ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Nathon Detroit]

As in the Psalm passage, where God knows the thought and therefore the words, before the are spoken (foreknowledge of future), God can know our choices without being the actor that makes those choices. Can it change? No, but not because of God's knowlege, but because of our own determination. I'm not sure I explained this well, but I've tried.

Knowing current thoughts does not require exhaustive foreknowledge. For God to know what we are thinking it would require EXHAUSTIVE current knowledge and nobody denies God can know everything knowable that He chooses to know.

I wish SOOOOOOO badly that you would try to grasp the difference between knowledge, foreknowledge, and EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge. It would make these discussions far more fruitful.

 

[Lon]

Everything you have just typed can only fit within the framework of a open view of theology. Based on your above paragraph, you are an open theist that rejects the label.

Furthermore... me thinks you missed the point of the other thread. It doesn't have anything to do with Adam and Eve.

Yes, but I think it is an important and missing part of that discussion.

I appreciate the comment, because it shows that even though we interpret differently, we can still be on the same page and have His thoughts which is a tremendous encouragement to me. I've asked this question before and I'll try it from two angles to see if you can shed light. I believe in at least extensive foreknowlege, so I'm still thinking if I have any OV theology, it isn't quite the same? Also, I'd wonder if there is a conservative OV position, who is in it, and what it is called, if such exists? (I want to do some reading).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I've asked this question before and I'll try it from two angles to see if you can shed light. I believe in at least extensive foreknowlege, so I'm still thinking if I have any OV theology, it isn't quite the same. Also, I'd wonder if there is a conservative OV position, who is in it, and what it is called, if such exists (I want to do some reading).

I am not sure if I see the question you are asking me. Was there a missing question mark in there somewhere?

 

[Lon]

Knowing current thoughts does not require exhaustive foreknowledge. For God to know what we are thinking it would require EXHAUSTIVE current knowledge and nobody denies God can know everything knowable that He chooses to know.

I wish SOOOOOOO badly that you would try to grasp the difference between knowledge, foreknowledge, and EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge. It would make these discussions far more fruitful.

Yes, I think I'm getting it, even if not altogether there, that's why I said God does know the future. I believe it is a future that is crystal clear in that God can and does say He sees at least many things this way. The OV as I understand and have heard, doesn't believe God can do this even to this extent. There has to be a truth to this, if even only a few moments into the future as when David says, you know what I'm going to say before I say it. Not that God predicts what David will say, but that He knows it. When Jesus says there will be a donkey and colt and to get them, it is a future event even if only seen a few minutes and it is not just predicted, it is known. When Jesus tells Peter he will deny 3 times, it isn't just a prediction, its known. I haven't been discussing exhaustive foreknowlege at this point, only foreknowledge. I believe it is extensive from these passages even if they do not necessitate a view of exhaustiveness at this point. I haven't been addressing EDF for awhile now as I've tried to keep the differences clear in my mind and only argue for the one for now.

Also there are determinisms in guidance like from this Proverbs passage that says that God is a player in our decisions. He has His own determinisms and I think with the OV God who is relational, that this is an agreement.

 

[Lon]

I am not sure if I see the question you are asking me. Was there a missing question mark in there somewhere?

Yes. ty, they were querrying statements. I went back and edited.

 

[patman]

Known and determined do not always equate. I see God's determinism and His foreknowledge (Exhaustively Divine or otherwise) as two separate parameters. Yes, I think they interact well because God is perfection, but one does not always lead to the other, in this I'd probably be closer to the OV in explanation. We have choice, but God knows it as I understand Him and scripture. As in the Psalm passage, where God knows the thought and therefore the words, before the are spoken (foreknowledge of future), God can know our choices without being the actor that makes those choices. Can it change? No, but not because of God's knowlege, but because of our own determination. I'm not sure I explained this well, but I've tried. When we make a choice, we are deterministic and narrow our action to only one. In other words, based on who we are, our preferences, though we see possibility of many choices, we still only choose one. We are the reason we have no other choice. I know I'm explaining this in a logical conundrum, but I'm trying to say regardless of whether someone (God) sees things in the future, He is still not the one that made the determinism. We are. If there is a rape, even if God sees that as happening, it is still the person who did the crime and God did not. Our determinism is ours alone. God ordains our determinism, but it isn't God controlling in determinism, it is us. He intervenes in grace for our salvation, so He is definitely a player in His foreknowledge and His own determinisms (man purposes his direction in his heart, but God is the one who actually directs his steps (Proverbs).

