Are you perfect?
-Hector-
Are you perfect?
Compare yourself with your neighbor. Are you perfect?
If you are perfect, then go and pronounce to your neighbor that you
are perfect!
Broadcast to the world-at-large that you are perfect! Let the world
bask, revel, and glory in your perfection.
If you are not perfect, then how do you know this? How can you not be
perfect?
What is the model for perfection? What is the benchmark?
We are evolved creatures, replete with foibles, idiosyncracies,
predilections, eccentricities, and other assorted quirks. Our various
"traits" can be nothing more than symptoms of evolutionary processes.
Subsequently, these things cannot be considered imperfections. If
such characteristics are to be considered imperfections, this can only
be so if a concept of perfection can be envisioned. This would imply
that there exists a perfect individual by which all others may be
gauged, or man is imbued with a latent abstract conception of
perfection. If there actually does exist the ultimate paragon of
humanity, let him or her step forward that all may acknowledge the
same and all other's imperfections will be revealed. If it is a
singular race of peoples, let the same acclaim such and the rest of
humanity will genuflect deferentially. Perhaps it is the Aryan race?
Is Bill Clinton perfect? Is George Bush perfect? If they are not
perfect, how is this determined? Is Osama Bin Laden perfect? If Bin
Laden is simply an evolved creature, then he can only be perfect. If
he is not perfect, his imperfection can only be established within the
context of the concept of perfection. If there is no perfect person,
and all are products of an evolutionary process, then the realization
of imperfection can only be assessed in contrast to an ultimate ideal.
What is the source of an ideal state of being? Simple
imagination? (If there is no state of imperfection, one may simply
retreat from this dialectic and don their perfection with the
arrogance it deserves.) If it is the mere product of imagination, it
is yet a relative notion or it could not be defined in any appreciable
way. Assuming that an innate sense of perfection inheres in the
individual and the race of man, it can only be instilled within the
same from an autonomous, independent source, if no genuine human model
of perfection impinges itself upon mankind. This source must
necessarily be something that has an inherent perfection, or has
defined the guidelines for perfection, else again imperfection, as an
abstraction, could never be conceived. Whatever this source may be,
it necessarily must be something that exceeds the human individual or
the race of man, if the individual appreciates the concept of
imperfection. So what would this 'source' be? If most sane
individuals concede the concept of imperfection, then the concept is
one that is fundamentally universal. This would imply a universal
sense of what perfection is or, at the least, a universal appreciation
of the individual's imperfection. Alternately, from this one can
infer that there inheres in each individual an innate understanding of
a universal standard by which all behavior may be measured, and this
understanding can only be derived from a metaphysical model beyond the
individual. Otherwise, each individual of the race of man is perfect,
e.g. Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Caligula, et al.
If there is no such thing as imperfection, then Christians, in
the corporate and individually, can only be perfect. How could such
persons ever be wrong?
The pinnacle of perfection,
Hector
Sheep-R-Wales
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
> Am I perfect?
No.
>
> Are you perfect?
Of course.
>
> Compare yourself with your neighbor. Are you perfect?
Absolutely.
>
> If you are perfect, then go and pronounce to your neighbor that you
> are perfect!
"Hey Neighbor! I'm Perfect!"
> Broadcast to the world-at-large that you are perfect! Let the world
> bask, revel, and glory in your perfection.
"Hey World! I'm Perfect"
>
> If you are not perfect, then how do you know this? How can you not be
> perfect?
> What is the model for perfection? What is the benchmark?
I am that.
I could never be wrong.
Dare
>
> Am I perfect?
>
> Are you perfect?
>
I don't want to be perfect, because then things
can only get worse. :-)
Does perfection include a kind of "completeness"?
It almost seems that perfection would be a kind of
stasis or "death" because there would need to be
no further change or evolution.
Or is perfection a process?
Thanks
Dare
Immortalist
"Sheep-R-Wales" <welsh...@sheep.lover> wrote in message
news:109ehbr...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
>
> > Am I perfect?
>
> No.
>
define perfect as mostest, bestest.
> >
> > Are you perfect?
>
> Of course.
>
Can you say that on a nude beach and even get 70% of the ladies to look down and
agree? I did.
> >
> > Compare yourself with your neighbor. Are you perfect?
>
> Absolutely.
>
Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality style that is associated with a
large number of psychological, interpersonal, and achievement-related
difficulties. It is not a disorder but a vulnerability factor that produces
problems for adults, adolescents, and children. Often people confuse
perfectionism with achievement striving or conscientiousness.
Perfectionism is distinct from these attitudes. It is a maladaptive pattern of
behaviours that can result in a large number of problems. Achievement striving
and conscientiousness involve appropriate and tangible expectations (often very
difficult but attainable goals) and produce a sense of satisfaction and rewards.
Perfectionism, on the other hand, involves inappropriate levels of expectations
and intangible goals (i.e. perfection), and a constant lack of satisfaction,
irrespective of performance.
Perfectionism is a chronic source of stress, often leaving the individual feeling
that he/she is a failure. Perfectionistic individuals require themselves to be
perfect. This constant expectation is a source of stress and contributes to
maladaptive ways of coping.
Perfectionism is multidimensional. That is, there are several different types of
perfectionistic behaviour that involve motivation to actually be perfect. For
example, self-oriented perfectionism is the requirement for the self to be
perfect. It is what we usually think of when we use the term perfectionism.
Other-oriented perfectionism is the requirement that others (e.g., spouse,
children, subordinates, other people in general) should be perfect. Finally,
socially prescribed perfectionism is the perception that others (e.g., one’s
parents, boss, people in general) require oneself to be perfect. In addition to
these three kinds of perfectionism that focus on a need to be perfect, there is
also a kind of perfectionism that involves needing to appear to others as if one
is perfect.
Each of these kinds of perfectionism is associated with different kinds of
problems. For example, it has been shown that self-oriented perfectionism is
associated with clinical depression, especially in the presence of
achievement-related (e.g., job or school related shortfalls) stressors. It has
been shown that when self-oriented perfectionists experience these kinds of
stressful events, they experience more severe and more chronic depression
symptoms. Self-oriented perfectionism has been associated with anorexia nervosa,
prolonged elevations in cardio-vascular responses, and interpersonal problems
reflecting over-responsiblity.
Other-oriented perfectionism has been associated with relationship problems, such
as poor marital satisfaction, sexual dissatisfaction, and anger toward others.
Socially prescribed perfectionism has been associated with a variety of symptoms
including, anxiety, depression, eating disorder symptoms, and hostility. Most
importantly, this dimension of perfectionism has been found to predict not only
suicide thoughts and behaviours in adults and adolescents, but also serious
suicide attempts. Furthermore, there are a variety of achievement-related
problems that arise from this kind of perfectionism, such as procrastination and
self-handicapping (i.e., where individuals spend time finding excuses for poor
performance rather than preparing for a performance). Finally, perfectionstic
self-presentation involves a variety of difficulties such as precluding one from
seeking appropriate help for difficulties and not benefitting fully from
treatment due to great difficulties in self-disclosing personal information.
Can psychology help?
Because perfectionism is a personality style, treatment of it tends to be fairly
intensive and longer term...
http://www.cpa.ca/factsheets/perfectionism.htm
Will the sun rise tommorrow?
Rick
second), doesn't mean I'm always perfect, just when I'm being the best me
that I can be.
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
David V.
> Am I perfect?
No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
believe in gods that do not exist.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
Immortalist
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D_CdnUKEZfc...@sti.net...
> -Hector- wrote:
> > Am I perfect?
>
> No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
> believe in gods that do not exist.
>
Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does not exist?" without the
burden even bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say then,
...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
Scrabble
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Immortalist wrote:
>> No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
>> believe in gods that do not exist.
> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does not exist?"
> without the burden even bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
> then,
The god Christians believe in COULD not exist because a perfect being
wouldn't be involved with such a stupid concept in the first place.
> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
You can't prove a negative, you twit.
