Loopholes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2010, 10:20 AM
 
RE: Loopholes
I said Immutable, for emphasis, as perfection is unchanging. If it did change, from perfection, then it wouldn't have been perfection in the first place.

What you are citing, are situations that are open ended. The baseball game is not already predetermined to be perfect in nature; if there was a flaw in it somewhere along the line, then it couldn't possibly have been perfect either way.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 10:49 AM
 
RE: Loopholes
(28-04-2010 10:20 AM)Ceryle Wrote:  I said Immutable, for emphasis, as perfection is unchanging. If it did change, from perfection, then it wouldn't have been perfection in the first place.

What you are citing, are situations that are open ended. The baseball game is not already predetermined to be perfect in nature; if there was a flaw in it somewhere along the line, then it couldn't possibly have been perfect either way.

Immutable means not changeable, and what are citing is open ended also, a created being with free will, was perfect until it wasn't perfect.

Maybe I am wrong, but you can't use a word that means one thing just for emphasis,Immutable is unchanging that is not what angels are.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 11:00 AM
 
RE: Loopholes
Perfection~

1 : the quality or state of being perfect: as a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness b : maturity c : the quality or state of being saintly
2 a : an exemplification of supreme excellence b : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
3 : the act or process of perfecting

Immutable~

1 : Not subject or susceptible to change.

I argue, and will continue to argue, that something that is perfect, also possesses the trait of immutability. Perfection is a closed system; if it were not then there would be room for improvement, or degradation, in which case it would not be perfection.

As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement. Similarly, so too does much of the reasoning throughout the new and old testament.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 11:36 AM
 
RE: Loopholes
(28-04-2010 11:00 AM)Ceryle Wrote:  Perfection~

1 : the quality or state of being perfect: as a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness b : maturity c : the quality or state of being saintly
2 a : an exemplification of supreme excellence b : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
3 : the act or process of perfecting

Immutable~

1 : Not subject or susceptible to change.

I argue, and will continue to argue, that something that is perfect, also possesses the trait of immutability. Perfection is a closed system; if it were not then there would be room for improvement, or degradation, in which case it would not be perfect.

As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement. Similarly, so too does much of the reasoning throughout the new and old testament.

"15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." Sorry this must be some atheist logic that I don't understand. In the bowling example, your "perfect" game is not "immutable" until the last strike is thrown, then your perfect game is immutable. How you think perfection goes with immutable is beyond me, even your definitions of perfect don't match what you say, "State of being perfect, act or process" Is an "act or state" immutable? those quotes say nothing about "Not subject or susceptible to change" I guess I am stupid.
(28-04-2010 11:36 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(28-04-2010 11:00 AM)Ceryle Wrote:  Perfection~

1 : the quality or state of being perfect: as a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness b : maturity c : the quality or state of being saintly
2 a : an exemplification of supreme excellence b : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
3 : the act or process of perfecting

Immutable~

1 : Not subject or susceptible to change.

I argue, and will continue to argue, that something that is perfect, also possesses the trait of immutability. Perfection is a closed system; if it were not then there would be room for improvement, or degradation, in which case it would not be perfect.

As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement. Similarly, so too does much of the reasoning throughout the new and old testament.

"15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." Sorry this must be some atheist logic that I don't understand. In the bowling example, your "perfect" game is not "immutable" until the last strike is thrown, then your perfect game is immutable. How you think perfection goes with immutable is beyond me, even your definitions of perfect don't match what you say, "State of being perfect, act or process" Is an "act or state" immutable? those quotes say nothing about "Not subject or susceptible to change" I guess I am stupid.

What is troubling and what I see a number of times on this site, is your conclusion that "As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement." How did it do that, where did it do that? It says you were the anointed angel, you were perfect, then iniquity was found in you, now you're cast out. I understand that everyone points to me and says that I use faulty logic, and I accuse everyone else of using faulty logic, but this is a really good case to go back and forth on to get to the bottom of it. Why do I care? It is the mentality of the people, to me it seems you're so stuck in your opinion that reason goes out the window. So even though it might be boring to some, I would like to pursue why you think the way you do.
(28-04-2010 11:36 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(28-04-2010 11:00 AM)Ceryle Wrote:  Perfection~

1 : the quality or state of being perfect: as a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness b : maturity c : the quality or state of being saintly
2 a : an exemplification of supreme excellence b : an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
3 : the act or process of perfecting

Immutable~

1 : Not subject or susceptible to change.

I argue, and will continue to argue, that something that is perfect, also possesses the trait of immutability. Perfection is a closed system; if it were not then there would be room for improvement, or degradation, in which case it would not be perfect.

As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement. Similarly, so too does much of the reasoning throughout the new and old testament.

"15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." Sorry this must be some atheist logic that I don't understand. In the bowling example, your "perfect" game is not "immutable" until the last strike is thrown, then your perfect game is immutable. How you think perfection goes with immutable is beyond me, even your definitions of perfect don't match what you say, "State of being perfect, act or process" Is an "act or state" immutable? those quotes say nothing about "Not subject or susceptible to change" I guess I am stupid.