This is why in another thread I said you weren't really a calvinist. You are S.V. but not off the deep end. But you are the few who rejects that God ordains sin, and I applaud you for that.. really, thanks for that.

I agree, the two words have different meanings. But we are talking about God, the creator. If he had future knowledge, would he not use it in creation? If he did, didn't he foresee creation turning so evil and sinning? Can you see this means he OK'd All things and set forth the domino's falling the way they would if he had such extensive foreknowledge?

If you really think about it, to be an S.V.er, you have to believe he foreordained it all... if you aren't, you are just taking it on nothing. Don't let me talk you into believing it, but just think about it and add it to your arsenal of reasons to abandon the S.V.

 

[Lon]

D is for definite in these discussions if you read the literature.

Okay I can live with that, but it is confusing somewhat. I believe EDF was coined by the calvinist Jonathan Edwards as I remember and the "D" was for "Divine."

 

[Lon]

This is why in another thread I said you weren't really a calvinist. You are S.V. but not off the deep end. But you are the few who rejects that God ordains sin, and I applaud you for that.. really, thanks for that.

I agree, the two words have different meanings. But we are talking about God, the creator. If he had future knowledge, would he not use it in creation? If he did, didn't he foresee creation turning so evil and sinning? Can you see this means he OK'd All things and set forth the domino's falling the way they would if he had such extensive foreknowledge?

If you really think about it, to be an S.V.er, you have to believe he foreordained it all... if you aren't, you are just taking it on nothing. Don't let me talk you into believing it, but just think about it and add it to your arsenal of reasons to abandon the S.V.

Thanks, it opens up discussion nicely actually. I believe and I think many SVer's as well, that it is not either or, but is both/and. Because He is both foreknowing, and creative/relational, that there is no problem really. How does it work? I don't know it is a bit of a logical fallacy in some respects, but it has meaning for me. He did use future knowledge in creation as I understand, and this knowledge also meant that He could and does interject where He decides. Perhaps the perplexity is partially answered in the bumper sticker "Be patient, God isn't done with me yet." God isn't finished so absolutely the problems still exist but this is only part way through. It all comes out fine as I've read.

And thank you also for some clarity. I must hold some OV's without realizing it, and you are correct in that I don't believe in God as the author of sin, and I'm not quite Arminian either.

 

[patman]

Thanks, it opens up discussion nicely actually. I believe and I think many SVer's as well, that it is not either or, but is both/and. Because He is both foreknowing, and creative/relational, that there is no problem really. How does it work? I don't know it is a bit of a logical fallacy in some respects, but it has meaning for me. He did use future knowledge in creation as I understand, and this knowledge also meant that He could and does interject where He decides. Perhaps the perplexity is partially answered in the bumper sticker "Be patient, God isn't done with me yet." God isn't finished so absolutely the problems still exist but this is only part way through. It all comes out fine as I've read.

Sure, but fine for who? Fine for that vomiting animated character (who in a twisted way represented someone going to hell)?

God at creation had to be OK with that poor guy suffering forever and ever and ever when he looked into the future and saw where he was headed. Couldn't have God made creation so that guy wouldn't go to hell?

 

[Lon]

Sure, but fine for who? Fine for that vomiting animated character (who in a twisted way represented someone going to hell)?