Sheep-R-Wales
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Me2dnXYJyMa...@comcast.com...
>
> "Sheep-R-Wales" <welsh...@sheep.lover> wrote in message
> news:109ehbr...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> > news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Am I perfect?
> >
> > No.
> >
>
> define perfect as mostest, bestest.
>
> > >
> > > Are you perfect?
> >
> > Of course.
> >
>
> Can you say that on a nude beach and even get 70% of the ladies to look
down and
> agree? I did.
Shrinkage???
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> -Hector- wrote:
>>
>>> Am I perfect?
>>
>> No. so called christians are not perfect either since
>> they believe in gods that do not exist.
>
> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does
> not exist?" without the burden even bein' shifted to you?
> Sucka, prove wha you say then,
>
> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the christian god
exists as described by christians, that and the
contradicting and illogical claims made, make it illogical
to assume the god exists.
Mark Earnest
Why should the existence of God be dependent on what people say about him?
Dore
--
Dore
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
Sheep-R-Wales
"Dore" <dorewil...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OUXlc.9354$vz5....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> What do you know of perfection?
It's a small town in the Nevada desert where the Graboids
live.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> -Hector- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am I perfect?
>>>>
>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
>>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
>>>
>>> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God
>>> does not exist?" without the burden even bein'
>>> shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say then,
>>>
>>> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
>>
>> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the
>> christian god exists as described by christians, that
>> and the contradicting and illogical claims made, make
>> it illogical to assume the god exists.
>
> Why should the existence of God be dependent on what
> people say about him?
Him? You've seen it's genitals? There is nothing other than
what people say about it. It's a "revealed god" so all you
have is what some person claims they believe this god is.
David V.
> What do you know of perfection?
We all know you're a perfect moron... or is that more off
since your brain is more off than on.
Mark Earnest
> Mark Earnest wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> Immortalist wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>> -Hector- wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am I perfect?
> >>>>
> >>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
> >>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
> >>>
> >>> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God
> >>> does not exist?" without the burden even bein'
> >>> shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say then,
> >>>
> >>> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
> >>
> >> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the
> >> christian god exists as described by christians, that
> >> and the contradicting and illogical claims made, make
> >> it illogical to assume the god exists.
> >
> > Why should the existence of God be dependent on what
> > people say about him?
>
> Him? You've seen it's genitals?
His face, more like.
There is nothing other than
> what people say about it. It's a "revealed god" so all you
> have is what some person claims they believe this god is.
What about what he says about himself?
-Hector-
wrote:
>-Hector- wrote:
>> Am I perfect?
>
>No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
>believe in gods that do not exist.
Then you possess the concept of perfection, as you imply. You
concede imperfection and this cannot be possible without its
antithesis. The only possible source for the notion of perfection is
an independent, extrinsic model, i.e. God.
Aspiring to perfection,
Hector
-Hector-
<clyd...@UNSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote
>>
>> Am I perfect?
>>
>> Are you perfect?
>>
>
>I don't want to be perfect, because then things
>can only get worse. :-)
>
>Does perfection include a kind of "completeness"?
>It almost seems that perfection would be a kind of
>stasis or "death" because there would need to be
>no further change or evolution.
>Or is perfection a process?
>
>Thanks
>Dare
>
I'm certain that nearly all persons, at some point in their
maturation, become viscerally cognizant of the fact that they are
imperfect. An intellectually honest person will admit as much. Many
will dismiss it and rationalize it. This dynamic is a metaphysical
link to a person's spiritual component. It illuminates man's divorce
from God (the sense of imperfection) and the need for reconciliation
with God to achieve a form of perfection. This element necessarily
inheres in each individual. Those that desire to be their own 'God'
deny it or inveigh against it. They assign it the appellation of
superstition as though it is juxtaposed inimically to reason. But
reason will never be able to confute God. If anything, reason will
only lead the intellectually honest on a path to acknowledging the
Lord's sovereignty.
Positing gently,
Hector
Mark Earnest
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
>
> Are you perfect?
A perfect being would not blatantly claim to be perfect,
because that would not be humble, which one needs to be
to be perfect.
-Hector-
<welsh...@sheep.lover> wrote:
>
>"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
>news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
>
>> Am I perfect?
>
>No.
>
>>
>> Are you perfect?
>
>Of course.
>
>>
>> Compare yourself with your neighbor. Are you perfect?
>
>Absolutely.
>
>>
>> If you are perfect, then go and pronounce to your neighbor that you
>> are perfect!
>
>"Hey Neighbor! I'm Perfect!"
>
>
>> Broadcast to the world-at-large that you are perfect! Let the world
>> bask, revel, and glory in your perfection.
>
>"Hey World! I'm Perfect"
>
>
>>
>> If you are not perfect, then how do you know this? How can you not be
>> perfect?
>> What is the model for perfection? What is the benchmark?
>
>I am that.
>
Then, too, Osama Bin Laden is perfect. If you are perfect, he is
perfect. As a perfect person, Bin Laden is convinced that the murder
of innocent civilians is perfectly acceptable, even commendable, if
done to further the goals of Islam. Concordantly, his penchant for
terror can fall only within the domain of perfection - as a mere
quality of his evolutionary election. You then, as a member of the
set of perfect persons, of which we all belong if we are simple
products of evolution, sanction his barbarism, whether or not you
share his predilection for terror.
Residing outside the domain of the evolved,
Hector
Sheep-R-Wales
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
Yep. I guess I'm a holy terror.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Immortalist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> -Hector- wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am I perfect?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
>>>>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that
>>>>> "God does not exist?" without the burden even
>>>>> bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
>>>>> then,
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
>>>>
>>>> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the
>>>> christian god exists as described by christians,
>>>> that and the contradicting and illogical claims
>>>> made, make it illogical to assume the god exists.
>>>
>>> Why should the existence of God be dependent on what
>>> people say about him?
>>
>> Him? You've seen it's genitals?
>
> His face, more like.
He could be transgendered. Isn't this god supposed to be
incorporeal? No body? If so, how could you see it's face?
>> There is nothing other than what people say about it.
>> It's a "revealed god" so all you have is what some
>> person claims they believe this god is.
>
> What about what he says about himself?
Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could it say
anything? When you get the definition of this god right,
then come back and we can talk.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -Hector- wrote:
>>
>>> Am I perfect?
>>
>> No. so called christians are not perfect either since
>> they believe in gods that do not exist.
>
> Then you possess the concept of perfection, as you imply.
Which has nothing to do with a god or a belief in gods.
David V.
>
> I'm certain that nearly all persons, at some point in
> their maturation, become viscerally cognizant of the fact
> that they are imperfect. An intellectually honest person
And and intellectually honest person knows that has nothing
to do with a god.
-Hector-
So the "Perfect" should not admit their perfection since in
doing so they are imperfect?
That sounds more like Eastern Mysticism than rational thought, if I
may be allowed to be so brazenly blatant.
I certainly don't disagree with the necessity for humility, though, I
find the reasoning slightly circular.
Experiencing cogitative vertigo,
Hector
-Hector-
wrote:
>-Hector- wrote:
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> -Hector- wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am I perfect?
>>>
>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either since
>>> they believe in gods that do not exist.
>>
>> Then you possess the concept of perfection, as you imply.
>
>Which has nothing to do with a god or a belief in gods.
Then I suggest that you did not fully grasp the original
polemic. A reasoned refutation could serve to disabuse me of such
silly sophistry as I have foolishly rendered.
Incorrigibly pious,
Hector
-Hector-
wrote:
>-Hector- wrote:
Again, a rational refutation is welcome.
Expectant,
Hector
Mark Earnest
> Mark Earnest wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> Mark Earnest wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>> Immortalist wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -Hector- wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am I perfect?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
> >>>>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that
> >>>>> "God does not exist?" without the burden even
> >>>>> bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
> >>>>> then,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
> >>>>
> >>>> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the
> >>>> christian god exists as described by christians,
> >>>> that and the contradicting and illogical claims
> >>>> made, make it illogical to assume the god exists.