What is troubling and what I see a number of times on this site, is your conclusion that "As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement." How did it do that, where did it do that? It says you were the anointed angel, you were perfect, then iniquity was found in you, now you're cast out.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 12:20 PM
 
RE: Loopholes
"It's like throwing a perfect game in baseball until the 8th inning until someone gets a hit."
In this example, you are arguing from the position that the pitchers game is perfect; from the start. Then, in the eighth inning, the pitcher fumbles, and a batter gets a hit; thus ruining the otherwise perfect game. This reasoning is flawed. If the pitchers game was perfect, then the mistake would never have occurred. It would be more accurate to say, that the pitcher was throwing exceedingly well, until he fumbled; which of course is redundant unto itself.

"The baseball game is not already predetermined to be perfect in nature; if there was a flaw in it somewhere along the line, then it couldn't possibly have been perfect either way."
Notice the difference between the two; one is flawed, and the other is pointing out said flaws; not rehashing what was already said.

Also, although perfection and immutability may share similar traits, this does not mean that they are interchangeable within the English language.
"What is troubling and what I see a number of times on this site, is your conclusion that "As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement." How did it do that, where did it do that? It says you were the anointed angel, you were perfect, then iniquity was found in you, now you're cast out."

Probably because it is circular reasoning, and therefore fundamentally flawed. One can not be perfect(i.e. flawlessness) and then uncover flaws(i.e. imperfection). To do so would imply that the original statement, that of perfection, was untrue.
Here's a more simple breakdown:

Can an uncatchable fox, be caught?
Can an undefeatable warrior, be defeated?
Can an immortal entity, be killed?
Can an entity that is perfect, be imperfect?
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 01:06 PM
 
RE: Loopholes
(28-04-2010 12:20 PM)Ceryle Wrote:  "It's like throwing a perfect game in baseball until the 8th inning until someone gets a hit."
In this example, you are arguing from the position that the pitchers game is perfect; from the start. Then, in the eighth inning, the pitcher fumbles, and a batter gets a hit; thus ruining the otherwise perfect game. This reasoning is flawed. If the pitchers game was perfect, then the mistake would never have occurred. It would be more accurate to say, that the pitcher was throwing exceedingly well, until he fumbled; which of course is redundant unto itself.

"The baseball game is not already predetermined to be perfect in nature; if there was a flaw in it somewhere along the line, then it couldn't possibly have been perfect either way."
Notice the difference between the two; one is flawed, and the other is pointing out said flaws; not rehashing what was already said.

Also, although perfection and immutability may share similar traits, this does not mean that they are interchangeable within the English language.
"What is troubling and what I see a number of times on this site, is your conclusion that "As such, Ezekiel 28:15, uses broken and circular reasoning in order to validate its statement." How did it do that, where did it do that? It says you were the anointed angel, you were perfect, then iniquity was found in you, now you're cast out."

Probably because it is circular reasoning, and therefore fundamentally flawed. One can not be perfect(i.e. flawlessness) and then uncover flaws(i.e. imperfection). To do so would imply that the original statement, that of perfection, was untrue.
Here's a more simple breakdown:

Can an uncatchable fox, be caught?
Can an undefeatable warrior, be defeated?
Can an immortal entity, be killed?
Can an entity that is perfect, be imperfect?

Uncatchable fox yes
Undefeatable warrior
Truly immortal? no
What entity are you talking about? God no he cant be imperfect, an angel that at some point was perfect, yes he can be imperfect.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 01:07 PM
RE: Loopholes
Two questions. One, are you going to answer my question about what Satan was if he wasn't a rebellious angel? Two, is it possible for God to, at some point in future, not be perfect?

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 01:13 PM
 
RE: Loopholes
Can an uncatchable fox, be caught?
Can an undefeatable warrior, be defeated?
Can an immortal entity, be killed?
Can an entity that is perfect, be imperfect?

Here's a fun fact. All of these answers, are no.

Why?

Because to say otherwise, would refute the first half of the statement; thus creating a meaningless concept.

If an uncatchable fox, is capable of being caught. Then it wasn't uncatchable in the first place.

If an undefeatable warrior, is capable of being defeated. Then it wasn't undefeatable in the first place.

If an immortal entity, is capable of being killed. Then it wasn't immortal in the first place.

If a perfect entity, is capable of being imperfect. Then it wasn't perfect in the first place.
Unbeliever, Lucifer was a fallen angel. That's a scriptural statement; I can't think of any other thing that he could have been....according to the testaments anyways.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 01:28 PM
 
RE: Loopholes
(28-04-2010 01:13 PM)Ceryle Wrote:  Can an uncatchable fox, be caught?
Can an undefeatable warrior, be defeated?
Can an immortal entity, be killed?
Can an entity that is perfect, be imperfect?

Here's a fun fact. All of these answers, are no.

Why?

Because to say otherwise, would refute the first half of the statement; thus creating a meaningless concept.

If an uncatchable fox, is capable of being caught. Then it wasn't uncatchable in the first place.

If an undefeatable warrior, is capable of being defeated. Then it wasn't undefeatable in the first place.

If an immortal entity, is capable of being killed. Then it wasn't immortal in the first place.

If a perfect entity, is capable of being imperfect. Then it wasn't perfect in the first place.
Unbeliever, Lucifer was a fallen angel. That's a scriptural statement; I can't think of any other thing that he could have been....according to the testaments anyways.

You are playing games and speaking theoretically, a fox that is uncatchable today, will at some point be caught.

a warrior will defeated

The only one that is correct is the immortal entity, if that can even be.
Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2010, 01:30 PM
 
RE: Loopholes
Obviously it is hypothetical, because none of these things can exist in our universe; and that is exactly my point.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: