Perfection, in a religious context

Many concepts of perfection presented or stated by people state something along the lines of:

Man is flawed, thus anything holding aspects the same as Man must be imperfect.

This is a fallacy.[list=1][*]What makes you believe man is imperfect?
[*]Is such a stance viable?[/list]Many answers to the above will probably cite perceived flaws, but error is relative to the perspective taken. Are they really flaws? Is there such a thing as imperfection? Or, is there only imperfection in relation to the possibly fallacious beliefs held given the perspective?

What is the consequence of such imperfection? I am looking for logical answers given assumptions held, not, "you go to hell because you are imperfect, because the Bible says so (or any other religious text)." Why, given your assumptions (which should be stated, as not all hold your assumptions) is hell the consequence?

Perfection outside existence is a state that only exists if one believes existence as it is is inherently flawed. How can existence be inherently flawed?

This is in part philosophical, but I am asking the question in relation to religious views from the perspective of atheism to the fanatic. I have bolded the key questions I feel are important.

Originally posted by Regret
Man is flawed, thus anything holding aspects the same as Man must be imperfect.

Long story short, God doesn't need to want for anything based on "his" own explaination of his existence.

If you want to know why people don't believe in a god that "proclaims himself" to be perfect and then acts like a tempermental child; who needs love, attention, money, worship, etc, then maybe you should ask the men who invented your concept of him.

So, if you want to justify god's immature behavior by trying to figure out why the world considers humanity imperfect; and because god displays the same needy insecurity, don't question humanity...question god.

Originally posted by Regret
Many concepts of perfection presented or stated by people state something along the lines of:

Man is flawed, thus anything holding aspects the same as Man must be imperfect.

This is a fallacy.[b][list=1][*]What makes you believe man is imperfect?
[*]Is such a stance viable?[/list]Many answers to the above will probably cite perceived flaws, but error is relative to the perspective taken. Are they really flaws? Is there such a thing as imperfection? Or, is there only imperfection in relation to the possibly fallacious beliefs held given the perspective?

What is the consequence of such imperfection? I am looking for logical answers given assumptions held, not, "you go to hell because you are imperfect, because the Bible says so (or any other religious text)." Why, given your assumptions (which should be stated, as not all hold your assumptions) is hell the consequence?

Perfection outside existence is a state that only exists if one believes existence as it is is inherently flawed. How can existence be inherently flawed?

This is in part philosophical, but I am asking the question in relation to religious views from the perspective of atheism to the fanatic. I have bolded the key questions I feel are important. [/B]

Existence isn't inherently flawed. Our perception of it is though. Or perhaps it would be better to say that our perception of existence and what a perfect existence represents has been limited because of this thing called sin.

This is why I believe we have so many problems understanding what Love or God truly represents. For all we know, desire could be a part of perfection, as could a sincere longing to share love and effection with others.

I believe the ultimate consequence for those individuals who feel that wanting to love and be loved is a limiting factor of God, is that they have limited themselves in being able to experience the fullness of God's Love.

Originally posted by Regret
This is a fallacy.[b][list=1][*]What makes you believe man is imperfect?
[*]Is such a stance viable?[/list]Many answers to the above will probably cite perceived flaws, but error is relative to the perspective taken. Are they really flaws? Is there such a thing as imperfection? Or, is there only imperfection in relation to the possibly fallacious beliefs held given the perspective?
[/B]

I think this is acting the question in the wrong way. We must know what perfect is in order to know what is not perfect.

But I'll provide some evidence. Say we in 46 BCE and we are perfect. Later, we change. I gain 10 pounds one year, lose 20 the next. Today the its 45 degrees, tomorrow 31.

Things are in a constant state of dynamic, always changing. Perfection implies a static state. Nothing is wrong.

To this, you may say, "well, isn't simply the eternal perfect relationship of all things perfect" (see: Circle of Life). To which I would say, no. Things change too significantly to be perfect. Conflict is created, war, earthquakes, tsunamis...things for which we cannot see any benefit.

To which you bring up your last point, " Isn't it just a matter of perception?" To which I say. I am man. Anything I can perceive is tainted by myself being a man, but I have no other way of perceiving the world. I'm not a god. Defining things in concepts that we cannot understand is not useful to us.

