Iâm sure a sentence like that is against the Geneva Convention on English-Usage.
Câmon Ucc. That paragraph was as fine a two-step as I have ever seen. Itâs also a paragraph that would have had you burned as a heretic by both Christianity and Islam only a couple of hundred years ago. It would probably still buy you a punch in the face in some States.
What good is God, if heâs not the high endpoint of the bell-curveâŚ?
Iâll ask an easier question then:
Can God make mistakes�
I donât think so. Suffering evil sucks.
Itâs definitely better to turn the other cheek when somebody is evil to you, because then youâre not helping your society fall apart.
Ucc,
It seems to me that you are qualifying âperfectionâ as âbe the best you can beâ. The chocolate sundae is only perfect in the context of the moment because it could be more perfect in the next. Perfection or being without flaw is then context bound and as such, dependent on definition. This seems to fly in the face of logos in which ideal perfection exists outside of appearances and is the core of all christian descriptions of God and his various attributes. It would appear that such a God is not perfect in any ideal sense, but just âmore perfectâ than humanly possible.
Seems to me defining perfect would require a purpose for the entity to which you want to attribute perfection, right?
I mean, perfect for what?
We call certain human attributes good because they help us survive. It is because of our purpose that we consider intelligence to be better than stupity. To prove the point, there are attributes that we consider good in one object, for example, softness in jewelry making metals, and bad in another situation, like softness in metal to be used for construction. The actual attribute of being soft doesnât have a value of good or bad; this is decided by the context. To claim an object is perfect requires the information âperfect for what?â, or else you arenât really making a statement about the attributes of the object. I could call a rock perfect, but unless I say for what, it doesnât tell you anything about the rock and thereâs no way you can prove me wrong.
Until we give god a purpose, you canât devise anything from the fact that he is âperfectâ, because the purpose defines what âperfectâ means.
I saw that!
Whut� Not me your honour!!!
Well, okay, I realized I was crowing. Bad manners. 
Crowing? The redneck does not get the redcoatâs slang.
Itâs the middle one, but I may be âcounting my chickensâ, or be getting all âfalconed upâ about nothing.
[size=75]*okay - so I made âfalconed-upâ up.[/size]
Whoâs defeat were you crowing over?
Tabula
Iâm sorry Tabula, Iâm really trying to fly straight on this one, didnât mean to give the impression of waffling. I sincerely donât think thereâs a good enough definition of âperfectionâ to apply it to rigorous logical argument. Thatâs bad news for some atheistic arguments sure, but itâs also bad news for current forms of the Ontological argument as well.
Anyways, thatâs for throwing me a slower pitch:
No, I donât believe so. Since thereâs critters with free will other than Himself, though, I do think things can happen that He regrets.
tentative:
I'm still not content with perfection being 'without flaw'. If that's all we want it to mean, then fine, God is perfect, I don't have any problem with that. But I've seen the word used and stretched to cover so many things, and so many angles, that I've really just abandoned it, barring clarification.
What I do think is that God is as He had to be- He's a necessary being, His essential qualities are necessary, He could not have been otherwise. I suppose that's a sort of perfection, too. It still doesn't cover all the ways I've seen people try to use the word, though. It's that word 'perfection' that leads people to claim that God should be able to make a stone He can't lift, and other such nonsense.
My grandfather gave me sound advice: NEVER piss into the wind. Obviously I didnât follow his sagely advice. Apparently, I have a lot of company⌠
âFalconed upâ??? Thats⌠Oh, I forgot. You have a literary license. 
This talk of what perfection is or isnât reminds me of Bernard Williamsâ idea about how we have our own world views, but desire to reconcile ours with everyone elseâs different ones in a shared universe. So we conceive (ironically) an âabsolute conceptionâ that contains all possible variations of world views (amongst which we can pick and choose), labelling this the Ultimate Truth. Itâs a need to believe in an ultimate truth that transcends any individual view, based on our illusory belief that the world exists independently of us and in a way not conditioned by our view of it.
A house of cards at best.
Seems dictionaries are not so coy.
God=perfect
scripture=perfect (in abstract)
religion=static
society=non-static
religion=proved imperfect (in practice)
scripture=increasingly found incompatable
God=perfection âdoubtedâ [size=75](aka - âflawless, yet not perfect etc.â)[/size]
scripture=no longer âperfectâ - reinterpreted with regard to current social requirements.
religion=flexible, but lacking real⌠Oomph. Fades.
Job done.
Webster be damned. If he doesnât like my philosophy, he can post here and argue his points, same as anyone.
Sorry - edited. ^^^^^
And⌠Everyoneâs gone home. Iâve hailed a cab. The dictionary says I win. Canât argue with the book. =D>
Yeah, just when I thought I had you, you start quoting scripture on me.
Ucc,
Iâll leave off the âperfectionâ argument because I too think the term is almost as mis-used as the word God. I do find it interesting that your concept is a âsomethingâ that is somehow external to humanity. It may be comforting to view that which is as a self contained entity, personally involved in human affairs, but it seems that in order to do that, we must return to faith in a human constructed vision. I have had those experiences that made me aware of âsomethingâ, but what that something is and isnât is beyond language. If not, certainly beyond my poor use of metaphor. More to the point, it becomes the continued asking of questions for which there are no answers. In Dao it is said that the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao. I find the same is true of the discussions of God. The God that can be named,and described is not the eternal âthat which isâ. The God named is a human construct with attributes projected from human mind. Who knows the way of heaven? It isnât to be found in religion. Projecting our human needs and desires into the universe may be necessary and expedient to make sense of things, but erecting an idol shouldnât be neccessary to be in awe of the mysteryâŚ
tentative
Hmm, I wasnât really trying to be interesting when I said that. 
Pretty traditional stuff for a Christian, right? Even my criticism of âperfectionâ, I donât consider to be unorthodox doctrine, just unorthodox vocabulary.
I think every belief system has aspects of it that are comforting, and other aspects less so. What do you think?
As it turns out, this is entirely consistent with Christianity, I have no problem with this sort of statement. Iâve had those sorts of experiences too.
Mm. Thereâs something to that. In Christianity, we would say that because of this mysteriousness, the only hope we have of understanding what youâd call The Ineffable, is for It to reach out to us from Itâs own desire to be understood. Thatâs why thereâs such a strong emphasis on revelation, is that acknowledgment that thereâs pretty much nothing interesting to be said about these things that can come wholly from our wisdom.
If Christ wasnât really who He claimed to be, then yes, that would have to be the case. Though, thereâs something to be said for the Jewish claims of revelation as well.
Uccisore asks:
I suppose most traditional religions would fall under that label since they are a cradle to grave and then beyond system. Just do as youâre told and the way youâre told to do it and you will live forever. Pick the right religion and you might get a chance at seventy virgins, although Iâm not sure what you would do with 'em⌠
You wonât like this, but I see religion as only necessary for those who are insecure enough to need a closed system whereby all things are knowable, even after death. Not only do I know how to live and what to do in this life, Iâm guaranteed a rosy life after death. It is the ultimate insurance planâŚ
Few are those capable of living in ambiguity where life is simply seeing what is in front of you, living it as best you can, and what happens after death is of no particular concern. For me, and a few others I know, it isnât about comfort or discomfort, but simply matching up this sensed life with what is apparent with as few preconceived notions as possible.
But if you can guarantee me say⌠three or four virgins (Iâm not greedy) I might be willing to reconsiderâŚ