Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?

[Godscreated]

---

Listen please, God is and always will be God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, they are one God in three persons, they are like minded and like matured. They have always existed and were for time unknown existing fine without this universe or humanity. Yes they had the choice to accept or reject Christ even though at that time He wasn't referred to as the Messiah. Some believe it was Christ who walked in the Garden with them and I tend to believe this, too.
So the only thing you smell is your inability to understand the scriptures.

---

No, I'm thinking it's your inability to understand the difference between Jesus the god and Jesus the man.  It is a difficult concept.  I'll give you that. 

I understand very well who Christ, Jesus and the Messiah "is" and no it's not difficult.

I'm not sure if you believe in the trinity, three distinct persons made of a single being (it sounds as if you do) or no trinity, they are all just manifestations of the same single being.  Regardless, you have Jesus the god and Jesus the man.  I can't believe I'm about to give you a Sunday School lesson, but here goes.

The trinity consists of three distinct beings who are the one Godhead. I can't believe you would ask that from a Southern Baptist and I thought my statement was quite clear.

God is perfect.  God it not subject to weaknesses of the flesh such as temptation.  Yet Jesus was tempted for 40 days.  Why would the devil bother to tempt a God he knew full well was beyond temptation?  Because Jesus was more than simply a piece of God, Jesus was also a man and it was Jesus, specifically, NOT just "God the son", who was the Christ.

God the Son has always been Jesus, Christ and Messiah, all four names/titles belong to the same person of the Godhead. God is omnipresent and in that has always existed all the time in all times. You're trying to separate them and that's not possible, Jesus, the Christ and the Messiah are all the same person in the trinity. You should read John 10:22-30, in verses 30 Jesus himself said, "I and the Father are one." Meaning that He is as much God as the Father is. Now that we have this established let's see why Jesus was able to be tempted. When Jesus left His place in heaven to come and fulfill the plan of salvation He had to suffer as a man and in that He had to suffer temptation. The only way this was possible was for Him to lay down His powers in heaven and not take them up again until He returned. If you're wondering this is in the scriptu

  Only as a man was he subject to tribulation, temptation and pain.  God is beyond all these things.  So while the argument can be made, and rightly so, that the three bits have always existed, the one bit WAS NOT "the Christ" until AFTER being born in flesh.

Your claim was that free will consisted solely of your ability to choose to accept or deny, specifically, Christ.  NOBODY in the twelve tribes of Israel accepted Christ because God the Christ had not yet been born.  While "God the son" may have existed, "God the Christ" did not.  As I said, I know it's a difficult concept.  But "the Christ" is also known as JESUS Christ because he's not "the Christ" until you add the fleshy bits.  So yes, before the birth of Jesus people worshiped the same God, but they did not "accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior".  Jesus was "the Christ".  PART of him was God the son.  The other part was man.  Until you put the two together you don't have a Christ.  People don't seem to understand that Christ is a title, not a name, and I think that might be where you are getting confused.

I know what free will means and I know God can act upon it because of His providence over His creation. Like I said before the only choice that God will not interfere with is our choice to accept Him (Jesus). Jesus said that He and the Father are one and that no one comes to the Son without an invitation from the Father.
God may or may not interfere in some decisions you make or have made but, you will never know if He has unless you are serving Him. God allows you many choices in your life without interference but sinful choices come with a price, non-sinful choices have no price against them by God or man.

GC

I think you do know what free will is.  And I think you know very well you're not using it correctly.  If you didn't know what free will was and you did think you were using it correctly then you would say simply, "God gives us free will."  That's the entirety of what you have to say when you know what it is and believe that you are using it correctly.  But that's not what you say.  You add a definition afterward.  You say, "God gives us free will and that means, specifically, the ability to freely choose to accept or reject Christ."  When you add a definition after a common word or phrase it tells me that you do know what it means and you do know that you're not using it correctly, which is why you feel the need to add the definition you are using, one which you know that no reasonable person would infer on his or her own.

