Instead of trying to imagine a 3D entity in 4D spacetime, try to imagine a one dimensional character "stretched out" over time, as a blob. This is the entity's temporal aspect, and must be treated in the same way as its spatial aspect. For it to be perfect, it must be perfect in all dimensions, including time.
Another way to look at it is this: Imagine creating a "perfect" pot in pottery class. Perfect in size, shape, aesthetic value, etc. But the next day I drop it on the ground and it shatters. Was it really perfect? No, because it has the ability to break.

BTW, I don't believe there is actually anything in Genesis that says Adam and Eve were created perfect.

Theli

I don't think something can be perfect in all aspects. Because if it's perfect in one aspect there might be another wich cannot be perfect because of the first. Because it's dependent of an opposite.

Something can't have a perfect destruction or creation if it's eternal. And if it's not eternal it's not perfect since it can be destroyed, or lets itself be destroyed.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Code Mason,
You confuse the tree for the forest when you argue:


All four dimensions are merely the context for being, not being itself. In the ekpyrotic scenario of the M theory (the latest twist in string theory) a finite 5th dimension is postulated. Indeed, string theory postulates up to 10 dimensions of being.

So, an entity may be contained or may not be contained within any number of dimensions. And the dimensions that contain an entity are not synonymous with that entity. For example, your perfect pot may contain bad wine and a jug of perfect wine may be shattered.

You have confused perfection, with perfection over time (sort of like the difference between 1 and 1/100,000,000). But what is perfect may become imperfect and what is imperfect may become perfect as a function of time.

Ergo, time is but one means of making perfect things imperfect and imperfect things perfect. Time is not a constituent part of the perfect or imperfect thing itself. Jesus is another means whereby imperfect things reach perfect ends. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

CodeMason

The wine is merely within close proximity to the pot. It is not a part of the pot's being. Nowhere is "wine" included in the definition of the pot. (Wine and pot, sounds like a fun evening! )

I'm still waiting for you explain to me how a perfect dog can have a imperfect leg.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Code Mason,
You underline my point in saying:


Likewise, time, the fourth dimension, is just in close proximity to the other three dimensions. It is not part of what exists in the three or 30 other dimensions.

Ditto for us. We are not integral to time any of the other dimensions in or out of time. Rather, all dimensions are merely the context for our being, like how the pot is the context for where the wine is.

You ask,


Easy. The dog was perfect when its leg was perfect. The perfect dog became imperfect when its leg went bad. Once perfect, NOT always perfect. This mentality of yours is a devolution of the Protestant heresy of "once saved, always saved." Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

I just noticed, Code Mason's P.S. a few posts back. It reads:


Now my preliminary diagnosis is conclusive. Code Mason is suffering from a severe case of Protestantism. A fate worse that Purgatory. Let's organize an intervention!

Being an atheist is a joke, but becoming a Protestant is positively ludicrous! Code Mason is infected with two of Protestantism's most pernicious heresies, once saved/perfect always saved/perfect and now he's bought into their solo scriptura modus operandi.

If it's in or not in the Bible as I in my invincible Protestant ignorance have enough of a dim bulb to interpret it, it does or does not exist! The Keat's version of this malady is:


It's the methodology whereby Protestants arrived at the earth being exactly 4,000 odd years old. It's brought us such wondrous ways of squaring circles as: God planted the fossil record to test our "Faith," and we are going to hell unless we robotically mouth the mind numbing and theologically meaningless words: "Yes, I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior."

Protestants share the Moslem's M.O., a refusal to use reason and be guided by tradition. They make up their tradition as they go based solely upon their latest non-authoritative interpretations of a book.

And now Code Mason has tipped his hand, revealed his cards. He's not playing with a full deck and it's up to us to pull him back from the precipice. He needs professional help. -- Cheers, Albert the Non-Protestant

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>