If you act in a way that someone thinks is not with honour, and they say that to you, surely it's reasonable to use how you describe honour to illustrate where your actions might not be be in line with?
My experience of people is that it is not clear cut. What they prioritise is not what I prioritise and it is often difficult to convince someone else that what you prioritise is what they should also prioritise, and vice versa. This may be partly due to the limitations of language in conveying your thoughts and the limitations of brain comprehension of what is being felt or said. But I think a large part of this disconnect is due to the differences in people's experiences and how they interpret those experiences and how they incorporate those interpretations into their lives.
For example, sometimes I see examples of parental love and sacrifice, and my emotional reaction is to hope I never feel that depth of emotion that would lead me to react or behave that way, while others feel humbled by it and aspire to behave in a similar way. I can't understand why anyone would celebrate those feelings. Whereas other people can't understand why I don't want to aspire to or celebrate those feelings. All we can do is acknowledge our beliefs and aspirations are different because of our different life experiences and interpretations and try to be tolerant of the other person's emotional and intellectual reaction.
The issue I have with the use of the omnis is they are an attempt to justify worship but if you use them to point out logical issues with the position, you are suddenly told that people don't mean the words.
I suppose it depends on the theist. I'm not sure why you would expect a uniform response since people would all have different experiences, reactions, interpretations and understanding of words they hear or read.
But yes I agree that if someone is attributing omnibenevolence to their god and says it means god loves you and that the meaning of god's love is that nothing bad will ever happen to you, then that is clearly illogical based on experience, and in conjunction with the other onmis.
If an onmi is used to indicate nothing greater is possible and the attribute of benevolence is used to mean beneficial to mankind's spiritual development, not their physical well-being, then it alters the logic. It also depends on how you define beneficial. I would say what is beneficial is not necessarily free from pain or sadness. I remember a psychologist on TV saying that indulging people and trying to ensure they never feel sad was a form of abuse. I think he was talking about parents and children. So essentially his point was that the outcomes he had observed from parents trying to ensure their children never feel sad, harmed the children's emotional development to the extent that it was to him a form of abuse. So words can be used in very different ways by different people.
Of course this idea of justice and judgement is based on the belief that there is an ultimate entity to assess and pass judgement on our spiritual development and the idea also depends on the definition of spiritual. But I would say that this belief in judgement in religions is articulated for our benefit. Some theists articulate spiritual in terms of a soul and seem to regard it as a distinct separate entity, some just talk about a judgment of our morals, emotions, thoughts and intentions linked to our sense of self.
If theists are saying we don't even know how to define the onmis because it's unknowable, but here's our best guess of how that might work given our limited understanding and given we want to communicate some sort of idea, isn't that religions incorporating the omnis because the idea of the omnis appeal to humans?
