MMOTW, what makes the most perfect being of them all?

[John of Japan]

Maybe I haven't but that is not to say that it is only the case that your points are the only ones that are in need of understanding. I sense that you are prepared not to budge.

Where is it you want me to budge to??

Are you saying that a change in the grammar would NOT result in a change in the meaning?

The grammatical form does convey nuance, and syntax (sentence structure) is important for meaning. But it is the individual words that are the most important in semantics. This has been argued extensively in translation studies (for example, the "meaning based" theory), but I'm not prepared to fully discuss it here.

Imo, titles of OP's are more for 'marketing' and do not require any element of face-value 'truthiness'. It seems that you have a different opinion?

Yes, I disagree with your statement. Titles and terminology are very important, as witness the fact that Eugene Nida changed the name of his translation theory from dynamic equivalence to functional equivalence in his 3rd book presenting his theory. Why? The DE term was chosen for its impact, not its meaning, so it was misunderstood and misapplied.

So, do you know how the philosophers used the word? Does what you view as the misuse of the word mean that they cannot convey meaning consistently between one another?

There is the precise problem, philosophers not understanding communication. To the extent that philosophers are not understood by the average educated person, to that extent they are failures. This is why logical positivism is a dead philosophy: Wittgenstein didn't know how to communicate clearly. Just try to read his works!

Consider Taoism vs. Confucianism. Lao Tsu wrote the Tao Te Ching in very mysterious language, easily interpreted in various ways. As a result, Taoism today is a mess of idolatry and wandering Taoist "magicians," and even when it is treated as a philosophy, no one agrees on the interpretation. On the other hand, Confucius was clear and understandable, and as a result much of the Far East has structured society around Confucianism.

And I'm going to have to stop here without answering the rest of your post, since it covers so much ground in one post. This is my translation day, and I have to get to work.

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you John. You are correct, it is where I was coming from and re-reading the OP, I'm at a loss for how it could be considered as otherwise but that is part of just being human... it happens to me way too much.

I appreciate your input and hope this thread doesn't disuade you from contributing in the future. You've definitely made me think about the issues and I've grown from that and... for that (and much more) I am greatful to you.

(For the difference it may make: I read this quote of yours before my last post)

It's an interesting thread. Glad to participate.

 

[Cypress]

This statement is simply baloney. Did you pay attention to who said it? The author of the blog is (1) only a college junior studying philosophy, and (2) a Roman Catholic.

And that negates his premise how?

 

[John of Japan]

It should be noted that none of those espousing the superior virtues of philosophy are philosophers by profession. It follows then, using logic, that they are simply engaged in the vagaries of philosophy!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Hmm. I'd better not touch that. But,

Question: If you hired five philosophers to build a house, what would happen?
Answer: A year later the discussion would still be continuing!

 

[John of Japan]

And that negates his premise how?

I admit I approached that one very poorly. Sorry about that!

But I look at it this way: for the breadth and depth of the discussion, the man was too lacking in experience and education to properly discuss the subject he chose, which was huge in range--philosophy and theology! So he might get some things right, but I'm certainly not going to quote him as an authority on anything!

 

[Cypress]

I admit I approached that one very poorly. Sorry about that!

But I look at it this way: for the breadth and depth of the discussion, the man was too lacking in experience and education to properly discuss the subject he chose, which was huge in range--philosophy and theology! So he might get some things right, but I'm certainly not going to quote him as an authority on anything!

No worries,brother. IMO his premise is valid, but it is abundantly clear that I am no expert either.:love2::thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

Hmm. I'd better not touch that. But,

Question: If you hired five philosophers to build a house, what would happen?
Answer: A year later the discussion would still be continuing!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

I fail to understand how people can embrace non-thinking and hold it valuable. Somehow our churches have taught many people that thinking through hard questions is contrary to scripture; somehow using the mind that God gave us is to be shunned. Yet it is our mind and our reason that are major distinctions between us and brute beasts. It never seems to occur to some that it is self-refuting to provide bible verses to reason with someone that they should not use reason. It is nonsense to argue that we should not use argument. In fact, any statement that has meaning, bible or otherwise, uses logic and reason. There is no value to being anti-intellectual.