For the right wingers, should we take the word of a book saying that we are perfect? As even Thundar managed, an old, but one of the newer perceptions of flaw is sin. So this concept of perfection, if religiously inspired, is defeated by its own religion. If we take one to be true, we should take the other, as there is no way to logically separate the two's factual significance.

Funny or not, I just did a bunch of reading on this this morning on the perceptions of race and gender in 19th C. Victorian society. Their perceptions were based on the idea that the white man was perfect. That view has clearly changed. The minute we place ourselves at the top of the hierarchy, we prove our of hypocrisy and shortsightedness to those that later supersede us. It is that perception of perfection in man that is flawed. We should be humble and realize what history shows us about man and his desire to claim perfection, especially in relation to himself.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think this is acting the question in the wrong way. We must know what perfect is in order to know what is not perfect.

But I'll provide some evidence. Say we in 46 BCE and we are perfect. Later, we change. I gain 10 pounds one year, lose 20 the next. Today the its 45 degrees, tomorrow 31.

Things are in a constant state of dynamic, always changing. Perfection implies a static state. Nothing is wrong.

To this, you may say, "well, isn't simply the eternal perfect relationship of all things perfect" (see: Circle of Life). To which I would say, no. Things change too significantly to be perfect. Conflict is created, war, earthquakes, tsunamis...things for which we cannot see any benefit.

To which you bring up your last point, " Isn't it just a matter of perception?" To which I say. I am man. Anything I can perceive is tainted by myself being a man, but I have no other way of perceiving the world. I'm not a god. Defining things in concepts that we cannot understand is not useful to us.

For the right wingers, should we take the word of a book saying that we are perfect? As even Thundar managed, an old, but one of the newer perceptions of flaw is sin. So this concept of perfection, if religiously inspired, is defeated by its own religion. If we take one to be true, we should take the other, as there is no way to logically separate the two's factual significance.

Funny or not, I just did a bunch of reading on this this morning on the perceptions of race and gender in 19th C. Victorian society. Their perceptions were based on the idea that the white man was perfect. That view has clearly changed. The minute we place ourselves at the top of the hierarchy, we prove our of hypocrisy and shortsightedness to those that later supersede us. It is that perception of perfection in man that is flawed. We should be humble and realize what history shows us about man and his desire to claim perfection, especially in relation to himself.

That was very insightful and good post Alliance.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Long story short, God doesn't need to want for anything based on "his" own explaination of his existence.

If you want to know why people don't believe in a god that "proclaims himself" to be perfect and then acts like a tempermental child; who needs love, attention, money, worship, etc, then maybe you should ask the men who invented your concept of him.

So, if you want to justify god's immature behavior by trying to figure out why the world considers humanity imperfect; and because god displays the same needy insecurity, don't question humanity...question god.

Originally posted by Thundar
Existence isn't inherently flawed. Our perception of it is though. Or perhaps it would be better to say that our perception of existence and what a perfect existence represents has been limited because of this thing called sin.

This is why I believe we have so many problems understanding what Love or God truly represents. For all we know, desire could be a part of perfection, as could a sincere longing to share love and effection with others.

I believe the ultimate consequence for those individuals who feel that wanting to love and be loved is a limiting factor of God, is that they have limited themselves in being able to experience the fullness of God's Love.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think this is acting the question in the wrong way. We must know what perfect is in order to know what is not perfect.

But I'll provide some evidence. Say we in 46 BCE and we are perfect. Later, we change. I gain 10 pounds one year, lose 20 the next. Today the its 45 degrees, tomorrow 31.

Things are in a constant state of dynamic, always changing. Perfection implies a static state. Nothing is wrong.

To this, you may say, "well, isn't simply the eternal perfect relationship of all things perfect" (see: Circle of Life). To which I would say, no. Things change too significantly to be perfect. Conflict is created, war, earthquakes, tsunamis...things for which we cannot see any benefit.

To which you bring up your last point, " Isn't it just a matter of perception?" To which I say. I am man. Anything I can perceive is tainted by myself being a man, but I have no other way of perceiving the world. I'm not a god. Defining things in concepts that we cannot understand is not useful to us.

For the right wingers, should we take the word of a book saying that we are perfect? As even Thundar managed, an old, but one of the newer perceptions of flaw is sin. So this concept of perfection, if religiously inspired, is defeated by its own religion. If we take one to be true, we should take the other, as there is no way to logically separate the two's factual significance.

