The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?

[Doubting Thomas]

Funny how God gave us this free will and then gets pissed off at us for using it. But as I've pointed out before, what kind of free will is it when the only two choices allowed are A. Love God and B. Go to hell to be tortured for eternity. That's about the same kind of free will as "hand over the money and nobody gets hurt."

[Chas]

Mosquitoes, especially disease-bearing mosquitoes.

That's enough evidence that there is no benevolent, omnipotent god.

[Godscreated]

God is not omnibenevolent, where did you get that idea from, I know it wasn't from scriptures.

Aside from the Bible's abundant references to God's supreme goodness (far moreso in the New Testament than in the Hebrew Bible), I'm using omnibenevolence not because it's necessary for the argument,

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.

but because it is a VERY common claim by Christian apologist. Even one of the more prominent of them, Alvin Plantinga, uses the concept in his Modal Ontological Argument for God's existence under the term "all-loving". Hence, I use it.

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.

For my argument, I only need it to be the case that God wants for the people he creates to go to heaven and that his actions must be consistent with his nature.

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.

God will not violate the free will He's given us, your problem is you believe God gave free will in the whole of our lives, this is no scriptural. God gave us free will to choose Him or to reject Him, outside of that the amount of free will God allows you to have depends on His will.

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.

With these two points wrong all of it fails.

Considering the poorly thought out nature of your objections, I disagree.

The only thing poorly thought out is your original argument, it holds no water because you have self defined words to suit your argument.

---

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, the scriptures never hint at God being omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent is not part of Christianity, you will not find it in any Christian doctrine, it is a word made up by nonbelievers to try and gain an edge in an argument. The use of omnibenevolent is a dishonest way to support a dead argument.

---

Omnibenevolent merely means the same thing as "all-loving".

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. 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.

The Bible never actually uses the word "omnipotent" or "omniscient", but are you really stupidly going to claim that the Bible does NOT refer to God's unparalleled power, knowledge and goodness?
Also, unbelievers didn't make the word up, believers did (e.g. Plantinga and the like).

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.

---

God will not violate the free will He's given us, your problem is you believe god gave free will in the whole of our lives, this is no scriptural. God gave us free will to chose Him or to reject Him, outside of that the amount of free will God allows you to have depends on His will.

Omniscience and free will are incompatible.

Go stand in front of a mirror and argue with yourself, I'm tired of such old arguments that atheist will not recognize the Bible never recognizes absolute free will.

---

Funny how God gave us this free will and then gets pissed off at us for using it. But as I've pointed out before, what kind of free will is it when the only two choices allowed are A. Love God and B. Go to hell to be tortured for eternity. That's about the same kind of free will as "hand over the money and nobody gets hurt."

Making the positive choice in both situation seems to be the smart reasoning does it not.

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

[Doubting Thomas]

Funny how God gave us this free will and then gets pissed off at us for using it. But as I've pointed out before, what kind of free will is it when the only two choices allowed are A. Love God and B. Go to hell to be tortured for eternity. That's about the same kind of free will as "hand over the money and nobody gets hurt."

Making the positive choice in both situation seems to be the smart reasoning does it not.

So basically you're admitting that God is an extortionist?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Otherwise, it would seem that a Christian or Muslim would have to - if accepting the argument - come to one or more of these conclusions:

*God can violate free will.

*God doesn't posses one or more of His 'omni-' attributes.

*God doesn't intend for us to go to heaven.

*God's actions are not - or do not have to be - consistent with his nature.

GC, haven't read all you've wrote but I think you've come to 1 of the 4 conclusions listed here.

That is actually supporting evidence that the reasoning is sound.

And your idea that god wants everyone to go to heaven is not well supported or argued.

[Godscreated]

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.

Why would I need to find an out, you're the one who proposed the argument. It doesn't enhance the argument, it's being used in a dishonest way to make your argument. You're still saying that removing omnibenevolence will not hurt the argument then rewrite it without omnibenevolence. You are the one who asked for people to find fault in your proposal, if you can't take the criticism don't ask for it.

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.

I'm neither dense nor missing the point, you're the one using a word not recognized by Christians or our doctrine to describe God, you're purposely being misleading to make an argument that can't stand without your made up word. The objection is relevant, you don't like it when a Christian points out the failure of your argument. How is it you can make a relevant argument when Christians do not define God as omnibenevolent, nor is the word benevolence used in scripture to describe God. So where do you get your authority to use a word not recognized by Christianity.

Omnibenevolent MEANS the EXACT same as 'all-loving' in this context.

Benevolence does not mean love in any context, the only reason you're using it and now defending a defenseless argument is because the argument fails without your made up word.

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.)

The rock argument is childish and been defeated here several times. you need to grow up kiddo and use your brain. God's hate for sin does disqualify your made up word, benevolence would over look all sin and negate the sacrifice Christ made on our behalf.

No, because you can't actually find fault with the argument, so you're whining basically.

I'm whining, now that's funny, especially since it's your argument that has fail. You're the one pleading for special consideration for a non existent word, I've shown proof of what I've said, you on the other hand keep making claims with no proof.

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.

Ignored the argument, what have you been reading, I've shown how your argument fails with the removal of your dishonest attempt to use a word not used by scripture to describe God.

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.

Now you're being totally dishonest, you are twisting around the relevant dismissal of your argument, a childish and unreasoning maneuver to protect a failed argument. I stated exactly where your free will is and that is with one choice and one choice only, the rest of your life is not required to have free will. you might as well get over your little contradiction move, it's also irrelevant.

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 can't find the word defined in any dictionary, the only place I ever see it used is in an atheist's argument. I've never heard it used by a Christian, nor have I seen the word benevolence used in scripture to describe God, nor have I ever seen it as part of Christian doctrine. So how is it you believe you have the right to use something against the Christian belief that is not part of our belief, you're being dishonest and childish about this.