As to the OP, I think the definition already given is fairly good; God without restrictions = infinite greatness. Via negativa.

HoS, keep trying, but be patient and don't offend. I've lately started to believe that our only hope of getting people in the church to reason through these things is to forget this generation and work on the next. This one is entrenched in anti-intellectualism, holding it valuable to not think through the questions. Meanwhile, since these things are not taught in the church, the few young people who think through them learn from the pagans. Agh!

A hearty AMEN from me on this!

 

[John of Japan]

No worries,brother. IMO his premise is valid, but it is abundantly clear that I am no expert either.:love2::thumbsup:

Check the comments at the end of the young man's essay and you'll see fulsome praise from a professor. My guess is that the young man is parroting his prof--I know that's what I did when I was that age. So if the prof has written anything on the subject, there's a more respectable source. :wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

Really? Is that the only thing that means when we are talking about God? I would not be surprised if people who thought such did get confused by the philosophers... I'd suggest that they save themselves time and frustration and just listen, if they must.

Well, you know what, I had to start somewhere. Of course God is perfect in other ways. But man, you want to discuss all of that in just one little thread? Sorry, I don't have near enough time in my schedule.

JoJ, imo, Calvinists see God as 'perfect' in more ways than as you have described here, ie. 'without fault and without sin'. They see that his perfection is also in every other aspect of his being, I would agree but here's what may be the heart of the issue: Their idea of 'perfect attributes' is different than other people's (arms, OVT's, other cals) views. Since God is 'perfect' in every single way, any change is for the worse. Therefore, God cannot really do the things that the Bible indicates he does, and the fact that the Bible talks of God as it does is attributed to 'mystery'. God, if he is perfect like this (as in 'any change is for the worse'), would be similar to Zeno's idea of a motionless universe and must exist atemporally and therefore the temporality we experience is a 'mystery' at best and an illusion at worst. (Cals, you may see this as a strawman, and it may be in some respects, but I do not intend to be malevolant in my explanation here but for me it does represent my take on how you understand your view. I am open to discussion and adjusting my estimation.) There is so much more that could be said as to how the ideas of 'perfection' influence our view of God and what he MUST be like.

Not being a Calvinist, I'll not get into all of this with you.

This description by Strong, while his description includes 'being without fault or sin', I hear him say that there is much more to this kind of perfection than what you have said... an issue of semantics indeed!

I don't see that in the quote I gave. If you have Strong's, give me a quote on what you mean.

It sounds like you were presuming I was talking only about God's 'moral' perfection when used the word 'perfect' in the OP. If that is the case then I can see where you're coming from. But yet, the way you have defined 'perfection' directly above indicates that you think 'perfection' necessarily means 'moral perfection'. So, why would you modify 'perfection' with the word 'moral'? Are you not employing a tautology then? If so, this sentence I am composing is a defeater to whatever point you were trying to make ;-). (That last sentence was a friendly elbow... if it even makes sense ;-) )

See above. There aren't enough hours in the day if you want to get into all of the attributes of God on one thread.

This all begs the question of what is moral? What is holy? What are the attributes of God? This entire section of this board wrestles with these issues (as I'm sure you know already). This gets specifically at the issue of this thread.

God's revelation gives us this. Philosophy does not. You've not mentioned it yet, but philosophy should be subsumed under general revelation. If that be where you put it, then you should be explaining how we get the attributes of God in that way.

Frankly, I don't think philosophy per se gives you the attributes of God. If it did, then Asian philosophy would be able to give you the attributes of God, and it does not. For example, the only way Confucius refers to God is an occasional brief reference to Tien, another name for the monotheistic Shang Ti. Confucius mentions nothing of Tien's attributes. (You've not responded at all yet to my mentions of Asian philosophy. Why not? Is only Western philosophy valid for the discussion?)

