 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 5:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message
pneumatika
04/19/01 8:45 AM
Omnibenevolence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belief in the omnibenevolence of God seems to be one of the core doctrines of classical free will theism (the OV) as well as process theism and classical Arminianism. I have never formally studied on the topic of the omnibenevolence of God and would like to do so.
Could anyone recomend classical theists who have written on this? I do not see any difficulty in compatibilism or classical/Reformed Calvinsim agreeing with omnibenevolence, but I would like to study it first from a classical theistic perspective (preferably by someone who believes in meticulous predestination) and then refer to what process theists and classical free will theists have said regarding the necessity of the omnibenevolence of God.
Any suggestions?
--that Pneumatika guy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
pneumatika
04/27/01 1:15 PM
What does Omnibenevolence involve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still trying to learn exactly what omnibenevolence involves, or at least omnibenevolence as the OV understands it.
Does omnibenevolence necessarily become universalism in that it requires omni-mercifulness?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
04/27/01 6:28 PM
RE: What does Omnibenevolence involve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my impression (though not my research conclusion) that the Christian tradition has always assumed the omnibenevolence of God. I personally know of no Christian theologian who has ever denied it -- including Calvin, despite his admittion that there was a "horrible decree" in the inner counsel of God. THAT God is all good has been accepted by all (I believe). WHAT this entails is where the disagreement occurs.
For my part, I don't know what it means to say that God is "all good" -- PERFECTLY good -- unless it at least entails that GOD ALWAYS WORKS TO BRING ABOUT THE MOST GOOD POSSIBLE. What else could "all good" mean?
I appreciate the consistency of Mephi who believes God ordains all things, including evil, and who therefore admits that he doesn't believe in the omnibenevolence of God. I find this logical consistency refreshing and laudable. What I can't understand is how people who affirm that God is omnibenevolent nevertheless hold that God ordains all things -- including (e.g.) the kidnapping, molestation and torture of a young child for years leading up to her execution -- all the while the parents wondering, till they finally her of her terrorized fate. IOn this view, the all good God could have ordained anything, and if he's all good he must ordain the best thing... and this is it!!!??
The reply, of course, is that we don't understand God's "goodness." If this ordained event is in any sense "good," than we certainly don't.
Given the reality of a world full of nightmarish terror, I cannot see how the omnibenevolence of God can be affirmed without granting that there are wills that can thwart God's (all good) will. God is good, all the time. He works for the good, all the time. But there are wills other than God, human and angelic, that work to thwart this all good will.
Still on leave
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/28/01 9:44 AM
RE: RE: What does Omnibenevolence involve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to quickly add that, while I too appreciate Mephi's want of consistancy in the nature of God ordaining all things and not being omnibenevolent, I think, at times, in his philsophy consistancy seems to me more important than biblical truth. Granted we want to strive to be as consistant as possible, but, at the same time, I think it is equally important to recognize that there are "seeming" paradoxes in scripture that are hard to resolve. That granted, I personally, find it hard to believe God would command us to do things that he, himself, is not bound to. I believe the nature of wanting to be good, is grounded in us all because we are made in the image of God, who is good. It makes little sense to strive to be good if the foundation for our lives is "beyond" such a good. If the vast majority of Christians truly believed that God was beyond both good and evil (in other words, given his power, God can do anything, his justification being, well, I'm God, so too bad), then there would be little reason to do anything because how can one really truly believe such a god cares whether we do such things? Actually, I see little difference bewteen that and the reformed position of ordaining all things. I simply see Mephi's position as the logical outworkings of such a view (I still believe Mephi is a closet calvinist who just doesn't want to admit it). We love because God first loved us and because, at our core, we believe God is good and we want to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
04/29/01 6:05 PM
Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVM: Conceived of this over the past 2 days while studying for my test I have tomorrow. I've posted it on some other sites too, with a few alterations. Y'all are my favorite peeps, so I put this notice here. Trying to see what kind of response this gets. I'll check back on Thursday, hopefully. Figured if I posted it now, I'd have some good stuff to check on then. Doc, put a sledgehammer to this, okay? Peace.
Note To Reader: The following is an exercise in philosophical theologizing. Fun stuff. Thought of it while studying. If you don't like that type of thing, please don't raise your blood pressure reading it. If you do like this type of stuff, place on your thinking caps and, afterwards, knock this whole argument on its back!
Definition
Omnibenevolence - The emotional and psychological disposition in which a Being constantly exerts the maximum amount of energy allowable for said Being in order to promote the highest possible level of "goodness" for the most possible and actual entities within the reasonable influence of said Being. This happens such that there is NEVER a selfish thought, feeling, or action that does not stem from a ontological limitation of that being.
Let me unpack this.
