Did God Create hell?

[simonpeter]

No it isn't.  I bore that badge for a long time myself and I'm here to say it's a crock.

 

Self-determinism is better, not denying myself or refusing to partake of the array of sensory experiences out there in the name of 'purity' is far better.  Living life is better.

 

bdp

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have a lot of friends who think the same way.

[Vigile]

The earth is flooded. The Science of geology clearly indicates way back when the earth was covered with water.

 

I'm certainly no expert on geology, having only had a semester of it when I was in the university but I don't recall that there is evidence of a world wide flood in the geological record. Many regional floods yes.

 

However, putting science to work on the ark it is clearly obvious to a first semister structural engineer that this ark made of wood, without the support of steel girders, would break in half instantly and couldn't possibly float. Also, science tells us that at the time of Noah there were about 30 million species of animals. For Noah and his family to load all these animals would have required at least a hundred more of these arks and if one pair was loaded every second, it would take twelve years.

 

So, does this information totally null this story? Maybe. Or, maybe something similar happened and when the information was written down (inspired by God) but with the human hand, mind and imagination, we have the story that we have. BTW, this story has been great fodder on this site to prove the wickedness of God.

 

Could it be possible, as far fetched as this story may, that God is revealing his nature to us? I have said that it may be possible that God may not know every detail of the future or may chose not to know. Let's look at the ugly side of this story: God drowning children. In the story line we are told that God surveyed his creation and saw only wickedness, save Noah and his family. Suppose God took a look into the future or by using current trends could see that these wicked people would only cause more death and destruction upon innocients. Rather than to see more suffering, he wipes out the wickeness and starts over.

 

Again, I believe you are making apologies for beliefs that you have predetermindly concluded hold merit. First you use reason to examine the evidence, which I think is admirable for a christian (or anyone for that matter) but then instead of discounting the claims you make up new scenarios under which there might still be some truth and usefulness in the stories. I don't understand why. Again I ask, what do you use to determine that there is ANY truth or usefulness in the myth(s) when they are obviously fraught with logical impossibilities? I think you want them to be true so you have to find a way to make them true even in the face of evidence that they are not.

 

 

Suppose God took a look into the future or by using current trends could see that these wicked people would only cause more death and destruction upon innocients. Rather than to see more suffering, he wipes out the wickeness and starts over.

 

I have three sons. If I discovered that one of my sons was about to kill the other two and the only way I could stop him was to kill him, what would be the right thing to do? Should I let "nature" take its course and let him kill or should I kill him? That may be what the story is about.

 

I can't imagine what sort of "wickedness" would cause him to do that and I can't imagine that any god could be so weak and simple minded as to not come up with a better solution for reforming humanity than to kill them all. As screwed up as the US penal system is, even it is far more humane than god was. I also cannot fathom that you would take your own son's life when obviously there are other options available to you under the "preknowledge" scenario you outlined. Warning your other two sons would be a start.

 

If that is what the story is about, then that god deserves none of my obediance, or even time of day.

 

So, is the story completely discounted?

 

There is no evidence outside the bible itself that biblegod exists. The bible is full of errors, contradictions and improbabilities, therefore there remains only one reason to not discount the entire story; because you don't want to.

[Christopher Carrion]

If something exists within reality which "God" did not intend to be there, then he can't possibly be omnipotent can he? Therefore God not only MUST have created Hell, he MUST have intended for it to be there. Otherwise the spine of Christianity and biblical faith in general (i.e., the basic infallibility of God) begins to crumble.

[Ouroboros]

So, does this information totally null this story? Maybe. Or, maybe something similar happened and when the information was written down (inspired by God) but with the human hand, mind and imagination, we have the story that we have. BTW, this story has been great fodder on this site to prove the wickedness of God.

There are several recorded histories that are similar to the story of Noah, as you probably know. And when you gather all the stories, it points to that it did happen, but it was a very local event, with a flooding of a limited are, and it was only for a week or two, and he didn't gather animals from the whole world, but just gathered his family and his pets when the flood came.