So, why does Western philosophy discuss God's attributes sometimes? It is because Western philosophers, living in a "Christian" society, started with presuppostions about the nature of God that Asians don't have. Thus there is no natural/general revelation in Western philosophy, at least so far on this thread.

If you say that the problem with the OP is a semantics issue, this it should be the case that a reasonable person could not understand the post, and this the main thrust of their objection, correct? However, I do believe that there are reasonable people here that do understand the OP, so, if that is the case, that should surely mean something to you... unless you would now make the case that they shouldn't understand the OP.

With my discussion of semantics I was just trying to clarify things. Saying "most perfect" or "more perfect" does communicate, it just does so poorly. So of course there are reasonable people here that understand the OP, because there are BB denizens that are highly educated and very intelligent. That fact is irrelevant to my linguistic objections.

 

[OldRegular]

A hearty AMEN from me on this!

So you concur that using the Bible to defend your doctrine is anti-intellectual??????????

 

[OldRegular]

God's revelation gives us this. Philosophy does not. You've not mentioned it yet, but philosophy should be subsumed under general revelation. If that be where you put it, then you should be explaining how we get the attributes of God in that way.

Frankly, I don't think philosophy per se gives you the attributes of God. If it did, then Asian philosophy would be able to give you the attributes of God, and it does not. For example, the only way Confucius refers to God is an occasional brief reference to Tien, another name for the monotheistic Shang Ti. Confucius mentions nothing of Tien's attributes. (You've not responded at all yet to my mentions of Asian philosophy. Why not? Is only Western philosophy valid for the discussion?)

So, why does Western philosophy discuss God's attributes sometimes? It is because Western philosophers, living in a "Christian" society, started with presuppostions about the nature of God that Asians don't have. Thus there is no natural/general revelation in Western philosophy, at least so far on this thread.

Excellent points John. The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1 that certain attributes of God, such as His goodness, can be derived from nature. I have posted on this forum a quotation from Gill regarding the thoughts of a man from Greenland who had arrived at some attributes of God from reason.

That being said Scripture and world history show that in general mankind has rejected the revelation of God in Nature and their objects of worship were limited only by their imagination.

Philosophers can speculate about God but cannot reveal God. Understanding the attributes of God, including His Redemptive Purpose, requires the Special Revelation of God the Revelation which we call the Bible. The ultimate Revelation of God is Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.

It is a fact that philosophy alone, while perhaps a useful mental exercise, can tell us little about God and nothing about His Redemptive Purpose. All the false religions in the world are proof positive!

 

[humblethinker]

Where is it you want me to budge to??

The elitist attitude with no concilliation. You made your point and your point was acknowledged very early in this thread. Maybe I am reading it into it though. It is clear to them what they meant and also clear to thousands not in their community. Note my early conciliatory approach to you in Post#26 http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1919144&postcount=26 yet you did not return in like manner, to me or 'my old dead white guys' to paraphrase how you put it.

There is the precise problem, philosophers not understanding communication. To the extent that philosophers are not understood by the average educated person, to that extent they are failures.

When analyzing a system, if your aim is to reach understanding, then one should analyze the system from within the confines of the system. It seems you are judging philosophers based on premises not their own. I don't think that they were trying to be understood by the average educated person (I'm not sure what you mean by that anyway… do you mean as of 2012 or as of 16th century? In American culture or Indian, etc.? There's a big difference.) As if being misunderstood 'by the average educated person' is to their shame? I don't think the KJV is understandable to the average educated person but I wouldn't judge it a failure.

This is why logical positivism is a dead philosophy: Wittgenstein didn't know how to communicate clearly. Just try to read his works!

Well, I disagree in that I think the reason why it is dead is due to it being understood, not that it was poorly communicated.

Not being a Calvinist, I'll not get into all of this with you.

