No, i was actually referring to the Unfallen, Allmighty God, where the parable would be absolutely true.
All right guys, time to bring this facade to an end! People are starting to take my argumentation beyond what it was indended, and i have no desire to be responsible for somebody getting into theological error.
This particular line of argumentation, which is nothing but a REDUCTO AD ABSURDUM version of Marlowe's earlier question was used to illustrate Paul's admonishment of "not going beyond what is written". We have reached entirely speculative territory here that is beyond our capability of knowing. In our ignorance, we are forced into entirely artifical and/or speculative constructs such as free will, a multiple aspect to the will of God (as if we could attribute human pathology to the Allmighty God!), Evil originating with God, etc.
The fact is that we cannot know how evil came about in a "good" creation. Our Physical nature, our "Spiritual" nature, and our Mental processes are in a state of depravity. There is no facet of the being called man (or the rest of the fallen creation) that is not totally depraved. This is not the same thing as utter depravity. Were we utterly depraved we would have long ago destroyed ourselves, and the creation that we interact with.
As long as we remain in this To-be-glorified-body-of-mud, we cannot know the things of God except through the revelation of the scriptures, which God in His mercy have provided for his elect (everyone who has been, is now, and will ever be saved), as sufficient for them. Sufficient does not mean exhaustive. i suspect that even with our transformed nature when we are with the Lord, we will never be able to fully comprehend the workings of an Infinite God. The expression is:
My only message for all concerned is to "suck it up" and pull back from the precipice of speculation, and deal with what has been revealed in scripture. This grand old technique is called exegesis, or reading doctrine from or out of scripture. This speculative nonsense forces us into eisegesis, or the reading of doctrine into scripture, and a bad way to go.
i think my last couple of posts have illustrated the danger in that from both sides, and it is my hope that we can put the discussion back on track.