God at creation had to be OK with that poor guy suffering forever and ever and ever when he looked into the future and saw where he was headed. Couldn't have God made creation so that guy wouldn't go to hell?

Yeah, but this is an all-inclusive question for all of us regardless. We all have to try to answer this one. I appreciate and accept that you don't like most SVer's position on it in some parts, but your answers do seem to be my answers as well. The Calvinist: It all works out fine 'for those who are in Christ Jesus.'

Arminian: It all works out fine for those who will call on the name of the Lord.

OV: It all works out fine because God is relational and has ordained that sometime in the future it will all work out according to His desire.

I like all of those for the believer who is saved by Christ has an assurance and a confidence in Him that the whole thing is going to be made right and perfect.

I tend to see our differences as more to do with those who are outside of the plan. Those who are in Christ are going to enjoy a future perfection.

 

[patman]

Yeah, but this is an all-inclusive question for all of us regardless. We all have to try to answer this one. I appreciate and accept that you don't like most SVer's position on it in some parts, but your answers do seem to be my answers as well. The Calvinist: It all works out fine 'for those who are in Christ Jesus.'

Arminian: It all works out fine for those who will call on the name of the Lord.

OV: It all works out fine because God is relational and has ordained that sometime in the future it will all work out according to His desire.

I like all of those for the believer who is saved by Christ has an assurance and a confidence in Him that the whole thing is going to be made right and perfect.

I tend to see our differences as more to do with those who are outside of the plan. Those who are in Christ are going to enjoy a future perfection.

Right, we all have a bright future

But the real reason I ask these questions is because our bright futures make us lights to others. If we go around saying "some were predestined for hell" as calvinist do, that makes our light look more like a fly -zapper.

As witnesses, our message needs to be accurate with scripture to attract people to God for the right reasons, or detract people from God... for the right reasons. If we scare people away from God with a message that is a lie..... wow, that is terribly tragic for that person. At least let them reject God because they truly understand what they are rejecting.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes, I think I'm getting it, even if not altogether there, that's why I said God does know the future. I believe it is a future that is crystal clear in that God can and does say He sees at least many things this way. The OV as I understand and have heard, doesn't believe God can do this even to this extent. There has to be a truth to this, if even only a few moments into the future as when David says, you know what I'm going to say before I say it. Not that God predicts what David will say, but that He knows it.

Good points. :up:

Notice in the story with Abraham and Isaac...

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Apparently God was holding out until He was absolutely positive that Abraham wasn't going to disobey Him. God said "for now I know". Lets go in reverse and see where it leads us....

Genesis 22:11 But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” So he said, “Here I am.”

Did God know in v 11? Apparently not, at least not for certain.

Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

Did God know in v 10? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped him here.

Genesis 22:9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.

Did God know in v 9? Apparently not.

Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

Did God know in v 8? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:7 But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”

Did God know in v 7? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:6 So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together.

Did God know in v 6? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:5 And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”

Did God know in v 5? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off.

Did God know in v 4? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

Did God know in v 3? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:2 Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

Did God know in v 2? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God wouldn't have given Abraham this instruction.

Genesis 22:1 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”

Did God know in v 1? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God wouldn't have needed to test Abraham.

If ya like you can keep going in reverse for an eternity and you will always get the same answer. It's not until v12 that God says.... "for now I know".

 

[Lon]

Good points. :up:

Notice in the story with Abraham and Isaac...

Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

Apparently God was holding out until He was absolutely positive that Abraham wasn't going to disobey Him. God said "for now I know". Lets go in reverse and see where it leads us....

Genesis 22:11 But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” So he said, “Here I am.”

Did God know in v 11? Apparently not, at least not for certain.

Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

Did God know in v 10? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped him here.

Genesis 22:9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.

Did God know in v 9? Apparently not.

Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

Did God know in v 8? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:7 But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”

Did God know in v 7? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:6 So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together.

Did God know in v 6? Apparently not. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:5 And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”

Did God know in v 5? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off.