JoJ, I hoped that this thread would have been a way to expose how philosophy DOES shape our theology. I would except yours from this now, but if I do, then why wouldn't I need to except a calvinist's or a molinists if they demanded it? Such thinking, imo, is basically egocentric and elitist. Do you think it can be the case that JoJ and a hard theological determinist (calvinist), that both of you, can hold each of your theology to be ONLY informed by exegesis and be void of philosophy? I don't think you do… maybe you do though, and if so, please help me understand how you think that can be the case. That might be part of what I'm missing when comparing systematic theologies with the Bible. In my view, we can't all be completely correct and most likely none of us are, yet I am straining to hear theological humility of some people on this board… chirp-chirp…. … … … <sigh> I do hope you have insight into this that I've not heard. Please share if you do, I mean this sincerely.

You've not mentioned it yet, but philosophy should be subsumed under general revelation. If that be where you put it, then you should be explaining how we get the attributes of God in that way.

I have spoken to this earlier in this thread:
Post#29:
All of us claim that our ideas of the Perfect Being are informed primarily by the Bible, it providing the authoritative foundation and framework regarding our epistemology of God.
I will further clarify that I can accept the statement 'philosophy is subsumed under general revelation'. I reject the fundamentalist attitude that demands that for people to be taken seriously they must view revelation as they themselves see it.

You've not responded at all yet to my mentions of Asian philosophy. Why not? Is only Western philosophy valid for the discussion?

I've mentioned this as well: Post#29:The purpose of this thread was to discuss how western thought (we) consider how God must be and how that way of thinking contrasts with the descriptions and depictions of the God of the Bible.

To discuss further, I am not versed in Asian philosophy as you've described it. I'm not against you contributing to the thread regarding how Asian philosophy affects the Japanese view of God. This would actually be appreciated being that it would speak directly to the OP of the thread… I would like to hear how you have had to help them overcome their philosophical issues that stand in the way of them accepting and understanding the God of the Bible. How would their Asian philosophy influence their idea of the Perfect Being? I'm sure they have them… Would their idea of the Perfect Being, having been influenced by Asian philosophy, be more closely representative to the actual Perfect Being than westerner's idea of the Perfect Being, having been influenced by Platonic/neo-platonic philosophy? Surely we can agree that there are degrees of representation such that some representations are more correctly representative than others? It seems that the idea of the Perfect Being (God) being an evil, manipulative, maniacal, narcissistic, duplicitous monster is much less representative than the idea of the actual Perfect Being that Soren Kierkegaard would describe, no? This is what the philosophers are meaning when they use the phrase "most perfect being" and it makes sense: "of the various ideas of the Perfect Being, which one is most representative of the actual Perfect Being?" That perfect being is referred to as the "most Perfect Being". Now, you have communicated that you understand the meaning that is intended here, so, please rephrase the meaning in an acceptable way! The floor is yours, let me and the philosophers learn from you (but please do not quote or paraphrase the other philosophers which have already re-worded this kind of communication... I'd like to see you demonstrate your originality.)

With my discussion of semantics I was just trying to clarify things. Saying "most perfect" or "more perfect" does communicate, it just does so poorly. So of course there are reasonable people here that understand the OP, because there are BB denizens that are highly educated and very intelligent. That fact is irrelevant to my linguistic objections.

Yes, but JoJ, I already gave you points for your clarification in Post#26. Did you miss the
"JoJ, I definitely get what you're saying…" and how I admitted you were correct in the strict sense that you were requiring, and conceding "as you point out"? So, to reiterate, I conceded that you made a goal, a slam dunk, a touchdown, you were right, and to move on to the actual meaning I then proceeded to ask you the question for which YOU have yet to answer and it seems with as much as you've protested that you should be able to easily and eloquently correct the philosopher in his usage of language. Let's not, however, use children or the average educated person as the standard proof of correct usage… that is just… well… moving along...

Now the question(s) for which, though asked, you have not answered:
The setup point first:
Post#26: In reference to God, I think the point and reason for using "most perfect" is that the perfect being that actually exists is 'more" perfect than the one that doesn't exist and since God does exist then he is the "most" perfect of the two. [Man has disagreements due to philosophy] how the 'perfect being' should ideally be vs the 'perfect being' that actually exists. Imo, there is often a difference and only one 'perfect being' can exist, as you point out. The depictions and descriptions in the Bible are of the most perfect being, and NOT of the ideal 'perfect being'.

