“but nowhere are perfect creations described as meaning the inability to make moral choices” “
You’re torturing the language again.
So you consider a creation perfect even though you allow it to make the most vile of choices.
Would you intentionally create a Frankenstein and call that perfection?
This really points to the essence of this discussion.
It’s about the definition of terms. It’s torturing semantics to the point that words no longer have any objective, or at least agreed-to, meaning, all for the purpose of justifying an illogical and inconsistent belief system.
In that effort you are reducing yourself to absurdities like defininv perfection as perfect imperfection, loving as torture, all powerful as not all that powerful. Or to quote Orwell - War is Peace.
Seems like you should be right at home with the belief that men can get pregnant and women can have penises.
Words mean what you want them to mean to serve your purpose.
I think it might have been Socrates who said, “You can resolve any argument is 10 minutes provided you first agree on the definition of the terms”
As it stands, you and I are speaking different languages.
"Would you intentionally create a Frankenstein and call that perfection? In that effort you are reducing yourself to absurdities like defininv perfection as perfect imperfection, loving as torture, all powerful as not all that powerful. Or to quote Orwell - War is Peace." Non-sequitur. It simply does not follow that creating a being who can choose to become as a Frankenstein - misusing the gifts given him - equates to God creating a monster. By insisting on defining perfection to essentially being utterly unable to make moral choices is to impose your meaning on perfection upon what Scripture means.
"Seems like you should be right at home with the belief that men can get pregnant and women can have penises. Words mean what you want them to mean to serve your purpose. I think it might have been Socrates who said, “You can resolve any argument is 10 minutes provided you first agree on the definition of the terms” As it stands, you and I are speaking different languages."
Indeed, as you are attempting to argue against the Bible by imposing a selective meaning of perfection in order to justify your untenable rant against God, ignoring what perfection in Scripture means. While you insist on a perfection that must exclude the ability to make negative moral choices, the word not only had many shades and degrees of meaning to choose from, but as used in Scripture, it does not mean what Hal 9000 presumed it had, but in context of created beings, without blemish, often describing beings who were, at least overall, but not as if they could not choose to sin.
As obviously perfect Lucifer could:
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Ezekiel 28:14-15) Thus it remains that your argument is that a God simply could not create a being that had the perfect, non-compelled freedom and ability to choose to define, corrupt himself, without God being inconsistent with His character (aside from what your contrived meaning).
Which as explained, is simply unsustainable, unreasonable, absurd, irrational, as among lesser problems, it must of necessity require omniscience of you, to see the Big Picture, and all the knowledge of creation, of angels and men, and all his thoughts, intents, and effects of even the smallest action, not only on this life, but for eternity, and how and what it will effect via the ability and will of God. You are simply in no position to judge any omniscient, omnipotent being.