A Depiction of Mathematical Perfection
(Fair Use)
On Not Being Perfect
Against the Armstrongist Idea of Becoming God-as-God-is-God
By Scout
My wife expects me to be perfect. But she knows I am not God. Talk about dissonance. God is almighty and, by comparison, it’s a wonder I can function at all. Only God is perfect and always will be. He is absolute and cannot be improved upon. We are imperfect and always will be. We will always be growing and improving (Philippians 3:13). A revealing analogy for this is any geometric figure. A cube is pictured above. It is a concept from geometry which, as other fields of mathematics, is concerned with the ideal. When I say a geometric cube is a “concept”, I mean it can exist as a perfect shape in our minds. But we do not find this perfect shape in nature. Take iron pyrite, for instance.
When iron pyrite crystalizes, it forms a cube. But any pyrite cube, even under the best of conditions for formation, is not perfect. It only looks perfect to us at our natural viewing resolution. In reality, its defining lines are formed of an arrangement of molecules of iron sulfide. In geometry, ideal lines are defined as having length but no width. We can imagine a geometric line but we cannot draw one. If you could see the edge of the pyrite crystal, where two planes intersect to form a line, it would be ragged row of molecules, not perfect like the ideal geometric line. God is perfect like the geometric cube in geometry and we are irregular like the cubic pyrite crystal.
What does the analogy tell us? There is a category difference between God and us. God is uncreated and absolute. We are created and relative. He is perfect but we will always strive to be perfect. But Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” One of the hallmark principles of the New Testament. The ultimate stretch goal. How can we become perfect like God is perfect? Is Jesus being realistic? Did the Pharisees, whom Jesus opposed so energetically, have it right – nothing is too extreme. The term for perfect in Greek is “teleios” and its meaning is close to our word “complete.” Teleios is related to the Greek word “telos” which means “goal”. Teleios expresses the idea that something has reached its intended goal. In concept, teleios is like the term “finished product” rather than the philosophical concept of absolute, mathematical perfection. Be the very best pyrite crystal you can be.
And Jesus said, “as your Father in heaven.” We are to reflect God’s perfection. A pyrite crystal reflects but does not attain to the ideal geometry of a cube. Even in the next life we will be a reflection of God’s perfection like the moon does not generate light but reflects the light of the sun (Revelation speaks of this poetically, “And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb”). If we are not in relationship with God, we will not reflect his perfection but dwell in darkness. We are contingent and cannot function as independent, self-contained beings, now or ever. If the sun goes out, the moon will no longer reflect any light.
Again, Jesus said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Armstrongists see this from an odd, minority perspective. They see in this statement of Jesus the strange and heady idea that God’s perfection is attainable for them personally. They can be one day, they believe, God as God is God. Without a doubt we are to be partakers of the divine nature but there is a great, unsurpassable gulf between being the absolute God and merely a partaker of some of his virtues and capabilities. Don’t get me wrong. Being a partaker of the divine nature is the most wonderful destiny that one can imagine. It transcends our ability to understand it. It is just not the same as the unreachable and misinformed God-as-God-is-God idea.
Pastoral Note: I am in no way pastoral in my inclinations but there are some things that are so obvious that even I can discern them. Perfectionists are the unhappiest people in the world. They always want perfection, as they define it, and they are consistently and perpetually disappointed. Nothing worldly that you care about is perfect. A rock might be a perfect rock but who cares. The Pharisees must have been a dour lot, if they really believed in all that compulsive attention to detail. To teach someone to be a perfectionist without including the necessary concept of grace is to teach someone to be unhappy. Someone said that perfection is the enemy of good. I agree with that. And I was joking about my wife. She only expects me to be the amateur that I am. Mostly.
26 comments:
Never trust an advertising man or somebody who waves a Bible around. Herbert was both.
there are some things that are so obvious that even I can discern them
A dubious remark.
Some perfectionists are very happy.
Atlanta has a Perfect Church. But I don't think any COG member ever has attended it.
I don't agree that God is uncreated. I believe that God created Himself. The geometric proportions in the human and God's body (and face) means that it was designed. So there must have been a before and after. How God created Himself is a big unknown since it cannot be done with the laws of nature that God has imposed upon this universe.
Cubes have nothing to do with the bible.
According to Plato, it was the circle that was the perfect shape.
According to one YouTube video, the Borg cube is the best design for three dimensional space travel. The jet/plane type design shown in many Star Trek and Star Wars type movies is not practical for outer space combat.
Well, that was sure a dumb comment! They certainly do!