Post#29: How are they to discuss ideas for which their language has never had a need to describe or grapple with?
Post#29: how else would you describe the difference between the Perfect Being that we think of in our mind and the Perfect Being that actually exists? The one that exists is the most perfect. Help the philosophers out... how would you describe the one that exists?

And so this: Of the various ideas of the Perfect Being, which one is most representative of the actual Perfect Being? That perfect being is referred to as the "most Perfect Being". Now, you have communicated that you understand the meaning that is intended here, so, please rephrase the meaning in an acceptable way.

 

[ktn4eg]

I don't want to derail this thread, BUT since it is talking about "perfection," I've got a question that has perplexed this simple-minded lay person for years that maybe some of my BB friends can help me understand more clearly.

The question is this:

If it is impossible for us humans to attain to absolute perfection (at least in THIS PRESENT life)----and I DO believe that to be true!-------why then did Jesus, in His "Sermon on the Mount" message, tell His listeners in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye PERFECT, even (i.e, in the same sense and/or to the same degree that) your Father which is in heaven is perfect"???? (KJV---emp. mine)

Now, I'm thinking:

Since the Son of God already knew/knows that fallen man could not possibly attain to anything even closely resembling God the Father's degree of absolute and infinite perfection, why would He COMMAND His hearers to attain to the very same level/degree of perfection that His Father in heaven ALWAYS and FOREVER had/has?

And, your answer to this dilemma is........??!!??

 

[Luke2427]

So you concur that using the Bible to defend your doctrine is anti-intellectual??????????

No sir. I don't think that I amen'd any such thing.

 

[John of Japan]

The elitist attitude with no concilliation. You made your point and your point was acknowledged very early in this thread. Maybe I am reading it into it though. It is clear to them what they meant and also clear to thousands not in their community. Note my early conciliatory approach to you in Post#26

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1919144&postcount=26 yet you did not return in like manner, to me or 'my old dead white guys' to paraphrase how you put it.

Uh, yeah, then you relegated my linguistic point to a "fellowship" thread which you started, which I admit miffed me. So I said to myself, "John, push the envelope a little bit and comment some more on the 'more perfect' point." Mea culpa. But then you went for it and kept discussing the "more perfect" phrase yourself.

When analyzing a system, if your aim is to reach understanding, then one should analyze the system from within the confines of the system. It seems you are judging philosophers based on premises not their own. I don't think that they were trying to be understood by the average educated person (I'm not sure what you mean by that anyway… do you mean as of 2012 or as of 16th century? In American culture or Indian, etc.? There's a big difference.) As if being misunderstood 'by the average educated person' is to their shame? I don't think the KJV is understandable to the average educated person but I wouldn't judge it a failure.

Actually, as I opined in my first post on this thread I believe, what I judge philosophies (not philosophers per se) on is what Paul said about them in Col. 2:8. (And you never answered my point about the exegesis of that verse in which I pointed out that there were no philosophies in the 1st century which could be "after Christ.") I am against philosophies as a guide for life or faith or theology. But I am in favor of understanding them in order to live wisely in this world. I live in a Confucian society, so I should understand Confucianism. Likewise, American Christians should understand existentialism and postmodernism. That doesn't mean they shoul accept such philophies, just understand them.

JoJ, I hoped that this thread would have been a way to expose how philosophy DOES shape our theology. I would except yours from this now, but if I do, then why wouldn't I need to except a calvinist's or a molinists if they demanded it? Such thinking, imo, is basically egocentric and elitist. Do you think it can be the case that JoJ and a hard theological determinist (calvinist), that both of you, can hold each of your theology to be ONLY informed by exegesis and be void of philosophy? I don't think you do… maybe you do though, and if so, please help me understand how you think that can be the case. That might be part of what I'm missing when comparing systematic theologies with the Bible. In my view, we can't all be completely correct and most likely none of us are, yet I am straining to hear theological humility of some people on this board… chirp-chirp…. … … … <sigh> I do hope you have insight into this that I've not heard. Please share if you do, I mean this sincerely.

