The Problem of Evil and Free Will

[Moral Orel]

I'm going to replace Q with love.

In order for God to create us with love, we actually have to learn and experience what love is. If God just uploads love without us being aware of what he's doing then it would be as if nothing happened and we certainly would not credit God for love because we wouldn't know he gave it to us, unless he showed us through our experiences. This is why we must learn from God and know that he is the source of love and this knowledge is only possible through personal experience.

Adam started out with the ability to reason, right? He didn't have to learn it, it was simply uploaded at the moment of his creation. He understood that God created him with that quality though, correct? If we can understand that God created us, that we wouldn't exist without God, and we certainly wouldn't have any inherent qualities that we enjoy without God, then we can still understand and appreciate where Q came from just like all of our other qualities and characteristics.

Do you understand that you have eyes only because God gave them to you even though you've always had them?

I'm going to stick with Q because "love" can be used an infinite number of ways.

 

[Moral Orel]

May I submit that God desires someone to exist along side Him in order for Him to love because he would already be aware that just loving himself for all eternity is completely selfish and selfishness is against His nature, which is why He creates others who can experience His love. Therefore, it's natural for an omnibenevolent God to create.

I would suggest that an omnibenevolent God would not only have a desire to create other beings that can enjoy happiness, but that He would want them to enjoy as much happiness as is possible. He wouldn't create them in such a lowly miserable form that they have to suffer to learn when He can imbue them with knowledge. He wouldn't limit their abilities to make themselves happy beyond that which He Himself has the ability to make Himself happy. He would give them all the capabilities necessary to be as happy as He is and not create ways in which they would feel suffering.

 

[Moral Orel]

I reject one. Why?

1. It is possible for God to exist.
2. God, by definition, is an uncreated being
3. It is logically impossible to create an uncreated being
4. God cannot do the logically impossible
5. God cannot create anything that is possible to exist.
6. God cannot create God

If you agree with 1-4, then 5 follows it seems to me and 6 says that the "anything" entails God.

And the problem is with your 2. First, you need to include the other pertinent qualities if you're going to define God: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. And second, since I asked to create a being which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and I didn't ask to create another "God", then by your definition, I did not ask to create another God. I merely asked to create another being with some of the qualities of God.

So to prove your argument you need to prove that a being can only have all of those qualities, or none of those qualities, but not just some of those qualities.

But I will concede that my 1 was phrased wrong to be specific enough and was too broad so it allows for your argument, so try this:

1. If something does not have contradicting qualities, it is possible to exist.
2. God can create anything possible to exist.

So of course, God can't create a square circle, because being square and being round contradict each other. But we can see that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence do no contradict one another. And if it is created, it automatically comes with the quality of "created" so having the quality "uncreated" can't be made a part of it, but that doesn't rule out the other qualities of God.

 

[Chriliman]

I would suggest that an omnibenevolent God would not only have a desire to create other beings that can enjoy happiness, but that He would want them to enjoy as much happiness as is possible. He wouldn't create them in such a lowly miserable form that they have to suffer to learn when He can imbue them with knowledge. He wouldn't limit their abilities to make themselves happy beyond that which He Himself has the ability to make Himself happy. He would give them all the capabilities necessary to be as happy as He is and not create ways in which they would feel suffering.

It wouldn't make sense that God would hand out knowledge and happiness arbitrarily for no reason. This is why creating free willed beings is important because it allows God to give based on His knowledge of how each individual will react.

Romans 12:3

 

[Moral Orel]

It wouldn't make sense that God would hand out knowledge and happiness arbitrarily for no reason. This is why creating free willed beings is important because it allows God to give based on His knowledge of how each individual will react.

Romans 12:3

It wouldn't be for no reason. It would be because of His grace, and kindness, and generosity. If we have to do something to earn it, then it isn't grace anymore, it's a payment.

Let's say you're going to give some money to a group of poor people. Should you only help those that will say, "thank you" or should you help all of those in need?

Of course, since we're talking about handing out goodness itself, everyone is going to say thank you, because that's just who they'll be. Q will just be part of their nature.

