[Serious] The Story

[Neo-Scholastic]

So something can't be perfect unless it's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? Ordinarily, perfect means 'without flaws'. I wouldn't say not being all-powerful is a flaw.

I agree. It seems to me that perfection is a measure of how closely a thing is to it's intended or ideal type. A perfect circle is perfect insofar as it conforms to whatever specifications a circle must meet, even though it is nothing like a square.

Now, I would assume that when Genesis called each creative act good, even exceedingly good, that it implies that creation was perfect insofar as it aligned with God's intended outcome.

Perhaps this is an example where the overarching narrative matters. Neo treated the snake in the garden as a flaw, or imperfection. However, within the SDA narrative the snake is an outsider, an intruder. It is Satan, and that was the beginning of bringing the heavenly war to Earth.

But we can see from Neo's comments that there is perhaps a different narrative that people believe, in which the snake was unintentionally created. Or perhaps it was intentional for the sake of avoiding perfection.

Yes, indeed, I have a more esoteric perspective in part because growing up congregationalist we were not committed to a literal reading of Scripture the way say Southern Baptists were. That was the 70's though and it seemed like the more fundamentalist people started forming this wierd Christian sub-culture. Anyway.

Different cosmic frameworks steer the interpretation of scripture different ways. Is the cosmic framework a Judaic Divine Council or a Neo-Platonic pleroma? The more fundamentalist people treat Satan as a wayward member of a divine council. And while I love the imagry of Our glorious King surrounded by the Heavenly Host in all their stations, its not very good theology. A more mystical type, like me, considers Satan to be representative of the not-godness of Creation.