It may be tangential, but good communication isn't metaphysics. It was just something I thought you might consider.
You're talking about a very philosophical "perfection", an all-that-I-can-imagine type of construct. I might once again ask whether perfection is diminished by being limited to some kind of definition. The logical answer would be 'no'.
You only give half the argument - "less" implies comparison. "Less perfect" than what. Than something you can imagine? Are you so certain that you imagine perfection perfectly? Or compared to God, where being limited to physical bodies for instance could be called a limitation that makes us "less" than God, but does it diminish us as human beings? Only if your assessment of perfection assumes the perspective of a Creator - which you aren't.
If you are at all creative, you might understand that perfection never requires something to be an ideal of ideals, just exactly what you like. Which brings me to your next question...
That is certainly a viable definition for perfection, but it's a philosophical one - by subjecting the concept to logical limitations, you create a "logical" perfection. But is it useful? Does it even apply? By defining something we give it boundaries - what it's not. Keep that in mind, because neither the Mini Cooper or the Jaguar are perfect cars, although in the mind of their designers there might conceivably be a perfect Mini and a Perfect Jaguar, which they could surely build if they were omnipotent. But the perfect car only exists as an extension of all the attributes that makes a car - it is neither Mini nor Jaguar. In fact, if you gave it a name or any distinguishing identity at all, it would probably be disqualified from such a standard of perfection. It would be "limited" to a shape, a design, a desire; it would be "less than" almost anything metaphysical - on a philosophical or metaphysical scale.
I did not say perfection rests with "utility alone". It rests in the will and desire of the creator, the definer and assessor of what perfection is. The Jaguar S-type might be a superior sports car, but an inferior family car, less economic and perhaps even less reliable. But if you were interested in say, performance, you might measure perfection on a scale that puts the Mini below the Jaguar. If you were only interested in a Mini Cooper, you might find the Mini Cooper, well, perfect. The interesting part of this analogy is that an "ideal car of all cars" is irrelevant - doesn't actually exist, so it falls outside any considerations of perfection.
Not if there's a perfect, truly free human being involved. Power does not have to be exercised to be perfect - in fact, knowing when and how to use it lies much farther up along the scale than unbridled enforcement.
Add the element of time to an object, and assessing it's perfection would take its whole existence into account, not just a specific moment. And that's just a "horizontal" progression; it might include other abstract elements as well - growth, action, circumstance... the totality of being.
Measuring wealth or performance, for instance. If there were such a thing as being perfectly wealthy, or perfectly successful, would God necessarily consider such a person perfect? Or a less abstract example: if we measured someone's perfection by physical appearance (perhaps even with mathematical precision), would that count towards anything?
Even if you extend all attributes to their logical maximum you would have to deal with measurement: would the philosophically perfect human being also be the perfect killer, the perfect liar, and the perfect thief? Remember, if you say he has the potential, but a perfect will to control himself, you suppose an independent moral compass. And if he were physically compelled to follow it, wouldn't that make him less perfect than a hypothetical counterpart who wasn't?
[quote"Power made perfect in weakness" refers back to God's power best effecting the hopeless. The most dramatic results would be found in someone wretched.[/quote]
Yet that contradicts the notion that the maximum logical extension of power will be found on the "powerful" end of the scale, rather than the "weak" end. That was your argument on the topics of size and power before (see your second quoted paragraph above) - that anything that's somehow "less" diminishes perfection. My point here is that perfection may be found in a combination of God's power and human limitation, not necessarily just in direct, completely symmetrical equivalence.
And in his wisdom He did not so desire. What of it? Perfection does not require that we attain divinity by own power, but that we cooperate with divinity in order to be perfected by His power. The only "flaw" is then a broken relationship.
We may appreciate and extend what we know about goodness as far as we are able - and we should - but unless we became perfect first, we would only extend our knowledge imperfectly, becoming less accurate the further we move from our narrow perspective. We might have enough information for immediate application, but for a final "objective" judgement on divine goodness, we would need to know all the variables to the end of time - and that's beyond our abilities. Of course, if you know who God is the question will be rhetorical (Gen. 18:25).
You're still adding words to suit your interpretation. "Knowledge of good and evil" refers to first-hand knowledge, knowledge of something; "Knowledge of what is good and evil" is meta-knowledge, knowledge about something - which they had.
Compare the knowledge that there is a bomb in a certain briefcase (knowledge about the briefcase), with knowledge of the bomb in the briefcase (how it works, how big it is, etc.)
I don't know. Does it matter, if He doesn't exercise that freedom?
Unless you claim they did not have knowledge of any kind before eating from the tree, I don't see why this matters. They learnt the dangerous and forbidden details, but it doesn't change what they already knew about the whole. They just thought it might (which is what the Devil suggested).