Let me reiterate. I do not by personal preference discuss Calvinism or Arminianism on the BB. Okay? No offense to you or anyone else.

I have spoken to this earlier in this thread:
Post#29:
All of us claim that our ideas of the Perfect Being are informed primarily by the Bible, it providing the authoritative foundation and framework regarding our epistemology of God.
I will further clarify that I can accept the statement 'philosophy is subsumed under general revelation'. I reject the fundamentalist attitude that demands that for people to be taken seriously they must view revelation as they themselves see it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Please explain more about the "fundamentalist attitude" you mean here. Are you rejecting verbal-plenary inspiration? Or if not, then what?

 

[John of Japan]

I've had to do this reply in two posts since the BB would not accept all this in one post--don't ask me why. Here's the rest.

I've mentioned this as well: Post#29:The purpose of this thread was to discuss how western thought (we) consider how God must be and how that way of thinking contrasts with the descriptions and depictions of the God of the Bible.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me in the light of my post and general revelation. I don't mean to be condescending, but how familiar are you with the doctrine of revelation? Read any books about it? Articles? Systematic Theologies? Do you know what I mean by the term general revelation? I'm not talking about the revelation of the Bible here.

To discuss further, I am not versed in Asian philosophy as you've described it. I'm not against you contributing to the thread regarding how Asian philosophy affects the Japanese view of God. This would actually be appreciated being that it would speak directly to the OP of the thread… I would like to hear how you have had to help them overcome their philosophical issues that stand in the way of them accepting and understanding the God of the Bible.

In order to live and minister in Japan I've had to learn what Confucianism is. It would take far too much space and time to explain it here. Suffice it to say that it is based on relationships, and a big barrier in Japan to evangelism is Japanese relationships, in particular with the various groups they belong to. And it gives no doctrine or discussion of God at all, other than a brief mention of the Tien (“Heaven”) name of the monotheistic Chinese God Shang Ti. But I said this before and you did not seem to notice it.

How would their Asian philosophy influence their idea of the Perfect Being? I'm sure they have them… Would their idea of the Perfect Being, having been influenced by Asian philosophy, be more closely representative to the actual Perfect Being than westerner's idea of the Perfect Being, having been influenced by Platonic/neo-platonic philosophy? Surely we can agree that there are degrees of representation such that some representations are more correctly representative than others? It seems that the idea of the Perfect Being (God) being an evil, manipulative, maniacal, narcissistic, duplicitous monster is much less representative than the idea of the actual Perfect Being that Soren Kierkegaard would describe, no? This is what the philosophers are meaning when they use the phrase "most perfect being" and it makes sense: "of the various ideas of the Perfect Being, which one is most representative of the actual Perfect Being?" That perfect being is referred to as the "most Perfect Being". Now, you have communicated that you understand the meaning that is intended here, so, please rephrase the meaning in an acceptable way! The floor is yours, let me and the philosophers learn from you (but please do not quote or paraphrase the other philosophers which have already re-worded this kind of communication... I'd like to see you demonstrate your originality.)

You appear to be trying to manipulate what I may respond to and how I frame my arguments. I hope not.

What I will do is reiterate a point of mine that I think is very relevant which you have not responded to. If philosophy is a source for knowledge about God, then all philosophy should be such, correct? It's Europo-centric of you to insist on Western philosophy. If we can determine the nature of God through philosophy as a principle of general revelation, then all people throughout the world should be able to do so through philosophy, correct?

If you stay with Western philosophers before the 20th century, then of course you'll get discussions about the nature of God. They all had monotheistic presuppositions. As soon as you stray from that into Asia you lose your discussions of a perfect being. Confucianism does not have a perfect being as I've pointed out. Taoism has an impersonal Tao ("Way") of the universe that human can tap into--not a being. And so forth.
So, tell me why Asian philosophies have no perfect being if philosophy per se can tell us about the nature of God?