Funny or not, I just did a bunch of reading on this this morning on the perceptions of race and gender in 19th C. Victorian society. Their perceptions were based on the idea that the white man was perfect. That view has clearly changed. The minute we place ourselves at the top of the hierarchy, we prove our of hypocrisy and shortsightedness to those that later supersede us. It is that perception of perfection in man that is flawed. We should be humble and realize what history shows us about man and his desire to claim perfection, especially in relation to himself.

Imperfection is a perception given limited scope with inadequate knowledge to draw the conclusion of imperfection. I do not believe an omnipotent level of knowledge is necessary for perfection, so the concept of existence being perfect is not outside possibility. A Bible believer must also believe this. Christ himself stated levels of ignorance at times, he requested that the cup be removed from himself if possible, and a Christian must claim Christ was perfect.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe I understand what you are saying. I am questioning the perception of imperfection. Is such a perception valid, and if it is, isn't it perfect in the realm of its scope?

*********
YOU ARE WRONG!! You are not a TRUE CHRISTAIN BISHOP REGRET!!!

-Thundar
*************

..nah..I'm just kidding.

Seriously though, I see what you're saying. I guess all of our perceptions of what perfection and imperfection is -- are really regulated by our faith. In my limited perception of perfection, I view it as immutable, and not dependant upon my perceptions of it. I believe perfection also represents kindness and humility, or to put it quite frankly - I believe perfection is represented by what God defines Love to be in the bible, and is something that exists apart from myself.

I believe imperfection is the opposite of all of these things. It is impatient, it is unkind, it keeps records of rights and wrong, and doesn't desire anything other than what it can do to please itself.

This is why the God of the bible, to me - is truly a God in which I willingly choose to worship. He doesn't force me to worship him, nor does he put unreasonable expectations on my having a relationship with him. He simply asks of me to obey him, which basically means - to be loving to him, as well as to be loving to other people. He is my rock, or quite frankly put - the foundation of what I believe perfection and love is all about. If I was to believe that this rock of perfection and love did not exist, I'd have no true desire to go on living.

Originally posted by Thundar
*********
YOU ARE WRONG!! You are not a TRUE CHRISTAIN BISHOP REGRET!!!

-Thundar
*************

..nah..I'm just kidding.

Seriously though, I see what you're saying. I guess all of our perceptions of what perfection and imperfection is -- are really regulated by our faith. In my limited perception of perfection, I view it as immutable, and not dependant upon my perceptions of it. I believe perfection also represents kindness and humility, or to put it quite frankly - I believe perfection is represented by what God defines Love to be in the bible, and is something that exists apart from myself.

I believe imperfection is the opposite of all of these things. It is impatient, it is unkind, it keeps records of rights and wrong, and doesn't desire anything other than what it can do to please itself.

This is why the God of the bible, to me - is truly a God in which I willingly choose to worship. He doesn't force me to worship him, nor does he put unreasonable expectations on my having a relationship with him. He simply asks of me to obey him, which basically means - to be loving to him, as well as to be loving to other people. He is my rock, or quite frankly put - the foundation of what I believe perfection and love is all about. If I was to believe that this rock of perfection and love did not exist, I'd have no true desire to go on living.

Originally posted by Regret
So, then, your position is that perfection is determined through the interaction and impact on/with others?

No, my position is that perfection is something that is not dependant upon our perceptions of it. I believe that since my perception of perfection is limited, that I can't completely grasp what perfection is in its entirety.

Even with my limited and often times flawed views of it, it is still possible within this flawed and limited perception of perfection, for me to have an absolutely correct view of some of what perfection represents.

My limited view of this perfection, of course, does not possess all of the information about it, but it still can be used as a means of proving the existence of perfection.

Confusing huh?

Originally posted by Thundar
No, my position is that perfection is something that is not dependant upon our perceptions of it. I believe that since my perception of perfection is limited, that I can't completely grasp what perfection is in its entirety.

Even with my limited and often times flawed views of it, it is still possible within this flawed and limited perception of perfection, for me to have an absolutely correct view of some of what perfection represents.

My limited view of this perfection, of course, does not possess all of the information about it, but it still can be used as a means of proving the existence of perfection.

