Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?

[Asmodee]

You're correct in saying they are one and the same, however for me there is no but to it. I'll explain as I go along. By the way what denomination did you grow up in?

Pentecostal.

There is nothing in Scripture that says God created all souls that will ever be during the six day creation period. When Jeff was conceived he was given a soul...

That was an analogy of what I was talking about, not a claim.  And there is nothing in scripture which says it isn't true, so maybe let's not just pretend it's absolutely not true so that we don't have to think about the analogy.  In fact, an argument can be made that when God "created man", creating all those souls is what the Bible was talking about.  I'm not saying that's true, I am saying you don't know it's not.

And there is also nothing in scripture that says when Jeff is given a soul, yet it doesn't stop you from claiming right here that it was "at conception".

As I pointed out above Jeff the soul is Jeff, the body is present to house the soul, the body is there for this physical world. Jeff doesn't need his body to be Jeff. When Jeff was born he was a sinner by birth. So how could that be if Jeff the soul had never sinned.

Again you are missing the point.  Instead of just dismissing what I said, consider the analogy I gave.

Now you are outside biblical doctrine, Jeff could never be innocent nor eternal. Again outside biblical doctrine, Jeff can't go to heaven by your own admittance Jeff hasn't existed yet, your description in the what if idea, you said he would have to be born of flesh first.

And so are you fully half the time, including right here.  And I have no idea what you're talking about here because I didn't say any of that that I'm aware of.

The body and soul never physically existed until born into this world...

You JUST chastised me for being outside of Biblical doctrine.  What verses in the Bible say when souls are made or injected into bodies?  I'll give you a hint.  The answer is "The Bible makes no mention of the claim you just made."

You're right the Trinity can not be tempted but, we are speaking of the God who is above all temptation. Jesus had to be tempted and had to be able to fail so that Satan could not accuse God of stacking the deck. God the Son came to reside in a body of flesh so He could be tempted in the flesh to be the perfect sacrifice for man. God the Son laid down all His powers to come and live as a man, scripture tells us this. Jesus received His power from the Father, Jesus could not have fail if all the Son's powers had come with Him. Jesus also used the scriptures to rebuke Satan, the word was more powerful than the most powerful being ever created and why, because Christ is the word.

Then this is where the Bible starts to contradict itself.  You would be hard pressed to deny that a soul changes only when in a body.  A baby that died a thousand years ago is still as sin-free as it was then.  The soul is unchanged from that day.  And a thousand years into being in Heaven, that soul will still be unchanged.  EVERY soul has a CHANCE for redemption.  No soul is guaranteed redemption or damnation, it is what we do, and ONLY what we do while we have a body that determines that.

Now take that to Jesus.  God is never changing.  God cannot be tempted.  But God in a body can be tempted.  By your words it had to be possible for him to fail.  If he had failed, would he still be God?  What would have happened to God the son if Jesus had failed his temptation?  There would have been some change to God the son.  God the son would no longer be perfect and spotless.  Because in flesh the spirit can change.  Yet NOTHING changed in 33 years of being wrapped in flesh?  Unlikely unless it was impossible, but you said it was possible, so it is very unlikely the spirit wasn't changed.  God the son, Jesus, new and improved God the son.

Yes, I've already agreed that Jesus was temptable and there had to be the possibility of failure. That temptation had to come while He resided in a body of flesh but, if He had not laid down his powers in heaven He could not fail, essentially it was laying down his powers that made him susceptible to sin. Just because the Son of God came to live in a body of flesh and suffer the weaknesses of the flesh doesn't negate the fact He was the Son of God. As I stated in my last post, at Jesus baptism the Father said this is my Son. There's no getting around this fact that God's Son resided in a fleshly body and was called Jesus. I can't understand how you can argue that the Son of God was two different beings, especially when the scriptures do not say that.

Where does the Bible say he laid down his powers in Heaven?  Why is it YOU get to diverge from what the Bible says and draw on what your beliefs outside of the Bible say, but I do not?  I remember a Bible where Jesus very much "had powers".

