I agree with S1ow's post.

I think he too is a reflection. But maybe not of God.

S1owhand may be nothing more than a reflection of demonic evil hiccups.



j/k S1ow.

Strum me a few bars there fella.

God is PERFECT God...

No Matter HOW Man "PERCIEVES" God to Be


God Has ALWAYS Been PERFECT God .


God Does NOT Change...

HE Is The SAME

Yesterday Today and Forever.

Does it really makes sense that a perfect God would create a universe that he first needs to drown out his creation, and then he needs to get himself nailed to a pole to save it?

That doesn't sound like prefection to me.

The very idea that a perfect God would be at war with a fallen angel doesn't sound very perfect either.

The idea of a God who weeps when souls are cast into hell because he is powerless to change the situation is again a picture of an imperfect God.

The problem with the biblical picture of God is that the biblical story demands that God be imperfect in order for the stories to even make any sense at all.

So if God is truly perfect, that God can't be like the biblical stories describe. These two ideals are simply incompatable.

spherical reasoning. uncountable circles of all sizes up to the sphere's diameter. all orientations.

That's interesting. And nature herself shows us that even circles cannot be rounded off.

For every cicle comes with the number Pi built into it.

Yet Pi is not a round number.

i dont know but isn't the definition of perfect up for grabs?

I need to read my scripture. Is there a passage that says that God is perfect? I was under the impression that it says He knows all. I really don't know. Could someone quote that passage? Thanks guys

I know that I am perfectly imperfect. Gheez, I love that Saving Jane cd.

Creative's assertions are:
(I think he has things all backwards and inside out.)


I don't think so. Awareness is the capacity to perceive. It does not 'require' perception. Perception requires awareness, but awareness does not require perceptual capability to be present. It is because of awareness that perception arises.



I don't think so.

(Obviously you have never had an out of body experience. )

Also, a person who is dreaming has the "illusion" of seeing, feeling, touching, moving, and even taste and smell. This is in a dream. These perceptions of having five senses are illusions (or manifestations) of the mind. Therefore a person who has lost all five senses with the use of a sensory deprivation tank can experience and perceive all of these things and even create a dream world with his mind that rivals reality.

The mind I am referring to is the universal connected mind, not the brain. The brain is merely the computer, the mind is the connection to the user. The user is the person, or the soul.





Okay well lets see.... I'll close my eyes (no vision) and I picture in my mind a piece of chocolate cake... HEY GUESS WHAT? No problem!!! My mouth is even starting to water.



Well that is the standard atheist's assumption. Not true ~in my opinion. Consciousness came first. I don't see how anything could have manifested or risen out of a thoughtless, unconscious, non-aware universe. But that's just me.




This is just not true and I highly doubt if it has ever been proven once ~let alone "over and over."




Any "therefore" after the previous false statement are moot.



(Moot point following false statement above.)



(Two Moot points following false statement above.)




Who ever said this condition was "temporary? or "separate?"

Not me. I assert that this condition of manifestation is continuous and connected to all things at all times. This is an infinite condition.



Moot point because the premise it sits on ("follows") is incorrect.



"So then"....another moot point.

I think manifestation came from consciousness and it was all on purpose. Your conclusion that it might have been an accident.. faulty conclusion sitting on moot points.

But that's just me.

Nothing is perfect : look how many problems we have in this universe ?.

Will get references later.
Have to run.
In the meantime , why don't you look up references in the bible on this subject of Perfect God.....


Btw..thought I'd share this here also.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html

God does not kill people...Chuck Norris kills people..and I believe he was there when it happenned

Thank you MorningSong...you are a true blessing

And the final response to Creative's backward points of view:



Not true. Intelligence is the capacity to learn and reason and perceive etc.....



A still born has no capacity to learn does it?

Why is that do you suppose? BECAUSE IT IS DEAD.

Therefore it is not "intelligent" right? (I might mention that I think this is a rather stupid question.)



They are probably just as intelligent as any other living person born with all their five senses in tact.

Let's see, Helen Keller could not see or hear. She could taste and feel. But she did very well at learning considering her disability.



Are you serious? I don't think Helen Keller was any less intelligent for having not being able to see or hear, and she had to be very intelligent to have learned what she did in spite of her disability.

To assume that she (or anyone) has no intelligence simply because they lack the five senses is incorrect.

No brain activity? That is even more ridiculous. The brain would operate all her living functions, the heart, the organs, the lungs etc.

I also know of an invention that can train a person who is totally deaf, to hear through the skin. It puts the vibration of sound into the center of the brain via the skin. The device costs about $1500.00 the last time I checked. People use it for sleep learning.

JB

I agree with you Jeannie, his assertions appear to be inside out to me as well.




Again, I have to agree. Creative's stance seem to be that of a pure atheist. He seems to be saying that you can't give it a physical property then it can't exist.

(Nothing wrong with that attitude, but it's definitely the atheistic point of view. If you can't phenomenological sense it or describe in phenomenological terms then it can't be said to exist.



Yes, I too would like to see the proof. I've already stated that I seriously doubt that such a proof exist. As a matter of fact I think any such proof would be an atheists dream come true, because it would basically be a proof that God cannot exist.

So I would love to see this so-called proof.

Nothing personal Michael, but if you claim to have a proof of something you should be able to cite it and show where this proof can be read. Also, if such a "proof" exists, it shouldn't be buried in some obscure article. It should be exist all over the Internet in a very clear and concise set of formal premises and statements. After all, you've stated that it's been proven over and over. If it's that popular there should be plenty of sites where this proof is written out without ambiguity.

Can you give a citation for one of them?

I've never heard of it. I would be very interesting in reading the proof myself.

This is so peculiar to me...

Each of the responses (which are meant to refute what I have stated) all claim that consciousness(thought) is able to be had without the five senses(perception). However, they all cite examples which use at least two of those senses(perception) in order to prove that perception is not necessary for thought(consciousness)...



I am backwards?

My claim is that thought(consciousness) requires perception, and is non existent without it. Proven by any number of brain-dead people. When the source of the thought no longer exists(a physiological construct), neither does the thought... That which is measurable, is it not? Electrical impulses of a neurological system...



JB,

Truly, I do not care to delve into an egotistical battle with you. Your stance regularly changes. Maybe later, when I have more time to waste, I will take the time to point out your own inconsistencies in expression(s) which scream out loud to a clear mind. Remember, you responded here to me. I can't help it if you do not understand what I am saying, or that you use an assumptive scale of judgement, all the while also using a condescending choice of verbage.

Perhaps if the thought path would stick to what has been said by me, rather than what you think I am meaning to say we would be able to connect these dots... and then again, maybe not. Repeatedly, your examples meant to draw a parallel are skewed.

My point is above, Plainly and clearly, and not without great ramifications thereafter, although it takes cognitive ability to extrapolate those accurately.


Regarding the OP...


Perfect makes no mistakes... Can we say that about this 'God' of Abraham?

... or any god Michael?

hiya belushi...

I have always meant to say more to you. You are a great friend to many whom I adore, and therefore I suspect that I also like you as well...

Good to see you...

Regarding the statement... yup... it all hinges upon what is considered to be perfect, huh?

Egotistical battle?

Forgive me then, for wasting your precious time.

I don't believe my "stance" changes all that much, although I do try to remain flexible and may change my stance upon the assimilation of new and reasonable information. (Which is rare.)

Its called learning.

Jeannie