Did God know in v 4? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

Did God know in v 3? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God would have stopped Abraham here.

Genesis 22:2 Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

Did God know in v 2? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God wouldn't have given Abraham this instruction.

Genesis 22:1 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”

Did God know in v 1? Apparently not at least not for certain. Otherwise God wouldn't have needed to test Abraham.

If ya like you can keep going in reverse for an eternity and you will always get the same answer. It's not until v12 that God says.... "for now I know".

Just an inkling of a different perspective for consideration:

I totally agree on part of this perspective and all of the truth.
You are right. There is a point in time where "Now I know." However....
And yep, this is where the dizzying theology plays in and I'm sometimes as dizzy but let me try, because I see God as both transcendent and relational to this precise event. Question when did God know? I do believe that He knew this beforehand, but as I said, His foreknowlege is based on events 'as if they already happened.' It becomes a bit dizzying if you aren't jumping through the hoops with me so that my logic progression is lost. So jump through this hoop with me and try to see the perspective, you can call me 'loopy' afterwards. If God knows things with foreknowledge, He is still knowing the foreknown things from the happenstance. In other words, if God said 'now' He is saying it was at that moment. Because He can read thoughts, He knew Abraham's determinism correct? I mean, God knew Abraham's heart right off the bat, so why would this test have been necessary? I'm trying to argue for a moment that God knew the plans Abraham was making, He knew Abraham's heart. So when I read that word "Now" it isn't that He didn't know, but that in a relational way, seeing His creation, it was Abraham's "now" and God was relational to it. He said "Now I know," I believe, because Abraham needed this confirmation for his own faith-building affirmation from God. I like exactly where God does this. It makes for intriguing story for us, real in 'the moment' relational input on the most dynamic pinnacle of the experience. So even if I were OV, I'd still want to believe that God knew Abraham's heart from the very moment the sacrifice was conceived and would still have waited for the "now" moment. Would OV have trouble with this understanding so that "Now I know" would be difficult to understand from this perspective?
I guess I'm saying that even OV could believe God knew Abraham's plan, so that the "Now" factor really isn't the emphasis of the statement.

 

[Lon]

Right, we all have a bright future

But the real reason I ask these questions is because our bright futures make us lights to others. If we go around saying "some were predestined for hell" as calvinist do, that makes our light look more like a fly -zapper.

As witnesses, our message needs to be accurate with scripture to attract people to God for the right reasons, or detract people from God... for the right reasons. If we scare people away from God with a message that is a lie..... wow, that is terribly tragic for that person. At least let them reject God because they truly understand what they are rejecting.

I'm not sure if the Calvinist's qualifier helps, but I do perceive it as helpful when I ask them.
They say "Yes, but we don't know who this person is, and you do need Christ. Don't get hung up on the predestination part, but consider the truth that if you will confess Him as Lord, and believe in Him, He will save you." In other words, they are also committed to getting to the simple truth of "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." I try to do the same thing if somebody has a problem with hell. I try to say "Hell is not the good news, that's not the gospel. Sin is the bad news here, it separates us from a loving God. Jesus died on a cross to rid man of the sin curse, that is the 'good news.' He has given us the free gift of life so that we can come into the presence of The Holy God and call Him Father."

 

[patman]

I'm not sure if the Calvinist's qualifier helps, but I do perceive it as helpful when I ask them.
They say "Yes, but we don't know who this person is, and you do need Christ. Don't get hung up on the predestination part, but consider the truth that if you will confess Him as Lord, and believe in Him, He will save you." In other words, they are also committed to getting to the simple truth of "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." I try to do the same thing if somebody has a problem with hell. I try to say "Hell is not the good news, that's not the gospel. Sin is the bad news here, it separates us from a loving God. Jesus died on a cross to rid man of the sin curse, that is the 'good news.' He has given us the free gift of life so that we can come into the presence of The Holy God and call Him Father."

