The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?

[genkaus]

It addressed the Christian exegetical concept, God is Love, which you said was an irrational attribute. The Love of God is a psychological disposition which is experienced by the believer when they are freed (free themselves) from the structural (socio/environmental) limitations of conditioned thinking. The idea is encapsulated in the statement "Perfect love casts out fear." That is to say when a person is freed from the illusory constraints attendent to personality (values; social etiquettes) which are maintained by fear of one sort or another then the resulting consciousness is similar to that described by Buddhism as Samādhi. A compassionate, yet detached feeling of bliss or serenity.

I suggested that a great deal of confusion arises from extracting this meaning in the text because a mystical or suprarational dimension is not figured into contemporary Christian or secular exegesis. Rabbinical Judaism, however, acknowledges this latent potential in Pardes

Actually, what I said was that it was an irrational proposition - not an irrational attribute. If it was being argued that love was an attribute of god rather than being god, then that formulation would atleast make sense, however untrue it might be.

[Godscreated]

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.

You're the one who made the claim that Christians do use the word, now show me proof that Christians use this word. You have not thus far given any proof of anything you have stated period, you have failed on all accounts. you're a childish person that doesn't want to admit your wrong, If scripture does not call God benevolent then why do you believe you can use omnibenevolent to describe God?

[Dionysius]

It addressed the Christian exegetical concept, God is Love, which you said was an irrational attribute. The Love of God is a psychological disposition which is experienced by the believer when they are freed (free themselves) from the structural (socio/environmental) limitations of conditioned thinking. The idea is encapsulated in the statement "Perfect love casts out fear." That is to say when a person is freed from the illusory constraints attendent to personality (values; social etiquettes) which are maintained by fear of one sort or another then the resulting consciousness is similar to that described by Buddhism as Samādhi. A compassionate, yet detached feeling of bliss or serenity.

I suggested that a great deal of confusion arises from extracting this meaning in the text because a mystical or suprarational dimension is not figured into contemporary Christian or secular exegesis. Rabbinical Judaism, however, acknowledges this latent potential in Pardes

Actually, what I said was that it was an irrational proposition - not an irrational attribute. If it was being argued that love was an attribute of god rather than being god, then that formulation would atleast make sense, however untrue it might be.

Right, thanks for the correction.

[genkaus]

You're the one who made the claim that Christians do use the word, now show me proof that Christians use this word. You have not thus far given any proof of anything you have stated period, you have failed on all accounts. you're a childish person that doesn't want to admit your wrong, If scripture does not call God benevolent then why do you believe you can use omnibenevolent to describe God?

There you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence

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. Christians believe in the idea of unconditional love.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 NIV)

[Godscreated]

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

We get it from all the other "not-true-Christians" who keep touting the horn of god's omni-benevolence.

Proof please, I've been asking yet have not seen it, post some names and the occasions when you have seen or heard omnibenevolent used by Christians.

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.

Free-will is not something "given". If it exists, then it'd be a natural aspect of a rational mind. Therefore, any imposition or limitation on it is a violation of free-will.

You are incorrect, God never interferes with our choice of accepting Christ as our savior, this decision is totally up to us, so what else would you call this than freedom to decide to exert our will upon a situation.
The government gives you the free will on deciding to smoke or not, you're not forced one way or the other, correct? However you are not free to exercise your right to smoke anywhere you desire, you are held accountable by laws.

With these two points wrong all of it fails.

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.

Clearly, a lot of other Christians disagree with your interpretation of the scriptures.

Please support you statement, omnibenevolence has been argued against by Christians right here on this forum. You should give me evidence that a lot of other Christians disagree with me on this.

[genkaus]

Proof please, I've been asking yet have not seen it, post some names and the occasions when you have seen or heard omnibenevolent used by Christians.

Just gave it to you.

You are incorrect, God never interferes with our choice of accepting Christ as our savior, this decision is totally up to us, so what else would you call this than freedom to decide to exert our will upon a situation.
The government gives you the free will on deciding to smoke or not, you're not forced one way or the other, correct? However you are not free to exercise your right to smoke anywhere you desire, you are held accountable by laws.

Congratulations on missing the point spectacularly.

The government doesn't give free-will - we have it in our natural state. As in, if there was no government, we'd still have the freedom to smoke or not to smoke. The government - therefore - infringes upon that freedom in order to safegurad freedom of others. But then, the government never said that they wouldn't violate our free will.

Similarly, even if the baloney about Christ and god was true, then the freedom to choose Christ wouldn't need to be "given" - that's a choice we'd automatically have. That, as well as all the other choices possible. So, if you say that your god only allows us that one choice, then it means he is violating our free will in every other choice.

Please support you statement, omnibenevolence has been argued against by Christians right here on this forum. You should give me evidence that a lot of other Christians disagree with me on this.

See above. It shouldn't be my job to tell you what other Christians think - you should do some reasearch on your own. Nevertheless, I have done so.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The government gives you the free will on deciding to smoke or not, you're not forced one way or the other, correct? However you are not free to exercise your right to smoke anywhere you desire, you are held accountable by laws.

That's a poor analogy to equate GC.

State laws on smoking can be changed. Indeed, we can see the people who make the laws that affect us, lobby them, talk to them, and so on. They are tangible people, and in most countries (in democracies at least) we can vote them out of office if their decision making is disagreeable.