So perhaps you could save some confusion in the future and just stop using the term "free will", using just your definition for it instead.  Because you are not saying we have free will, you are saying we are free to make a single, binary choice.  I know you would really like to shoehorn the concept of free will into what you're saying, but you and I both know very well that it doesn't fit.  So stop lying to yourself and stop lying to me.  Either we have "free will PERIOD" or we have "SOME DEFINITION OF WHAT WE HAVE".  We cannot have both "free will", a term which stands on its own and means the ability to act without interference according to our own will, AND "some restrictive subset of true free will".  It's one or the other AT BEST, and the Bible says it's not "free will", by it's real definition.

An interesting note here, I'm sure you didn't realize you were doing this, but you're confusing the argument as a means of increasing your authority in the discussion.  You start out saying, essentially, that God has a right to fuck with creation however she likes.  I never said she didn't.  If she wants to change what she made that is her right.  I concur with that one hundred percent.  I never even suggested that wasn't true.  But that's not the issue here, is it?  The issue is "DO WE HAVE free will?", not "IS IT GOD'S RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH free will?"  You've added the issue of God's rights as a way of imparting authority into your position, even though I've never called those rights into question.  And this is why, a few months ago, I stated that, by instinct, I don't trust what Christians are telling me.  You don't even realize when you're slyly changing the conversation to artificially bolster your position, allowing you to argue from a position of more authority.  Rather than make a compelling argument, and let's be honest for a change, it's because you don't have one, you've chosen to assert authority.
[/quote]

[Rev. Rye]

Because He wants to see if someone will still praise Him even if there's no good reason to do so? To be fair, that was the premise of the Book of Job. And God's motivation in Preacher.

[Godscreated]

---

Listen please, God is and always will be God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, they are one God in three persons, they are like minded and like matured. They have always existed and were for time unknown existing fine without this universe or humanity. Yes they had the choice to accept or reject Christ even though at that time He wasn't referred to as the Messiah. Some believe it was Christ who walked in the Garden with them and I tend to believe this, too.
So the only thing you smell is your inability to understand the scriptures.

---

No, I'm thinking it's your inability to understand the difference between Jesus the god and Jesus the man.  It is a difficult concept.  I'll give you that. 

I understand very well who Christ, Jesus and the Messiah "is" and no it's not difficult.

I'm not sure if you believe in the trinity, three distinct persons made of a single being (it sounds as if you do) or no trinity, they are all just manifestations of the same single being.  Regardless, you have Jesus the god and Jesus the man.  I can't believe I'm about to give you a Sunday School lesson, but here goes.

The trinity consists of three distinct beings who are the one Godhead. I can't believe you would ask that from a Southern Baptist and I thought my statement was quite clear.

God is perfect.  God it not subject to weaknesses of the flesh such as temptation.  Yet Jesus was tempted for 40 days.  Why would the devil bother to tempt a God he knew full well was beyond temptation?  Because Jesus was more than simply a piece of God, Jesus was also a man and it was Jesus, specifically, NOT just "God the son", who was the Christ.

God the Son has always been Jesus, Christ and Messiah, all four names belong to the same person of the Godhead. God is omnipresent and in that has always existed all the time in all times. You're trying to separate them and that's not possible, Jesus, the Christ and the Messiah are all the same person in the trinity. You should read John 10:22-30, in verses 30 Jesus himself said, "I and the Father are one." Meaning that He is as much God as the Father is. Now that we have this established let's see why Jesus was able to be tempted. When Jesus left His place in heaven to come and fulfill the plan of salvation He had to suffer as a man and in that He had to suffer temptation. The only way this was possible was for Him to lay down His powers in heaven and not take them up again until He returned. (If you're wondering, this is in the scriptures, l do not remember which book at this time but l could find it if it were not so late.) All of the power Jesus had on earth came from the Father that's why He could do the miracles. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb and to be the perfect lamb He had to be able to overcome sin without His power. It was God and man who died on that cross.

  Only as a man was he subject to tribulation, temptation and pain.  God is beyond all these things.  So while the argument can be made, and rightly so, that the three bits have always existed, the one bit WAS NOT "the Christ" until AFTER being born in flesh.

As I stated above God is omnipresent and for Him He has existed all the time in all of time, so yes He has always been the Christ.