My statement was this and still is, the only free will "we" have is to accept Jesus for who He is, the Son of God. When you accept Jesus as God's Son you are accepting the entire Godhead. GOD is the Trinity, the Trinity was involved in creation, in dealing with the fall and bringing salvation to a lost world. Maybe there's something you do not understand about the Trinity, there is an order to it, not in the sense of one is above the others, more in the order that there is a chain of command. You will have to read and study the NT to see it but it is there. It goes like this an order that we always speak when we refer to the Trinity, God the Father to whom God the Son is obedient to, God the Son whom the Holy Spirit is always obedient to. It's the way our families are to be. No one in the family is more important than any other member, the wife is obedient to the father's the children are to be obedient to the mother and father. Unfortunately our families are not like the Trinity, everything the Trinity does in their relationship is from a perfect love.

That statement is wrong.  Jew 3,000 years ago would have laughed at you for this statement.

And I'll take my imperfect love over your trinity's perfect love any day.  I once had a Catholic trying to explain to me why Hell existed.  He asked me, "When your children misbehave, don't you punish them?"  I was flabbergasted by such a stupid question and immediately responded, "Not by lighting them on fire!"

PS I have a friend with Alzheimer's and yes it is scary, I believe everyone has a fright about it. Never meant to disrespect you.

Yeah, I know.  Thanks.

---

So self diagnosed and claiming that you meet the requirements of the ADA with no other documentation or supporting evidence. It does not work that way. I won't take your word for it. I'm not quite sure why you feel you should be able to play the ADA or disability card. Pity? Excuse? I consider it an offense to those I know who are disabled. Therefore I consider it an offense to me. 

If you say you have a poor memory, fine, I'll accept that. If you claim that it rises to the level to be considered a disability by society (not just you) then you'll have to put up or shut up.

Yes, failure to produce my medical records on your demand certainly proves I don't have any.  And surely you are well within your rights to ask for my most personal information.  Why would any person care that everyone here knew their private medical information?  Hell, who wouldn't want everyone to know they had dementia or Alzheimer?  That's the kind of thing you just run through the streets telling everyone because it's not like the words associated with brain disorders carry negative stereotypes.  That's why I really, REALLY wish I was paranoid schizophrenic!  I really think it would help me get more babysitting jobs.  Fucking moron.

I don't give a fuck if some argumentative prick on the Internet believes me or not.  News flash, jackass.  You don't have a right to not be offended.  Which is good for you because what you did was INCREDIBLY offensive.  But I get it.  You're arrogant and not that bright.  It's not your fault.  You just sincerely do not understand why someone would choose not to share a medical diagnosis for brain disorder with strangers on the Internet, or why asking makes you the biggest fucking prick I've ever talked to.  Hey, and it's also okay to walk up to people in wheelchairs and demand to see their legs so you can make sure they've really atrophied and they are not just seeking pity or using it as an excuse.  That's perfectly acceptable.

So yeah, it does fucking work that way.  You take me at my word or you don't.  Why don't you go ask those you know who are disabled, "What's wrong with you?  Did a doctor tell you that or are you 'self diagnosed', because if you're self diagnosed you're not really disabled, you know."  See how long it takes a few disabled "friends" to kick your fucking ass.  And hey, let me know how that goes.

This is why I hate too many atheists gathering in one place.  We tend to be smug and used to arguing.  I know what this really is.  "Hey everyone!  Look how good an atheist I am!  I just caught someone making a claim he is unable to prove.  He says he's unwilling to produce his medical records and that they're none of my business, but that means unable because he doesn't have them and I totally proved what a kickass atheist I am by being a disrespectful ass and demanding proof!"  What this really is is pathetic.

By the way, I'm not sure you really have "disabled friends".  What are their names and medical diagnoses?  Because to me this sounds a little too close to the Republican "black friend" claim that I always found so dubious.  Why would you make this claim?  Pity?  Excuse?  You're just a prick?