**********************************
Givens
For any omnibenevolent being X:
1. X will always work for good. X will never promote evil unnecessarily.
2. X cannot HELP but work for good. Doing any evil would be against X's nature.
3. X will constantly work at the HIGHEST LEVEL possible to eliminate all vestiges of evil.
4. X will consider ALL entities within it's reasonable sphere of influence. This entails that their is no selectivity with regard to certain entities. X takes ALL possible and actual entities into consideration
5. X, by definition, can NEVER have a primarily self-centered thought or corresponding act of will UNLESS that thought emerges from an implicit necessary LIMITATION created need in X. (This is similar to the "martyr morality" complex) In other words, all actions of X would be ALTRUISTIC.
6. X will ALWAYS place the concern of others ABOVE their own concerns. X can never make an arbitrary decision based on X's own pure desire. X can never make a decision that PRIMARILY emphasizes X's own desire.
Finally, we positing the following given...
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, triune God seen in the Bible is OMNIBENEVOLENT.
*******************************
Assertions
I submit that, before Creation, the Triune God was such that there need not have been a necessary God-world relation. There was suffient love exchange and mutuality in the Trinity that Creation was NOT necessary for God to exhibit his Divine love. (See Doc's work on trinitarian sociality in "Trinity And Process") At this state of reality, God possessed omnipotence such that he has 100% "say-so" on all things. Moreover, God had all knowledge on ALL possibilities eternally. The preceding elements negate the fact that, pre-Creation, God had any NECESSARY limitations except his nature, with respect to creation. This is VERY important.
Next, I submit that God created existence in general and human beings in particular for PRIMARILY, if not SOLELY, self-centered reasons. Either he:
1. wanted other beings to which he could show his glory
2. wanted to lavish his triune love on creation
3. wanted to interact with free-willed beings.
or a combination of the above. This violates Given #5 above. Because God didn't NEED creation to exhibit his divine love, we can say that the reasoning behind God's creation was because of HIS ultimate desire that brought about an ARBITRARY decion to create.
I also submit that, before the time of Creation, God was completely cognizant of the fact that human beings could have chosen against to their ULTIMATE detriment (Fill in whatever concept of "hell" or "punishment" you wish) possibly including eternal separation from God. This is evidenced by Jesus being the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Obviously, God had DETERMINED to save humanity, in case the Fall did happen. Moreover, he knew there was a high probability that some would not accept his salvation. This violates Givens #4 and #6. God did not consider the highest well being for ALL sentient beings within his sphere of influence.
Finally, I submit that by creating at ALL, God did not promote the highest level of "good" for all POSSIBLE beings. This contradicts #4.
******************************
Tentative Conclusion
IF my defintion of omnibenevolence and givens are accepted, then I believe that the thinking above indicates that the Biblical God, who creates free-willed sentient beings ex-nihilo from no internal NEED whatsoever, CANNOT be omnibenevolent. The Biblical God can show loving and good disposition, but cannot be omnibenevolent, as it has been defined.
****************************
Possible Objections
To argue contra this, it must be cogently argued that non-existence is WORSE than facing the wrath of God, in any conception. The reason being is that one could argue the God believes the highest level of good to be EXISTENCE, that is BEING. Thus, God would say that existing . But if this is the case, then process theology is correct. In order for God to completely actualize his divine love, there would be a NECESSARY God-world relationship. Given the definition of omnibenevolence above, for God to value other potential entities with the HIGHEST concept of good, it would have to be stated that God, OF NECESSITY, created so that the other potential beings could have existence. This is incompatible with open view theism.
To argue contra this, it must be cogently argued that God's choice to create was COMPLETLY altruistic. This means that God created creation for NO purposes of his own. One has to say that God created creation for its OWN intrinsic sake. However, if God was truly thinking solely about his creation, would an omnibenevolent God create while, in OMNISCIENCE, knowing the vast possibilities of evil, death, and despair. One would have to reconcile God's completly altruistic disposition with God's cognizance of the potential emergence of evil.
It could be said that God thought that human beings with libertarian freedom was worth the risk. However, it must be shown how this "risk" on God's part can incorporate Givens #3-6. You have to show you this "risk" decision wasn't PRIMARILY based on God's arbitrary decision to wish to create.
****************************
Again, IF my defintion of omnibenevolence and givens are accepted, then believe that the thinking above indicates that the Biblical God, who creates free-willed sentient beings ex-nihilo from no internal NEED whatsoever, CANNOT be omnibenevolent. I would like some good answers to this. I ask that you please deal with the subjects above, without any extraneous, ad hominem, or like material. I also ask that you please state your argumentation logically and consistently. Thanks
Sir Mephistopheles 2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/29/01 8:21 PM
RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Mephi, I have to be honest and said your post made me laugh. You so easily proved what I had just posted that it made me feel very good (not meaning to be rude or anything...if I am, sorry). None of what you just posted is at all biblical, as such, but rather your own conjucture as to why you feel God did something...not unlike Calvin's hidden will of God or Luther's and Tillach's God behind the God.
