Talk:Classical theism

message: Irrelevent interpolation-
"Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the "near, caring, and compassionate" view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible.[3]"
The insertion of the above is an interpolation that appears to grant priority to the Bible, as though Greek Philosophy 'should' be reconciled with it. Whilst this is, or may be, an issue for Christian philosophers, it isnt an issue for Classical Theism per se.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek Philosophy

message: The second sentence is grammatically incorrect.--99.16.65.43 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Issues

message: "Omnibenevolent" is not a word used by theologians of note. It is mainly used by atheists who wish to disprove God's existence. There are, in fact, no Bible verses to support the idea that God is "omnibenevolent" if that word means giving only good things, and never punishment or trouble.  The Bible says that every good gift comes from God, but that is not tantamount to saying that God sends only good things.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:17&version=NIV
To my knowledge, there are no people in this rather artificial category "classical theists" who do not believe that God either leads us into temptation sometimes, allows us to have troubles, curses us, controls when we die, punishes us, or sends certain people to hell, perhaps forever.  None of those things are benevolent, therefore God is not "omnibenevolent," according to the "classical theist."  God is benevolent to all in giving them life on earth and the pleasures this life can bring, but that is different from always being benevolent.  The word "omnibenevolent" does not appear in the Bible, in any language. God is omniscient, omnipotent, holy, righteous, and just. Any thought of God's goodness must be balanced by an understanding of God's justice. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm
Therefore, because there is no source given for the edit, and I believe it to be false, I am undoing the edit that recently added the word "omnibenevolent."  Pammalamma (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About this Word "Omnibenevolent" 

message: The current texts says some of the views of Plantinga, Swinburne and Craig which not only lack reference, but also seems to be incorrect. For instance, I don't remember ever Plantinga being held as someone who rejects divine simplicity nor Craig rejecting God's timelesness (in this last case, he only rejects timelessness with the universe, but not without it). I'ld recommend a review.
Momergil (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopher's view 

message: Much of this article appears to be a defense of Classical Theism against Open Theism. I would argue that justifying one position against another, without presenting the other, lacks intellectual integrity. The writer appears to have a very obvious bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramulose (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Theism VS Open Theism 

message: @Omnesadeosustentantur, I've noticed that you are interested in the classical theism topic as that you have edited the draft article at my userpage, I think you might also be interested at improving the main page as I've moved the draft here. —कृष्णकुलिKrsnaquli || Contact - 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the notification. I'll be checking it if possible in future. Omnesadeosustentantur (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical theism new article