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"

I need no out, what's wrong with you, it's your failed argument not mine, you're whining about being criticized when that's exactly what you asked for, don't ask for something if you're going to reject honest criticism that has been substantiated.

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.

Your the one not listening, any Christian can say whatever they want but, that does not necessitate it being true, the truth of a Christian's statement about God needs to be verified through scripture and omnibenevolent can't. Let me say this one more time, the scriptures do not define God as benevolent. I'm not familiar with his work, you need to prove he actually used this word.

And the word IS defined. It simply refers to a being maximizing good to the furthest extent within its nature.

Where did you find it defined? If you want to make a positive argument you need to stop using negative reasoning.

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.

You've dealt with nothing, now you're getting irritated because you want realize you can't use a word to make an argument about God that scriptures do not recognize as a description of God. You have not brought any proof that God is benevolent, let lone omnibenevolent. You need to stop being childish and recognize your error or leave omnibenevolent out of your argument.

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.

Yes you did say that, however all loving does not mean omnibenevolent. I have not undermined anything I stated, I gave you the truth from the Bible which you refuse to see. You are showing exactly how little you know about scripture, ignorance of the subject will result in a failed argument. No one refers to God as omnilove do they, why I wonder. You are saying that God being all loving is the same as omnibenevolent, yet we do not find God referred to as omniloving because He hates sin. So how can omnibenevolent be compared to all loving when you yourself admits God does not love sin. This does not fit into any scale of reasoning, other than you can see truth.

You sir (or ma'am) found among the most pathetic ways to pseudo-attack the argument. Congrats.

You child have no idea how well your argument has been dismantled, you're childish act is not becoming, the argument of omnibenevolence has been argued to death on this forum and frankly I'm tired of it and apparently the rest of the Christians here are also, I stated truth through proof, you reject it, so be it, your argument still fails and no matter how much you think you're right want change the fact your argument has failed. I'm done with this, old tired arguments are just no fun.

---

Otherwise, it would seem that a Christian or Muslim would have to - if accepting the argument - come to one or more of these conclusions:

*God can violate free will.

*God doesn't posses one or more of His 'omni-' attributes.

*God doesn't intend for us to go to heaven.

*God's actions are not - or do not have to be - consistent with his nature.

GC, haven't read all you've wrote but I think you've come to 1 of the 4 conclusions listed here.

That is actually supporting evidence that the reasoning is sound.

And your idea that god wants everyone to go to heaven is not well supported or argued.

Yes I agree that God is not omnibenevolent, scriptures do not refer to Him as benevolent, let lone omnibenevolent, thus MFM's argument falls apart.
No I did not support my argument that God wants all to go to heaven, it has been argued here so much I just expected it was accepted. Paul writing to Timothy says in 1st Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
John 12:44-50 also supports this, I want type it all but I've given the verses if you wish to read them.

[Chas]

"Imperfect revelation" is redundant. There is no revelation.

[fr0d0]

P4) There have been - and still are - denominational disputes amongst God's followers - with said disputes often having to do with differing interpretations of the holy texts - and these disputes have included even what is necessary to achieve [P3] (saved by faith, saved by works, having special knowledge (ancient Gnostic Christians)).

This bit I think fails.

You're not talking about denominations, but fundamental differences as between different religions.

If you want to call gnostic Christians and non trinitarian Christians "denominations" then you have a serious misunderstanding of what denomination means.

Secondly, the Christian God never forces belief upon us. We are free agents to choose what we want/are free to act as our wills dictate. Love is not love without the freedom to choose it.

[MindForgedManacle]

GC, I'm sorry but everything you're doing has been responded in full in my last post. If you really are going to merely say that I haven't defined the word - a lie, as I, inresponse to you, stated that it is equivalent to "all-loving"- then you're hopeless to talk to.

In addition, when I called bullshit on your claim that "no Christian uses that term", you just fall back to hiding behind "any Christian can say whatever they want but, that does not necessitate it being true". Duh. My point was that Christians DO use it, regardless of if YOU do not.

P4) There have been - and still are - denominational disputes amongst God's followers - with said disputes often having to do with differing interpretations of the holy texts - and these disputes have included even what is necessary to achieve [P3] (saved by faith, saved by works, having special knowledge (ancient Gnostic Christians)).

This bit I think fails.

You're not talking about denominations, but fundamental differences as between different religions.

Er, I don't think so, but I'll hear you out since I tend to like your inputs. Since I'm specifically referring to interpretations of text(s) in question that cause fundamental conclusions with respect to salvation.

If you want to call gnostic Christians and non trinitarian Christians "denominations" then you have a serious misunderstanding of what denomination means.

Actually, not quite. What I'm referring to is differing soteriological beliefs from differing interpretations of the same wellspring. Gnostics would have been a different denomination of Christian in their own time, hence why some early church fathers felt the need to try and demonstrate that they (the Gnostics, etc.) were not of the "true" Christian faith.. But if there really is in fact a problem with using Gnostics as an example, I could simpy swap it with, say, Marcionite Christians -as their soteriology was quite different despite using most of Paul's letters and one of the Gospels- could I not?

And when did I refer to non-Trinitarians? And what in my usage of denominations here is incorrect?

Secondly, the Christian God never forces belief upon us. We are free agents to choose what we want/are free to act as our wills dictate. Love is not love without the freedom to choose it.

I said nothing about "forcing" belief on anyone. Well, lemme rephrase that. What is the difference between God revealing himself to a would-be prophet, and revealing himself to anyone else in a similar way. This is the crux of the argument. It obviously couldn't be "forcing" them to believe, so clearly it must be the case that God clearly revealing himself to people is not contrary to his nature and capability, yes?