Comments | pammalamma: "Omnibenevolence"

pammalamma

"Omnibenevolence"

Oct 25, 2010 09:24

Had a debate on how God can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I'm not sure that God is "omnibenevolent." That makes him sound like an old grandpa with his pockets full of candy. God is totally virtuous, good, and holy. God is love. That doesn't mean he never judges anyone.

Comments 12

swampfaye October 25 2010, 15:09:59 UTC

even grandpa's will smack you in the back of the head when you're being a jerk. It's not benevolent to teach children there are no bad consequnces or that you can magic them away if you wish hard enough. There are real physical consequnces to your actions (and we even sometimes get hurt by other people's actions) and to take them away would make us slaves, with no opportunity to mature.

pammalamma October 25 2010, 15:37:50 UTC

The focus was specifically on hell, and I admit I don't understand everything about hell, but I do think that for whatever I don't understand, I can trust in God's goodness.

essius October 25 2010, 17:13:29 UTC

That God is omnibenevolent is clear in the New Testament-e.g.: "…God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3-4); "The Lord…is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet 3:9). Philosophically, too, it may be proven that God wills the good for all creation, including but not limited to those beings possessed of intellect and will (Aquinas, ST I.20.2).

Since God's omnibenevolence is compatible with his perfect holiness and justice, it is unclear why we would want to deny of God this divine attribute. God wills the good of all, and wills the evil of punishment only to the extent that it is in accord with his order of justice. God never wills evil for its own sake; this is a metaphysical impossibility, a logical incoherency, and we should not understand God to be the author of moral evil or of (gratuitous) natural evil.

pammalamma October 26 2010, 06:07:47 UTC

Can you define "omnibenevolent," as you are using it?

spearweasel October 25 2010, 18:49:42 UTC

Just playing "debble's advocate" here.

I once saw a description of God and Hell as "Love me or burn for eternity", which makes God seem a bit psychopathic.

Please refute.

essius October 25 2010, 21:52:28 UTC

First, the flames of hell are, on one interpretation, metaphorical. After all, hell is also referred to as the outer darkness, which is a prima facie incompatible description.

Second, if God exists and is the Summum Bonum, then anyone who rejects God for some lesser bonum, and thus lives without that toward which his or her very nature is ordered, will be in relative torment. For God to force his infinite goodness on those that chooses to reject him, of course, would be to treat them as having purely instrumental value and not intrinsic value. Divine rape, as some defenders would put it. Of course Thomists know that God doesn't do violence to the will, not even when infusing grace into the soul-contra Calvin (or at least common interpretations of Calvin).

Third, not all signs match their signifiers!

pammalamma October 26 2010, 06:18:22 UTC

I need more on "not all signs match their signifiers."

swampfaye October 25 2010, 22:31:12 UTC

People say that about my father all the time. While he's definitely the type to kick arse, he's also the type to take kids to the playplace for lunch. If my earthly father is like that, why wouldn't my Heavenly Father be like that times two million?

Please refute.

Thread 6

spearweasel October 25 2010, 22:49:31 UTC

Second Debble's Advocate question here:

Why does God not simply provide that irrefutable, unambiguous proof of His existence, a la burning bushes, rods into snakes, manna, all that Old Testament crunchiness? We live in a doubting age with awesome special effects and CGI; A burning bush with booming echo voice saying "look up here, I'm real, and all those things I said, I meant, so cut it out" would go a long way towards making Richard Dawkins and his ilk say "oh... well, hmm. Guess I was wrong, wow."

pammalamma October 26 2010, 05:57:25 UTC

That is a very good question. Here is my attempt at an answer:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Also, "By grace are you saved, through faith--not by works, lest any man should boast."

Therefore, if we have proof that Jesus is God's son, then we cannot be saved, because we can't have faith in something we have proof for.

Now on to the miracles: Oy! The irony! Why do we not see more miracles? Then we would have faith(?) Sadly, the reason we don't see more miracles is because we don't have faith!

A Prophet Without Honor 1Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed ( ... )