Smoking laws to which we must abide and are held accountable to are nothing similar to 'transcendental' divine laws that we have absolutely no say over or right of appeal against. It's the constant paradox that those who forward the idea of divine free will come up against (and often just overlook or ignore), but your analogy is incorrect unless you're saying we can vote your god out of office because we disagree with it (if it even exists, but braket that out).

[Godscreated]

You're the one who made the claim that Christians do use the word, now show me proof that Christians use this word. You have not thus far given any proof of anything you have stated period, you have failed on all accounts. you're a childish person that doesn't want to admit your wrong, If scripture does not call God benevolent then why do you believe you can use omnibenevolent to describe God?

There you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence

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. Christians believe in the idea of unconditional love.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 NIV)

To start with I do not believe that wiki is an expert on Christianity, it is only a copy of things stated whether real or not. In the above I saw no definition that God is omnibenevolent, some Christians may argue this and I eluded to this earlier but, that does not make it true, scriptures never indicate God is omnibenevolent. Benevolence: charitable nature, an act of kindness, charity. The scriptures are full of God doing such things, yet there are scriptures that tell us that God is not always charitable, nor kind in the sense of being charitable. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, God flooded the world, God drowned the Egyptian soldiers, God allowed Job's misery, these are not charitable acts, if God had been omnibenevolent He would have over looked people's ways. God is love and completely just, He's also benevolent, but not always.

---

You are incorrect, God never interferes with our choice of accepting Christ as our savior, this decision is totally up to us, so what else would you call this than freedom to decide to exert our will upon a situation.
The government gives you the free will on deciding to smoke or not, you're not forced one way or the other, correct? However you are not free to exercise your right to smoke anywhere you desire, you are held accountable by laws.

Congratulations on missing the point spectacularly.

The government doesn't give free-will - we have it in our natural state. As in, if there was no government, we'd still have the freedom to smoke or not to smoke. The government - therefore - infringes upon that freedom in order to safegurad freedom of others. But then, the government never said that they wouldn't violate our free will.

Similarly, even if the baloney about Christ and god was true, then the freedom to choose Christ wouldn't need to be "given" - that's a choice we'd automatically have. That, as well as all the other choices possible. So, if you say that your god only allows us that one choice, then it means he is violating our free will in every other choice.

You have no free will in anything but your choice of Christ, and God doesn't interfere in your free will, He asserts His will which is above the will of anyone, he will not allow your choices to interfere in His ultimate will. It is He who controls the universe.

[genkaus]

To start with I do not believe that wiki is an expert on Christianity, it is only a copy of things stated whether real or not. In the above I saw no definition that God is omnibenevolent, some Christians may argue this and I eluded to this earlier but, that does not make it true, scriptures never indicate God is omnibenevolent. Benevolence: charitable nature, an act of kindness, charity. The scriptures are full of God doing such things, yet there are scriptures that tell us that God is not always charitable, nor kind in the sense of being charitable. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, God flooded the world, God drowned the Egyptian soldiers, God allowed Job's misery, these are not charitable acts, if God had been omnibenevolent He would have over looked people's ways. God is love and completely just, He's also benevolent, but not always.

Tell me, did you receive any formal training in moving the goalposts or does it come naturally to you?

I don't need to justify whether or not your god is omnibenevolent. As far as I am concerned, all of this is imaginary. So, regarding the supposed properties of this imaginary being, I'll simply take your Christians at their word.

The wiki does not have to be an expert on Christianity to record what Christians say. And what they say is "god is omnibenevolent". And they use the given parts of scripture to justify their conclusions. If you don't agree - take it up with them. Go, have a theological debate - or declare war to convince them otherwise - I don't care. They are just two different interpretations of old and poorly written ramblings. Its between you and the other Christians to fight it out about whose interpretation is correct - I don't give a shit either way.

You asked for evidence of Christians believing god to be omnibenevolent - well, here it is. Are they justified in the belief - that's irrelevant. Their belief in god isn't justified to begin with. So, we are taking their definition at its face value and addressing all the logical problems with it. You don't think omni-benevolence should be included - then convince all other Christians that it shouldn't. And once you have, then we'll change the argument to accommodate the new definition.

You have no free will in anything but your choice of Christ, and God doesn't interfere in your free will, He asserts His will which is above the will of anyone, he will not allow your choices to interfere in His ultimate will. It is He who controls the universe.

Do you even read your arguments before posting them?

If there is no god, then I'd have free will in everything and if there is, the only free-will I have is in choosing Christ - then that means god is infringing upon my free-will. He is infringing upon my free-will when it comes to choosing my dinner, my career, my wife and so on.

[MindForgedManacle]

You're the one who made the claim that Christians do use the word, now show me proof that Christians use this word. You have not thus far given any proof of anything you have stated period, you have failed on all accounts. you're a childish person that doesn't want to admit your wrong, If scripture does not call God benevolent then why do you believe you can use omnibenevolent to describe God?

That's easy enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence:

Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning "all", and benevolent, meaning "good")[1] is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". It is often held to be impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such property alongside omniscience and omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence. The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion, mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such. Although even in said contexts the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes 'infinite benevolence'.

[...]

The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence", typically to refer to conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful" deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use phrases like "perfectly good",[2] or simply the term "benevolence". The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

And lastly:

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.

Need I quote more?

More to the point, it demonstrates that you either lied or were just ignorant that Christians HAVE used the term, regardless of if YOU do. Whether or not you use the term, or the average Christian does, is irrelevant, especially given the term is merely referring to the concept of supreme goodness.