The Greatest possible Good part 2

Contained within the concepts and doctrinal bounds of mainstream Christianity is the idea of “The Greatest Good” this idea is not a teaching per se, but rather a common belief held by most western religions. The ‘greatest good’ is considered to be heaven –a state of absolute peace, tranquility, and happiness in the presence of God. This paradisiacal state of happiness and peace qualifies as the greatest good due to its immunity to pride and lack of evil situations, and the fact that God the father is present along with our savior Christ would further the happiness and joy that makes ‘heaven’ the ‘greatest good.’ This doctrine seems to have some validity as a possible greatest good, yet it contains a disturbing premise. That premise is inferred by the state of men in heaven. We, as held by almost all-Christian religion, exist in heaven as resurrected spiritual children of God free from all vice, and there, we will be in the act of praising our God. However, can man’s existence as a mere child in God’s presence make heaven the “greatest possible good?” The problem with attempting to answer that question is you must first consider God’s state in heaven, which is a state of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni benevolence. With that consideration you must then consider the state of men, which is a state of limited ability. Men will, according to mainstream Christianity, not be in a state like unto God, and thus, men will not be omnipotent, omniscient, or omni benevolent. If men cannot possess the greater qualities that God the father possesses, then men have a lesser good than God. Thus, heaven, for men, is not the greatest possible good.
Many theologist might attempt to refute this idea with a misconceived notion that men are fallen children of God due to the state of mortality, and that such sin has brought about unworthiness. This unworthiness is done away with by Christ, and due to that, men can only achieve a state of paradisiacal rest and tranquility, and due to there need for a savior they must remain in such a state because it is the best that a man could possibly obtain.
This refutation, apart from being confusing, it ignores an important fact –God’s omni benevolence. If God is omni benevolent, then God desires that men obtain the greatest possible good. God is omni benevolent. God must hold the greatest possible good. Ergo, God must allow men to obtain a state equal to that that he possesses.
To simplify the previous, one could say: God is all loving. Therefore, he wants men to achieve the best possible stuff. God is perfect. Therefore, he has the best possible stuff. If men are to obtain the best possible stuff, then they must obtain what God has.
To conclude, men must one day be equal to God, or at least obtain the qualities and powers that he obtains in order for men to truly obtain a greater good. Furthermore, it seems to bring into question God’s omni benevolence if men cannot obtain what he has. This is because if God wishes that men have not what he has, then God is acting selfish or prideful –making God malevolent.