In church symbolism, a circle represents heaven, and a aquare represents earth. In many churches, you will see an octagonal pulpit. When these two are overlaid, you get an octagon, where heaven meets earth through the speaking.
Anonymous 8:03 wrote, “The geometric proportions in the human and God's body (and face) means that it was designed. So there must have been a before and after.”
What you have done is intermix human characteristics with ideas about an absolute God and this has resulted in an odd conflation. It has led you to the meaningless conclusion that “God created himself.” But, I admit, this reductio ad absurdum is an effective argument as to why God cannot have a body. Here are some reasons why your ideas do not compute:
1. God is not constrained by time. He created time. Time is a property of the physical universe and responds to gravity. There is no before and after with God. Before and after is a property of the human realm.
2. God does not have a body in his essence. You are right in saying that the human body is designed for living on earth and breathing air. God does not have to breathe air. God is spirit.
3. The idea that God created himself is not something outside the laws of nature. It is simply illogical.
Scout
Anonymous 6:33 wrote, "Some perfectionists are very happy."
I agree with this. Some are happy. What have observed is that perfectionists who are happy believe they are perfect and are self-satisfied. For them, it is other people who are a problem. They coast along pretty well, giving the impression of happiness, until something challenges their perfectionism by having the temerity to go wrong. Then they implode.
Scout
Anonymous 8:36 wrote, “Cubes have nothing to do with the bible.”
I think your statement must be tongue-in-cheek. I remember reading about a charismatic church in the Appalachians that did snake handling in their worship. It showed a picture of some men dancing with poisonous snakes at church services. They were all wearing overalls. But they were not wearing ties. They declared that the Bible said nothing about wearing ties so they were not going to wear ties.
The word “cube” cannot be found in the Bible but there are statements, dealing with architecture mostly, that implicitly require geometry. But the Bible is not an exhaustive textbook on geometry or math, physics, botany, zoology. God has left it to us to define these things and there is no need for him to be explicit about these topics in the Bible.
Scout
Yet some preachers note the new Jerusalem is cube-shaped, based on Revelation 21:16.
The New Jerusalem measurements indicate a possible 'cube' design. As in scripture Revelation the 1,500 miles dimension measurements of New Jerusalem are cubic with the measurements length, width and height all equal. Modern Bible scholars depict New Jerusalem as a 'cube structure' in interesting modern bible theme videos.
The Holy of Holies in the Temple was also cube-shaped symbolising God's perfect presence.
Also rocks are fascinating to rock hounds who care, because they reveal God's power and majesty of creation. Each rock holds fascinating information by its own unique weathering, erosion and the conditions of their environment.
Rocks are frequently used in scripture as a symbol of God's strength, refuge and constancy.
Luke 19:40 The rocks cry out and scream God's glory.
Psalm 18:2 The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock in whom I take refuge.
"God is not constrained by time."
The evidence says otherwise. According to scientists, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. God has spent that whole time designing the new plants and animals after Satan's rebellion. Like a computer programmer, God has designed the universe and its laws, but He still must carefully 9obey the rules of His computer language. God doesn't use magic as you imply, but rather advanced technology. Failing to honor basic reality is a flaw in Armstrongism theology, as well as the COG7/Kenneth Copeland Christianity that Herb plaguerized. "Do not tempt the Lord Your God" found in both old and new testament is also a warning against not honoring the way he world really works. God is not there to pick up after people.
God could have created how He looks. Maybe God is Spirit and He can take a certain shape. Maybe He didn't always have the shape of what man has. What do we know?
Anonymous 4:32
God is not subject to his own creation. That is a human chacteristic that you have attributed to God. It is based on the lèse-majesté theme concerning God that runs through Armstrongism.
God created time. It is a physical property of the Cosmos and has been proven to be subject to gravity. Time flows at different rates depending on where you are located in relation to a mass. So the "evidence does not say
otherwise" as you assert.
God is absolute. This is not magic. It is his ontological reality. It may seem like magic if you don't recognize God's absolute nature. But magic is greatly inferior to what God can do.
What you are referring to as "advanced technology" is just the human way of doing things. God is not bound by the human realm although Armstrongists teach that. This is because they worship a different God than Christians do.
Scout
A (tiring) repeat: .....in Our image, after Our likeness.......Gen 1:26.
......His shape/form. John 5:37.
Anonymous 11:11
“A (tiring) repeat”
Are you tired of hearing the truth? Here is the truth: God can assume any form he wants but he does not have a form in his essence.
“In Our image, after Our likeness.”