Therefore, you have consistantly proved my point: you value philosphical reasoning for your view of God over biblical truth. I do think it is important to remember that Christians believe what they believe about God because, first off, the Bible teaches, and not neccessary because it is the most consistant view. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/30/01 9:43 AM
RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi: I did want to make the further point that, for all practical purposes, you have basically created an unreliable god who cannot be counted on. Given that we trust people because we believe that they have our best interests in mind, a god who is beyond good and evil is a god without hope for the average person. The trusting in the basic goodness of God is at the core of believing that God will care for us regardless of what is happening in our lives and around us. This is at the core of faith in God (not to mention it almost defies logic to somehow believe this god who is beyond good and evil would somehow reach out in such a selfless act as dying for us).
Finally, I think we all should pause and think about those within our society who truly believe they are beyond good and evil. Do we admire them? No, for they are known as sociopaths...and that is precisely what your god ends up being. Maybe wiser (but hey Hannibal Lecter is very wise), but still bound only by what he wants to do, not by any sense of good. What a scary thought! John 17:3 Harold
PS. It should be noted that, from my view of your posting and your consistant need to refute open theism (notice the underlining in your last post) has brought you a god that is not really worthy of trust, let alone worship...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
04/30/01 2:22 PM
RE: RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph asks: I would like some good answers to this. I ask that you please deal with the subjects above, without any extraneous, ad hominem, or like material.
writerdad responds: Actually, Mephi, I have to be honest and said your post made me laugh.
GDG says: I don't agree with Mephi, but I think his requests ought to be respected and his challenges taken seriously.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
04/30/01 7:58 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG said: "I think his requests ought to be respected and his challenges taken seriously."
I agree with you, GDG. I am looking forward to some good responses to Memphi's post.
Peace,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
04/30/01 8:29 PM
HERETIC ALERT!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second incarnation of the Omnibenevolence of God question
M2K says:
I ask that you please deal with the subjects above, without any extraneous, ad hominem, or like material. I also ask that you please state your argumentation logically and consistently. Thanks
Me talks:
Since I would like to touch on the same topics that you raised (thankfully) but lack the time to rigorously interact with your material and I would like to reserve the right to be extraneous, use ad hominems and the like I’ve decided to resurrect your question in a slightly different way and hopefully give Writerdad a run for his money on the Biblical stuff. I hope you will forgive me. The first half is dealing directly with your post but the second is my own stuff.
Mephi—I think that where you went wrong was in your definition of omnibenevolence. Three points need to be made.
First omnibenevolence is not merely unselfishness. It is true that ‘Love seeks not its own.’ But the mystery of omnibenevolence is wrapped up in the mystery of the ontological relationships between the three persons of the trinity. As you said, there was enough love to go around before creation. God’s living/loving-for-the-Other is Christ’s love for His Father, the Father’s love for the Spirit, the Spirits love for the Son (depending on your take on the Trinity. Some say that the Spirit ‘is’ the love between Father and Son). C.S. Lewis points out wonderfully in the beginning passages of his essay “The Weight of Glory” that unselfishness has wrongly usurped Love as the chief virtue. This should not be. When omnibenevolence is framed as altruism characterized by unselfishness a whole host of problems come up. For starters how can any gift be given without inaugurating an economy relationship characterized by debt? Some really interesting things are currently being written on this stuff, especially in the context religion, but it is fundamentally flawed none the less. Unless you can explain the Trinity and thus out-think all of Church history, you will not be able to explain omnibenevolence.
Second your attempt at a definition in words was, I must agree with Writerdad, worth a chuckle. Not because you weren’t serious or because I’m not taking you serious, but because I believe definitions like this are simply too abstract. Omnibenevolence (hereafter refereed to as ‘Love’ with a capital ‘L’). Love is the most concrete thing there is. At the end of “Sophie’s World” Gaarder describes how fairy tale characters can simply ‘walk through’ solid objects in the ‘real’ world because they are more real than the world itself. The real world is as a vapor to them. It is the same way with Love. Love is more real than this world, which is to say it is more concretely real. It walks through this world, and the evil in it, as if through a vapor. Abstract definitions simply don’t cut it. The good Doctor demonstrated this very well in the intro and first chapter of “God at War.” Just as we need concrete examples of evil when discussing evil, we need concrete examples of Love when discussing omnibenevolence. I might suggest a story. Perhaps one involving a man, who was more than a man, who died on a cross etc, etc. But unlike the altruistic reading of this story which focuses on how Christ was willing to sacrifice Himself for the world and this is the model of Love, I would like to suggest that a truer read would be to concentrate on the power of such a Love that is able to raise him from the dead. Song of Songs 8:6 type stuff. “The Princess Bride” type stuff. This is my 2$ when it comes to concrete definitions. We all know the power of death—well Love is like that, only more buff. (buffer ?)