 

[fatboys]

Adam started out with the ability to reason, right? He didn't have to learn it, it was simply uploaded at the moment of his creation. He understood that God created him with that quality though, correct? If we can understand that God created us, that we wouldn't exist without God, and we certainly wouldn't have any inherent qualities that we enjoy without God, then we can still understand and appreciate where Q came from just like all of our other qualities and characteristics.

Do you understand that you have eyes only because God gave them to you even though you've always had them?

I'm going to stick with Q because "love" can be used an infinite number of ways.

Everyone is born with what is called the light of. Christ or our conscience. But those who do not have experinnce can be tempted and persuaded to choose wrong things. Little children is an example of innocence and do not have the experience to know good and evil. This is why Adam and Eve were tempted successfully. They were innocent. Not stupid but not experienceed to know good and evil. Now think about it God told them that if they were disobedient and ate the fruit they would die. Adam and Eve had now fear of death because they did not know what death was. They did disobey but it was in innocence. The law was given but hey really did t understand why because they did not understand what the consequence was for disobedience. The punishment however is the same. Death came into the world because of disobedience. But it was innocent disobedience b

 

[Chriliman]

It wouldn't be for no reason. It would be because of His grace, and kindness, and generosity. If we have to do something to earn it, then it isn't grace anymore, it's a payment.

Let's say you're going to give some money to a group of poor people. Should you only help those that will say, "thank you" or should you help all of those in need?

Of course, since we're talking about handing out goodness itself, everyone is going to say thank you, because that's just who they'll be. Q will just be part of their nature.

Indeed, God's grace is sufficient, yet some don't know his grace or accept it for some reason. Those who do know He is good.

Thanks for the discussion, may God's will be done in your life.

 

[Fizzywig]

It wouldn't be for no reason. It would be because of His grace, and kindness, and generosity. If we have to do something to earn it, then it isn't grace anymore, it's a payment.

This is the point I have sought to address (or at least, have a discussion about) on the "Scope of Effort and Grace" thread on the Christianity and World Religions Forum. I am actually taking time out at the moment. I have a lot on, and to be honest some of the views expressed here are, from a Buddhist perspective, the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views which "do not lead to the end of suffering". As expressed by others here they just confuse the mind, which needs clarity. Sometimes things just need to settle, or at least, I find it so.

As far as the "payment", yes, as I see it many are unable to actually see/discern the payment they are making - which in relation to the subject of this thread, is simply because of the the red herring of "free will", which can act to confuse rather than explain. As I see it, in theistic terms, freedom is more the gift that God seeks to give us, rather than that which HAS been given for us to choose Him or not.

The Catholic Thomas Merton has proved a good guide for me as far "knowing God" is concerned. In his Journals can be found this on Faith, on "payment" ( and much more )...

The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation......

I am well aware that many Christians could well agree with such words, yet from my own perspective they would do well to look further, perhaps deeper - as Thomas Merton himself did. In a letter to the feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether he wrote .......I do wonder at times if the Church is real at all. I believe it, you know. But I wonder if I am nuts to do so. Am I part of a great big hoax?.............there is a real sense of and confidence in an underlying reality, the presence of Christ in the world which I don't doubt for an instance. But is that presence where we are all saying it is? We are all pointing in various directions and my dreadful feeling is that we are all pointing wrong......

Merton took seriously the question asked of Peter by Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels..........."Who do you say that I am?"

So where does anyone go when the question is asked of them? What is the "encounter with Christ" without which we just exist in an "existential void", just engage in "mental gymnastics". Do we assume we possess the psychic key - aka "the only way", "the one way"? By dredging up the answers of the past given by others?

For me, Pure Land Buddhism, with its non-dual perspective, born of the Buddhist "anatta" (not-self) teaching, has its own "answers". Alas, to attempt to discuss them just draws down upon me a succession of "only way" Christians who have only one agenda.

Anyway, all the best.

 

[Chriliman]

This is the point I have sought to address (or at least, have a discussion about) on the "Scope of Effort and Grace" thread on the Christianity and World Religions Forum. I am actually taking time out at the moment. I have a lot on, and to be honest some of the views expressed here are, from a Buddhist perspective, the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views which "do not lead to the end of suffering". As expressed by others here they just confuse the mind, which needs clarity. Sometimes things just need to settle, or at least, I find it so.

