zodiac7 Nov 2004

The way I see it, whichever you pick you have to believe God - the real God - isn't really perfect.

For a), you'd have a rough time claiming your planet was better than the real God's, since he'd just say, "How can it be? I'm perfect and you're not. If you don't understand how I run my planet, maybe that's BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PERFECT." And it's true: without perfection, you stand the big chance of your planet being a colossal mistake.

If you picked b), you're screwed already, since being perfect would make you exactly like the current God (assuming he's perfect), and you'd have to decide to make a planet exactly like he did.

And I can't go in for c). It just makes the word "perfect" kind of trash and trampy, while I believe in real (or at least some abstract notion of) perfection. I mean, if you're going to make up a word like "perfect" and make it mean something like "completely suited for a particular purpose or situation," or its even stricter (maybe) religious sense, then there's not much good in fucking around with it.

In short, it's probably easy for you to believe in a God who's not perfect, since you don't seem to really believe in God anyway. But for a poem that presumes a (probably Christian) God right off the bat, even ironically, that seems kind of dumb. The way I see it, you kind of have to accept that if there's a God, or at least the Christian one, he's perfect. That's part of His definition.