This is an ancient Near Eastern expression that was used with regard to royalty. The King was said to be in the Image of God as a statement of how his authority is derived. In Genesis, this expression is associated with mankind having the authority to rule over the animal kingdom. See the Jewish Study Bible notes on Genesis 1:28. It is not about humans having a shape like God. Or being after the “God kind.”
“His shape/form.”
God can appear in a form. He appeared to Job as a whirlwind. The issue, again, is whether the form is a characteristic of God in his essence or if it is an assumed form, like the whirlwind. God in his essence is a spirit and does not have a form.
So, let me ask you a few questions. If God is not dependent on anything and a nose is for breathing air to sustain life, why would God have a nose? Why would he have a nose before air was created? Did he have the nose first, without understanding why, and then after the fact figure out some way to use it? If he always had a nose in his essence, why? Who invented the nose and placed it on him? (If it was externally created and then placed on him then it is not a part of his essence.)
Scout
This blast from the past somehow seems so relevant to the discussion:
In one episode of My Favorite Martian, some Irish guys accidentally witnessed enough of Uncle Martin's powers, that they believed that he was a leprechaun! After all of the tap dancing and damage control, Uncle Martin and Tim O'Hara are sitting around doing a post mortem on the whole episode, and Tim suddenly exclaims, "Imagine that! Those Irish guys actually believing that you are a leprechaun!" With a mischeivous twinkle in his eye, Uncle Martin replies, "And why not? You believe I'm a Martian!"
Isaiah 65:5
All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations a people who continually proke me to my face.
Who say 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you! Such people are smoke in my nostrils.
Anonymous 11:14 wrote, "Who say 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you! Such people are smoke in my nostrils."
You cite scriptures that indicate that God has a face and nostrils. I can cite a scripture that states God is a pillar of fire. Which one is it? Why is one form more persuasive than the other? Does this mean that the Bible is self-contradictory and you would be advised not to believe it at all? That is where HWA led you. You must avoid thinking to be a good Armstrongist.
And you did not respond to my questions about God having a nose, at all. And it is in these questions you will find the clearest argument against God having a body.
Scout
I'm Anon 11:14 but I'm not Anon 11:11.
Herbert Armstrong has led me nowhere as he died whilst I was very young and I was never in WCG. I have no idea what a good Armstrongist thinking is.
To argue over the forms God can take is a huge lesson in futility. I chose Isaiah 65 as God himself is speaking and God chose to express his emotions and message by mentioning hands, face and nostrils which highlights God's humility.
God can be anything in anyway he wants. Humans can only understand Spirit through a dimly lit glass at this time.
3:00 wrote, "To argue over the forms God can take is a huge lesson in futility."
Why not just deny the whole Bible? You have made this declaration without a shred of exegesis. I believe the Bible gives us data about God. The forms he takes on and the fact he does so are revealing.
"God can be anything in anyway he wants" is a proposition you need to think about. I believe you mean that God can adopt any visible form that he wants. But thatg is not what you said.
While you claim to be unfettered by Armstrongism, you do suffer from its effects.
Scout
Anonymous 4:32 wrote, “According to scientists, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. God has spent that whole time designing the new plants and animals after Satan's rebellion.”
What you have stated here is dubious Armstrongist protology. We know from science that the observable universe is conjectured to have begun about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Do not be misled by the term Big Bang. It was not like an explosion of dynamite or the expansion of cigarette smoke into the atmosphere of a room in your house. That just throws pre-existing matter into a pre-existing space. About 13.8 billion years ago, a singularity smaller than the period at the end of a sentence began the process of inflation which is still going on. That singularity became the observable Cosmos – not just the material of the Cosmos but space, time, dark matter, dark energy, the laws of physics, the whole package.
Although I have heard Armstrongist ministers assert that God spent the time prior to the Creation in planning the Creation and mankind, that is a rank presumption. God does not exist in time and does not need time to do anything. He does not need 13.8 billions to figure things out. He is not a human though Herman Hoeh and others asserted that God is like human engineers in the way he creates. Armstrongism declares the idea of God-as-God-is-God but preaches God-as-Man-is-God.
The data we have from the Bible is minimal. We know that the time before the organization of the planet earth was referred to as tohu and bohu – a time of chaos. The Jewish Study Bible says this account is both “austere” and “abstract” for its lack of detail. In fact, we don’t know what was happening before the organization of the earth in Genesis 1. The Armstrongist pulpit can only speculate and the Armstrongist speculations I have heard lack harmony with science.
Scout
Post a Comment