Your claim was that free will consisted solely of your ability to choose to accept or deny, specifically, Christ.  NOBODY in the twelve tribes of Israel accepted Christ because God the Christ had not yet been born.  While "God the son" may have existed, "God the Christ" did not. 

I have already established that God the Son, the Christ, the Messiah and Jesus are one in the same and have always been because of God's omnipresence. Genesis 3:15 God says to. The serpent (Satan), "l will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring (Jesus), He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise.His heel. Here is the time Jesus the Savior is introduced in scripture, this is long before God established the nation of Israel. The Messiah was prophesied in the OT long before He ever came to earth and the Israelites knew this and the ones who believed it were redeemed. This is why the animal sacrifices had to take place all the time, they were the substitution for Jesus the perfect sacrifice for mankind.

As I said, I know it's a difficult concept.  But "the Christ" is also known as JESUS Christ because he's not "the Christ" until you add the fleshy bits.  So yes, before the birth of Jesus people worshiped the same God, but they did not "accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior".  Jesus was "the Christ".  PART of him was God the son.  The other part was man.  Until you put the two together you don't have a Christ.  People don't seem to understand that Christ is a title, not a name, and I think that might be where you are getting confused.

Please don't think l'm trying to treat you like a child it's not my intention, my intention is to be consistent.
As l said before, it's not difficult to understand one has to understand who God is and to many leave out the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God when trying to understand Him.
I hear the word title around here all the time and I've explained it like this. A title is something many people can acquire, through birth, work, election or ect. God the Son was never born, never elected to nor had to work for the name Christ, He has for all time been Christ. A title is something many can have but, only One will ever bare the name Christ.
Look at it this way, throughout the OT God has been called by many names after man had observed the attributes of that name, that in no way means God just developed those attributes. God is unchanging He has always been all those things long before the creation. God is the only one who can be called by those names in a perfect sense because He is the only one who is perfect in those attributes. So God the Son, the Christ, the Messiah and Jesus are one and the same and have been forever.

---

I know what free will means and I know God can act upon it because of His providence over His creation. Like I said before the only choice that God will not interfere with is our choice to accept Him (Jesus). Jesus said that He and the Father are one and that no one comes to the Son without an invitation from the Father.
God may or may not interfere in some decisions you make or have made but, you will never know if He has unless you are serving Him. God allows you many choices in your life without interference but sinful choices come with a price, non-sinful choices have no price against them by God or man.

GC

---

I think you do know what free will is.  And I think you know very well you're not using it correctly.  If you didn't know what free will was and you did think you were using it correctly then you would say simply, "God gives us free will."  That's the entirety of what you have to say when you know what it is and believe that you are using it correctly.  But that's not what you say.  You add a definition afterward.  You say, "God gives us free will and that means, specifically, the ability to freely choose to accept or reject Christ." 

I clarify my statement of God given free will by saying God will not use His providence to interfere in our decision to accept Jesus or to reject Him. We are free to choose to obey God or not to obey, unless God sees it necessary to insert His providence for His will to be done. When I say will I mean His ultimate will, that which is necessary for His eternal plan.

When you add a definition after a common word or phrase it tells me that you do know what it means and you do know that you're not using it correctly, which is why you feel the need to add the definition you are using, one which you know that no reasonable person would infer on his or her own.

I do not need the definition for myself, l understand what God has given us and why. I give the definition to clarify to others what our free will is, so others can understand that in one area it's so important to God that He refuses to interfere in a choice, but in the rest of our lives our free will is contingent on God's providence over His eternal plan. It is His creation and His plan so He has the right to step in when it becomes necessary. It's not like God does things to mess with your life, He has seen every day of your life every day of eternity and knows what you will do and could just as well altered your life long ago to suit His plan. He didn't though for a very good reason, He was giving you a chance (even though He knew what you would choose to do) to make the right choice. Why, because in the end, that is the time of judgment, you nor Satan can say to God you did not give me the chance to choose you just altered my life to be as you wanted it. However that want happen because you do have the choice of how your life goes.

So perhaps you could save some confusion in the future and just stop using the term "free will", using just your definition for it instead.  Because you are not saying we have free will, you are saying we are free to make a single, binary choice.  I know you would really like to shoehorn the concept of free will into what you're saying, but you and I both know very well that it doesn't fit. 

