If we admit that all that comes from God/Man is Good, we have to
ask how then is the Bad that comes from God/Man also Good.
     Here is the question:

     How is the Bad that comes from God also Good?

     We asumme that God created the potential for Bad and the vehicle
for Bad, namely man, knowingly and willingly and could just as easily
decided not to have done so, He could have left Bad out of the
equation entirely.   
     Thus if only Good comes from God, we need to see the Good to this
Bad that could have been left uncreated but wasn't.
>I've written on this countless times on ACT over the years. An outline:
>What comes from God:
>God's consciousness
>God's spiritual substance
>The eternal creative Ideas/eidos
>Man as spirit made in the image of God,
>  including original awareness of the Ideas of the Good, Truth, Beauty.

     The above merely states what comes from God.  It does not even
suggest that Bad comes from God, let alone how that Bad might also be
Good or serve a good purpose, or be better off for having been created
than not.
>Evil comes from poor spiritual memory, inadequate education,
>  lack of sufficient fullness of understanding of the Good.

     This states where Bad comes from, but weasels around the question
of where poor spiritual memory, inadequate education and lack of
sufficient understanding comes from.

     It also fails to answer the question of how this Bad is also Good
in the scheme of things.
>We can choose to USE errors to learn what NOT to do,
>  to learn where the pitfalls are, and to reorient to the Good. 

     This indicates that Bad can be put to some use after the fact of
its existence, but does not answer the question of what GOOD the Bad
SERVES.  The mere fact that Bad can be used to some Good effect does
not obviate the possibility that the Bad should never have been
created in the first place, and does not show us why it was better
that Bad was created instead of not.

     What we want to know is, what good purpose the bad serves so that
it is GOOD that the bad or potential for bad was created in the first
place rather than be left uncreated.

>  This is learning the hard way, but
>  it's the best use of error when it happens.

     The best use of error does not indicate that the original
creation of error or potential for error was a good thing.

>  Better is direct knowing, spiritual recollection, and education that
>  sparks these, plus good role models and exemplars.

     This is irrelevant to what goodness there might be to bad.
>Nothing new here, this is classical Greek, mystical Christian view.

     Yes nothing new here, and AGAIN no answer to the question, as
there will NEVER be an answer to the question as you do not have one.

     Which is why you weasel with unending irrelevancies for page
after page and then blame ME for your failure.