henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl diabetic Henning) (05/05/91)
Mark Sandrock writes: >The fact remains that a *perfect* GOD could never change. This has nothing >at all to do with stools or chairs. And neither could His perfect laws >be changed or interrupted. What statement would this being making about the >perfection of said laws? We don't understand perfection, but we need to learn >to understand it, in order to understand our God. And it IS possible to do so. At one and the same time, you assert that "we" (by which I will understand you to mean "I" [i.e., you, yourself] for the moment) don't understand "perfection", yet -- you claim to know enough about it to assert WITHOUT CONCEDING EVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR that such-and-such perfect thing cannot change. Having just posted an article about "humility" (a relativistic value which attains canonic status in xianity as a thing-in-itself to be acquired [and, therefore, rightly proud of :-)]), the transition to "perfection" is pretty easy -- although I hasten to add, that humility is something people can do in their own homes without elaborate apparatus, while perfection is either a] something that is defined by context, or b] a non-self-sustaining abstraction, like color. An illustration of each case: We all eat, I suppose. And eating among humans is not merely a matter of sustenance, but also (in many cases) of aesthetics (most of us in the U.S. really would prefer, e.g., a ripe banana to an overripe-but- still-edible banana). What is the perfect food? What makes it so? And even if you decide on a perfect food, is it perfect for everybody? Is no person on this wide globe allergic to it? Would no individual even /prefer/ to eat something else? Maybe that was cheap -- we all now that "perfection" is used in this low-budget, amoral fashion. How irreverent to cite it as a question of Divine Perfection :-) Idealism -- no, let me say instead "idealization" ... "idealization", then, is an important human skill, and has been a factor in many a grand human achievement -- but it also casts a seductive shadow on the mind. And there is no lack of religions built around the quest of abstract "perfection" -- not a "perfect" so-and-so, but "perfection" ... for convenience, let's call him Bog. Sadly, there is no more horse-sense to our friend Bog, than to Blue -- not referring to a blue so-and-so, nor contenting ourselves with a mere abstract notion of blueness, but an anthropomorphic personification of Blue. In fact, the problem seeps in long before Blue becomes incarnate -- back in the abstract blueness stage. Because, useful as the notion "blue" is in distinguishing certain objects which evince this or that degree of blueness, a] there are different shades of blue, and many of them blend gradually into other colors; b] our eyes are not all the same, and it is unlikely that we all perceive even the same shade of blue in the same way; c] different cultures attribute the word "blue" to different shades of blue, so that the Japanese, for instance, use the word "blue" in instances where English-speakers would use "green" (traffic lights, &c.). Alas -- bye-bye Bog; adieu Bleu. One of the reasons, perhaps, that "we don't understand perfection" is, that -- as a disembodied abstraction -- it is absurd. This will not stop interested individuals from occupying themselves with the exercise, however :-) kph -- "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself. All that you despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn and seek to convert by punishment springs from you." -- Henry Miller
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/10/91)
In article <May.4.23.44.27.1991.22545@athos.rutgers.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl diabetic Henning) writes: >One of the reasons, perhaps, that "we don't understand perfection" is, >that -- as a disembodied abstraction -- it is absurd. Perfection certainly is a word that can lead to confusion. I was confused by Wesley's use of it. (How can I ever hope to be perfect!?) However, Wesley doesn't use the word the way we commonly do. I.E. perfection is a state that is reached. Wesley (as I understand it) speaks of perfection as something that is done. The act of projecting something is projection. It is on ongoing process. Similarly, the process we undergo when God is working to perfect us is perfection. I am not yet perfect, (boy! just look at some of the stupid things I say, and the typos I make), and yet I am experiencing perfection. (God is continually working to make me perfect.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton [The background of this comment may not be clear to everyone. John Wesley (founder of Methodism -- Tom is a Methodist) was well known for holding the Christians could actually become perfect in this life. His use of the word perfect seems to have been somewhat restricted. That is, he didn't claim that such a person would never make an error. Rather he seems to have meant that -- through the grace of God -- their relationship with God was perfected. Wesley did not claim to be prefect himself, and in fact I've never known a Methodist make such a claim. --clh]