 

Could it be possible, as far fetched as this story may, that God is revealing his nature to us? I have said that it may be possible that God may not know every detail of the future or may chose not to know. Let's look at the ugly side of this story: God drowning children. In the story line we are told that God surveyed his creation and saw only wickedness, save Noah and his family. Suppose God took a look into the future or by using current trends could see that these wicked people would only cause more death and destruction upon innocients. Rather than to see more suffering, he wipes out the wickeness and starts over.

Hmmm. Make some sense. But do you want to trust a God that have little clue what he's doing and everything is experimental on his part? Do you want to accept his demands that you have to pray and adore him, and sing silly songs to, just to please him, or else...?

 

I have three sons. If I discovered that one of my sons was about to kill the other two and the only way I could stop him was to kill him, what would be the right thing to do? Should I let "nature" take its course and let him kill or should I kill him? That may be what the story is about.

I like your fresh approach on these questions SP. Finally someone is making a move and getting some new light on these old questions.

 

Well, normally in a situation like that, you do anything you can to prevent the killing of that son. We have a law system, police force etc, for the intention to capture and hold dangerous people. Now granted that sometimes the Police kill someone during the arrest, but that is usually in the heat of the moment, and situations get dangerous and fast. Quick decisions are taken, and nothing else can be done at the moment. Can this be an illustration of what God did in OT? Interesting... but I'm sure that the old Orthodox Christian Church would crucify you for thinking this…

 

You know you’re making the Bible God awfully similar to Greek and Roman gods by demoting him to a sub-god. And the next question is does this fallible god of yours have a god himself?

 

So, is the story completely discounted?

This I’m sure of, in the context of literal interpretation of the Bible at least. But it could be accepted as a mythological story of the Hero’s Journey.

 

 

*edit*

 

And I thought of something…

 

If God is not infallible, then how can he expect us to follow any certain laws or conditions, since he knows that he can fail too? How can he have justify his own actions to himself to send people to Hell for disobeying him or just plainly not believe in him to an eternal punishment, when he makes mistakes himself? Will he at the end see that he was at fault, and send his own body to Hell?

[simonpeter]

There are several recorded histories that are similar to the story of Noah, as you probably know. And when you gather all the stories, it points to that it did happen, but it was a very local event, with a flooding of a limited are, and it was only for a week or two, and he didn't gather animals from the whole world, but just gathered his family and his pets when the flood came.

 

Two things: Some believe that God shared this flood information with other peoples of the world besides the Jews explaining the commonalies. Similar stories of creation also exist. For example, in Shintoism, the story is about two sun gods who from the heavens looked down and saw water. They poked their spear into the water and upon pulling it out, mud stuck to the spear and created the islands of Japan. This is the fun part: they then looked at each other and observing that one had an "innie" (female vagina) and the other an "outie" (penis). They united and created children. and placed them on this muddy plain. Like the Bible, it doesn't explain if brothers and sisters united and created more children.

 

Hmmm. Make some sense. But do you want to trust a God that have little clue what he's doing and everything is experimental on his part? Do you want to accept his demands that you have to pray and adore him, and sing silly songs to, just to please him, or else...?

 

I didn't mean to imply that God doesn't know what he is doing. I would suggest He is willing to take risks to draw his creation to him. I believe God made this wonderful planet for humans to enjoy to the max. With the belief that God wants us to enjoy life to the fullest, He may have to chose to not look into the future at times. For example, I played football from the 8th grade through H.S. I was good at it. Over time I began to pay the price of the sport feeling the pain of old injuries. At 54 a bad knee prevents me from running and a I can't throw a football any farther than 20 yards. Now at the age of 54 I am now paying the price of those injuries. When I had sons I didn't discourage them from playing the sport and they were great players, loved the sport. However, I now see one son at the age of 25 who's knees and ankles are painful and he cannot even play basketball anymore. My oldest is 27 and he's had two shoulder surgeries in the past 5 years to correct old war wounds. Now, I have no regrets of playing the game. I love football and I think the discipline taught me a lot. However, as a father and had I known the future of my children, I would have discouraged them from playing football, suggesting a less violent sport or activity. But, I would have also denied them the exileration of the sport that I felt and that may not be a good thing.