Yes, but JoJ, I already gave you points for your clarification in Post#26. Did you miss the
"JoJ, I definitely get what you're saying…" and how I admitted you were correct in the strict sense that you were requiring, and conceding "as you point out"? So, to reiterate, I conceded that you made a goal, a slam dunk, a touchdown, you were right, and to move on to the actual meaning I then proceeded to ask you the question for which YOU have yet to answer and it seems with as much as you've protested that you should be able to easily and eloquently correct the philosopher in his usage of language. Let's not, however, use children or the average educated person as the standard proof of correct usage… that is just… well… moving along...

See above. You miffed me. Mea culpa.

Now the question(s) for which, though asked, you have not answered:
The setup point first:
Post#26: In reference to God, I think the point and reason for using "most perfect" is that the perfect being that actually exists is 'more" perfect than the one that doesn't exist and since God does exist then he is the "most" perfect of the two. [Man has disagreements due to philosophy] how the 'perfect being' should ideally be vs the 'perfect being' that actually exists. Imo, there is often a difference and only one 'perfect being' can exist, as you point out. The depictions and descriptions in the Bible are of the most perfect being, and NOT of the ideal 'perfect being'.

Post#29: How are they to discuss ideas for which their language has never had a need to describe or grapple with?
Post#29: how else would you describe the difference between the Perfect Being that we think of in our mind and the Perfect Being that actually exists? The one that exists is the most perfect. Help the philosophers out... how would you describe the one that exists?
And so this: Of the various ideas of the Perfect Being, which one is most representative of the actual Perfect Being? That perfect being is referred to as the "most Perfect Being". Now, you have communicated that you understand the meaning that is intended here, so, please rephrase the meaning in an acceptable way.

Once again you are asking me to discuss philosophy. I refuse to discuss the philosophical view of God. It's in error. Got it? If I answer the questions you are asking here, then I am discussing the philosophical view of God with you, right?

And by the way, do you have any actual quotes from philosophers? Any that use the term “more perfect?” Because I don’t remember that phrase from any philosopher.

Let me say it clearly. I reject philosophy in general and I reject the way it discusses God. I accept the Biblical description of God, concerning the essence of God, the moral attributes of God and the non-moral attributes of God. (These terms are from Theissen, not philosophy.) I have used philosophical arguments for the existence of God and in a couple of other ways, so some philosophical points pre-1900 as filtered through the systematic theologies are useful in apologetics. But that's it.

 

[John of Japan]

Now, folks, if we were doing a Biblical study and trying to develop a Bible-based theology of God as perfect, it might start this way:

The Perfect God​

De 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2Sa 22:31, Ps. 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

So, anything in there about God Himself and His perfection? Only in Matt. 5:48, which in context I believe to be about the moral nature of God. Ergo, Strong's statement about God being perfect in His moral nature is right on target. But any philosophical discussion of God being perfect misses the mark unless it starts where the Bible does--and philosophers never do that! :type:

P. S. I did this quick study by doing software searches of "God" + "perfect," "Lord" + "perfect" and so forth. If there is anything in the Bible more than this about God being perfect, I can't find it. Rather, the Bible discusses His absolute nature as holy, love, etc., and His attributes as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. These attributes are not described Biblically as perfect, but a case might be made for using that word in reference to them, I suppose.

 

[OldRegular]

Now, folks, if we were doing a Biblical study and trying to develop a Bible-based theology of God as perfect, it might start this way:

The Perfect God​

De 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2Sa 22:31, Ps. 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

So, anything in there about God Himself and His perfection? Only in Matt. 5:48, which in context I believe to be about the moral nature of God. Ergo, Strong's statement about God being perfect in His moral nature is right on target. But any philosophical discussion of God being perfect misses the mark unless it starts where the Bible does--and philosophers never do that! :type:

P. S. I did this quick study by doing software searches of "God" + "perfect," "Lord" + "perfect" and so forth. If there is anything in the Bible more than this about God being perfect, I can't find it. Rather, the Bible discusses His absolute nature as holy, love, etc., and His attributes as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. These attributes are not described Biblically as perfect, but a case might be made for using that word in reference to them, I suppose.

