Thanks for your kind and fair review. I’m happy that you found some aspects winsome, even if you were not able to buy into it all.
I thought I’d post a few quick comments, in hopes that my comments might provide further clarity.
On the issue of God’s necessarily loving but having choices in how to love, see chapter 7 in the book. In my view, we have no choice but to be human, because our natures are human, and yet we choose how we will act as human. Analogously, God has no choice but to be a loving God, and so God must love. But God freely chooses HOW God will love in each moment. I also explain this in my book, The Nature of Love.
As far as your argument about God being able to create creatures whose nature is love, I’d say only deity has a loving nature. And God cannot create other deities, given that God is the one and only.
I like your analogy of the woman/God. In The Nature of Love, I ask the reader to answer some diagnostic questions. Rather than refer you to that book again, though, here’s the gist of the argument in a short blog essay about God’s necessary love for us. I’d love to hear your response: http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/an_open_god_that_necessarily_loves_us
Thanks for your compliments on how I handle scripture. I was surprised that you offered Annanias and Sapphira as a counter example, however. That passage says NOTHING about God striking them dead. That’s an inference many place on the passage, but it’s not a necessary inference.
As for the Fall, you’re right that I should have addressed this more. In my view, the Fall is a way to talk about creation gone awry. And that includes addressing evil caused by randomness at the micro levels.
Thanks again for your generous tone. I hope my response at least sheds further light on my arguments, even if you don’t find them finally convincing.