Avoiding questions

[Drich]

You also have a set view of Christianity. Just because you believe it does not automatically make your interpretation better.

Actually no, my 'view' changes with what I learn in study and in answering your questions. I have changed my 'views' several times on several key doctrines just to make sure my views did not contradict something the bible says.

So wait...most Christians disagree with you, but you are still right?

Just by sheer numbers the roman catholic church has the largest volume of 'christian' believers. These believers Look to the pope for answers and not the bible. Because according to the pope he is embodyment of the role the Apstole Peter had as the 'Holy father of the Church' and all rights, privliages, and power Peter had as an apstole. Which mean he has the power and authority to change what the bible says. So if the bible and the pope were ever to contradict the pope's 'new revelation' would superceed the bible.

So, long story short Yes I am right and 'Most' of christianity is wrong about repersenting biblical Christianity in this matter. Why? Again because most of christianity submits to the pope understanding of christianity, and Christians who use the bible (like myself) do not.

So I'm guessing that this is invalid too, then? [quote=wikipedia]The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of the Lord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." This understanding is evident in the following statement by the First Vatican Council[original research?]:


The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[3]

The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[4]

Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence.

Yuup wrong. One more time the reason why is because this whole mess is predicated on the power and authority the man running the R/C Church supposedly has to change doctrine.

To be honest, I agree with you that god is not omni-benevolent. But I do not think that this is for the same reason you do. Even if the bible had explicitly called god omni-benevolent, that would be contrary to all other evidence.

That is what i based my assertion off of. It plainly list or calls out the men God hated. Essau, Pharroh, Judas I think their are acouple more beside all of those He wiped out in sodom and Gorrmorah and in the Great flood. But even if their was one name on that List, God is shown to not be Omni-benevolent. End of arguement unless one believes the pope can change the bible to match a current R/C doctrine.

Hmmm, no. Avoiding the question is avoiding the question. Responding to the original question with "god is not omni-benevolent, and nowhere does it say he was" is not really dodging anything. Sometimes, you may be accused of dodging a question when, although you technically respond to it, you miss the whole point.

The reason for 'missing the point' is to show that you have built your rational on a false or fault premise. If I show you where we should be in this conversation then everything else can be dismissed as logical fallacy.

Here is an example:

Agreed, now before you glance over and dismiss everything i am going to say here honestly look at what I am saying. It is not to write you off, but to correct your theology to reflect what the bible says:

God sends people to infinite torture for finite crimes.

Here is a prime example. How do you know the crimes/sins are finite? Is it because it only took a moment to commit them? Do you not count consenquence as being apart of sin? Appreantly not. Sin seperates one from God as a consenquence. as your body will be immortal your consenquence must also echo for an eternity.
So Here sins are shown Not to be Finite. If you take a biblical view of them that includes the ever present consenquence of sin.

Therefore god is unjust.

Unjust by who's standard? The man who want to keep his sin, And benfit from heaven as well? If this is your measure then I will gladly agree. God for that man is 'unjust.' But so what? who is he to complain. This man had the same oppertunity and judgement I had.