It's you that is having trouble with understanding and I never said that free will was extended to one choice only. I said that is a choice God will never interfere in. I went on to say that most of your life is free choice (will), if not all of it.

GC

[Asmodee]

The trinity consists of three distinct beings who are the one Godhead. I can't believe you would ask that from a Southern Baptist and I thought my statement was quite clear.

Again with the, “I was quite clear”.  I have already explained that I have a bad memory.  Whining when I don’t remember who you are or what particular beliefs you demand I accept as fact won’t change that.  If you have a problem with my memory take it up with Jesus.  If it were up to me I’d fucking change it.

God the Son has always been Jesus, Christ and Messiah, all four names belong to the same person of the Godhead. God is omnipresent and in that has always existed all the time in all times. You're trying to separate them and that's not possible, Jesus, the Christ and the Messiah are all the same person in the trinity. You should read John 10:22-30, in verses 30 Jesus himself said, "I and the Father are one." Meaning that He is as much God as the Father is. Now that we have this established let's see why Jesus was able to be tempted. When Jesus left His place in heaven to come and fulfill the plan of salvation He had to suffer as a man and in that He had to suffer temptation. The only way this was possible was for Him to lay down His powers in heaven and not take them up again until He returned. (If you're wondering, this is in the scriptures, l do not remember which book at this time but l could find it if it were not so late.) All of the power Jesus had on earth came from the Father that's why He could do the miracles. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb and to be the perfect lamb He had to be able to overcome sin without His power. It was God and man who died on that cross.

Yeah, I understand all that.  But Jesus THE MAN AND THE CHRIST did not exist before he was born.  It’s a simple fucking concept.  People don’t exist before they’re born.  The three parts of God, those aren’t people.  Jesus is people.  Jesus, God made flesh, was the messiah, the Christ, the savior.  God the Son, before Jesus, was not the savior before becoming manifest as the savior.

As I stated above God is omnipresent and for Him He has existed all the time in all of time, so yes He has always been the Christ.

The iron used to make my car has existed for at least billions of years, but my car didn’t exist until much later.

I have already established that God the Son, the Christ, the Messiah and Jesus are one in the same and have always been because of God's omnipresence.

If the word “established” is defined as “repeatedly asserted my belief as fact with no supporting evidence” then yes, you’ve “established” that.

Genesis 3:15 God says to. The serpent (Satan), "l will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring (Jesus)…

Yay!  A Bible quote!  Hey, now quote me the part about what a shitbag you are if you take away or add even just ONE WORD!  You added two there!

…He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise.His heel. Here is the  time Jesus the Savior is introduced in scripture, this is long before God established the nation of Israel. The Messiah was prophesied in the OT long before He ever came to earth and the Israelites knew this and the ones who believed it were redeemed. This is why the animal sacrifices had to take place all the time, they were the substitution for Jesus the perfect sacrifice for mankind.

Now you pretend not to even understand the difference between prophecy and fulfillment of prophecy?  You’ll notice that the scripture you quoted did not contain the name “Jesus” until after you added it.  In fact, the OT doesn’t contain one mention of the name.  That’s because Jesus DID NOT EXIST YET!

Please don't think l'm trying to treat you like a child it's not my intention, my intention is to be consistent.

Oh, I know what your intention is.  It is not to cede a single point or admit you were wrong or mistaken, ever.  That’s because if you find a flaw in your beliefs you risk the whole house of cards falling down.

As l said before, it's not difficult to understand one has to understand who God is and to many leave out the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God when trying to understand Him.
I hear the word title around here all the time and I've explained it like this. A title is something many people can acquire, through birth, work, election or ect. God the Son was never born, never elected to nor had to work for the name Christ, He has for all time been Christ. A title is something many can have but, only One will ever bare the name Christ.
Look at it this way, throughout the OT God has been called by many names after man had observed the attributes of that name, that in no way means God just developed those attributes. God is unchanging He has always been all those things long before the creation. God is the only one who can be called by those names in a perfect sense because He is the only one who is perfect in those attributes. So God the Son, the Christ, the Messiah and Jesus are one and the same and have been forever.

