(idea) by moJoe Fri Jul 14 2000 at 3:21:11
In the first of Epicurus's Sovran Maxims, he declared:
1. A blessed and indestructible being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; so he is free from anger and partiality, for all such things imply weakness.
This really drives home what the concepts of perfection, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence really imply. It is worth mentioning that Epicurus said all of this in around 200B.C. in what was, I am assuming, a reflection on the implausibility of the Roman pantheon (a rather wicked and rowdy bunch) and not the idea of Yahweh.
Though not quite as outrageous as the incestuous, soap opera type affair that the Roman pantheon was, this perspective certainly could be applied to the emotionally inconsistent Yahweh as well.
  • Would an all powerful and perfect being be capable of anything but a tranquil, opiate personification of apathy?
  • Would Yahweh have to exist in duality? As an entity of both pure good and pure evil, in a manner of a cosmic case of Multiple Personality Disorder; as was mused by James Morrow?
  • Or, is there room in the concept of perfection for fits of rage, jealousy, childish vexation, cruelty and sadness as intrinsic (sometimes almost definitive) behavioral traits?
  • Is it possible that a perfect and all-powerful entity could create something imperfect(e.g. mankind, trees, water, Jimmy Swaggart)?
So I guess the real question is would a supposed blessed and divine being do something so base and pointless as creating stones he can't lift? I'd say that within in the most coherent and sensible theory on the nature of all-powerful perfection, it's impossible for him to do anything but exist as everything else would have no meaning. In perfection is perfect happiness, in perfect happiness is perfect contentment; in perfect contentment is a perfect lack of motivation. I'm sure that if there is an all-powerful god, he doesn't even blink, let alone make stones.
I like it! 1 C!