 

 

I like your fresh approach on these questions SP. Finally someone is making a move and getting some new light on these old questions.

 

Once again, I'm not making these things up as I go along. All of my theology has been stolen. I have a friend who is into 1st century Christianity. While we can argue the credibility of the Bible, its authors and such, solid, verifiable documentation is available on the theologians of the day and they think along these lines. BTW, most theologians or professors of the O.T. and N.T. believe the Vatican has a wealth of hidden information on these topics.

 

Well, normally in a situation like that, you do anything you can to prevent the killing of that son. We have a law system, police force etc, for the intention to capture and hold dangerous people. Now granted that sometimes the Police kill someone during the arrest, but that is usually in the heat of the moment, and situations get dangerous and fast. Quick decisions are taken, and nothing else can be done at the moment. Can this be an illustration of what God did in OT? Interesting... but I'm sure that the old Orthodox Christian Church would crucify you for thinking this…

 

I really hate to say this but I believe it to be truth: Fundamentalists disagree with this line of thinking because they fear it may be true.

 

You know you’re making the Bible God awfully similar to Greek and Roman gods by demoting him to a sub-god. And the next question is does this fallible god of yours have a god himself?

 

If I were a sub-god I would take on many of the characterists of the Big G. And, by definition, the Big G. has no other god above him. Interesting point: the O.T. often makes references to other gods -- " ... no other gods before me ..." with indicates the possibilities that this planet contained other gods at some point. Jesus referred to Satan as the "lord of the earth."

 

This I’m sure of, in the context of literal interpretation of the Bible at least. But it could be accepted as a mythological story of the Hero’s Journey.

*edit*

 

And I thought of something…

 

If God is not infallible, then how can he expect us to follow any certain laws or conditions, since he knows that he can fail too? How can he have justify his own actions to himself to send people to Hell for disobeying him or just plainly not believe in him to an eternal punishment, when he makes mistakes himself? Will he at the end see that he was at fault, and send his own body to Hell?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't believe God fails or makes mistakes. For example, after flooding the earth and He said he'll never do it again I think he was expressing regret; that, it was too painful, and not that his "experiment" had failed. It is possible God put everything in motion for a successful creation but it had its risks and mankind with its free will can foul the pot. I realize many struggle with this concept of free will but the alternative is programmed behavior, and God chose not to go that route.

 

I wonder if this comparison will work? When a teacher administers a test of what has been taught and some of the students fail, is it the teacher's fault?

 

Your last statement was nearly orgasmic for me. There is a huge body of "Christians" that believe God did punish Himself for His transgressions by having his Son tortured, killed and sent to Sheol/Hades/Hell. The pastors who believe this won't preach it because of the crap they will receive from their congregations and brothers of the cloth.

[Christopher Carrion]

You also mention that you don;t believe god makes mistakes, yet feels "regret" over his supposed flooding of the entire earth. The very fact that he is capable of feeling "regret" demonstrates that he feels that his choice in this matter was somehow imperfect; that there may have been a more productive way to handle the situation. Ergo, God made a mistake. Ergo, he is not perfect.

[simonpeter]

You also mention that you don;t believe god makes mistakes, yet feels "regret" over his supposed flooding of the entire earth. The very fact that he is capable of feeling "regret" demonstrates that he feels that his choice in this matter was somehow imperfect; that there may have been a more productive way to handle the situation. Ergo, God made a mistake. Ergo, he is not perfect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Operating table: Doctor & nurses gathered around injured patient. This doctor is the best surgeon in the hospital (world). He has carefully studied all options and has done everything possible for this patient. He finally comes up with a conclusion and says to patient, "I regret to tell you but to save your life, the leg must be amputated."

 

We can express regret or remorse for a loss. I don't see that these expressed feelings reflect any mistake or imperfection.

 

The story says that He placed a rainbow in the sky to remind Him of his promise to never do this again. My take on this is God saying that no matter what the future holds for my people I cannot (will not) bear this pain again.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Operating table: Doctor & nurses gathered around injured patient. This doctor is the best surgeon in the hospital (world). He has carefully studied all options and has done everything possible for this patient. He finally comes up with a conclusion and says to patient, "I regret to tell you but to save your life, the leg must be amputated."