If He is omniscient that's no problem. As He knows good because it's an expression of his nature, and evil because it's all that is opposed to His nature. And I have already said that being made in God's image did not make us God. Man was like God in every way God intended him to be, but that likeness did not include all of God's knowledge - especially not about evil.
They were ashamed of their deeds. Their new self-awareness and guilt made them strangers to God, and aware of how exposed they actually were without Him. Now that they could see the evil alternatives to the good that God created, they could also fear them. You don't need to read between the lines for what nakedness implies, Adam was afraid because I was naked (Gen. 3:10), not ashamed because of it.
Before they had knowledge of good and evil, they literally had nothing to be afraid of.
It would be easy if you had a) knowledge of evil, and b) a broken relationship with your creator and protector. The threat of evil would be foremost in your mind - especially one you realized it didn't have to enter through the gates of paradise, but simply through your desires and actions.
Original, as in "first".
The knowledge they had wasn't defined as either good or evil, the relevant distinction was what God (who is good) wanted and what He prohibited (which would logically be "bad"). The story presupposes their ability to tell the difference, and it tells us how the content of that difference changed - from what God wanted to what man wanted, and from true or false to good or evil.
What about God and the angels ("the king is like an angel of God in discerning good and evil", Sam. 14:17); or the Father and the Son? (we are already introduced to the "Spirit of God" in Gen. 1:2). "26 Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image' ... 27 So God created human beings in his own image."
Be sure to finish the sentence: ... like God, knowing good and evil (3:5). If the words had no meaning to them, why make such a point of enticing them with it?
It is a logical impossibility for A to be both A and not A, in terms of identity. I was sure you knew that.
Remember I mentioned the property of time? The World to Come is exactly that: in the future. With that in mind, consider Heb. 11:40: "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect", and the answer to man's fallen state: "... put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24).
You mean, inhibited us artificially. You can't have your cake and eat it; you can't decide whether God should have made us more free (like Him) or less free (unable to choose against Him).
As a Protestant, I completely agree. The Hebrew scriptures also make it clear that final judgement would not come until the Messiah heralded judgement (JewishEncyclopedia: Final Judgement). See also its article on The Heavenly Messiah.
Convenient how the text would reveal something to you that it takes pains to avoid.
Evilness is not a property that was "given", it is derived, dependent on good. By creating good, logically its antithesis - not good - became available automatically. When we start talking about judgement and eternal separation, I'm sure we'll hear you complain just as loudly about God's intervention as you are now complaining about his apparent non-intervention.
Whether God intervenes in some final and non-negotiable fashion or not isn't actually the problem, it's that you can't find a time when it would be convenient. If freedom is not contrary to goodness, you have no excuse for relying so much on God's intervention, since it shouldn't be necessary. You lack nothing you need to do good and avoid evil (2 Peter 1:3-5).
This contradicts what you said earlier: "The most dramatic results would be found in someone wretched." Weakness does not diminish omnipotence if it illustrated it more clearly. And what people call weakness might be exactly what God considers strength ("God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.") As Genesis illustrates, evil was a mark against mankind precisely because it lacked nothing. It was only God's benevolence that allowed time to pass before the consequences became final, leaving open the option of perfection.
You obviously weren't thinking when you wrote that. It's complete nonsense. What is negotiation, compromise, mercy, rehabilitation or forgiveness other than tolerating something in order to redeem, overcome or repair it? It would only be "forever" if no change was intended or expected.
But you can't accept that He did create us good and free (Jer. 2:21), so you're only fooling yourself if you continue blame God for the abuse of that nature. What you're really asking for is an incorruptible nature, which supposes that God should not be interested in our attaining perfection, just in our having it - exactly the attitude that got Adam and Eve into the trouble they were in. You desire something that could never be attained by desiring or demanding it, and now you're throwing a tantrum about it.
We would be, if we did not cede that control to every desire that came along in stead of God (Gal. 5:16-17).
Then you make no distinction between what is temporary (i.e. time-bound) and what is eternal. If you mean that something that had happened will always have happened, of course: that's reality. But we access the action or event through a record - a memory - across time. Sometimes that record comes in a physical form, like a scar. Perhaps this is where you underestimate God's omnipotence and benevolence for a change. You always seem to expect from Him what He hasn't done, and resent it, but you are conspicuously silent when it comes to what He promises He will do:
Revelation 21:3-5
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
Your imagination fails at the strangest places. Why must God see a life serially, with the last thing that happens being somehow the decisive one? We may speculate about it, but in the end it comes down to whether you believe in a just God or an evil one. Like Abraham said, "Will not the judge of the earth do right?" Maybe his sin isn't nearly as fatal as rejecting his victims' hope for justice.
(Kidding, of course.)