> >>>
> >>> Why should the existence of God be dependent on what
> >>> people say about him?
> >>
> >> Him? You've seen it's genitals?
> >
> > His face, more like.
>
> He could be transgendered.
He is. He can appear as a male or a female.
Isn't this god supposed to be
> incorporeal? No body? If so, how could you see it's face?
How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very corporeal. He has
over a billion bodies. He is very multicorporeal. That is what is meant
when people say that he is everywhere.
>
> >> There is nothing other than what people say about it.
> >> It's a "revealed god" so all you have is what some
> >> person claims they believe this god is.
> >
> > What about what he says about himself?
>
> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could it say
> anything? When you get the definition of this god right,
> then come back and we can talk.
He talks just like you or I do. Through his mouth.
Mark Earnest
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 22:41:45 -0500, "Mark Earnest"
> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> >news:r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com...
> >> Am I perfect?
> >>
> >> Are you perfect?
> >
> >A perfect being would not blatantly claim to be perfect,
> >because that would not be humble, which one needs to be
> >to be perfect.
> >
>
> So the "Perfect" should not admit their perfection since in
> doing so they are imperfect?
No they would not, unless it was in a subtle, humble way, which requires the
right moment and is rather difficult to achieve.
bob young
Dare wrote:
> "-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote
> >
> > Am I perfect?
> >
> > Are you perfect?
> >
>
> I don't want to be perfect, because then things
> can only get worse. :-)
>
> Does perfection include a kind of "completeness"?
> It almost seems that perfection would be a kind of
> stasis or "death" because there would need to be
> no further change or evolution.
> Or is perfection a process?
I don't like these cold, precise, perfect people who, in order not to
speak wrong, never speak at all, and in order not to do wrong, never do
anything.
[Henry Ward Beecher]
>
>
> Thanks
> Dare
>
> > If you are perfect, then go and pronounce to your neighbor that you
> > are perfect!
> > Broadcast to the world-at-large that you are perfect! Let the world
> > bask, revel, and glory in your perfection.
> >
> > If you are not perfect, then how do you know this? How can you not be
> > perfect?
> > What is the model for perfection? What is the benchmark?
> >
bv_schornak
>How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very corporeal. He has
>over a billion bodies. He is very multicorporeal. That is what is meant
>when people say that he is everywhere.
>
Ouch - sounds like Big Brother... ;)
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
bv_schornak
>A perfect being would not blatantly claim to be perfect,
>because that would not be humble, which one needs to be
>to be perfect.
>
Moreover, it would not be able to see its perfection,
because being perfect is its standard. Probably, such
a being also will see itself as not perfect and start
to work hard to reach perfection...
Perfection just is a definition of non-perfect beings
who declare things to be perfect they can't reach. No
perfect being ever will exist, because the definition
of perfectiong changes with rising standards of those
who are not perfect.
Perfection is just as imaginary as God or a Perpetuum
Mobile...
Jez
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 00:25:45 -0700, "Sheep-R-Wales"
> <welsh...@sheep.lover> wrote:
> >I am that.
> >
>
> Then, too, Osama Bin Laden is perfect. If you are perfect, he is
> perfect. As a perfect person, Bin Laden is convinced that the murder
> of innocent civilians is perfectly acceptable, even commendable, if
> done to further the goals of Islam.
And an illegal invasion of Iraq is OK
'Cos they got OIL !!
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Jez
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 08:27:21 -0400, "Dare"
> <clyd...@UNSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote
> >>
> >> Am I perfect?
> >>
> >> Are you perfect?
> >>
> >
> >I don't want to be perfect, because then things
> >can only get worse. :-)
> >
> >Does perfection include a kind of "completeness"?
> >It almost seems that perfection would be a kind of
> >stasis or "death" because there would need to be
> >no further change or evolution.
> >Or is perfection a process?
> >
> >Thanks
> >Dare
> >
>
> I'm certain that nearly all persons, at some point in their
> maturation, become viscerally cognizant of the fact that they are
> imperfect. An intellectually honest person will admit as much. Many
> will dismiss it and rationalize it. This dynamic is a metaphysical
> link to a person's spiritual component.
[Cough] Wot !!
> It illuminates man's divorce
> from God (the sense of imperfection) and the need for reconciliation
> with God to achieve a form of perfection.
Ahh, this 'God' fellow, who's he then ?
>This element necessarily
> inheres in each individual.
Ooo, that sounds rather painful !
>Those that desire to be their own 'God'
> deny it or inveigh against it. They assign it the appellation of
> superstition as though it is juxtaposed inimically to reason.
But to us, it's just a bit of 'wind'.
>But
> reason will never be able to confute God.
As reason has proved 'God' does not exist...........
> If anything, reason will
> only lead the intellectually honest on a path to acknowledging the
> Lord's sovereignty.
Mmm 'fraid not old bean ! Even if an 'almighty creator' can be proved to
exist.....
one would still have to point out that he made a pretty crappy job of things
Jez
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
imaginary friends.
The poor things are too deluded to understand what 'rational' means FFS !
Jez
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:c79g5e$v...@library1.airnews.net...
It isn't.
Jez
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2s-dnSpQO8j...@sti.net...
> > Mark Earnest wrote:
> > > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > >> Immortalist wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >>>
> > >>>> -Hector- wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Am I perfect?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
> > >>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God
> > >>> does not exist?" without the burden even bein'
> > >>> shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say then,
> > >>>
> > >>> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
> > >>
> > >> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the
> > >> christian god exists as described by christians, that
> > >> and the contradicting and illogical claims made, make
> > >> it illogical to assume the god exists.
> > >
> > > Why should the existence of God be dependent on what
> > > people say about him?
> >
> > Him? You've seen it's genitals?
>
> His face, more like.
Must be pretty full of wrinkles !
>
> There is nothing other than
> > what people say about it. It's a "revealed god" so all you
> > have is what some person claims they believe this god is.
>
> What about what he says about himself?
He doesn't say anything. But some folks who have suffered hallucinations
in which they belived such a creature 'talked' to them.
Some of those folks have even written accounts about it.
Bloody weirdos !
Jez
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > >> Him? You've seen it's genitals?
> > >
> > > His face, more like.
> >
> > He could be transgendered.
>
> He is. He can appear as a male or a female.
Mmm that's a neat trick !
Does 'he' get confused over which toilet to use after a few beers ?
>
> Isn't this god supposed to be
> > incorporeal? No body? If so, how could you see it's face?
>
> How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very corporeal. He has
> over a billion bodies.
Where ?
He is very multicorporeal. That is what is meant
> when people say that he is everywhere.
People say lots of strange things. Especially after some good hallucinogens
Jez
"-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> Incorrigibly pious,
> Hector
No, just sickly smug.
And deluded to boot !
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -Hector- wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -Hector- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am I perfect?
>>>>
>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
>>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
>>>
>>> Then you possess the concept of perfection, as you
>>> imply.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with a god or a belief in gods.
>
> Then I suggest that you did not fully grasp the original
> polemic.
It was a strawman, not a polemic.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -Hector- wrote:
>>
>>> I'm certain that nearly all persons, at some point in
>>> their maturation, become viscerally cognizant of the
>>> fact that they are imperfect. An intellectually
>>> honest person will admit as much....
>>
>> And and intellectually honest person knows that has
>> nothing to do with a god.
>
> Again, a rational refutation is welcome.
How can someone rationally refute something that was
completely irrational to begin with?
David V.
Then provide proof of how it does this.
>> Isn't this god supposed to be incorporeal? No body? If
>> so, how could you see it's face?
>
> How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very
> corporeal. He has over a billion bodies. He is very
> multicorporeal. That is what is meant when people say
> that he is everywhere.
Oh, I see, you just make up what you want. Do you have any
empirical proofs to back up what you're saying?