Sure they do. People have been saved for years under this theology, don't get me wrong. But is that a reason to keep preaching it when there is evidence that is completely wrong? What if the truth would save even more people?

 

[Lon]

Sure they do. People have been saved for years under this theology, don't get me wrong. But is that a reason to keep preaching it when there is evidence that is completely wrong? What if the truth would save even more people?

Two qualifiers: First of course is our perception of truth, but I knew you knew that, and I appreciate your commitment to OV.

Second, I'm not Calvinist so it is a little easier to avoid the problematic, but I understand and have a similar perspective.

 

[patman]

Two qualifiers: First of course is our perception of truth, but I knew you knew that, and I appreciate your commitment to OV.

Second, I'm not Calvinist so it is a little easier to avoid the problematic, but I understand and have a similar perspective.

Right You seem to hesitate to really look into the O.V. because of these different reasons that are not particularly good ones. Calvinism is moot for you, and of course for me tooo, but you used it as an example to show how it can still lead someone to christ... implying "Why should I switch to the O.V. when......" and you give a reason such as mentioned.

We all have a different function in the Body, some of us teach, others don't. I do not know what you feel your calling is, perhaps you are not really that interested in theology.... yet you are dabbling in it here. I bring this up for you because you seem a little stand-offish about committing the time to really do a good study on it.

I am just some avatar on the internet to you, so I understand your reluctantness to take what I say as fact... It is therefore up to you to do the research, and you seem to say you know this too. So the need is there to study, but the willingness isn't quite there.

That's why I try to point out the S.V.s problems and the O.V.s solutions, so you can see a need... perhaps you will be inspired to take the step to study it?

 

[Lon]

Right You seem to hesitate to really look into the O.V. because of these different reasons that are not particularly good ones. Calvinism is moot for you, and of course for me tooo, but you used it as an example to show how it can still lead someone to christ... implying "Why should I switch to the O.V. when......" and you give a reason such as mentioned.?

Don't imply too much into that. I'm here and I'm giving it an honest look and hope there is reciprocation if for nothing more appreciation and at least thoughtful dogmatism. At this point, if I try to propose the OV (I've tried a couple of times) I tend to overstate or characterize, so I'm just quoting from a position that is safe for the time being for both of us to discuss. I find hot buttons can be so easily pressed and once that happens it is extremely difficult to find meaning. For the most part, you can be sure that I post here on a fairly even keel and try not to be accusatory, but I do give my perplexities and dilemmas straightforward.

We all have a different function in the Body, some of us teach, others don't. I do not know what you feel your calling is, perhaps you are not really that interested in theology.... yet you are dabbling in it here. I bring this up for you because you seem a little stand-offish about committing the time to really do a good study on it.

I am just some avatar on the internet to you, so I understand your reluctantness to take what I say as fact... It is therefore up to you to do the research, and you seem to say you know this too. So the need is there to study, but the willingness isn't quite there.

That's why I try to point out the S.V.s problems and the O.V.s solutions, so you can see a need... perhaps you will be inspired to take the step to study it?

Interesting perception. I'm not sure what to make of it or what leads you to this, but I'll hold off of commenting for awhile.

 

[godrulz]

Okay I can live with that, but it is confusing somewhat. I believe EDF was coined by the calvinist Jonathan Edwards as I remember and the "D" was for "Divine."

http://www.opentheism.info/ This and other books about the debate use 'definite'. Sounds like you are right about Edwards 'divine'. This was not in the context of modern debate on Open Theism. So, we are both right, with your term being older and more specific to Edwards' views.

 

[mitchellmckain]

As I respond, I beg you to realize that we agree on the most important things. I focus on parts where our viewpoints diverge, not because I am argumentative, but because this is where we can learn from each other.

It is one of the athiest’s best arguments to show that God is not logical.

