(July 11, 2013 at 11:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: If it's as you say "not necessary for the argument," then remove it from the argument and let's see where the argument stands.
What would be the point? It enhances the argument to refer to God's loving nature, but it doesn't HAVE to be in the argument. In other words, you're simply trying to find an out.
Quote:It's not used here by Christians and I know very many Christians and they do not use it, it's not a word as in a dictionary that I have seen. The word benevolence is found once in scripture in the KJV all recent translations use the proper translation, a husbands duty, in one form or the other. You did not use all-loving, and using omnibenevolent does not carry the same meaning. God hates sin, so where are yu trying to carry the meaning of all-loving.
Okay, either you're being VERY dense, or you're missing the point. Not being used "by Christians here" is both irrelevant and a stupid objection. First off, there is such a thing as actually looking at the make-up of a word to determine its meaning, nor is every word not in a dictionary not a word.
Omnibenevolent MEANS the EXACT same as 'all-loving' in this context. Furthermore, God being unable to love sin does NOT undermine the word. Unless you are going to be consistent and say, by the same 'logic', that God is NOT omnipotent because he cannot do absolutely anything? (e.g. Make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, etc.) No, because you can't actually find fault with the argument, so you're whining basically.
Quote:He does want everyone to go to heaven, and His actions show this, however he does not force anyone to choose Christ, so your use of omnibenvolent and your argument fail.
I didn't say he forced anything. You simply are ignoring te argument out of conveinence.
Quote:MFM Wrote:It isn't really "free will" if it's 'given' to you, and can be reneged by God. That's "will-insofar-as-I-allow-it", i.e NOT free.
God does not renege on the free will you have, you are free to choose Christ or to reject Christ, God never forces this decision, it is totally ours to act upon. Where did I say God reneges on this choice. God has never promised the rest of your life is lived in total free will, the scriptures support this through out.
You JUST said that God could renege on free will, and that he does NOT give us free will 'our whole lives'. Contradiction.
GC Wrote:The only thing poorly thought out is your original argument, it holds no water because you have self defined words to suit your argument.
WRONG. I self-defined no word, considering actual Christian apologists created and defined it, nor did my argument necessitate it.
You simply tried to find an out because you couldn't actually find fault with the argument, and instead went down this path of "YOU MADE UP A WORD!!!11"
GC Wrote:No it does not, omnibenevolent is not a defined word, it is not a word used by Christians nor is it part of Christian doctrine
Do you not listen? I SPECIFICALLY noted that Alvin Plantinga, a well-known Christian apologist, uses the term in his Ontological argument. And the word IS defined. It simply refers to a being maximizing good to the furthest extent within its nature.
Quote:Instead of inserting a word into your argument that is not recognized by the Christian community or it's doctrine is not honest, your deceit is to discredit Christianity through a dishonest means. The word benevolent is not used in scripture.
Sorry, but you are being a dunce, and I've dealt with EVERY one of those inane, irrelevant, and whining claims repeatedly above.
Quote:You're correct the Bible does not us those words, they were not a part of that language, they are much more recent words. However the Bible and God say He's all-powerful and all-knowing, it also says that God loves everyone, it also says He disciplines those He loves. Discipline and benevolence are not alike, discipline is punishment and benevolence is charity and God is not always charitable.
Which completely undermines your idiotic claim of "the words not being in the Bible", because the Bible refers to God's all-loving nature, with regard to everything but sin, as I noted.
You sir (or ma'am) found among the most pathetic ways to pseudo-attack the argument. Congrats.
