I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
Yeah you are. You're trying to get me to play along with your anti-semantic word games. You're trying to get me to not ask you questions about the meaningless stupidities you are wont to writing on TOL.



I, too, am interested in that particular word game, Arthur Brain.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not interested in word games of any sort unless they're actually centred around words themselves. You can kid yourself otherwise and continue with your self congratulatory garbage but heck, nothing exactly new where it comes to folk having major hang ups with science and the like. To be fair, you'd probably be pretty good at Scrabble if the tiles fell your way.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
chair said:
"very good" is a subset of "good", and "perfect" is a subset of "very good".
Click to expand...
  • If "very good" is a subset of "good", then some of "good" is "very good".
  • If "perfect" is a subset of "very good", then some of "very good" is "perfect".
  • If "perfect" is a subset of "good" (which it is, if it is a subset of "very good"), then some of "good" is "perfect".
According to your scheme,
  • of what is "good" a subset?
  • of what is "imperfect" a subset?
  • what is a subset of "perfect"?
  • what is a subset coordinate with "perfect"? (Like how the set of green cars and the set of red cars are subsets coordinate one with the other of the set of cars.)
Borrow one of The Barbarian's crayolas, and draw yourself a circle. Inside that circle, write "good", to denote that whatever's inside that circle is good, and that whatever's outside that circle is not good. Next, draw a smaller inside that first circle, writing "very good" inside it, to denote that whatever's inside that smaller circle is very good, and that whatever's outside it is not very good. Next, draw a third, and yet-smaller, circle, inside the circle labeled "very good", and label this third one "perfect", to denote that whatever's inside the "perfect" circle is perfect, and that whatever's outside the "perfect" circle is imperfect. Now, you've created a visual representation of the scheme you posted, above. As you can see, by this scheme you've come up with, you, yourself, have told us that EVERYTHING that is PERFECT is not only VERY GOOD, but also GOOD, since everything that is good is inside the circle, "good", and everything that is perfect is inside the circle, "good".
 
Last edited:
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain said:
To be fair, you'd probably be pretty good at Scrabble if the tiles fell your way.
Click to expand...

You don't know the half of it, man. They call me "the MacGuyver of Scrabble" for the wonders I can work even when dealt six consonant tiles, and sometimes Y--all without needing to scratch around frantically, and always keeping my cool, like the real-life MacGuyver.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
  • If "very good" is a subset of "good", then some of "good" is "very good".
  • If "perfect" is a subset of "very good", then some of "very good" is "perfect".
  • If "perfect" is a subset of "good" (which it is, if it is a subset of "very good"), then some of "good" is "perfect".
According to your scheme,
  • of what is "good" a subset?
  • of what is "imperfect" a subset?
  • what is a subset of "perfect"?
  • what is a subset coordinate with "perfect"? (Like how the set of green cars and the set of red cars are subsets coordinate one with the other of the set of cars.)
Borrow one of The Barbarian's crayolas, and draw yourself a circle. Inside that circle, write "good", to denote that whatever's inside that circle is good, and that whatever's outside that circle is not good. Next, draw a smaller inside that first circle, writing "very good" inside it, to denote that whatever's inside that smaller circle is very good, and that whatever's outside it is not very good. Next, draw a third, and yet-smaller, circle, inside the circle labeled "very good", and label this third one "perfect", to denote that whatever's inside the "perfect" circle is perfect, and that whatever's outside the "perfect" circle is imperfect. Now, you've created a visual representation of the scheme you posted, above. As you can see, by this scheme you've come up with, you, yourself, have told us that EVERYTHING that is PERFECT is not only VERY GOOD, but also GOOD, since everything that is good is inside the circle, "good", and everything that is perfect is inside the circle, "good".
Click to expand...

nah, you have crayons too. you can figure it out.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
chair said:
nah, you have crayons too. you can figure it out.
Click to expand...

You declared perfect to be good by your saying that perfect is a subset of good, and your so doing was your very attempt to defend your stupidity, in the first place, of having said that perfect is NOT good. Nice!
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
User Name said:
If one is perfect, and another good, one is clearly better than the other.
Click to expand...

When you say that one thing, A, is better than another thing, B, you are saying that B is NOT AS GOOD AS A. Now, if A is perfect, and B is not as good as A, why, behold: A (which (remember) is perfect) can't but be good. To say that something is not as good as A is, necessarily, to imply that A is good. If B is less good than A (which (remember) is perfect), then A (which (remember) is perfect) is good.

None of you scoffers (@User Name;, @chair;, "@Child of God;", @The Barbarian;, @Arthur Brain;) who have been barking out that what is perfect is not good is really dumb enough to actually believe the thing you've been barking out. You all know, as well as I know, that you were so eager to pounce on @6days; for what he had written, here:

6days said:
The Bible tells us that God and His works are perfect. The Bible tells us that that the perfect creation was corrupted, and we now have pain suffering and death.
Click to expand...