Thirdly you said:
I submit that God created existence in general and human beings in particular for PRIMARILY, if not SOLELY, self-centered reasons. Either he:
1. wanted other beings to which he could show his glory
2. wanted to lavish his triune love on creation
3. wanted to interact with free-willed beings.
or a combination of the above. This violates Given #5 above. Because God didn't NEED creation to exhibit his divine love, we can say that the reasoning behind God's creation was because of HIS ultimate desire that brought about an ARBITRARY decion to create.
Me says:
Not so my dear anonymous internet friend. Sharing is a natural result of Love. God is Love, God was busy knocking Love around inside the Trinity when out of Love He recognized that what he had was marvelous. Mother Teresa says this: “People who love each other fully and truly are the happiest people in the world. They may have little, they may have nothing but they are happy people, Everything depends on how we love one another.” God was like two young lovers making love in a two room flat. What they had was beautiful—the best stuff there is. Wouldn’t you want to share this? Haven’t you felt a Love that wanted to overspill? Creation was not arbitrary. Existence is most definitely better than non-existence when the question is framed like this. What do you think? Have I made the transition from pessimistic cynic to wide-eyed romantic too quickly? Should I swing back for a little bit? Do I have a reach big enough to embrace both?
The cynical stuff (this is for Writerdad and all the people who like the Bible)
Is the God of the Bible Omnibenevolent?
I say that we look at what God actually did and not what he claims about himself. What Yahweh did in the Old Testament seems anything but benevolent. Genocide, child-like behavior, all around mean spiritedness. If this is what Omnibenevolence is that what could we possibly mean by this? The God of the Old Testament is an Omni-violent God not an Omnibenevolent one (am I clever or what?).
Is Jesus Omnibenevolent?
Sure, I can buy this. Based on what he actually did I have little problem in using his life as a definition for omnibenevolance.
Is the Spirit Omnibenevolent?
This is hard to say since we can’t see her and her only recommendations come from Jesus (trustworthy) and Yahweh (lets just say he is not the most trustworthy source).
So my challenge to all those who, like myself, have invested themselves in the impossible possibility that omnibenevolence is real is this: how do you reconcile the concept of Omnibenevolance with a dude like Yahweh? Wouldn’t it be easier to defend Omnibenevolance if we didn’t have to cover this guy’s butt? Shouldn’t we just throw him out and keep his PR guy—you know the good one? Or does the whole ‘when you see me you see the Father’ business mean we have to throw out Him too because He is just a front/façade for all the dirty work? Am I flirting with damnation or what?
But all caricaturing exaggerations aside, writerdad’s plea to pull the question of omnibenevolence back to the Bible only makes the problem worse to me. The best defense for omnibenevolence is the philosophical one. It is when we have to square this with what I can only describe as the demonic actions of Yahweh that the whole gig is up. The Bible poses a much larger threat to omnibenevolence than anything else does.
Bellybutton lint
–Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
glamdring777
04/30/01 11:01 PM
RE: Omnibenevolence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi wrote:
Next, I submit that God created existence in general and human beings in particular for PRIMARILY, if not SOLELY, self-centered reasons. Either he:
1. wanted other beings to which he could show his glory
2. wanted to lavish his triune love on creation
3. wanted to interact with free-willed beings.
I say:
I believe God created existance in general and human beings in particular for primarily and solely good reasons.
1. Wanted other beings to share his glory
2. Wanted creation to partake of his triune love
3. Wanted to give beings the opportunity to love and therefore gave them free will
Since I disagree with your beginning assertions it follows I don't agree with your conclusions. God created out of a desire to GIVE and to SHARE not a desire to fulfill his own needs.
la vida es dulce
glow with it
glamdring
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/30/01 11:08 PM
RE: HERETIC ALERT!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa: I am not saying that there is not a good defense for the monibenevolence of God philosophically, but rather my point was that, since Mephi claims to be a Christian I would like to see him make his point scripturally, because that is where Christians claim there is a final truth. I hope I have not run your question off course. If so, I apologize.
I would add that there is a good chapter in Lee Strobel's a CAse For Faith book on the topic of the things God did in the Old Testament. I would check it out (it treats it quick, but gives a person the meat of the argument). I will say this: I believe God has the right to judge evil and the civilizations that God had the Israelities destroy by and large were grossly evil. I do not understand all that God has done but I believe Jesus came to show us what God is like and that is how we should see God. Plus, much of the Old Testament portrays God as longsuffering, etc. God waits and warns before passing judgment. I don't know if this will help. This is just a quick jotting down of thoughts. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/30/01 11:11 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG: I will not apologize for my statement because Mephi's post made me laugh because, for me, it so proved the point I had just made. I take everything (aside from obvious jokes) seriously. Besides, I believe Mephi is use to the jabs and punches of this board enough not to need defending...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Message
pneumatika
04/19/01 8:45 AM
Omnibenevolence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belief in the omnibenevolence of God seems to be one of the core doctrines of classical free will theism (the OV) as well as process theism and classical Arminianism. I have never formally studied on the topic of the omnibenevolence of God and would like to do so.
