Where does the Bible state that God is Omnibenevolent?

The implied characteristic of omnibenevolence flows naturally from other claimed characteristics attributed to God by Christianity, such as omniscience and omnipotence. One can also infer it from scripture: I John 4:8 (NIV) "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."

Within this context, the "Problem of Evil" still stands as valid.

Omnibenevolence

God judges sin, and because the world loves sin, they see this as manevolence. It never occurs to them that he could have simply said to hell with you all and cast the entire earth into the lake of fire instead of sending Jesus to die for us - and as for the flood this was also caused by the nephilim corrupting the creation in Genesis 6

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing at the thought that someone could consider God omnibenevolent, while he sends people to hell.

The problem of evil argument is actually incredibly weak.

1. Variation "God cannot possibly love us"

This is proposing a definition of "love" ("the inclination to prevent suffering to the best of one's ability") that is neither in the dictionary nor in the bible. Closest to come to a dictionary definition that fits is "charity", but this of course is referring to either putting an *end* to suffering (which we've yet to see if this "god" will do) or simply helping to ease the suffering, with no specification as to what extent of help qualifies as charity and therefore love. And indeed, this limitation on the definition of "love" is reflected in our own behavior. We can say we love our children despite *introducing* them to their inevitable suffering just by conceiving them (not out of necessity, but because we just plain wanted a child), which is obviously choosing not to prevent said suffering, so long as we "minimize" their suffering to the best of our ability after they're born. (I put "minimize" in quotations here because we're not *really" reducing the amount of suffering to the lowest possible amount; we let that opportunity pass by already).

IOW, so long as god does all he can at *some* point to "minimize" suffering to the best of his ability (which does of course mean getting rid of it altogether), he's acting in accordance with the definition we give love in *practice*. We just start when our babies are born, whereas god starts after we die. And who's to say where the line in time should be drawn after which one is obligated to start "minimizing" suffering to prove their love for another?

And no, this doesn't answer the question "Why didn't god just make us all so that we'd never suffer?", nor is it to deny that it's a *great* question in its own right. But obviously we have no basis for the implied *answer* in the problem of evil argument, that the Christian god cannot possibly love us.

2. Variation "God is not good."

This variation of the argument is a *little* better, in that we at least have a dictionary definition of "good" that could help us form an argument, theoretically (this being "beneficent"). But I do think it's way too simplistic to take "good" in the context of the "Holy bible" to mean "beneficent to humans on earth while they're on earth". I've always figured it's referring to god's *moral* "goodness", which is why I say it's subjective and therefore no objective argument can be made on it (we cannot prove objectively what is morally right or wrong). This is just my opinion, of course, but I see no reason to take the alternative opinion as truth, which would be necessary in showing that this argument disproves the Christian god.

I think it's right after the part where he drowns almost every living creature on earth.