--that you put only very poor thought into what you would write in your reaction to (and out of your hatred for) the truth that 6days had stated. And, your having done such shoddy thinking has blown up in your very faces.

You're welcome.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
So you think that for something to be perfect is for it to not be good? Tell us where, in Genesis 1-2, you imagine you have a textual basis for saying that all that God had created was imperfect.
Click to expand...

This is where the childish word game started. I said that "good" is not "perfect". Not the opposite. Nor did I say anything about the creation not being perfect- only that the text does not say so:
chair said:
The Bible describes God's creation as "good", not "perfect"
Click to expand...

This whole conversation is based on your twisting lies.
 
W

Wick Stick

Well-known member
chair said:
This is where the childish word game started. I said that "good" is not "perfect". Not the opposite. Nor did I say anything about the creation not being perfect- only that the text does not say so:

This whole conversation is based on your twisting lies.
Click to expand...
The word "perfect" has changed in meaning since the King James Bible was published. Back in the 17th century, it meant "complete." Now it means "without defects."

If you're using it in the latter sense... that isn't even what that word means in your Bible. Check the Hebrew if you like. The word there also means "complete."
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Wick Stick said:
The word "perfect" has changed in meaning since the King James Bible was published. Back in the 17th century, it meant "complete." Now it means "without defects."

If you're using it in the latter sense... that isn't even what that word means in your Bible. Check the Hebrew if you like. The word there also means "complete."
Click to expand...

Yes, you've got something there. Speaking as a Hebrew speaker....
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
chair said:
The Bible describes God's creation as "good", not "perfect".
Click to expand...

By your having told us that perfect is a subset of a subset of good, you have told us that perfect is good. Because I am well aware of your weepy sensitivity, and of your penchant for attempts at fault-finding as a means of directing attention away from your self-incoherence, I, preemptively, would have you note that I'm NOT saying, here, that you have told us that ALL good is perfect; but what you have, indeed, told us is that ALL perfect is good. That's exactly what you've told us in telling us that perfect is a subset of a subset of good. Also, what you've told us, therein, is that some good is not perfect. So, you've told us that ALL good is exhaustively divisible into two categories: good that is perfect, and good that is imperfect.

Now, when you tell us that the Bible describes God's creation as "good", which do you mean?
  • Do you mean that the Bible describes God's creation as good that is imperfect?
OR​
  • Do you mean that the Bible describes God's creation as good that is perfect?
chair said:
You are either mistaken, or lying. I did not say "perfect is not good". I merely pointed out that the Bible says "good" about the creation. It does not say "perfect".
Click to expand...

So, according to you, when the Bible says "good" about the creation, the Bible is referring to imperfect good?

And, what (if anything) was your point in pointing out that the Bible says "good" about the creation, as a reaction to 6days' having said that the Bible says that the creation was perfect, UNLESS you were saying that the Bible says that the creation was imperfectly good, rather than perfectly good?

chair said:
I said that "good" is not "perfect". Not the opposite.
Click to expand...

By saying, as you said, that perfect is a subset of a subset of good, you did, indeed, say that SOME good is imperfect, as well as that SOME good is perfect.

chair said:
Nor did I say anything about the creation not being perfect- only that the text does not say so
Click to expand...

Here, you are saying that the text, when it says that the creation was good, does not mean good that is perfect--which, if true, would necessitate that the text means good that is imperfect. So, yeah: contrary to your falsehood, here, you did say something about the creation not being perfect.
 
6days

6days

New member
Wick Stick said:
The word "perfect" has changed in meaning since the King James Bible was published. Back in the 17th century, it meant "complete." Now it means "without defects."

If you're using it in the latter sense... that isn't even what that word means in your Bible. Check the Hebrew if you like. The word there also means "complete."
Click to expand...

Deut. 32:4 "His works are perfect" God is perfect, so His work, His creation was perfect, but marred by our sin. God did not create using a process of pain, suffering and death...because then the gospel would have no foundation. Last Adam would not have had to suffer and defeat physical death (The enemy 1 Cor. 15:26) if God had created using a process of death, calling it "very good"
 
C

Child of God

BANNED
Banned
6days said:
Deut. 32:4 "His works are perfect" God is perfect, so His work, His creation was perfect, but marred by our sin. God did not create using a process of pain, suffering and death...because then the gospel would have no foundation. Last Adam would not have had to suffer and defeat physical death (The enemy 1 Cor. 15:26) if God had created using a process of death, calling it "very good"
Click to expand...

I get this when I go to Deut 32:4

Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
 
C

Child of God

BANNED
Banned
Eze_18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top