 

We can express regret or remorse for a loss. I don't see that these expressed feelings reflect any mistake or imperfection.

 

The story says that He placed a rainbow in the sky to remind Him of his promise to never do this again. My take on this is God saying that no matter what the future holds for my people I cannot (will not) bear this pain again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop using Humans in your anology. We are limited. The bible describes your god as being able to do anything and says that it's nature IS love.

 

The flood story contradicts what scripture says of your gods nature and abilities. The story shows your god not loving to the best of i'ts abilities.

 

Also, since according to the story only Noah and his family are the only survivors of this flood it must be concluded that your god is a psycho. It only follows that there were children and infants that were killed as well in the alleged event.

 

Why were they not givin a chance to escape the wrath of god?

 

The N.T. leaves no wiggle room for a Christian to say his/her God is not exactly perfect or makes mistakes.

 

Why don't you just admit that you yourself do not believe this rubbish that we find in the bible?

[crazy-tiger]

...since according to the story only Noah and his family are the only survivors of this flood it must be concluded that your god is a psycho. It only follows that there were children and infants that were killed as well in the alleged event.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now, you know the answer to that...

 

There were no children or infants killed in the flood since there were no children or infants alive at the time.

How do we know this? Well, since only sinful adults were killed, it's obvious that everyone was born as an adult and it was only AFTER the flood that God decided that people should be born as infants.

 

 

 

It makes about as much sense as most of the crud they come out with to explain the Bible...

[dogmatically_challenged]

Now, you know the answer to that...

 

There were no children or infants killed in the flood since there were no children or infants alive at the time.

How do we know this? Well, since only sinful adults were killed, it's obvious that everyone was born as an adult and it was only AFTER the flood that God decided that people should be born as infants.

It makes about as much sense as most of the crud they come out with to explain the Bible...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well. I'm not quoting scripture here, but if I did then I could rightly ask that the xian quote scripture that would back up the claims that the offspring of adam some how magically being born as full grown adults without killing the women in the birth process. Sheesh! could you imagine? Also I am familiar with only one scripture that blatantly illistrates a less than omni-potent god. Iron chariots....hehe.

[crazy-tiger]

Well. I'm not quoting scripture here, but if I did then I could rightly ask that the xian quote scripture that would back up the claims that the offspring of adam some how magically being born as full grown adults without killing the women in the birth process. Sheesh! could you imagine? Also I am familiar with only one scripture that balatantly illistrates a less than omni-potent god. Iron chariots....hehe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, God did say that women would experience pain during childbirth... and it doesn't say anywhere that the offspring were born as infants.

 

 

Hey... I'm doing well at this Apologist lark.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Well, God did say that women would experience pain during childbirth... and it doesn't say anywhere that the offspring were born as infants.

Hey... I'm doing well at this Apologist lark.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yea. I wouldn't put it past bible demon yahweh to make women give birth to a full grown adult. hehe.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I heard many rumors of the gnostic xians. One being that some regarded bible god a sick and deranged god. Maybe our xian friend simonpeter should investigate gnostic xian beliefs as I think he'd take to that better be'ens he feels bible god has limitations. hehe.

 

It would save him from defending yhwh. hehe.

[simonpeter]

Stop using Humans in your anology. We are limited. The bible describes your god as being able to do anything and says that it's nature IS love.

 

The flood story contradicts what scripture says of your gods nature and abilities. The story shows your god not loving to the best of i'ts abilities.

 

Also, since according to the story only Noah and his family are the only survivors of this flood it must be concluded that your god is a psycho. It only follows that there were children and infants that were killed as well in the alleged event.

 

Why were they not givin a chance to escape the wrath of god?

 

The N.T. leaves no wiggle room for a Christian to say his/her God is not exactly perfect or makes mistakes.

 

There has been one major issue that I have skirted. You'll need to update me on where in the bible God is said to be "infallible." One Bible reference would be enough.