Confusing huh?

Not meaning offense, but this acceptance of confusing concepts is one of the reasons I am not in line with most of Christianity.

Originally posted by Regret
[b]How can existence be inherently flawed?
This is in part philosophical, but I am asking the question in relation to religious views from the perspective of atheism to the fanatic. I have bolded the key questions I feel are important. [/B]

"How can existence be inherently flawed?"

I think this is the key question right here. "Perfection"/"Imperfection" is judged by some standard, a standard "greater" than the object in question. Yet what could be greater than existence? God? Define God, especially in relation to existence...and be prepared for paradox as part of the answer. Does paradox imply imperfection, if not in existence than in our ourselves (though aren't we part of existence)?

Simply put: Organized Western Religion may see God as perfect, implying IMO a separation from humanity and the rest of existence, which is thus imperfect by comparison, and God is something we should strive for.

On the other hand: some faiths see the world (God+Man+Nature) as perfect just as it is, implying perhaps our "salvation" is in "acceptance" of this condition, rather than in striving for some impossible ideal. I would think atheists--depending on their philosophical POV--might also see the universe "perfect as is," every part doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing, as determined by the initial conditions right after the Big Bang and the physical laws which have unfolded since.

Tough question, deserving more thought and a clearer response than the quickie I gave here (time currently did not permit me that option).

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, it is confusing.

Not meaning offense, but this acceptance of confusing concepts is one of the reasons I am not in line with most of Christianity.

Okay, well I've substituted "perfection" with "God", so now you'll probably get the gist of what was being said.

Originally posted by Thundar
No, my position is that God is something that is not dependant upon our perceptions of it. I believe that since my perception of God is limited, that I can't completely grasp what God is in its entirety.

Even with my limited and often times flawed views of it, it is still possible within this flawed and limited perception of God, for me to have an absolutely correct view of some of what God represents.

My limited view of this God, of course, does not possess all of the information about it, but it still can be used as a means of proving the existence of God.

Originally posted by Mindship
"How can existence be inherently flawed?"

I think this is the key question right here. "Perfection"/"Imperfection" is judged by some standard, a standard "greater" than the object in question. Yet what could be greater than existence? God? Define God, especially in relation to existence...and be prepared for paradox as part of the answer. Does paradox imply imperfection, if not in existence than in our ourselves (though aren't we part of existence)?

Simply put: Organized Western Religion may see God as perfect, implying IMO a separation from humanity and the rest of existence, which is thus imperfect by comparison, and God is something we should strive for.

On the other hand: some faiths see the world (God+Man+Nature) as perfect just as it is, implying perhaps our "salvation" is in "acceptance" of this condition, rather than in striving for some impossible ideal. I would think atheists--depending on their philosophical POV--might also see the universe "perfect as is," every part doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing, as determined by the initial conditions right after the Big Bang and the physical laws which have unfolded since.

Tough question, deserving more thought and a clearer response than the quickie I gave here (time currently did not permit me that option).

I do not believe in imperfection in the sense it is addressed typically. I believe everything is perfect. Everything does not necessarily measure up to some ideal, but it is perfect all the same. Biblically the reference is:

Matt. 5: 48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

I reference the Bible as that is my personal religious reference to the topic, and it addresses my perspective on the subject as well as relaying another concept important to the discussion. What is meant by reference to perfection or imperfection? Are we all on the same page? I doubt we are in many cases 😉

Originally posted by Thundar
Okay, well I've substituted "perfection" with "God", so now you'll probably get the gist of what was being said.

Originally posted by Mindship
"How can existence be inherently flawed?"

I think this is the key question right here. "Perfection"/"Imperfection" is judged by some standard, a standard "greater" than the object in question. Yet what could be greater than existence? God?

✅

Originally posted by Mindship
Define God, especially in relation to existence...and be prepared for paradox as part of the answer.

Not necessarily. I think the paradox is with our understanding of what define means, not with being able to define God. To me, defining God means giving information about God to others, specifically - information that only he has presented about himself.

From a Christian perspective, God has not completely revealed everything about himself to man or any of his creations -- so we just define him by the information he has shared with us. Thus far, he has demonstrated to us that he is loving, and also given us definitions of what good and evil represent.