Could anyone recomend classical theists who have written on this? I do not see any difficulty in compatibilism or classical/Reformed Calvinsim agreeing with omnibenevolence, but I would like to study it first from a classical theistic perspective (preferably by someone who believes in meticulous predestination) and then refer to what process theists and classical free will theists have said regarding the necessity of the omnibenevolence of God.
Any suggestions?
--that Pneumatika guy
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
pneumatika
04/27/01 1:15 PM
What does Omnibenevolence involve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still trying to learn exactly what omnibenevolence involves, or at least omnibenevolence as the OV understands it.
Does omnibenevolence necessarily become universalism in that it requires omni-mercifulness?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
04/27/01 6:28 PM
RE: What does Omnibenevolence involve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my impression (though not my research conclusion) that the Christian tradition has always assumed the omnibenevolence of God. I personally know of no Christian theologian who has ever denied it -- including Calvin, despite his admittion that there was a "horrible decree" in the inner counsel of God. THAT God is all good has been accepted by all (I believe). WHAT this entails is where the disagreement occurs.
For my part, I don't know what it means to say that God is "all good" -- PERFECTLY good -- unless it at least entails that GOD ALWAYS WORKS TO BRING ABOUT THE MOST GOOD POSSIBLE. What else could "all good" mean?
I appreciate the consistency of Mephi who believes God ordains all things, including evil, and who therefore admits that he doesn't believe in the omnibenevolence of God. I find this logical consistency refreshing and laudable. What I can't understand is how people who affirm that God is omnibenevolent nevertheless hold that God ordains all things -- including (e.g.) the kidnapping, molestation and torture of a young child for years leading up to her execution -- all the while the parents wondering, till they finally her of her terrorized fate. IOn this view, the all good God could have ordained anything, and if he's all good he must ordain the best thing... and this is it!!!??
The reply, of course, is that we don't understand God's "goodness." If this ordained event is in any sense "good," than we certainly don't.
Given the reality of a world full of nightmarish terror, I cannot see how the omnibenevolence of God can be affirmed without granting that there are wills that can thwart God's (all good) will. God is good, all the time. He works for the good, all the time. But there are wills other than God, human and angelic, that work to thwart this all good will.
Still on leave
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/28/01 9:44 AM
RE: RE: What does Omnibenevolence involve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to quickly add that, while I too appreciate Mephi's want of consistancy in the nature of God ordaining all things and not being omnibenevolent, I think, at times, in his philsophy consistancy seems to me more important than biblical truth. Granted we want to strive to be as consistant as possible, but, at the same time, I think it is equally important to recognize that there are "seeming" paradoxes in scripture that are hard to resolve. That granted, I personally, find it hard to believe God would command us to do things that he, himself, is not bound to. I believe the nature of wanting to be good, is grounded in us all because we are made in the image of God, who is good. It makes little sense to strive to be good if the foundation for our lives is "beyond" such a good. If the vast majority of Christians truly believed that God was beyond both good and evil (in other words, given his power, God can do anything, his justification being, well, I'm God, so too bad), then there would be little reason to do anything because how can one really truly believe such a god cares whether we do such things? Actually, I see little difference bewteen that and the reformed position of ordaining all things. I simply see Mephi's position as the logical outworkings of such a view (I still believe Mephi is a closet calvinist who just doesn't want to admit it). We love because God first loved us and because, at our core, we believe God is good and we want to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect." John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
04/29/01 6:05 PM
Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVM: Conceived of this over the past 2 days while studying for my test I have tomorrow. I've posted it on some other sites too, with a few alterations. Y'all are my favorite peeps, so I put this notice here. Trying to see what kind of response this gets. I'll check back on Thursday, hopefully. Figured if I posted it now, I'd have some good stuff to check on then. Doc, put a sledgehammer to this, okay? Peace.
Note To Reader: The following is an exercise in philosophical theologizing. Fun stuff. Thought of it while studying. If you don't like that type of thing, please don't raise your blood pressure reading it. If you do like this type of stuff, place on your thinking caps and, afterwards, knock this whole argument on its back!
Definition
Omnibenevolence - The emotional and psychological disposition in which a Being constantly exerts the maximum amount of energy allowable for said Being in order to promote the highest possible level of "goodness" for the most possible and actual entities within the reasonable influence of said Being. This happens such that there is NEVER a selfish thought, feeling, or action that does not stem from a ontological limitation of that being.
Let me unpack this.