 

My undertanding of the concept of "infallibilty" came from the work of Augustine and not from the Bible. Need your help here.

 

Why don't you just admit that you yourself do not believe this rubbish that we find in the bible?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[simonpeter]

There are several recorded histories that are similar to the story of Noah, as you probably know. And when you gather all the stories, it points to that it did happen, but it was a very local event, with a flooding of a limited are, and it was only for a week or two, and he didn't gather animals from the whole world, but just gathered his family and his pets when the flood came.

Hmmm. Make some sense. But do you want to trust a God that have little clue what he's doing and everything is experimental on his part? Do you want to accept his demands that you have to pray and adore him, and sing silly songs to, just to please him, or else...?

I like your fresh approach on these questions SP. Finally someone is making a move and getting some new light on these old questions.

 

Well, normally in a situation like that, you do anything you can to prevent the killing of that son. We have a law system, police force etc, for the intention to capture and hold dangerous people. Now granted that sometimes the Police kill someone during the arrest, but that is usually in the heat of the moment, and situations get dangerous and fast. Quick decisions are taken, and nothing else can be done at the moment. Can this be an illustration of what God did in OT? Interesting... but I'm sure that the old Orthodox Christian Church would crucify you for thinking this…

 

You know you’re making the Bible God awfully similar to Greek and Roman gods by demoting him to a sub-god. And the next question is does this fallible god of yours have a god himself?

 

 

This I’m sure of, in the context of literal interpretation of the Bible at least. But it could be accepted as a mythological story of the Hero’s Journey.

*edit*

 

And I thought of something…

 

If

God is not infallible, then how can he expect us to follow any certain laws or conditions, since he knows that he can fail too? How can he have justify his own actions to himself to send people to Hell for disobeying him or just plainly not believe in him to an eternal punishment, when he makes mistakes himself? Will he at the end see that he was at fault, and send his own body to Hell?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hans ... as I wrote to another on this site, I have skirted the topic of infallibility. I have not found this description of God anywhere in the Bible. I always thought this concept came from Augustine's theology and not the bible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[dogmatically_challenged]

There has been one major issue that I have skirted. You'll need to update me on where in the bible God is said to be "infallible." One Bible reference would be enough.

 

My undertanding of the concept of "infallibilty" came from the work of Augustine and not from the Bible. Need your help here.

 

Why don't you just admit that you yourself do not believe this rubbish that we find in the bible?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yea. Let us work together on this. I may not be clear on the question of bible gods infallability as given us by N.T. scripture. I think I might be confusing dogma with what scripture gives us.

 

I will open up N.I.V. and look. I'll get back to you.

 

Thank you simon for pointing this out. What you say seems right but I wanna check.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks thankful. I feel pretty dumb about now. Maybe I should give the koffee time to kick in before I do any "thinking". hehe!

 

Since simon seems so knowlegeable I let myself doubt my own intuition of the bible.

 

I forgot about cognitive dissonence in the xian animal. hehe!

[dogmatically_challenged]

I should talk...after reading those scriptures I wrote!  Apparently it says that the "word of god" is perfect also.  But, what then qualifies the "word of god"?  Some sects do believe that ONLY the words in red are what qualifies and that the rest of the bible is errent.  They believe that god "protected" his truths.  IMO, even if it was the words in red, doesn't change the myth of an evil, cruel, sadistic deity and make him nice and sweet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yea. They won't try to develop a method free of bias ahead of time before they set to work.

 

Theology is disingenious. I blaim the mental illness that is triggered everytime the xian runs into a problem that should give them reason to doubt thier beliefs.

[Ouroboros]

Hans ... as I wrote to another on this site, I have skirted the topic of infallibility. I have not found this description of God anywhere in the Bible. I always thought this concept came from Augustine's theology and not the bible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, I've been thinking about where the heck the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent ideas really came from, since the Bible really isn't coherent in these aspects. It's not even consistent about free-will vs. determinism.

 

And to make a little hook-in into the Ark and killed infants, good post c-t. It explains it all. And I like the shrinking-ray too to fit all animals on the ark, which also solved the food problem. An elephant only needed one single leaf to get full. And not to talk about the wast products. Shrunken waste is simple to take care of.