As far as the "payment", yes, as I see it many are unable to actually see/discern the payment they are making - which in relation to the subject of this thread, is simply because of the the red herring of "free will", which can act to confuse rather than explain. As I see it, in theistic terms, freedom is more the gift that God seeks to give us, rather than that which HAS been given for us to choose Him or not.

The Catholic Thomas Merton has proved a good guide for me as far "knowing God" is concerned. In his Journals can be found this on Faith, on "payment" ( and much more )...

The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation......

I am well aware that many Christians could well agree with such words, yet from my own perspective they would do well to look further, perhaps deeper - as Thomas Merton himself did. In a letter to the feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether he wrote .......I do wonder at times if the Church is real at all. I believe it, you know. But I wonder if I am nuts to do so. Am I part of a great big hoax?.............there is a real sense of and confidence in an underlying reality, the presence of Christ in the world which I don't doubt for an instance. But is that presence where we are all saying it is? We are all pointing in various directions and my dreadful feeling is that we are all pointing wrong......

Merton took seriously the question asked of Peter by Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels..........."Who do you say that I am?"

So where does anyone go when the question is asked of them? What is the "encounter with Christ" without which we just exist in an "existential void", just engage in "mental gymnastics". Do we assume we possess the psychic key - aka "the only way", "the one way"? By dredging up the answers of the past given by others?

For me, Pure Land Buddhism, with its non-dual perspective, born of the Buddhist "anatta" (not-self) teaching, has its own "answers". Alas, to attempt to discuss them just draws down upon me a succession of "only way" Christians who have only one agenda.

Anyway, all the best.

True, God gives freedom from sin and deception, freedom to live abundant life and it's found within, not 'out there'.

The Kingdom of God is within you, God lives in us and through us.

 

[Fizzywig]

God gives freedom from sin and deception

Thomas Merton says that God IS freedom, which - at least for me - is a thought that has the potential to open any debate on "evil" ( and "overcoming" it ) beyond Theism. Here are Merton's thoughts on "The Gift of Freedom", from "New Seeds of Contemplation"........

The mere ability to choose between good and evil is the lowest limit of freedom, and the only thing that is free about it is the fact that we can still choose good.

To the extent that you are free to choose evil, you are not free. An evil choice destroys freedom.

We can never choose evil as evil: only as an apparent good. But when we decide to do something that seems to us to be good when it is not really so, we are doing something that we do not really want to do, and therefore we are not really free.

Perfect spiritual freedom is a total inability to make any evil choice. When everything you desire is truly good and every choice not only aspires to that good but attains it, then you are free because you do everything that you want, every act of your will ends in perfect fulfilment.

Freedom therefore does not consist in an equal balance between good and evil choices but in the perfect love and acceptance of what is really good and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy, and you refuse and deny and ignore every possibility that might lead to unhappiness and self-deception and grief. Only the man who has rejected all evil so completely that he is unable to desire it at all, is truly free. God, in whom there is absolutely no shadow or possibility of evil or of sin, is infinitely free. In fact, he is Freedom.

Can a human being reach a state of "being" where they share/become such freedom?

Neither speak ill of others, nor well of yourself.
The moment you open
Your mouth to speak,
The autumn wind stirs
And chills your lips. (Buson)

From the "eastern" perspective, the Zen Master Caoshan wrote.......

When studying in this way, evils are manifest as a continuum of being ever not done. Inspired by this manifestation, seeing through to the fact that evils are not done, one settles it finally. At precisely such a time, as the beginning, middle, and end manifest as evils not done, evils are not born from conditions, they are only not done; evils do not perish through conditions, they are only not done.

Anyway, if anyone has thoughts on this please feel free........

 

[Chriliman]

Thomas Merton says that God IS freedom, which - at least for me - is a thought that has the potential to open any debate on "evil" ( and "overcoming" it ) beyond Theism. Here are Merton's thoughts on "The Gift of Freedom", from "New Seeds of Contemplation"........

The mere ability to choose between good and evil is the lowest limit of freedom, and the only thing that is free about it is the fact that we can still choose good.

To the extent that you are free to choose evil, you are not free. An evil choice destroys freedom.

