We started this discussion on another thread, but I didn't want to derail the topic at hand. Here's where we stand so far:
reniaa:
You do not like the imperfection point but (and I ask this of anyone that doesn't) you accept it in Politions? you accept in courts of law that mistakes can be made even after appeals? Or imperfect bosses and work mates in our jobs. Our bodies cannot survive beyond our lifespan. That as individuals we can hurt others knowing we are in the wrong? If someone tells me my leaders are imperfectmen I'll just nod and say yes they are right and yet for some they demand perfection from the human element of a religion yet in every other aspect of their life they accept imperfection as the norm.
bluecanary:
No I do not accept it. I obey because they force me to, but I do not accept that other human beings have the right to make policy for me.
reniaa:
the question then is..If you were president would you do a better job?
bluecanary:
For me, that is not the question at all. I support self-government. I won't get into how that works, because I'd rather not hijack this thread anymore than we already have. If you are interested, I can direct you to sites with information on the topic. My point is that I do not not accept imperfection as an excuse for anyone when they are making decisions about my life. I am not singling the Governing Body out in this regard. And I would venture to say that most people do not accept it as an excuse from their leaders. You probably agree with me that people are unreasonably optimistic when voting a leader in to office, but once the person is elected they are usually up for scrutiny and disagreement. And there is at least some degree of accountability for political leaders. Does the GB have any accountability to its constituents?
First, I want to point out that accepting imperfection in our spouses, friends and others around us is not equal to accepting imperfection from the Governing Body. These individuals are not in a position to make policy for us. Accepting imperfection in ourselves is not an issue; we have no choice in the matter. Either we live with flaws or we die.
Employers and co-workers are also an unfit comparison. We enter employment at-will through freedom of association. Every group has the right to make policy for its members. This includes groups of a business, religious or social nature.
The only valid comparison is between the Governing Body and a government. Note the similarity in terms. While, in the beginning, one may choose to freely associate with the Governing Body, one may not freely stop association. The teaching that every human must accept and obey the rules of the Governing Body or die is a threat and act of coercion.
The word imperfection, I find misleading for the purposes of this discussion. Perfection can be defined as: "the highest degree of proficiency, skill, or excellence, as in some art." Let's call this is the art of living. One might ask, what is the highest proficiency possible for this art? Is it an ideal which no man can attain? Or is it the highest proficiency any man has yet attained? In which case, perfection is indeed possible. Of course, this hinges on being able to quantify what, exactly, is an excellent or proficient life. Standards will no doubt differ from individual to individual.
So let's use the term "mistakes." Certainly all people make mistakes at some point or other. We attempt to do one thing, but accomplish another. We misread people or situations. We have different feelings about others and about our own selves when we see mistakes. Some people are very harsh with themselves. Some people freely forgive.
When our equals (other free individuals) or groups we freely associate with make mistakes, we make a decision about whether to overlook it or cease association. When the government makes a mistake, things get a bit stickier. Because as long as that mistake is in force, we have no choice but to follow it or relinquish our lives (in death or prison). But with governments there is usually some degree of accountability, especially if we consider a democracy, as reniaa brought up. A leader can be impeached, recalled or in some way voted out of office. It's not easy by any means, but can and has been done.
Not so, the Governing Body. They make life and death policy. Their subjects must obey unquestioningly. They have no say, no vote in making policy but they must obey. They have no say, no vote in who makes the policy but they must obey. There is no accountability to these subjects at any point. If the Governing Body makes a mistake, its subjects must obey or relinquish their lives (shunning).
Now, reniaa's point is that there will never be a system of rule by man that will lead to no mistakes. I agree. I further state that to achieve a population of humanity that defines "perfection" whether ruled by man or God, would require the total subjugation of any free will. Perfection requires a complete standard with no deviation. Choice would be stripped from every aspect of lives because every decision made must be the perfect one. We would all essentially be the same person.
As another poster once brought out on this board, when one looks at a piece of art, what makes it valuable are the imperfections. The mistakes and deviations that the artist makes. Otherwise, printed copies would be worth more than original paintings. Mass-produced plastic containers would be of more worth than hand-turned pottery.
I do not expect that any system that would result in "perfection" could possibly result in happiness. I do not think it's necessary to abolish all mistakes, even ones that end in hurt. Minimize, yes. I certainly believe it's possible to create a framework for society that would vastly minimize the damage that human beings might inflict on one another. Personally, I believe that self-government would be the best such framework. Within the framework of the society in which I now live, I support minimizing government action as much as possible.
The question I have for you all: Who has the right to make decisions for you? I'm not talking about power. Obviously some people have the power to make decisions in your behalf and you have no choice in obeying them. But does anyone have the intrinsic right to do so? In what way should they be accountable if they do?
Should even a "perfect" person or group have the right to make policy for other individuals?