Google “Christ definition”.  Christ was a TITLE.  It was NOT a title more than one person could “aquire”.  Jesus “Christ” WAS BORN.  I know you don’t want it to be a title because for some reason you take exception to it.  Probably you want it to “feel” more super special, not definable by ordinary means or something.  But words have actual meanings which you can look up and Christ is a title.  Argue against that all you fucking want, I’ll just look it the fuck up again and it will tell me, yet again, that it was a TITLE!

I’m sorry, I just don’t care to read any more of that.  Once you’ve demanded that a word whose definition is “the title, also treated as a name, given to Jesus of Nazareth” is NOT a title because titles are meaningless, there is just no real point in talking to you.  Your beliefs are obviously far more important to you than reality.  If we can’t even agree what reality then talking is just pointless.

[Godscreated]

---

The trinity consists of three distinct beings who are the one Godhead. I can't believe you would ask that from a Southern Baptist and I thought my statement was quite clear.

---

Again with the, “I was quite clear”.  I have already explained that I have a bad memory.  Whining when I don’t remember who you are or what particular beliefs you demand I accept as fact won’t change that.  If you have a problem with my memory take it up with Jesus.  If it were up to me I’d fucking change it.

I do not have a problem with your memory and I'm not whining. You read my post or otherwise you would not have responded to it and the information was right in front of you,no need for memory. I will say that you need somekind of memory if you are going to participate in discussions or reread a lot of posts, it's not our fault you have bad memory nor is it Jesus fault. So please quit gripping at me about your bad memory.

---

God the Son has always been Jesus, Christ and Messiah, all four names belong to the same person of the Godhead. God is omnipresent and in that has always existed all the time in all times. You're trying to separate them and that's not possible, Jesus, the Christ and the Messiah are all the same person in the trinity. You should read John 10:22-30, in verses 30 Jesus himself said, "I and the Father are one." Meaning that He is as much God as the Father is. Now that we have this established let's see why Jesus was able to be tempted. When Jesus left His place in heaven to come and fulfill the plan of salvation He had to suffer as a man and in that He had to suffer temptation. The only way this was possible was for Him to lay down His powers in heaven and not take them up again until He returned. (If you're wondering, this is in the scriptures, l do not remember which book at this time but l could find it if it were not so late.) All of the power Jesus had on earth came from the Father that's why He could do the miracles. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb and to be the perfect lamb He had to be able to overcome sin without His power. It was God and man who died on that cross.

---

Yeah, I understand all that.  But Jesus THE MAN AND THE CHRIST did not exist before he was born.  It’s a simple fucking concept.  People don’t exist before they’re born.  

You understand what? Yesterday you said all this was hard to understand and today you say it's easy to understand, please make up your mind. This Son of God has always been the Messiah' the Christ and Jesus because He is omnipresent. You do understand what omnipresent means don't you? The Son of God has existed every moment of eternity, past, present and future.

The three parts of God, those aren’t people.  Jesus is people.  Jesus, God made flesh, was the messiah, the Christ, the savior.  God the Son, before Jesus, was not the savior before becoming manifest as the savior.

If l used the word people for the trinity it was just an expression a slip of the lounge if you will. God the Son was the Messiah Savior before creation, He has always been so because of His omnipresence.

---

As I stated above God is omnipresent and for Him He has existed all the time in all of time, so yes He has always been the Christ.

---

The iron used to make my car has existed for at least billions of years, but my car didn’t exist until much later.

Now we're comparing God with iron which He created and your car which will rust away and exist no more to the everlasting Jesus. This is really a strange and unnatural thing to do seeing how Jesus is eternal. Remember Jesus himself said He was the Alpha and the Omega, meaning He has no beginning nor an end. His words not mine.

---

I have already established that God the Son, the Christ, the Messiah and Jesus are one in the same and have always been because of God's omnipresence.

---

If the word “established” is defined as “repeatedly asserted my belief as fact with no supporting evidence” then yes, you’ve “established” that.

We are discussing the God of the Bible, right. Then the Bible is where our answers will be found and I'm using the Bible to establish who God is. God is omnipresent.