**********************************
Givens
For any omnibenevolent being X:
1. X will always work for good. X will never promote evil unnecessarily.
2. X cannot HELP but work for good. Doing any evil would be against X's nature.
3. X will constantly work at the HIGHEST LEVEL possible to eliminate all vestiges of evil.
4. X will consider ALL entities within it's reasonable sphere of influence. This entails that their is no selectivity with regard to certain entities. X takes ALL possible and actual entities into consideration
5. X, by definition, can NEVER have a primarily self-centered thought or corresponding act of will UNLESS that thought emerges from an implicit necessary LIMITATION created need in X. (This is similar to the "martyr morality" complex) In other words, all actions of X would be ALTRUISTIC.
6. X will ALWAYS place the concern of others ABOVE their own concerns. X can never make an arbitrary decision based on X's own pure desire. X can never make a decision that PRIMARILY emphasizes X's own desire.
Finally, we positing the following given...
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, triune God seen in the Bible is OMNIBENEVOLENT.
*******************************
Assertions
I submit that, before Creation, the Triune God was such that there need not have been a necessary God-world relation. There was suffient love exchange and mutuality in the Trinity that Creation was NOT necessary for God to exhibit his Divine love. (See Doc's work on trinitarian sociality in "Trinity And Process") At this state of reality, God possessed omnipotence such that he has 100% "say-so" on all things. Moreover, God had all knowledge on ALL possibilities eternally. The preceding elements negate the fact that, pre-Creation, God had any NECESSARY limitations except his nature, with respect to creation. This is VERY important.
Next, I submit that God created existence in general and human beings in particular for PRIMARILY, if not SOLELY, self-centered reasons. Either he:
1. wanted other beings to which he could show his glory
2. wanted to lavish his triune love on creation
3. wanted to interact with free-willed beings.
or a combination of the above. This violates Given #5 above. Because God didn't NEED creation to exhibit his divine love, we can say that the reasoning behind God's creation was because of HIS ultimate desire that brought about an ARBITRARY decion to create.
I also submit that, before the time of Creation, God was completely cognizant of the fact that human beings could have chosen against to their ULTIMATE detriment (Fill in whatever concept of "hell" or "punishment" you wish) possibly including eternal separation from God. This is evidenced by Jesus being the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Obviously, God had DETERMINED to save humanity, in case the Fall did happen. Moreover, he knew there was a high probability that some would not accept his salvation. This violates Givens #4 and #6. God did not consider the highest well being for ALL sentient beings within his sphere of influence.
Finally, I submit that by creating at ALL, God did not promote the highest level of "good" for all POSSIBLE beings. This contradicts #4.
******************************
Tentative Conclusion
IF my defintion of omnibenevolence and givens are accepted, then I believe that the thinking above indicates that the Biblical God, who creates free-willed sentient beings ex-nihilo from no internal NEED whatsoever, CANNOT be omnibenevolent. The Biblical God can show loving and good disposition, but cannot be omnibenevolent, as it has been defined.
****************************
Possible Objections
To argue contra this, it must be cogently argued that non-existence is WORSE than facing the wrath of God, in any conception. The reason being is that one could argue the God believes the highest level of good to be EXISTENCE, that is BEING. Thus, God would say that existing . But if this is the case, then process theology is correct. In order for God to completely actualize his divine love, there would be a NECESSARY God-world relationship. Given the definition of omnibenevolence above, for God to value other potential entities with the HIGHEST concept of good, it would have to be stated that God, OF NECESSITY, created so that the other potential beings could have existence. This is incompatible with open view theism.
To argue contra this, it must be cogently argued that God's choice to create was COMPLETLY altruistic. This means that God created creation for NO purposes of his own. One has to say that God created creation for its OWN intrinsic sake. However, if God was truly thinking solely about his creation, would an omnibenevolent God create while, in OMNISCIENCE, knowing the vast possibilities of evil, death, and despair. One would have to reconcile God's completly altruistic disposition with God's cognizance of the potential emergence of evil.
It could be said that God thought that human beings with libertarian freedom was worth the risk. However, it must be shown how this "risk" on God's part can incorporate Givens #3-6. You have to show you this "risk" decision wasn't PRIMARILY based on God's arbitrary decision to wish to create.
****************************
Again, IF my defintion of omnibenevolence and givens are accepted, then believe that the thinking above indicates that the Biblical God, who creates free-willed sentient beings ex-nihilo from no internal NEED whatsoever, CANNOT be omnibenevolent. I would like some good answers to this. I ask that you please deal with the subjects above, without any extraneous, ad hominem, or like material. I also ask that you please state your argumentation logically and consistently. Thanks
Sir Mephistopheles 2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/29/01 8:21 PM
RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Mephi, I have to be honest and said your post made me laugh. You so easily proved what I had just posted that it made me feel very good (not meaning to be rude or anything...if I am, sorry). None of what you just posted is at all biblical, as such, but rather your own conjucture as to why you feel God did something...not unlike Calvin's hidden will of God or Luther's and Tillach's God behind the God.