We can never choose evil as evil: only as an apparent good. But when we decide to do something that seems to us to be good when it is not really so, we are doing something that we do not really want to do, and therefore we are not really free.

Perfect spiritual freedom is a total inability to make any evil choice. When everything you desire is truly good and every choice not only aspires to that good but attains it, then you are free because you do everything that you want, every act of your will ends in perfect fulfilment.

Freedom therefore does not consist in an equal balance between good and evil choices but in the perfect love and acceptance of what is really good and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy, and you refuse and deny and ignore every possibility that might lead to unhappiness and self-deception and grief. Only the man who has rejected all evil so completely that he is unable to desire it at all, is truly free. God, in whom there is absolutely no shadow or possibility of evil or of sin, is infinitely free. In fact, he is Freedom.

Can a human being reach a state of "being" where they share/become such freedom?

Neither speak ill of others, nor well of yourself.
The moment you open
Your mouth to speak,
The autumn wind stirs
And chills your lips. (Buson)

From the "eastern" perspective, the Zen Master Caoshan wrote.......

When studying in this way, evils are manifest as a continuum of being ever not done. Inspired by this manifestation, seeing through to the fact that evils are not done, one settles it finally. At precisely such a time, as the beginning, middle, and end manifest as evils not done, evils are not born from conditions, they are only not done; evils do not perish through conditions, they are only not done.

Anyway, if anyone has thoughts on this please feel free........

I agree that God is freedom, among other qualities such as good and love.

1 John 4:18
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

If you are made perfect by God's love then your actions are righteous and you need not fear being punished because you cannot do wrong.

Of course this is God's work in you, not of yourself. A human being cannot make himself perfect, except by the power of God.

 

[Fizzywig]

I agree that God is freedom, among other qualities such as good and love.

The Buddhists texts speak of the "Heartwood of the Dharma".....So this holy life.......does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end. (Lines from the Majjhima Nikaya, from the Theravada texts)

In adding "other qualities" we are led down the road to the "contortion of views" on display in this thread.

Then we have "fear of punishment" and the thought of "perfection".

This, all tied in with various claims that are "to be believed in", proclaimed in a Book deemed primary as far as "revelation" (of truth) is concerned.

Clarity of mind calls me away.

 

[bling]

God is love. That is why I claim He is instinctively/hard-wired to love. That doesn't make it robotic, it just is who He is, and that's fine.

Why would it be any less of a “Love” if God’s Love was by His choice?

God is Love, but why could that “love” not be by His choice?

We are to be compelled by Godly type love, but that does not mean we do not have the choice to quench that love and be compelled by selfish desires?

God has the capability to do anything, including evil. Yet there is a quality that God has, which I will refer to as Q from here on out, that assures, without deviation, that He will never choose anything that is not good. Humans can start with Q, whatever that may be. If God is omnipotent, then He can create a being that has Q without hampering their free will because Q has no effect on free will, as it has no effect on God's free will.

I think I understand where you are going with this, but what you are not addressing is the fact “God’s free will” can allow Him to quench Q, but God will not. The “will” not to quench Q is not because of Q, but because of who God is. God can be described as “Love” because God allows His Love to control Him.

We have free will and can quench Godly type Love, but we can allow that Love to compel us.

The problem you also do not address with Q is that fact it cannot just be forced on human (God creates beings with Q) since it would not be Q if forced on a person, by the definition of Q.

 

[Moral Orel]

The problem you also do not address with Q is that fact it cannot just be forced on human (God creates beings with Q) since it would not be Q if forced on a person, by the definition of Q.

Whatever Q is, it has always been a part of God. Q is part of who God is. God cannot cease to have Q as a quality, because God cannot change who He is, and choosing to not have Q would be a violation of Q itself as getting rid of it would lead to some less than good action. So, no, God cannot and will not "quench" Q because He cannot change and because he will not choose to do something less than good because of Q. If God can always have it, and not choose to have it because it is simply a part of who He is, then we can always have it, and not choose to have it simply by being part of who we are.

If you say God can always have Q for the entirety of His existence, and that's okay, but humans cannot always have Q for the entirety of their existence, because that means something different, then you are not applying your logic universally.