I will frankly admit that from the objective point of view, for many people, the existence of the Christian God seems rather improbable. But to say it is not logical in that sense of the word doesn't even make sense. That sort of "logical" is an adjective that applies to an argument that connects premises to conclusion. When we consider the use of "logical" that applies to a person, then it is obvious to me that God is most certainly a logical person. But since I believe in an infinite God I am not sure that this idea of God is entirely amenible to the strictures of logic.

If a person expresses “love” for another doing great and wonderful things for that person without “Godly type Love” (defined by Paul in 1 Cor. 13) then that type love he is showing is worthless. There may be many people “loving” God to the point of choosing to give their lives in the fire, with what is described as worthless love 1 Cor. 13.

Your talk of judging the worth of love is strange to me. Your words sound so much like they are focused on earning merit or something. I have said that not all love is equal in God's eyes, but the reason has to do with consequences regarding what it makes of us. I often refer to the "judgement of God", but for me this phrase only refers to God's ability to see the truth clearly. I believe that the love of God for us is truly unconditional. It not God who is unforgiving it the basic realities of our own nature which are unforgiving. Like confused children we want things which are impossible, like wanting to be a scientist without the work of study and learning. And the fact is that no matter how much of a tantrum we throw, and no matter how we interpret the Bible, that is just not something that is going to happen. I don't believe in childish magic.

God is wanting a love like His love for us, sacrificial, selfless, thought out, mature, and coming from our free will choice to love Him. A robot maybe programmed someday to really love a something, but that is not the love God is desiring from us.

But why does God want such things of us? What does God need? Nothing. God only wants what is best for us. He only wants to give us more. His gifts are endless. But His best gifts are things that require us to grow and become more than we are. This is obvious to any parent. The child's vision is limited, and so he only wants things which satisfy now, but the best things the parents have to give often contradicts this immediate satisfaction. This is our basic reality in relation to God and that basic reality will never change. He will always have something more for us to learn and understand so that we can receive even more of His wondrous gifts.

You ask: But why would God create free will?
The only reason I can come up with for God to create free will is that it is required for “godly type love”. You can create robots to do most everything else.

But this is backwards. God is not needy. God does not need to be loved. Yes free will is necessary for real love. But not only to give it but to receive it as well. How much love can you give to a rock? An ant? A bird? A human being? It makes a difference because a human being is capable of expressing himself in so many more ways than these other things. But love also depends on the nature of the relationship. Two people who are utterly independent and with nothing in common will be rather at a loss to express love for each other. But when you are utterly dependent and everything the other gives you makes you stronger and greater than you were, that is the relationship between a parent and child.

You said: They are created to be loved and served and to exist for their own purpose and The only way that this is possible is if they can choose their own purpose and thus they must have free will.

These all go together, so I will try to address them all. God is caught in a catch 22 so to speak. He may have a need to (love) serve others in ever increasing number as His love grows (this is speculation on my part for the need to create humans in the first place).

This is a little strange to me. Again I do not believe in a needy God. He loves because it is His nature not because He needs to, therefore His love is absolutely selfless. If He commands us to love Him there can be only one reason. Our own nature requires it. He is the source of life and only He can teach us to be all that we can be. Love for God reaches out to infinite possibilities. To turn away from God is to turn away from life and new possibilites towards stagnation and death.

I do not see God leaving us to our own purpose, but the purpose He has given us to accept and grow His love. If you love God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy, that will be what you are doing all the time while you are going through life.
We are not created to be robotic slaves, but lovers like God.

A good parent will support the dreams of his/her child whether it is to become and artist, doctor, fireman, or preacher. The good parent wants the child to lives his/her own life. But again not all choices are equal. Aspirations to be a serial killer is obviously not something to encouraged. The possibilites are not a single point of light surrounded in all directions by darkness but an infinite plain with light in all directions but also pits of darkess dotting the plain. God does want us to choose our own direction. He just doesn't want us to fall into these pits of darkness. But loving God is the same as seeing the light by which we can navigate.