Therefore, you have consistantly proved my point: you value philosphical reasoning for your view of God over biblical truth. I do think it is important to remember that Christians believe what they believe about God because, first off, the Bible teaches, and not neccessary because it is the most consistant view. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/30/01 9:43 AM
RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi: I did want to make the further point that, for all practical purposes, you have basically created an unreliable god who cannot be counted on. Given that we trust people because we believe that they have our best interests in mind, a god who is beyond good and evil is a god without hope for the average person. The trusting in the basic goodness of God is at the core of believing that God will care for us regardless of what is happening in our lives and around us. This is at the core of faith in God (not to mention it almost defies logic to somehow believe this god who is beyond good and evil would somehow reach out in such a selfless act as dying for us).
Finally, I think we all should pause and think about those within our society who truly believe they are beyond good and evil. Do we admire them? No, for they are known as sociopaths...and that is precisely what your god ends up being. Maybe wiser (but hey Hannibal Lecter is very wise), but still bound only by what he wants to do, not by any sense of good. What a scary thought! John 17:3 Harold
PS. It should be noted that, from my view of your posting and your consistant need to refute open theism (notice the underlining in your last post) has brought you a god that is not really worthy of trust, let alone worship...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
04/30/01 2:22 PM
RE: RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meph asks: I would like some good answers to this. I ask that you please deal with the subjects above, without any extraneous, ad hominem, or like material.
writerdad responds: Actually, Mephi, I have to be honest and said your post made me laugh.
GDG says: I don't agree with Mephi, but I think his requests ought to be respected and his challenges taken seriously.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
04/30/01 7:58 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG said: "I think his requests ought to be respected and his challenges taken seriously."
I agree with you, GDG. I am looking forward to some good responses to Memphi's post.
Peace,
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
04/30/01 8:29 PM
HERETIC ALERT!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second incarnation of the Omnibenevolence of God question
M2K says:
I ask that you please deal with the subjects above, without any extraneous, ad hominem, or like material. I also ask that you please state your argumentation logically and consistently. Thanks
Me talks:
Since I would like to touch on the same topics that you raised (thankfully) but lack the time to rigorously interact with your material and I would like to reserve the right to be extraneous, use ad hominems and the like I’ve decided to resurrect your question in a slightly different way and hopefully give Writerdad a run for his money on the Biblical stuff. I hope you will forgive me. The first half is dealing directly with your post but the second is my own stuff.
Mephi—I think that where you went wrong was in your definition of omnibenevolence. Three points need to be made.
First omnibenevolence is not merely unselfishness. It is true that ‘Love seeks not its own.’ But the mystery of omnibenevolence is wrapped up in the mystery of the ontological relationships between the three persons of the trinity. As you said, there was enough love to go around before creation. God’s living/loving-for-the-Other is Christ’s love for His Father, the Father’s love for the Spirit, the Spirits love for the Son (depending on your take on the Trinity. Some say that the Spirit ‘is’ the love between Father and Son). C.S. Lewis points out wonderfully in the beginning passages of his essay “The Weight of Glory” that unselfishness has wrongly usurped Love as the chief virtue. This should not be. When omnibenevolence is framed as altruism characterized by unselfishness a whole host of problems come up. For starters how can any gift be given without inaugurating an economy relationship characterized by debt? Some really interesting things are currently being written on this stuff, especially in the context religion, but it is fundamentally flawed none the less. Unless you can explain the Trinity and thus out-think all of Church history, you will not be able to explain omnibenevolence.
Second your attempt at a definition in words was, I must agree with Writerdad, worth a chuckle. Not because you weren’t serious or because I’m not taking you serious, but because I believe definitions like this are simply too abstract. Omnibenevolence (hereafter refereed to as ‘Love’ with a capital ‘L’). Love is the most concrete thing there is. At the end of “Sophie’s World” Gaarder describes how fairy tale characters can simply ‘walk through’ solid objects in the ‘real’ world because they are more real than the world itself. The real world is as a vapor to them. It is the same way with Love. Love is more real than this world, which is to say it is more concretely real. It walks through this world, and the evil in it, as if through a vapor. Abstract definitions simply don’t cut it. The good Doctor demonstrated this very well in the intro and first chapter of “God at War.” Just as we need concrete examples of evil when discussing evil, we need concrete examples of Love when discussing omnibenevolence. I might suggest a story. Perhaps one involving a man, who was more than a man, who died on a cross etc, etc. But unlike the altruistic reading of this story which focuses on how Christ was willing to sacrifice Himself for the world and this is the model of Love, I would like to suggest that a truer read would be to concentrate on the power of such a Love that is able to raise him from the dead. Song of Songs 8:6 type stuff. “The Princess Bride” type stuff. This is my 2$ when it comes to concrete definitions. We all know the power of death—well Love is like that, only more buff. (buffer ?)