I'm of a firm belief that at some point, when he's ready -- he'll share everything there is to know about himself with those who truly love him.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, I understand the position. But it limits Man's ability to accomplish the directive presented in Matthew 5:48 I quoted above. How can you take this position and make any attempt at accomplishing the directive presented?

Well, I think perfection to God is exemplified through belief in Christ -- or as Paul puts it, we are "glorified saints" through our faith in Christ and his sacrifice - not by the works that we ourselves have accomplished.

If we were perfect, or could really attain perfection on our own -- well..quite simply put, there would be no need for Christ. The works that Christ does through us are always his to take credit for, and we are to have an understanding that it is him doing the works through us with the assistance of "the messenger" or the "Holy Spirit."

My answers are:

Originally posted by Regret
What makes you believe man is imperfect?

First I would like to mention that imperfection of man is a basic assumtion of religion, so seeking a explanation for that is beyond the purpose of religion.

I believe imperfection is associated to suffering. Man is imperfect because he allows himself to suffer, he has frustrations, he can feel impotent, etc. The state where these emotions do not exist is perfection.

But why is suffering bad ? So we can define its presence as imperfection and its absence as perfection to explain in a simple way.

That we do by intuition, or faith in a religious perpective. I believe there is a difference between them but I don´t want to complicate so lets forget it.

To do that by our intuition/faith, just means that you KNOW as innate a priori knowledge that suffering is bad. No explanation is needed. Your personal avaliation is a valid way to justify it. I also believe that not all subjective avaliations like this are valid. There can be illusions and incorrect avaliations.

Originally posted by Regret
Is such a stance viable?

Yes, but it must be understood in the right way.

Originally posted by Regret
Is there such a thing as imperfection? Or, is there only imperfection in relation to the possibly fallacious beliefs held given the perspective?

I personally believe there is imperfection, but that is only my subjective intuition that allows me to define that imperfection like I have explained in the first question.

If we do not want to risk doing a subjective intuitive avaliation, then we must agree with a point of view of relative imperfection. Here there are only imperfections in relation to given premises but no certainty.

A religious perspective takes that risk, and they use faith to justify it. I personally believe not everything is justifiable by faith, and there can be mistakes. But I think a subjective intuitive way of justification is possible.

Originally posted by Regret
What is the consequence of such imperfection?

Hell of course. /jk

Diffently than just postulating a hell like it is usually done, if we define imperfection as a being associated to suffering, like being the presence of suffering. Then we can infer that hell is nothing more then the experience of that suffering and no assumptions are needed here.

Originally posted by Regret
How can existence be inherently flawed?

The inherent imperfection of existence is a basic assumption of religion. It is sustained by faith. There is no way to infer that inherent imperfection in a religious perspective, you must either accept it by faith(or intuition), or reject it.

When we try to find an explanation for that we are not finding a religious perpective anymore, but a philosophical or esoteric perpective.

I'm a bit bored at work, so I decided to respond to this post --

Originally posted by Regret
I believe the Taoists are very correct in their striving for "contentment", I believe true happiness can only be achieved through contentment with one's existence and striving to better other's lives.

I think finding contentment is a good thing. But my point of contention with Taoist philosophy would be where contentment is derived from. Most Taoists, Buddhists, and others of similar Eastern philosophies would agree that "contentment" is really based on individual wants and desires. I believe that contentment is only really worth something when it includes "godliness" or God's love with it, as it is defined by Corinthians 13:1-13 -- which as I may have already stated, can exist outside of our desires.

Originally posted by Regret
I do not believe in imperfection in the sense it is addressed typically. I believe everything is perfect. Everything does not necessarily measure up to some ideal, but it is perfect all the same. Biblically the reference is: Thus, we see the statement is not as to Man's imperfection, it is to a type. It states that man should strive for perfection as God is, the type. I would assume that Satan is perfectly deceitful from a Biblical perspective, and so, he is perfect, but not perfect as God is.

Well I wouldn't define Satan as perfect in deceit, to define him as a perfect deceiver one would have to assume that he could fool a perfectly truthful God - which obviously is not the case. So rather than define Satan as the perfect deceiver, I believe it better to define the allowance of him being able to deceive others, as part of God's perfect-loving plan. This is going a bit off-topic, so perhaps I'll open up another thread regarding this issue.