[Ouroboros]

There is a difference between the fundamentalist claim that the bible is inerrant, than God being infallible. 

 

Bible inerrancy is a claim that is not scriptural. 

 

However, the bible says in numerous scriptures that God is perfect.

 

Deuteronomy 32 4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,

      and all his ways are just.

      A faithful God who does no wrong,

      upright and just is he.

 

Psalm 1830 As for God, his way is perfect;

      the word of the LORD is flawless.

      He is a shield

      for all who take refuge in him

 

Matthew 547And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

 

More?

 

If the bible is full of errors, which it is, then it is not a trustworthy source to speak for "god".  We can't even trust the verses above.

 

You'll have to forgive me if this isn't what you were referring to.  The way you are using the quotes makes it hard for me to separate what you wrote and what someone wrote to you.

But my question here is what does "perfect" mean in this verses? Perfect in action or a perfect loony-bin, or perfect cartoonist, or just a perfectionist? I mean, what do we mean with perfect? It's kind of up to each one of us to think what perfect really means, doesn't it? What would a perfect life in heaven be? Well, I could think of some stuff, but it wouldn't be the same as someone else...

[Ouroboros]

I should talk...after reading those scriptures I wrote!  Apparently it says that the "word of god" is perfect also.  But, what then qualifies the "word of god"?  Some sects do believe that ONLY the words in red are what qualifies and that the rest of the bible is errent.  They believe that god "protected" his truths.  IMO, even if it was the words in red, doesn't change the myth of an evil, cruel, sadistic deity and make him nice and sweet.

Only the red text is perfect! That's actually funny...

 

So if you want to make them believe in Evolution, just print "Origin of species" in red print instead! :evil laughter:

[dogmatically_challenged]

Only the red text is perfect! That's actually funny...

 

So if you want to make them believe in Evolution, just print "Origin of species" in red print instead! :evil laughter:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perfect enough to allegedly create the planet. It simply says bible god is perfect. If the writer meant perfect in only a few ways then he would have said that instead. Ergo god can not make mistakes according to this.

[Ouroboros]

Perfect enough to allegedly create the planet. It simply says bible god is perfect. If the writer meant perfect in only a few ways then he would have said that instead. Ergo god can not make mistakes according to this.

I think we need to understand what Perfect or Not Perfect really is...

 

It's a very subjective word, isn't it? I can say my wife is Perfect, and no one could argue against it, because she's perfect for me... right?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I think we need to understand what Perfect or Not Perfect really is...

 

It's a very subjective word, isn't it? I can say my wife is Perfect, and no one could argue against it, because she's perfect for me... right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. If you say "perfect to me". The writer does not do that. He just says god is perfect.

 

per·fect    (pûrfkt) KEY 

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.

Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.

 

Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.

Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.

Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.

Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.

Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.

Botany Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.

Grammar Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.

Music Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.

 

We need to know if in the lifetime of the writer perfect means the same as what our dictionary gives us.

 

In the past did perfect mean better than? Or without flaw?

 

At best then what the writer gives us is incoherent.

 

If bible gods mouthpiece is incoherent then what purpose served for even writing at all about god?

[Ouroboros]

Yes. If you say "perfect to me". The writer does not do that. He just says god is perfect.

We need to know if in the lifetime of the writer perfect means the same as what our dictionary gives us.

 

In the past did perfect mean better than? Or without flaw?

 

At best then what the writer gives us is incoherent.

 

If bible gods mouthpiece is incoherent then what purpose served for even writing at all about god?

 

 

So perfect really means something that is perfect in comparison to its class it belongs to.

 

Like a perfect cat, is a cat (that can be an imperfect animal) but perfect of its kind. Which means that this cat is compared to all the other cats, and is the top of the line version of cat. (Purr-fect )

 

So a Perfect God is a god that is perfect in the class or family of gods, and this can only be determined if you have other gods to compare to. Doesn't it? So God can not be the only god if he is the perfect god!!! So the statement Perfect God implies a family of gods, and confirms polytheism... Damn! The Bible does support Polytheism!