>>>> There is nothing other than what people say about
>>>> it. It's a "revealed god" so all you have is what
>>>> some person claims they believe this god is.
>>>
>>> What about what he says about himself?
>>
>> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could it say
>> anything? When you get the definition of this god
>> right, then come back and we can talk.
>
> He talks just like you or I do. Through his mouth.
Not a very powerful god if it needs a mouth to talk with.
grateful
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Immortalist wrote:
>
> >> No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
> >> believe in gods that do not exist.
>
> > Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does not exist?"
> > without the burden even bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
> > then,
>
> wouldn't be involved with such a stupid concept in the first place.
You say He doesn't exist, then you go on to describe what
He would be like. You don't know Him and He doesn't know
you, therefore, you can't know His plan and purpose.
>
> > ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
>
> You can't prove a negative, you twit.
The refuge of a cowardly, lying atheist.
Ron Peterson
> How can someone rationally refute something that was
> completely irrational to begin with?
Ask the person to give definitions to the words that he is using.
Although you may 'know' what the words mean, the person making the
statement may mean something different.
--
Ron
Ron Peterson
> A perfect being would not blatantly claim to be perfect,
> because that would not be humble, which one needs to be
> to be perfect.
It's so hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way.
I cover up my perfection by deliberately making typos, errors in facts,
and errors in reasoning. I cover up my being humble by claiming all
my spelling mistakes are typos.
--
Ron
-Hector-
wrote:
Very well. I couldn't have expected anything other than an
insipid copout. A refutation is a tool to demonstrate the
irrationality of an argument, if a discourse is challenged to be
specious or irrational. Simply stating that a line of reasoning is
fallacious has no legitimate merit, however, it is a tact customarily
adopted by the cowardly, the inept, and the disingenuous. The
original points are able to be considered credible by the reader until
refuted by logical rebuttal. To this point none has been proffered
for consideration. Simply put, I am correct in my presentation for
lack of meaningful refutation to it. I welcome the cliche and the
pointless pejorative, however. It only strengthens my credibility.
Grateful,
Hector
Kevin
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Immortalist wrote:
>
> >> No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
> >> believe in gods that do not exist.
>
> > Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does not exist?"
> > without the burden even bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
> > then,
>
> The god Christians believe in COULD not exist because a perfect being
> wouldn't be involved with such a stupid concept in the first place.
>
>
> You can't prove a negative, you twit.
Actually, you CAN prove a negative. For example "I have -NOTHING- in my hand."
Just open your hand and prove the truth of your statement to all who can see.
Alan Wostenberg
David V. wrote:
> Mark Earnest wrote:
>
>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Jc6dndVRILh...@sti.net...
>>
>>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>> Mark: What about what he says about himself?
>>>
>>>
>>> David: Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could it say anything? When
>>> you get the definition of this God
>>> right, then come back and we can talk.
>>
>>
>> Mark: He talks just like you or I do. Through his mouth.
>
> David: Not a very powerful God if it needs a mouth to talk with.
David wonders how You, who came into the world as light, so that
everyone who believes in You might not remain in darkness, speaks.
Surely he is not so proud as to expect You to speak directly to him! For
a god who "needs a mouth to talk with" is weak. A truly powerful God
speaks Once, and having spoken, Your Word reverberates down through the
ages. O God, let all the nations praise you!
David V.
I tried. All you get are more irrational statements. :-)
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -Hector- wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -Hector- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm certain that nearly all persons, at some
>>>>> point in their maturation, become viscerally
>>>>> cognizant of the fact that they are imperfect. An
>>>>> intellectually honest person will admit as
>>>>> much....
>>>>
>>>> And and intellectually honest person knows that has
>>>> nothing to do with a god.
>>>
>>> Again, a rational refutation is welcome.
>>
>> How can someone rationally refute something that was
>> completely irrational to begin with?
>
> Very well. I couldn't have expected anything other than
A gimmick you use rather well.
> The original points are able to be considered credible by
> the reader until refuted by logical rebuttal.
No. The original points are considered to be suspect until
proven by the claimant. If you make the claim, you have to
support it. I do not have to refute it. I know people like
you just hate that burden of proof, but trying to shift it
just shows the dishonesty inherent in your arguments.
Mark Earnest
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:c7a2bj$n4v$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Mark Earnest wrote:
>
> >How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very corporeal. He
has
> >over a billion bodies. He is very multicorporeal. That is what is meant
> >when people say that he is everywhere.
> >
>
> Ouch - sounds like Big Brother... ;)
Big brother, big sister, little brother, little sister, mother, father,
child...
But no, God does not take away your rights like Orwell's world did.
Mark Earnest
"Jez" <iced_...@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4098cd4e$0$20517$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> news:c79rum$7...@library1.airnews.net...
> > > >> Him? You've seen it's genitals?
> > > >
> > > > His face, more like.
> > >
> > > He could be transgendered.
> >
> > He is. He can appear as a male or a female.
>
> Mmm that's a neat trick !
> Does 'he' get confused over which toilet to use after a few beers ?
No, because each male manifestation can get to a men's room, and each female
manifestation can get to a women's room.
> >
> > Isn't this god supposed to be
> > > incorporeal? No body? If so, how could you see it's face?
> >
> > How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very corporeal. He
has
> > over a billion bodies.
>
> Where ?
One fifth of the world's population.
>
> He is very multicorporeal. That is what is meant
> > when people say that he is everywhere.
>
> People say lots of strange things. Especially after some good
hallucinogens
....and sometimes they are even right..
Mark Earnest
It does not require proof, but mere observation. Look for God and you will
find him.
> >> Isn't this god supposed to be incorporeal? No body? If
> >> so, how could you see it's face?
> >
> > How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very
> > corporeal. He has over a billion bodies. He is very
> > multicorporeal. That is what is meant when people say
> > that he is everywhere.
>
> Oh, I see, you just make up what you want. Do you have any
> empirical proofs to back up what you're saying?
Oh, a little friendly competetion, here. It requires no empirical proof to
see God, just a pure heart.
>
> >>>> There is nothing other than what people say about
> >>>> it. It's a "revealed god" so all you have is what
> >>>> some person claims they believe this god is.
> >>>
> >>> What about what he says about himself?
> >>
> >> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could it say
> >> anything? When you get the definition of this god
> >> right, then come back and we can talk.
> >
> > He talks just like you or I do. Through his mouth.
>
> Not a very powerful god if it needs a mouth to talk with.
It would be a very ghoulish one that did not.
Mark Earnest
No, the clearest image of him I have ever witnessed was that of a young man
in his early thirties. The almighty ages very, very slowly.
> >
> > There is nothing other than
> > > what people say about it. It's a "revealed god" so all you
> > > have is what some person claims they believe this god is.
> >
> > What about what he says about himself?
>
> He doesn't say anything. But some folks who have suffered hallucinations
> in which they belived such a creature 'talked' to them.
You're thinking of people hearing spirits. God talks from his mouth,
something quite different.
-Hector-
wrote:
If only this poster had been a contemporary of Hume and Kant.
He could have informed them that their refutations were completely
unnecessary and spared them the ignominy of responding to certain
proofs. Naturally the proof that was the genesis of this thread is
not a "proof" but a "claim." Redefining the ontological argument is a
neat trick, and I should have anticipated such a maneuver. I'll be
more cautious next go around.
Waiting patiently,
Hector
Alan Wostenberg
So your gist is there were no Perfection, we could not say this or that
individual is imperfect. But we do, so there is. Nice!
Progress presupposes some unchanging Standard, for if the goal moved,
how could it be progress? The unbeliever who fancies himself progressive
is an argument for that Standard. In reality he has regressed not
progressed, but that, too, argues for the Standard.
Henry Etta
"grateful" <crossro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:13f2c124.04050...@posting.google.com...
> The refuge of a cowardly, lying atheist.
That's "Athiest", you fool! <G>
Henry Etta
David V.
No, it requires proof. Anecdotal stories are not acceptable.