Thirdly you said:
I submit that God created existence in general and human beings in particular for PRIMARILY, if not SOLELY, self-centered reasons. Either he:
1. wanted other beings to which he could show his glory
2. wanted to lavish his triune love on creation
3. wanted to interact with free-willed beings.
or a combination of the above. This violates Given #5 above. Because God didn't NEED creation to exhibit his divine love, we can say that the reasoning behind God's creation was because of HIS ultimate desire that brought about an ARBITRARY decion to create.
Me says:
Not so my dear anonymous internet friend. Sharing is a natural result of Love. God is Love, God was busy knocking Love around inside the Trinity when out of Love He recognized that what he had was marvelous. Mother Teresa says this: “People who love each other fully and truly are the happiest people in the world. They may have little, they may have nothing but they are happy people, Everything depends on how we love one another.” God was like two young lovers making love in a two room flat. What they had was beautiful—the best stuff there is. Wouldn’t you want to share this? Haven’t you felt a Love that wanted to overspill? Creation was not arbitrary. Existence is most definitely better than non-existence when the question is framed like this. What do you think? Have I made the transition from pessimistic cynic to wide-eyed romantic too quickly? Should I swing back for a little bit? Do I have a reach big enough to embrace both?
The cynical stuff (this is for Writerdad and all the people who like the Bible)
Is the God of the Bible Omnibenevolent?
I say that we look at what God actually did and not what he claims about himself. What Yahweh did in the Old Testament seems anything but benevolent. Genocide, child-like behavior, all around mean spiritedness. If this is what Omnibenevolence is that what could we possibly mean by this? The God of the Old Testament is an Omni-violent God not an Omnibenevolent one (am I clever or what?).
Is Jesus Omnibenevolent?
Sure, I can buy this. Based on what he actually did I have little problem in using his life as a definition for omnibenevolance.
Is the Spirit Omnibenevolent?
This is hard to say since we can’t see her and her only recommendations come from Jesus (trustworthy) and Yahweh (lets just say he is not the most trustworthy source).
So my challenge to all those who, like myself, have invested themselves in the impossible possibility that omnibenevolence is real is this: how do you reconcile the concept of Omnibenevolance with a dude like Yahweh? Wouldn’t it be easier to defend Omnibenevolance if we didn’t have to cover this guy’s butt? Shouldn’t we just throw him out and keep his PR guy—you know the good one? Or does the whole ‘when you see me you see the Father’ business mean we have to throw out Him too because He is just a front/façade for all the dirty work? Am I flirting with damnation or what?
But all caricaturing exaggerations aside, writerdad’s plea to pull the question of omnibenevolence back to the Bible only makes the problem worse to me. The best defense for omnibenevolence is the philosophical one. It is when we have to square this with what I can only describe as the demonic actions of Yahweh that the whole gig is up. The Bible poses a much larger threat to omnibenevolence than anything else does.
Bellybutton lint
–Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
glamdring777
04/30/01 11:01 PM
RE: Omnibenevolence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi wrote:
Next, I submit that God created existence in general and human beings in particular for PRIMARILY, if not SOLELY, self-centered reasons. Either he:
1. wanted other beings to which he could show his glory
2. wanted to lavish his triune love on creation
3. wanted to interact with free-willed beings.
I say:
I believe God created existance in general and human beings in particular for primarily and solely good reasons.
1. Wanted other beings to share his glory
2. Wanted creation to partake of his triune love
3. Wanted to give beings the opportunity to love and therefore gave them free will
Since I disagree with your beginning assertions it follows I don't agree with your conclusions. God created out of a desire to GIVE and to SHARE not a desire to fulfill his own needs.
la vida es dulce
glow with it
glamdring
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/30/01 11:08 PM
RE: HERETIC ALERT!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa: I am not saying that there is not a good defense for the monibenevolence of God philosophically, but rather my point was that, since Mephi claims to be a Christian I would like to see him make his point scripturally, because that is where Christians claim there is a final truth. I hope I have not run your question off course. If so, I apologize.
I would add that there is a good chapter in Lee Strobel's a CAse For Faith book on the topic of the things God did in the Old Testament. I would check it out (it treats it quick, but gives a person the meat of the argument). I will say this: I believe God has the right to judge evil and the civilizations that God had the Israelities destroy by and large were grossly evil. I do not understand all that God has done but I believe Jesus came to show us what God is like and that is how we should see God. Plus, much of the Old Testament portrays God as longsuffering, etc. God waits and warns before passing judgment. I don't know if this will help. This is just a quick jotting down of thoughts. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/30/01 11:11 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is The Biblical God Omnibenevolent?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDG: I will not apologize for my statement because Mephi's post made me laugh because, for me, it so proved the point I had just made. I take everything (aside from obvious jokes) seriously. Besides, I believe Mephi is use to the jabs and punches of this board enough not to need defending...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:59 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|