Remember, Q is the quality that makes someone perfect at making the right choices, and ensures 100% reliability that person will make the right choice, without forcing them to. That is the definition of Q and it does not require someone to choose to have that quality because God does not choose to have that quality. It is not a power that forces someone to make a specific decision, otherwise God would not have free will. He didn't choose to have Q, so we don't have to either.

 

[Chriliman]

Whatever Q is, it has always been a part of God. Q is part of who God is. God cannot cease to have Q as a quality, because God cannot change who He is, and choosing to not have Q would be a violation of Q itself as getting rid of it would lead to some less than good action. So, no, God cannot and will not "quench" Q because He cannot change and because he will not choose to do something less than good because of Q. If God can always have it, and not choose to have it because it is simply a part of who He is, then we can always have it, and not choose to have it simply by being part of who we are.

If you say God can always have Q for the entirety of His existence, and that's okay, but humans cannot always have Q for the entirety of their existence, because that means something different, then you are not applying your logic universally.

Remember, Q is the quality that makes someone perfect at making the right choices, and ensures 100% reliability that person will make the right choice, without forcing them to. That is the definition of Q and it does not require someone to choose to have that quality because God does not choose to have that quality. It is not a power that forces someone to make a specific decision, otherwise God would not have free will. He didn't choose to have Q, so we don't have to either.

While what you're saying is 'logical', it lacks coherence until you define 'Q'. It's like saying "X is true", but I never define X, so it can't actually be known to be true because we have no idea what 'X' is. This kind of thinking leads nowhere.

If we say 'Q' is free will, then what do we have? Well lets see what your last paragraph says when we define 'Q' as free will:

"Remember, free will is the quality that makes someone perfect at making the right choices, and ensures 100% reliability that person will make the right choice, without forcing them to. That is the definition of free will and it does not require someone to choose to have that quality because God does not choose to have that quality. It is not a power that forces someone to make a specific decision, otherwise God would not have free will(you actually said free will here). He didn't choose to have free will, so we don't have to either."

Hope this helps you understand why your logic isn't leading anywhere, you actually have to define 'Q' or else it's incoherent.

 

[Moral Orel]

Hope this helps you understand why your logic isn't leading anywhere, you actually have to define 'Q' or else it's incoherent.

I did define it a few posts back. Q is the quality, that because God has it, we can be certain He will always choose the good, and never choose the evil. It does not take away His free will, but without Q He might do evil.

 

[Chriliman]

I did define it a few posts back. Q is the quality, that because God has it, we can be certain He will always choose the good, and never choose the evil. It does not take away His free will, but without Q He might do evil.

'Q' is arbitrary if not defined. Saying "Q is the quality that God has" is incoherent and undefined.

If what you're saying is to be accepted then i should go around to everyone I know and say "God has Q, therefore he only does what is good" They'ed logically respond "What is Q?" I'd say "Q is a quality". They'd logically respond "quality of what?" I'd say "Q". They'd logically respond "What is Q?" and so on...

I'd accept that 'Q' is free will because that would make sense. When you leave 'Q' undefined, it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

'Q' is arbitrary if not defined. Saying "Q is the quality that God has" is incoherent and undefined.

If what you're saying is to be accepted then i should go around to everyone I know and say "God has Q, therefore he only does what is good" They'ed logically respond "What is Q?" I'd say "Q is a quality". They'd logically respond "quality of what?" I'd say "Q". They'd logically respond "What is Q?" and so on...

I'd accept that 'Q' is free will because that would make sense. When you leave 'Q' undefined, it doesn't make any sense.

You can call it what you want. Some Christians think it is wisdom, some think it is love, some think it is goodness, some think it is a combination of these or other qualities, etc. That is why I call it "Q" because you all will call it something different.

I've heard some Christians call it "love" then they use the word "love" in two different ways when talking about how God loves and how humans love. And then I need to keep saying over and over, "then make us 'love' the same way". I've heard Christians use the term "sinless" as well and then they say Adam was made sinless, but Adam was sinless in the sense that he had never sinned, and God is sinless in that He will never sin, therefore it requires two different words. Then I have to keep saying over and over, "then make humans 'sinless' in the same way that God is 'sinless'". I need a term that applies to all the different explanations from Christians as to why God is guaranteed to always chooses the good, and at the same time is immune to people using two different definitions for the same word.