>>>> Isn't this god supposed to be incorporeal? No body?
>>>> If so, how could you see it's face?
>>>
>>> How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is
>>> very corporeal. He has over a billion bodies. He is
>>> very multicorporeal. That is what is meant when
>>> people say that he is everywhere.
>>
>> Oh, I see, you just make up what you want. Do you have
>> any empirical proofs to back up what you're saying?
>
> Oh, a little friendly competetion, here. It requires no
> empirical proof to see God, just a pure heart.
No, it requires proof unless you just want to mindlessly
follow what others tell you to do and think.
>>>>>> There is nothing other than what people say
>>>>>> about it. It's a "revealed god" so all you have
>>>>>> is what some person claims they believe this
>>>>>> god is.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about what he says about himself?
>>>>
>>>> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could it
>>>> say anything? When you get the definition of this
>>>> god right, then come back and we can talk.
>>>
>>> He talks just like you or I do. Through his mouth.
>>
>> Not a very powerful god if it needs a mouth to talk
>> with.
>
> It would be a very ghoulish one that did not.
Then it's a ghoulish god.
David V.
Then the nice christians who call their god 'love' would
have burnt me at the stake - alive.
-Hector-
Perhaps a lesson in Boolean logic will convince our negative
logician. I wonder if he is able to prove someone a "twit"?
Walking on the negative side of the cartesian coordinate system,
Hector
-Hector-
Compared to some, I think you actually comprehended the proof.
Encouraged,
Hector
-Hector-
wrote:
For an inability to render a refutation?
I don't recall Kant or Hume having been burned at the stake
"alive."
Recalling Polycarp,
Hector
Dr John Wilkins
That was reserved for theological heretics - like Bruno or Jeanne D'Arc.
But they were purified by the fire - it was for their own good, you
know.
>
> Recalling Polycarp,
> Hector
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857
David V.
You've said nothing logical for anyone to refute. You made a
claim and then attack me for not refuting your unsupported
claim. You made the claim, you carry the burden of proof.
Gwar
On 5 May 2004, Kevin wrote:
>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
>>>> believe in gods that do not exist.
>>> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does not exist?"
>>> without the burden even bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
>>> then,
>> The god Christians believe in COULD not exist because a perfect being
>> wouldn't be involved with such a stupid concept in the first place.
>>> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
>> You can't prove a negative, you twit.
> Actually, you CAN prove a negative. For example "I have -NOTHING- in
> my hand." Just open your hand and prove the truth of your statement to
> all who can see.
Asking someone "how is it that 'God doesn't exists' implies that God does
exist & that it has to be proven that God doesn't exist rather than that
God does exist. That's an argument from ignorance & doesn't prove anything
about the existence of God.
Jez
"Dr John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gddcwf.34kqs55dvmxuN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
> -Hector- <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote:
> >
> > Recalling Polycarp,
Whats the 'martyr' with you ?
Recalling Polycarp FFS !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Jez
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>
> "Jez" <iced_...@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:4098cd4e$0$20517$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > news:c79rum$7...@library1.airnews.net...
> > > > >> Him? You've seen it's genitals?
> > > > >
> > > > > His face, more like.
> > > >
> > > > He could be transgendered.
> > >
> > > He is. He can appear as a male or a female.
> >
> > Mmm that's a neat trick !
> > Does 'he' get confused over which toilet to use after a few beers ?
>
> No, because each male manifestation can get to a men's room, and each
female
> manifestation can get to a women's room.
Damn clever that !
>
> > >
> > > Isn't this god supposed to be
> > > > incorporeal? No body? If so, how could you see it's face?
> > >
> > > How can you not? It is everywhere you go. God is very corporeal. He
> has
> > > over a billion bodies.
> >
> > Where ?
>
> One fifth of the world's population.
Talk about having a schizoid personality !
>
> >
> > He is very multicorporeal. That is what is meant
> > > when people say that he is everywhere.
> >
> > People say lots of strange things. Especially after some good
> hallucinogens
>
> ....and sometimes they are even right..
Mmmmm.......well........urm.......yeah man !
Jez
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
Wonder if he has a beauty formula....could make a killing
on the open market....
>
>
> > >
> > > There is nothing other than
> > > > what people say about it. It's a "revealed god" so all you
> > > > have is what some person claims they believe this god is.
> > >
> > > What about what he says about himself?
> >
> > He doesn't say anything. But some folks who have suffered hallucinations
> > in which they belived such a creature 'talked' to them.
>
> You're thinking of people hearing spirits. God talks from his mouth,
> something quite different.
Ahh...right......urm......glad you've....urmmm..... cleared that up ...
bv_schornak
>But no, God does not take away your rights like Orwell's world did.
>
Really? Might be dependent on the God you pray to.
History of mankind shows some really violent Gods,
either (that is - the definition of those Gods was
violent 'cause of the circumstances, e.g. Khali or
- partially - Quetzalcoatl).
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
Amananon
> such characteristics are to be considered imperfections, this can only
> be so if a concept of perfection can be envisioned.
Indeed, and if not, then how are we to claim anyone is perfect, much
less everyone?
> If Bin
> Laden is simply an evolved creature, then he can only be perfect.
Therefore, since we cannot define or envision perfection, we are all
such? This is beneath flawed, it is ridiculous.
There is a difference between claim and actuality. If I claim I am
"x", then I will need to (1) define "x", (2) list criteria that I meet
to be considered "x", and (3) attempt to validate the claim in the
light of criticism or espousals of different views.
Even if all were to agree that I am "x", it still does not mean that I
am verily "x"-- it only means that all agree (at the present time)
that I am "x". For example, at one time men may have generally agreed
that the earth was flat, although in light of new knowledge we have
reconsidered our view. Thus, to be self-declared perfect, to be
considered perfect, and to be perfect, are three different things to
be considered separately before we declare any instance verily the
case.
Notice logic fallacies which take place:
Argumentum ad numerum-- the appeal to numbers (which erroniously
suggests a correlation between number of people who believe something
and the truth of the proposition).
Note that believing this would suggest that the earth was literally
once flat (since so many believed it so), gradually getting rounder
until becoming round around 1492 --i.e., that reality follows belief
rather than vice-versa.
Argumentum ad verecundiam-- the appeal to authority (which erroniously
infers that a claim is supported merely by quoting a
less-than-authoritative source).
Note that if those who self-consider themselves perfect, or a divine
receiver of prophecy, might appeal through authoritative-sounding
voice and words, which is not actual proof even though the masses
might follow (since to many, if it sounds true then it is).
Argumentum ad logicam-- the appeal to (failed) logic (which
erroniously suggests that the conclusion of a flawed or invalid
argument must be false-- or, if a weak or flawed proof to the contrary
of an idea is shown to fail, then the idea must therefore be true).
Note that this is not the same as Reductio ad absurdum (proving that
assuming the opposite premise results in an absurd conclusion), since
above, one is using flawed rather than valid logic. (E.g., if an
idiot fails to disprove me, it does not mean I am therefore right.)
Hence, claims of perfection are claims, and even if we sound
authoritative, or quote sundry profound or insignificant sources-- or
even fool some people into thinking so-- it is not absolute proof of a
corresponding actuality.
-Hector- <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message news:<r3ge90pjfv3o7pnmd...@4ax.com>...
> Am I perfect?
>
> Are you perfect?
>
> Compare yourself with your neighbor. Are you perfect?
>
> If you are perfect, then go and pronounce to your neighbor that you
> are perfect!
> Broadcast to the world-at-large that you are perfect! Let the world
> bask, revel, and glory in your perfection.
>
> If you are not perfect, then how do you know this? How can you not be
> perfect?
> What is the model for perfection? What is the benchmark?
>
> We are evolved creatures, replete with foibles, idiosyncracies,
> predilections, eccentricities, and other assorted quirks. Our various
> "traits" can be nothing more than symptoms of evolutionary processes.
