Really? Your own link seems to prove you wrong.
But you didn't finished that sentence. Surprisingly, you left off half the definition... biased or prejudiced in favor of a person, group, side, etc., over another, as in a controversy: a partial witness
Well, you conveniently left out the synonyms and antonyms on the same page. Imagine that!
—Synonyms 1. unfinished, imperfect, limited. 2. one-sided, unfair, unjust
So "partial" is a good thing
Yeah? Which part? Unfinished? Imperfect? Limited? One-sided? Unfair? Unjust?
If you were on trial and you discovered that the judge is partial would that put to at ease? If you found out that the jury is partial, would you claim that justice is served? If a witness was believed to be partial would you say that is good? Do you not know what impartial means? The Antonyms of partial are:
—Antonyms 1, 3. complete. 2. unbiased, fair.
Which do you think is closer to God? Unfinished, imperfect, limited, one-sided, unfair, unjust OR complete, perfect, unbiased, fair?
We were speaking of God as a Perfect Judge, not of 1000 silverings' chicken dumplings she is extremely partial to (by her own admission). I don't want my Judge to be partial, but just—equally to all.
You, on the other hand, want none of impartiality but someone who will be on your side no matter how guilty you may be. Partiality and equal justice for all is mutually exclusive.
The more I think of what you are saying the more it seems to me that Protestantism may favor prejudice as something "good." And, that is a very disturbing realization.
Yes, if I found out that the judge was partial to running a tight ship in his courtroom, unlike a Judge Ito.
If you found out that the jury is partial, would you claim that justice is served?
Yes, if I found out that the jury was partial to delivering a carefully considered, fair, and unbiased verdict, unlike the jury nullification that took place at the OJ trial.
If a witness was believed to be partial would you say that is good?
Yes, as long as I understood what it was. Every witness is going to be partial to something. Many times it is to something relevant in a trial. There is nothing wrong with that, it should be understood and weighed accordingly. Friends, co-workers, relatives, etc. testify about each other every single day. In the sunlight there is no problem. There are a multitude of ways to convey identical information. So, one can be partial to his friend, and at the same time be completely truthful on the witness stand.
Imagine you got busted on a bum rap and at trial your lawyer called your priest as a character witness. Of course you wouldn't ask him to lie, so what would he do? :) He would answer truthfully and (with partiality to you) say every nice thing he could think of to say about you. I say there is nothing wrong with this. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with being partial. It depends on what one is being partial TO.