---

Genesis 3:15 God says to. The serpent (Satan), "l will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring (Jesus)…

---

Yay!  A Bible quote!  Hey, now quote me the part about what a shitbag you are if you take away or add even just ONE WORD!  You added two there!

Defending your position by calling names is by the definition of your fellow atheist childish and shows lack of intelligence. Their definition not mine though I agree with it. Those two words were to clarify who God was speaking of, maybe l did not have to for you but, there are others who read these post who might not know. These silly games you play are unbecoming of you.

---

…He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise.His heel. Here is the  time Jesus the Savior is introduced in scripture, this is long before God established the nation of Israel. The Messiah was prophesied in the OT long before He ever came to earth and the Israelites knew this and the ones who believed it were redeemed. This is why the animal sacrifices had to take place all the time, they were the substitution for Jesus the perfect sacrifice for mankind.

---

Now you pretend not to even understand the difference between prophecy and fulfillment of prophecy?  You’ll notice that the scripture you quoted did not contain the name “Jesus” until after you added it.  In fact, the OT doesn’t contain one mention of the name.  That’s because Jesus DID NOT EXIST YET!

You're getting weaker in your defense of your position, I think you know Jesus was foretold through the OT, it was what the disciples used to tell about Jesus. Just because His name wasn't directly used doesn't mean He did not already exist, I'll say it again God is omnipresent He has always existed in the past, present and the future there has been no moment in all eternity He hasn't existed. Which means He has always existed as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

---

Please don't think l'm trying to treat you like a child it's not my intention, my intention is to be consistent.

---

Oh, I know what your intention is.  It is not to cede a single point or admit you were wrong or mistaken, ever.  That’s because if you find a flaw in your beliefs you risk the whole house of cards falling down.

I believe a few things Southern Baptist don't and one is what hell is, am l right maybe, am l wrong maybe, might the answer lay some where in between l do not know. Do you think that this will shake my faith if l'm wrong never. I've stated on this forum anytime that no denomination has all the right answer to God and that would include all Christians. However what we are discussing l bring my part from the scriptures and they are true statements about God. Because we are discussing God and there are no other sources about Him other than His word, it's what we have to use. Actually there may be other things I'm wrong about and if so and I'm shown positively it want break or hurt my faith. Here's why, I believe Jesus is who the Bible says He is, I accept it whole heatedly and in doing so means God has secured my salvation so I have nothing to worry about and can concentrate on telling others about the One who has redeemed me.

---

As l said before, it's not difficult to understand one has to understand who God is and to many leave out the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God when trying to understand Him.
I hear the word title around here all the time and I've explained it like this. A title is something many people can acquire, through birth, work, election or ect. God the Son was never born, never elected to nor had to work for the name Christ, He has for all time been Christ. A title is something many can have but, only One will ever bare the name Christ.
Look at it this way, throughout the OT God has been called by many names after man had observed the attributes of that name, that in no way means God just developed those attributes. God is unchanging He has always been all those things long before the creation. God is the only one who can be called by those names in a perfect sense because He is the only one who is perfect in those attributes. So God the Son, the Christ, the Messiah and Jesus are one and the same and have been forever.

---

Google “Christ definition”.  Christ was a TITLE.  It was NOT a title more than one person could “aquire”.  Jesus “Christ” WAS BORN.  I know you don’t want it to be a title because for some reason you take exception to it.

The exception is what I keep referring to and you keep ignoring, it must be you do not want to accept the truth because that would make you wrong and forbid it always that an atheist ever be wrong. The exception is this God the Son is omnipresent so all those names applied to Him have always existed in the person of God the Son.

 Probably you want it to “feel” more super special, not definable by ordinary means or something.  But words have actual meanings which you can look up and Christ is a title.  Argue against that all you fucking want, I’ll just look it the fuck up again and it will tell me, yet again, that it was a TITLE!

You can believe what you want but Christ, Jesus and the Messiah are all names given to our savior, just as God has many names, those names describe His attributes just as those names for the Son of God describe some of His attributes.

I’m sorry, I just don’t care to read any more of that.  Once you’ve demanded that a word whose definition is “the title, also treated as a name, given to Jesus of Nazareth” is NOT a title because titles are meaningless, there is just no real point in talking to you.  Your beliefs are obviously far more important to you than reality.  If we can’t even agree what reality then talking is just pointless.