> Subsequently, these things cannot be considered imperfections. If
> such characteristics are to be considered imperfections, this can only
> be so if a concept of perfection can be envisioned. This would imply
> that there exists a perfect individual by which all others may be
> gauged, or man is imbued with a latent abstract conception of
> perfection. If there actually does exist the ultimate paragon of
> humanity, let him or her step forward that all may acknowledge the
> same and all other's imperfections will be revealed. If it is a
> singular race of peoples, let the same acclaim such and the rest of
> humanity will genuflect deferentially. Perhaps it is the Aryan race?
>
> Is Bill Clinton perfect? Is George Bush perfect? If they are not
> perfect, how is this determined? Is Osama Bin Laden perfect? If Bin
> Laden is simply an evolved creature, then he can only be perfect. If
> he is not perfect, his imperfection can only be established within the
> context of the concept of perfection. If there is no perfect person,
> and all are products of an evolutionary process, then the realization
> of imperfection can only be assessed in contrast to an ultimate ideal.
> What is the source of an ideal state of being? Simple
> imagination? (If there is no state of imperfection, one may simply
> retreat from this dialectic and don their perfection with the
> arrogance it deserves.) If it is the mere product of imagination, it
> is yet a relative notion or it could not be defined in any appreciable
> way. Assuming that an innate sense of perfection inheres in the
> individual and the race of man, it can only be instilled within the
> same from an autonomous, independent source, if no genuine human model
> of perfection impinges itself upon mankind. This source must
> necessarily be something that has an inherent perfection, or has
> defined the guidelines for perfection, else again imperfection, as an
> abstraction, could never be conceived. Whatever this source may be,
> it necessarily must be something that exceeds the human individual or
> the race of man, if the individual appreciates the concept of
> imperfection. So what would this 'source' be? If most sane
> individuals concede the concept of imperfection, then the concept is
> one that is fundamentally universal. This would imply a universal
> sense of what perfection is or, at the least, a universal appreciation
> of the individual's imperfection. Alternately, from this one can
> infer that there inheres in each individual an innate understanding of
> a universal standard by which all behavior may be measured, and this
> understanding can only be derived from a metaphysical model beyond the
> individual. Otherwise, each individual of the race of man is perfect,
> e.g. Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Caligula, et al.
> If there is no such thing as imperfection, then Christians, in
> the corporate and individually, can only be perfect. How could such
> persons ever be wrong?
>
> The pinnacle of perfection,
> Hector
Frank@christfirst.com Pastor Frank
> Immortalist wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> -Hector- wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am I perfect?
> >>
> >> they believe in gods that do not exist.
> >
> > Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does
> > not exist?" without the burden even bein' shifted to you?
> > Sucka, prove wha you say then,
> >
> > ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
>
> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the christian god
> exists as described by christians, that and the
> contradicting and illogical claims made, make it illogical
> to assume the god exists.
>
exist, except in your imagination of course. Our Christian "God is love"
fully manifested in Jesus Christ, and love does indeed exist, though perhaps
not in you. See below
--
Pastor Frank
"GOD" The Christian meaning of the word according to scripture:
Jesus in Jn:4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth.
Jesus in John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the
life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8: Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and
how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the
words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God
is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
bv_schornak
>... Our Christian "God is love" ...
>
Like in Iraq?
15,000++ civilians *loved to death*...
>... though perhaps
>not in you...
>
How do you know that?
Greetings from Augsburg
Truckdriver Bernhard
Immortalist
"Sheep-R-Wales" <welsh...@sheep.lover> wrote in message
news:109fkkc...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Me2dnXYJyMa...@comcast.com...
> > Can you say that on a nude beach and even get 70% of the ladies to look
> down and
> > agree? I did.
>
>
> Shrinkage???
>
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=tree+trunk
>
>
>
>
Immortalist
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4SdneYfP6K...@sti.net...
> Immortalist wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> -Hector- wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am I perfect?
> >>
> >> they believe in gods that do not exist.
> >
> > Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does
> > not exist?" without the burden even bein' shifted to you?
> > Sucka, prove wha you say then,
> >
> > ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
>
> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the christian god
> exists as described by christians, that and the
> contradicting and illogical claims made, make it illogical
> to assume the god exists.
The burden of truth is upon you my freind for it is you that claimed to be able
to prove God does not esist, therefore you have committed the fallacy:
Shifting the burden of proof
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the
burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of
putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion.
The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven
otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
"OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US
government, can you prove it?"
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof
http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html
Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's ridiculous!
Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have to accept it
as true.
The truth may be out there, but who has the job of producing it in an argument?
In the section on "Validity, Truth, and Soundess," we discuss the concept of a
burden of proof, which is defined there as "how much each side of a dispute needs
to prove in order to win someone's agreement." Sometimes, however, whoever is
carrying the heavier burden attempts to shift that onus onto the other side--as
Mulder does above. In claiming that his sister was abducted by aliens, he carries
a much greater burden of proof, because we normally consider alien-abduction
stories as incredible; as a result, it is up to Mulder to produce proof of his
claim. But in the dialogue above, he shifts that burden to Scully, creating the
fallacious impression that, if Scully can't prove it false, Mulder's
alien-abduction story must be true. On the contrary, since Mulder is making an
incredible claim, it is up to him to support it.
In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally assumes the
burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably not be considered a
fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone shifts the burden of proof to avoid
the difficulty of substantiating a claim which would be very difficult to
support.
-----------------------
Shifting the Burden of Proof
If we assert a statement as truth, it is up to us to establish its validity. We
can't make the opponent of our argument responsible for proving its opposite
(although we'd like to).
"Vegetarianism is a stupid, unnatural lifestyle, and I'd like to see anyone prove
me wrong on that."
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/argument_logic.htm
Immortalist
"Scrabble" <scra...@scrabble.scribble.scat> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.0...@natasha.toon.net...
>
>
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Immortalist wrote:
>
> >> believe in gods that do not exist.
>
> > Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does not exist?"
> > without the burden even bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
> > then,
>
> wouldn't be involved with such a stupid concept in the first place.
>
>
If you said this or defend it, well, the buden of proof is on you not me, so go
ahead and defend what yea assert loc:
Immortalist
"Kevin" <dkjmc...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:2ecf1fe3.04050...@posting.google.com...
> Scrabble <scra...@scrabble.scribble.scat> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.58.0...@natasha.toon.net>...
> > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > >> No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
> > >> believe in gods that do not exist.
> >
> > > Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God does not exist?"
> > > without the burden even bein' shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say
> > > then,
> >
> > The god Christians believe in COULD not exist because a perfect being
> > wouldn't be involved with such a stupid concept in the first place.
> >
> > > ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
> >
> > You can't prove a negative, you twit.
>
>
> Just open your hand and prove the truth of your statement to all who can see.
Irrelevant because he is defending the proposition;
> > >> No. so called christians are not perfect either since they
> > >> believe in gods that do not exist.
...and therefore the burden of proof is on him to defend what he asserts.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> -Hector- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am I perfect?
>>>>
>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
>>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
>>>
>>> Are you proposing to defend the assertion that "God
>>> does not exist?" without the burden even bein'
>>> shifted to you? Sucka, prove wha you say then,
>>>
>>> ...ahhhhh, how is it that "God doesn't exist?"
>>
>> Absolute lack of any kind of evidence that the
>> christian god exists as described by christians, that
>> and the contradicting and illogical claims made, make
>> it illogical to assume the god exists.
>
> that claimed to be able to prove God does not esist,
> therefore you have committed the fallacy:
The burden is on the positive claim. Theists claim a god
exists, they have to prove it. There is no requirement for
me to disprove it.
--
Immortalist
Don't reach for you crotch every time you see a pretty girl, it looks funny.
>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
>>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
The above was mentioned out thin air, wasn't even the subject. Joe Mamma claimed
he could prove god didn't exist in response to some delinquents claims about
perfection. Don't try and make this look differently. You appeared to be
defending him, were you? If you didn't see what was going on back down now and
you are forgiven.