It's you, the Christian, that has the claim that God has free will, yet will always choose the good. I'm willing to accept that is possible, and you can define how that is possible however you want, as long as you acknowledge that it is because God has some quality, Q, that we do not. And then you need to explain how an omnipotent being is incapable of instilling that quality, Q, whatever it may be, in all of His created beings from the moment of their creation.

Obviously it isn't "free will" because it does not affect free will. If it was merely free will, then God might choose to do evil things at any given moment. But I'm not going to assign a label to it because then you'll be able to use that label in two different ways whether you're talking about God or you're talking about humans.

 

[Chriliman]

You can call it what you want. Some Christians think it is wisdom, some think it is love, some think it is goodness, some think it is a combination of these or other qualities, etc. That is why I call it "Q" because you all will call it something different.

I've heard some Christians call it "love" then they use the word "love" in two different ways when talking about how God loves and how humans love. And then I need to keep saying over and over, "then make us 'love' the same way". I've heard Christians use the term "sinless" as well and then they say Adam was made sinless, but Adam was sinless in the sense that he had never sinned, and God is sinless in that He will never sin, therefore it requires two different words. Then I have to keep saying over and over, "then make humans 'sinless' in the same way that God is 'sinless'". I need a term that applies to all the different explanations from Christians as to why God is guaranteed to always chooses the good, and at the same time is immune to people using two different definitions for the same word.

It's you, the Christian, that has the claim that God has free will, yet will always choose the good. I'm willing to accept that is possible, and you can define how that is possible however you want, as long as you acknowledge that it is because God has some quality, Q, that we do not. And then you need to explain how an omnipotent being is incapable of instilling that quality, Q, whatever it may be, in all of His created beings from the moment of their creation.

Obviously it isn't "free will" because it does not affect free will. If it was merely free will, then God might choose to do evil things at any given moment. But I'm not going to assign a label to it because then you'll be able to use that label in two different ways whether you're talking about God or you're talking about humans.

I understand your frustration with the inconsistent representations of who God is and what he's capable of. It's my understanding that we'll all experience God on an individual bases at different times, so we'll all have unique description of who God is, based on our experiences, but just because one description is unique from another doesn't necessarily mean one description is correct and the other is wrong. One could say that God is good, while another could say that God is love and they'd both be unique and different descriptions, while also being correct description.

I'm in full agreement that God is capable of creating beings who are like Himself, fully equipped with Godly goodness, love and freedom of will, but He still has to do it, it's up to Him. I'd argue that He has and does do this, Jesus Christ being the first fruits of all and all others coming into existence through Jesus Christ.

 

[Moral Orel]

I understand your frustration with the inconsistent representations of who God is and what he's capable of. It's my understanding that we'll all experience God on an individual bases at different times, so we'll all have unique description of who God is, based on our experiences, but just because one description is unique from another doesn't necessarily mean one description is correct and the other is wrong. One could say that God is good, while another could say that God is love and they'd both be unique and different descriptions, while also being correct description.

That's all well and good, and people having different interpretations doesn't frustrate me, I'm just trying to accommodate everyone. I just get frustrated when people use the same word to mean different things.

I'm in full agreement that God is capable of creating beings who are like Himself, fully equipped with Godly goodness, love and freedom of will, but He still has to do it, it's up to Him.

Right, so it is possible, but God chose not to. Instead of choosing a path of zero evil, God chose a path with a lot of evil. Why? Why would an omnibenevolent God choose to create so much evil if it can be avoided while still having genuine goodness and love without having to construct robots? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift you could give someone (a nature like that)? And if so, wouldn't giving that gift to everyone by default be the most good thing you could do? Yes, everyone is eligible to earn that gift, but that isn't a gift anymore if you have to ask for it or do anything special to receive it.

I'd argue that He has and does do this, Jesus Christ being the first fruits of all and all others coming into existence through Jesus Christ.

Jesus is sort of and example. Since He also was God, it kind of doesn't count. Then we would be talking about making a bunch of God-clones, if that was the only way, and that isn't necessary. But He does basically do this when an infant enters Heaven. That infant spent no significant portion of their existence with anything short of being "fully equipped with Godly goodness, love and freedom of will".