I'm sorry you feel that way I've enjoyed our discussion except for the foul language you seem to find necessary to inject into the conversation and the name calling mostly referring to God as she, l do not do things like that to you or others our of respect.
I am truly sorry for your bad memory and I will do as you requested, lull pray for you, l know you were being sarcastic but l'm going to anyhow.

GC

[Asmodee]

Again with the, “I was quite clear”.  I have already explained that I have a bad memory.  Whining when I don’t remember who you are or what particular beliefs you demand I accept as fact won’t change that.  If you have a problem with my memory take it up with Jesus.  If it were up to me I’d fucking change it.

I do not have a problem with your memory and I'm not whining. You read my post or otherwise you would not have responded to it and the information was right in front of you,no need for memory. I will say that you need somekind of memory if you are going to participate in discussions or reread a lot of posts, it's not our fault you have bad memory nor is it Jesus fault. So please quit gripping at me about your bad memory.

Okay, fuck you.  Having a bad memory is a disability, bitch.  There are so many things which give the the absolute right to participate in a conversation.  The Americans With Disabilities Act and the First Amendment.  But you want to be a whiny little bitch about it.  So, all right.  Conversation over.  You're a dumb fuck who is too fucking stupid to understand the difference between "God the son" and "Jesus Christ" anyway and you prefer to invent all kinds of bullshit to keep reality from intruding into your pathetic fantasy world anyway.  Frankly I am sick of people making fun of me and putting me down for having a bad memory.  I've put up with it my entire fucking life and it's getting a little old.  But you're the first piece of shit to suggest that I have fewer rights because I have a bad memory, so kudos for that one, prick.

[Mystic]

The reason is to test us and see which one actually truly loves him, and to see who is best in action.  This world is not a perfect world as a reward, but it's a perfect world as a test, and in preparation of either reward or punishment.

The perfect world as a reward is the next world. The perfect world as a trial is this imperfect world.

Aside from that, is to increase the blessings and rank of his chosen ones, when they strive to spread his mercy and guide humanity and djinns.

He made the trial through them easy, and made the tribulations of the world and it's hardship be mixed with ease, and if we love them, big or small tribulations will not harm us but benefit us.

And if we oppose his chosen ones, no amount of blessings will benefit us nor enrich us.

He wishes to see who can recognize his name among the false faces, see his light among the darkness, and scent his holy scent among the stenches of this world.

He wishes to see who will pull out their sword of honor, and cut off their hidden enemies, the Devils.

He wishes to see who loves him enough to strive for his sake and prefers the place of proximity to him, then this temporal place of destruction.

[The Valkyrie]

I've never understood how people can justify, in their own minds, that an all powerful, all knowing deity, somehow needs to test its creations.

It KNOWS what the people are thinking, supposedly, and what their actions will be.

Testing us for our own benefit, is another argument I've encountered. Same points: it would know how the humans would respond, making any tests a complete waste of time.

[Mystic]

I've never understood how people can justify, in their own minds, that an all powerful, all knowing deity, somehow needs to test its creations.

It KNOWS what the people are thinking, supposedly, and what their actions will be.

Testing us for our own benefit, is another argument I've encountered.  Same points: it would know how the humans would respond, making any tests a complete waste of time.

[1]
I believe God knows everything that is possible to know.
I don't believe decisions made from free-will can always be known before they are made.
[2]
If the future was known to God, it would be the result of the future already happening in his eyes.
This still needs for the free-will decision to be made in that future, it would just be that God knows the future before it occurs.
This would mean we exist in past, present, future, all at once. 
This test would still need to occur and creation still needs to be created and test.
I believe in scenario 1, there are problems with scenario two, philosophically and theologically, that you are aware of some of it's difficulties, and there other difficulties with it, that I find highly problematic as well.

[Sal]

Why would a perfect being need/want to make an imperfect world with imperfect beings?

It doesn't make sense at all. Why would a perfect being make a imperfect world.

Ya'll assume that god is supposedly a good being, what if god is a dick and he likes seeing life squirm in suffering, wouldn't it then make sense for all the shit we go through?