You asked: What could possibly justify creating even the possibility of evil?
and
You said: Nor can I believe that God is so inept a master that a third of his servants, the angels, would rebel against Him.
There is a real problem here. If God makes agents that can love of a free will with likely perceived alternative choices (sin having pleasure for a season) at some time and place they will chose to be selfish (try to serve their own interest). There has to be likely alternatives or there is no real choice so sin will occur. For humans on earth sin is not the problem, only unforgiven sin is the problem. Forgiven sins can actually be part of the agent’s witness (like Paul used it). Now, Christians do not want to sin again and the Spirit can help with that, but is it bad for the non Christian to sin if he/she is not willing to change for God’s sac at the time? Sometimes people have to reach the bottom before they want out.

I cannot understand your response here. It is almost like you see reality as a novel which God has written and that we only have the choices that God writes into the story and for the sake of the plot some choices are wrong only because he says so. So that when we make the wrong choice the only consequence is disobedience and all that matters is whether He forgives us. I cannot think like this.

I feel that one of the essential things that Jesus taught us was that right and wrong was not just a list of rules God made up but that there is reason behind it all. He said all the laws could be summed up in just two commandments, loving God and loving your neighbor. But how can this be unless there is a logic and a reason connecting the law to these two commandments. Things are not true just because God said them, God says them because they are true. But that means that sin is bad not just because God says so, and it is not just about His forgiveness, but about dealing with the consequences.

Do you not know there there is a judgement for Christians also in which each shall receive according to his works? Our sins are no problem ONLY in the sense that they do not separate us from God, but it is not true that they have no consequences. And repentance is always necessary for the fundamental truth is that sin is only "not a problem" if we understand that we have made a mistake and we go to God for help to heal the damage and make it right. Christianity is not about some magical formula to appease God! That is the kind of religion that the apostle Paul and Chrisitianity condemns.

I do not know what arrangement the angels had, but somehow at some time, they had real likely alternatives so they could chose to love. Like us they may not at some point been able to receive forgiveness again, so they fell. If it was a third that still might not be as bad as the human ratio. Since humans are not Spiritual beings the punishment (time in hell before being consumed) for humans should not be as suffer. That may be another reason for earth.

No I cannot believe that the angels are some failed first attempt or trial run. The angels are either servants or children. The Bible (in Hebrews) very clearly says they are servants and nothing like children.

Earth maybe the place where we can accept and grow Godly type Love, but heaven if there is free will without likely alternatives (a Garden place without the tree or satan) then Humans in their new state can take the Godly type Love they accepted on earth and love God without the alternative of sin. Just as the garden was not a good place to accept Godly type Love heaven would have a similar issue.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. I do not see heaven as a place of rest, which seems a great deal like the oblivion that the atheists believe in. The whole point of the afterlife in my view is simply that the consequences of our choices cannot be escaped and calling such an escape heaven rather than oblivion makes no essential difference as far as I can see.

I have a master in Chemistry and think the Universe was created for humans to accept and grow Godly type Love.

So you believe in a pre-existence like the LDS?

I do not want to personify God that much to need helpers. God may need others beside the Spirit and Christ to love, but helpers?
The interacting with living things might have some possibility. It would not seem to be the reason for satan’s fall but there maybe more then I can figure out there. We do not want to take our theology from “Paradise Lost”.

I don't think God needs anything. I have said this before. BUT I also don't believe in magic. I don't think that God goes "abra cadabra" and pulls a rabbit out of His hat. "Let there be light!" may have been good enough for the people thousands of years ago but it will not do for me at all. God can do things because He knows how to do them. God invented the whole idea of life and designed the mathematical laws of the universe to make His idea a reality. Shall we dismiss the existence of atoms, saying that God would not create such a thing because we don't think God would need them? God created them because they have a function and a purpose in what God created, which He does rationally not by magic. Therefore I say that God created the angels because He had a purpose for them as well, as part of His creation of the universe.