But if you would like to try and defend him, how are you going to prove that god
doesn't exist?
Mark Earnest
And they will. And you, ironically, are demanding them to do just what they
want to do. Falling right into their waiting hands.
You don't have to demand that they prove God; they will do that regardless.
There is no requirement for
> me to disprove it.
That is because it cannot be done.
Mark Earnest
He does. The tree of life bearing twelve manner of fruit for the healing of
the nations.
A magic tree in other words! :)
Mark Earnest
"David V." wrote...
in reply to...
> >>>> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could it
> >>>> say anything? When you get the definition of this
> >>>> god right, then come back and we can talk.
> >>>
> >>> He talks just like you or I do. Through his mouth.
> >>
> >> Not a very powerful god if it needs a mouth to talk
> >> with.
> >
> > It would be a very ghoulish one that did not.
>
> Then it's a ghoulish god.
Do you realize that this sentence implies the assertion that a god
exists...that is...a ghoulish one?
Its like saying, "May I have that glass of grape juice?" Which implies that
there is a glass of grape juice.
Careful what you say...statements may come within statements..and especially
within questions..
Mark Earnest
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:c7dl32$p2n$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Mark Earnest wrote:
>
> >But no, God does not take away your rights like Orwell's world did.
> >
>
> Really? Might be dependent on the God you pray to.
> History of mankind shows some really violent Gods,
> either (that is - the definition of those Gods was
> violent 'cause of the circumstances, e.g. Khali or
> - partially - Quetzalcoatl).
He is just a tough old Eagle Scout Master...or a drill sergeant...there to
make a man or a woman out of you.
>
> Greetings from Augsburg
>
> Bernhard Schornak
Greetings from Texas
David V.
> girl, it looks funny.
Is that the most intelligent response you could come up with?
--
David V.
And I'm still waiting for their proof.
> You don't have to demand that they prove God; they will
> do that regardless.
So far, for the past ten thousand years or so, they have not
even come up with a definition of a god so how are they
going to prove one exists?
>> There is no requirement for me to disprove it.
>
> That is because it cannot be done.
That's where they fall into my waiting hands. Without that
proof; they're just talking out of their ass.
David V.
> "David V." wrote...
>
> in reply to...
>
>>>>>> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could
>>>>>> it say anything? When you get the definition
>>>>>> of this god right, then come back and we can
>>>>>> talk.
>>>>>
>>>>> He talks just like you or I do. Through his
>>>>> mouth.
>>>>
>>>> Not a very powerful god if it needs a mouth to talk
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> It would be a very ghoulish one that did not.
>>
>> Then it's a ghoulish god.
>
> Do you realize that this sentence implies the assertion
> that a god exists...that is...a ghoulish one?
No, really stupid theists try that inane argument all the
time. Having a conversation about a character in a book does
not imply the existence of that character outside of the book.
> Its like saying, "May I have that glass of grape juice?"
> Which implies that there is a glass of grape juice.
No, it doesn't. The person could be hallucinating.
> Careful what you say...statements may come within
> statements..and especially within questions..
I'm careful, but some people aren't too bright and they come
up with some really ignorant claims.
-Hector-
<iced_...@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>"Dr John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
>news:1gddcwf.34kqs55dvmxuN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
>> -Hector- <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Recalling Polycarp,
>
>Whats the 'martyr' with you ?
>Recalling Polycarp FFS !
Sorry. It's a complex of mine. I'm a sucker for punishment.
Emulating Ignatius,
Hector
-Hector-
Better to elicit a confession and coerce repentence first,
though - for good measure.
Going with the Chef Salad tonight,
Hector
-Hector-
wrote:
Libel does not a refutation make. Illuminate the paralogism
if you're able.
Thinkin' in Boolean,
Hector
Frank@christfirst.com Pastor Frank
> -Hector- wrote:
> >
> > I'm certain that nearly all persons, at some point in
> > their maturation, become viscerally cognizant of the fact
> > that they are imperfect. An intellectually honest person
> > will admit as much....
>
> And and intellectually honest person knows that has nothing
> to do with a god.
>
It "has nothing to do with" YOUR god(s), but our Christian God, who is a
Spirit (John 4:24) is not only the symbol, but the very embodiment of
perfection in Christ Jesus.
Frank@christfirst.com Pastor Frank
> "-Hector-" <mel...@Dithyrambic.org> wrote in message
> > On Tue, 4 May 2004 00:25:45 -0700, "Sheep-R-Wales"
> > <welsh...@sheep.lover> wrote:
> > >I am that.
> >
> > Then, too, Osama Bin Laden is perfect. If you are perfect, he is
> > perfect. As a perfect person, Bin Laden is convinced that the murder
> > of innocent civilians is perfectly acceptable, even commendable, if
> > done to further the goals of Islam.
>
What ARE the goals of Islam, that could be "furthered" by killing
"innocent civilians"? Me thinks you have been swallowing too much
propaganda, in defence of the indefensible. Such as killing of "innocent
Muslim men women and children, confiscation of their land and making
survivors refugees in order that colonialists, in the pay of the USA to the
tune of 15 Million Dollars per day in "foreign aid", can go and "possess the
land" and "reap where they have not sown". See below what happened and what
the consequences will be according to prophesy.
--
Pastor Frank
CAUSE OF THE APOCALYPSE: Being proud instead of repentant of the horrific
holocaust of the entire native population of "the promised land", as well as
the continuing colonial brutality against Palestinian natives.
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites
as the Lord thy God has commanded thee."
Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with
your flowing blood..."
Ezekiel 9:5 "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall
not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women...'"
Deut. 7:1 (KJV)When Yahweh your god has settled you in the land you're
about to occupy, and driven out many infidels before you...you're to cut
them down and exterminate them. You're to make no compromise with
them nor show them any mercy.
Joshua 10:40 - BBE So Joshua struck all the land, the hill-country, and
the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left
none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as God, the God
of Israel, commanded."
1 Samuel 15:3 - BBE Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all
that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Isaiah 13:16 - BBE Their infants also will be dashed in pieces before
their eyes. Their houses will be ransacked, and their wives raped."
Hosea 13:16 - BBE Samaria will bear her guilt; For she has rebelled
against her God. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed
in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."
Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the
little ones, and kill every woman, that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the female children, that have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourself.
PROPHETIC APOCALYPSE, (The N-U-C-L-E-A-R consequence of the abomination
above and others like it, employing great noise and heat that can melt
elements, scorch people and destroy the "works of man" on a massive scale)
2Pt:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up.
2Pt:3:12: Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat?
Jesus in Matt. 24:16: Then let them which be in Judea flee into the
mountains:
17: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out
of his house:
18: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19: And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!
20: But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
sabbath day:
21: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning
of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22: And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be
saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Jesus in Lk:23:30: Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on
us; and to the hills, Cover us.
Rv:16:9: And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name
of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give
him glory.
Frank@christfirst.com Pastor Frank
>
>
> Mmm 'fraid not old bean ! Even if an 'almighty creator' can be proved to
> exist..... one would still have to point out that he made a pretty crappy
> job of things !
>
"Crappy job"? You haven't thought that out. No matter what
"improvements" you might want to apply, extrapolate them into the future and
you will find them resulting in decline and death.
Most "improvements" people think of would entail us having nothing to do
any more, for things would be just perfect as they are. But without a
challenge we would quickly decline to the mentality of bivalves, either that
or we would commit suicide, which is endemic among those who see no purpose
nor challenge for their lives.
--
Pastor Frank
THE MANDATE OF JESUS
**Jesus in Lk:4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind.
**Jesus in Mk:2:17: When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are
whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
**Jesus in Lk:9:56: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives,
but to save them.
**Jesus Mt:18:11: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
**Jesus in Jn:12:47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge
him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
**Jesus in Lk:15:7: I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven
over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons,
which need no repentance.