It is usually difficult for those of us who believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture to discuss issues with those who do not; believe the Bible that is!

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by John of Japan:
Once again you are asking me to discuss philosophy. I refuse to discuss the philosophical view of God. It's in error. Got it?

I’d like to see you intelligently argue that point without using principles of reason (Critical Thinking Skills) to support it! :smilewinkgrin:

Let me say it clearly. I reject philosophy in general and I reject the way it discusses God.

Let me say, and I realize you may find me pointing to your “ignorance” (Oh! That dreaded word!) in this area offensive, but I have noted on this thread that you demonstrate having a poor understanding of the purpose, goals, and influence of philosophy, its use and especially the true meaning of philosophical terms such as “philosophical argument, logic, validity, rhetoric, credibility, etc.” Throughout this thread I have noted you using ambiguous semantics with these terms that demonstrate your ignorance of true philosophical science, which is a scientific method that is “supposed” to be used to draw out the truth in a “philosophical argument” using our God given abilities of reason.

Just one example, (when you “argue” and I use the term “argue” lightly because it would, I believe, no doubt take a whole thread or more to straighten you out on the philosophical meaning of presenting a valid “philosophical argument” and the cardinal rules of argument identification): But when Cypress came back and said he thought the premise was true, (now admittedly he didn’t present an “argument” as to why, although he did ask wisely how that negated the premise, post #63), but you came back, once again, and presented an invalid non-philosophical fallacious “argument” directed “towards the man”, and tried to make a claim against credibility based on YOUR judgment of the source being doubtful based “merely” on his age …and this after I ribbed you for these very same tactics (fallacy of Ad Hominem, poising the well, credibility, rhetoric) while discussing philosophy!!!…and you once again demonstrated that you do NOT understand philosophical principles and their “correct” “ethical” purposes in “philosophical argument”. You simply rephrased the same fallacious tactics! Post #65.

I accept the Biblical description of God, concerning the essence of God, the moral attributes of God and the non-moral attributes of God.

NOT without God given reasoning abilities which you use to determine the truth you don’t! (unless maybe you don't believe in free will/volition, which is WHY that point has been brought up,BTW) If you are any good at this you are using the science of reason, philosophical logic, whether you believe you are using these principles or not; and that BTW, is the premise of that “mere” young college student’s argument and as I already explained those principles are taught in Basic Logic /Critical Thinking Skills 101 at the beginning of class, so you missing this point and steering around it gives yet more evidence to your “misunderstandings”.

(These terms are from Theissen, not philosophy.) I have used philosophical arguments for the existence of God…

So have I and I use right along with God’s Word, there is no separation between the two for me when it comes to reasoning for the truth (or as I like to put it, "Truth") as (I make a claim according to God’s Word and know God’s Word to be True by reason, then I support it (that reasoning of why I believe, have hope 1Pet 3:15) in an argument using Critical Thinking Skills of providing that reason), …it seems you just want to stop at saying “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!!!) …that SIR, is not a “valid” argument (i.e. philosophical terms)! ..God gives the increase and that comes through the seeds you plant so why seriously weaken your witness during evangelism to an unbeliever?!? You discount an “argument” meant to draw out the truth by using your own God given abilities to reason more intelligently! A philosophical argument “attempts” to support a conclusion involving claims and issues by using deductive reasoning.

I really don’t have time to properly explain all this and the format here makes it even more difficult to get the point across, but I suggest you pick you pick of a copy of, Critical Thinking, Moore/Parker, and read and study chapter 1 which addresses the basic principles of a “philosophical argument”.

Ahh, Here:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073386677/information_center_view0/sample_chapter.html

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073386677/610543/Moore9e_ch01.pdf