Paradise lost?

That’s an interesting possibility, but not supported much by scripture.

Well it depends on what you mean. You can also say that the Trinity not supported by scripture either, for it is not found within, but is a product of human reason. But that does not mean that the Trinity is not Biblical. Is the "deep field" showing that the sky is filled with galaxies, Biblical? Are these galaxies not created by God because the Bible does not says this? The Bible may be the only thing given to man with divine authority but that does not mean it is the only source of truth. Everything we experience and study and learn in this gift from God called life are a part of the tools which we use in the interpretation of scripture. You interpret the Bible differently than I do but your interpretation has no more authority than mine.

1. to 7.

Your excessively literal interpretation of Genesis makes it seem like a comic book to me.

I don't believe that heaven is a finite place in which God has to increase the seating capacity. I don't believe in talking snakes. I don't believe that God used necromancy to make Adam and Eve. I don't believe that Adam was a golem of dust or that Eve was the reanimation of someones body part.

It is not Biblical to say that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of life. God said "And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.." You have changed the words to something else: "And now to stop them from continuing to eat of the tree of life, and live forever..." Clearly Adam and Eve were not immortal, the death God spoke of was not a physical death. Death is a natural part of life. We are meant to be spiritual beings and this world and this body are no more than a womb.

The Garden of Eden represents a time of innocence, but I do not believe that evil is necessary for good. What happened was clearly intended to be understood to be a tragedy. Changing that is a refusal to learn from the story and makes it meaningless. But that does not mean that the goal of God is to return us to the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve chose the hard way, and so we learn through sufferning and dealing with evil. But as tragic as that choice was, we have still learned and grown too much to have any desire to return to the innocence of the Garden or to be benefitted by it.

8. Not sinning is not the objective, the objective is obtaining Godly type love, and through sinning we can desire and accept God’s forgiveness (Love) and thus love Him (He who is forgiven much, loves much).

The objective is to grow and become all that we are capable of. Sin by its very nature destroys our capabilities and makes us less rather than more. It is true that fighting our way out of darkness gives us the experience to help others do the same. But to tell someone to try drugs or murder so they can better understand evil and learn how to defeat it is nothing less than insane. I utterly deny this philosophy of yours, which turns right and wrong upside and backward confusing good with evil and making them one and the same thing.

9. Outside the Garden Adam and Eve can produce limited resources which they can give to others (love), they can help needy people, they can have faith in the mercy of God, they can have hope of heaven, and they have a dependence on God’s mercy (love).

I deny that Adam and Eve had to disobey God in order to learn these things. That idea is abomnable. They chose to learn it that way, but to say that it was necessary is only a justification of evil. That people try to justify their evil in this way is part of their utter depravity.

It would be inconsistent with God’s nature to hurt innocent people (God can take the lives of innocent people). God can only allow Satan to hurt innocent people to a limit God establishes to provide opportunities for Good people to develop and grow Godly type love. Look at Job. Job was a better person at the end then at the beginning as a result of going through the tragedy.
Look at Rms. 8:28 all thing (which would include tragedies) work together for the Good of good people (it is not the result of the actions of bad people or sin).

So rape and torture is God gift to the children who are its victims? Oh my God, No! I might receive such treatment as a gift from God as part of my personal philosophy and determination to see God in everything that I may learn from Him, but that is something very very different. The evil that human beings do is their responsibility alone and not part of any plan of God. The plan of God surrounds the possiblity of such events to bring healing and goodness in spite of these evils not because of them. Do not justify evil.

All tragedies are caused by Satan, but are allowed by God to create opportunities for good people.

I guess I don't really need to say I disagree with that. I have already said that just because Satan exists, does not mean that I believe in him.

so we can directly participate in the healing.

Indeed that is the most important we choice we face in life, whether to complain, rail at God and add to the misery of the world by defying Him or to participate in the healing.