Immortalist
I see that you freind are very dishonest and not to be trusted as a source of
credible information. You snipped out what shows your mistake:
---------------
YOU SAID:
> >> The burden is on the positive claim. Theists claim a
> >> god exists, they have to prove it. There is no
> >> requirement for me to disprove it.
I QUOTED ORIGINAL POSTER:
>>>> No. so called christians are not perfect either
>>>> since they believe in gods that do not exist.
The above was mentioned out thin air, wasn't even the subject. Joe Mamma claimed
he could prove god didn't exist in response to some delinquents claims about
perfection. Don't try and make this look differently. You appeared to be
defending him, were you? If you didn't see what was going on back down now and
you are forgiven.
But if you would like to try and defend him, how are you going to prove that god
doesn't exist?
------------------
But if that is how you admit you were wrong and back out, please do so.
Mark Earnest
You have eyes; there is God before you, everywhere you go.
If you cannot see him, you do not recognize proof.
>
> > You don't have to demand that they prove God; they will
> > do that regardless.
>
> So far, for the past ten thousand years or so, they have not
> even come up with a definition of a god so how are they
> going to prove one exists?
Try Caretaker. The omnipresent, omnipowerful, omniscient totally good
caretaker.
Mark Earnest
> Mark Earnest wrote:
> > "David V." wrote...
> >
> > in reply to...
> >
> >>>>>> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How could
> >>>>>> it say anything? When you get the definition
> >>>>>> of this god right, then come back and we can
> >>>>>> talk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He talks just like you or I do. Through his
> >>>>> mouth.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not a very powerful god if it needs a mouth to talk
> >>>> with.
> >>>
> >>> It would be a very ghoulish one that did not.
> >>
> >> Then it's a ghoulish god.
> >
> > Do you realize that this sentence implies the assertion
> > that a god exists...that is...a ghoulish one?
>
> No, really stupid theists try that inane argument all the
> time. Having a conversation about a character in a book does
> not imply the existence of that character outside of the book.
Yes it does. If you conceive a being in your mind, it is there, somewhere.
It is a big universe with many levels of existence.
> > Its like saying, "May I have that glass of grape juice?"
> > Which implies that there is a glass of grape juice.
>
> No, it doesn't. The person could be hallucinating.
But the statement is made that there is a glass of grape juice.
And your statement was made that a God exists. (respect of a capital 'G' my
own).
-Hector-
wrote:
I was following this with little difficulty until I came to
the "verily." That lost me. Seriously, I am curious as to the
'induction' of the definition of the "Argumentum ad verecundiam," or
the appeal to authority. Is this to insinuate that the initial
proffered proof employed the same; as in calling upon propositions
afforded by "experts"? In my opinion, claiming an "argument from
authority" comes closer to meeting the need to discredit the original
argument. What I must grapple with in this topic thread, however, is
the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, hurled lustily my direction. Hardly
makes for a stimulating debate.
Accidently 'converse'ing,
Hector
David V.
It wasn't 'libel', it was a statement of fact. You've said
nothing logical and your whining about it won't change anything.
David V.
At least I can spell. But you didn't answer my question; was
that the most intelligent response you could come up with?
--
David V.
That's a claim, not proof.
>>> You don't have to demand that they prove God; they
>>> will do that regardless.
>>
>> So far, for the past ten thousand years or so, they
>> have not even come up with a definition of a god so how
>> are they going to prove one exists?
>
> Try Caretaker.
Now get all the other religions to agree to that.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." wrote...
>>>
>>> in reply to...
>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, it has no body, it's spirit. How
>>>>>>>> could it say anything? When you get the
>>>>>>>> definition of this god right, then come
>>>>>>>> back and we can talk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He talks just like you or I do. Through his
>>>>>>> mouth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a very powerful god if it needs a mouth to
>>>>>> talk with.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be a very ghoulish one that did not.
>>>>
>>>> Then it's a ghoulish god.
>>>
>>> Do you realize that this sentence implies the
>>> assertion that a god exists...that is...a ghoulish
>>> one?
>>
>> No, really stupid theists try that inane argument all
>> the time. Having a conversation about a character in a
>> book does not imply the existence of that character
>> outside of the book
>
Sorry, it doesn't and no sophomoric fallacy is going to
change that.
>>> Its like saying, "May I have that glass of grape
>>> juice?" Which implies that there is a glass of grape
>>> juice.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The person could be hallucinating.
>
> But.....
No buts.
Chris S.
grey? The absence of imperfection does not necessarily imply the
persistence of perfection. But I believe this is besidese the point.
Perfection is an Earthly concept, dependent on context and individual
perspective. One man's perfection is another man's imperfection. Science
and engineering deal with functional, yet non-existent models of
perfection all the time. However, we're under no delusion that these
models physically exist or can ever actually be attained. They're simply
road maps, a guide used for approximation.
Perhaps I lost the spirit of your message in your overly verbose
posting, but it seems you're trying to define perfection as a tangible
constant when it's as ethereal as any other human concept.
-Hector- wrote:
> Am I perfect?
>
> Are you perfect?
>
> Compare yourself with your neighbor. Are you perfect?
>
> If you are perfect, then go and pronounce to your neighbor that you
> are perfect!
> Broadcast to the world-at-large that you are perfect! Let the world
> bask, revel, and glory in your perfection.
>
> If you are not perfect, then how do you know this? How can you not be
> perfect?
> What is the model for perfection? What is the benchmark?
>
> We are evolved creatures, replete with foibles, idiosyncracies,
> predilections, eccentricities, and other assorted quirks. Our various
> "traits" can be nothing more than symptoms of evolutionary processes.
> Subsequently, these things cannot be considered imperfections. If
> such characteristics are to be considered imperfections, this can only
> be so if a concept of perfection can be envisioned. This would imply
> that there exists a perfect individual by which all others may be
> gauged, or man is imbued with a latent abstract conception of
> perfection. If there actually does exist the ultimate paragon of
> humanity, let him or her step forward that all may acknowledge the
> same and all other's imperfections will be revealed. If it is a
> singular race of peoples, let the same acclaim such and the rest of
> humanity will genuflect deferentially. Perhaps it is the Aryan race?
>
> Is Bill Clinton perfect? Is George Bush perfect? If they are not
> perfect, how is this determined? Is Osama Bin Laden perfect? If Bin
> Laden is simply an evolved creature, then he can only be perfect. If
> he is not perfect, his imperfection can only be established within the
> context of the concept of perfection. If there is no perfect person,
> and all are products of an evolutionary process, then the realization
> of imperfection can only be assessed in contrast to an ultimate ideal.
> What is the source of an ideal state of being? Simple
> imagination? (If there is no state of imperfection, one may simply
> retreat from this dialectic and don their perfection with the
> arrogance it deserves.) If it is the mere product of imagination, it
> is yet a relative notion or it could not be defined in any appreciable
> way. Assuming that an innate sense of perfection inheres in the
> individual and the race of man, it can only be instilled within the
> same from an autonomous, independent source, if no genuine human model
> of perfection impinges itself upon mankind. This source must
> necessarily be something that has an inherent perfection, or has
> defined the guidelines for perfection, else again imperfection, as an
> abstraction, could never be conceived. Whatever this source may be,
> it necessarily must be something that exceeds the human individual or
> the race of man, if the individual appreciates the concept of
> imperfection. So what would this 'source' be? If most sane
> individuals concede the concept of imperfection, then the concept is
> one that is fundamentally universal. This would imply a universal
> sense of what perfection is or, at the least, a universal appreciation
> of the individual's imperfection. Alternately, from this one can
> infer that there inheres in each individual an innate understanding of
> a universal standard by which all behavior may be measured, and this
> understanding can only be derived from a metaphysical model beyond the
> individual. Otherwise, each individual of the race of man is perfect,
> e.g. Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Caligula, et al.
> If there is no such thing as imperfection, then Christians, in
> the corporate and individually, can only be perfect. How could such
> persons ever be wrong?
>
> The pinnacle of perfection,
> Hector