Assuming Christianity is True . . .

[Haven]

No need for an introduction.

Debate questions: Assuming Christianity is true and everything Christians believe about God (i.e., he's just, moral, loving, kind, etc.) is correct, why would God:

1) Create gay* people as gay*?
2) Give them the same desires for love, companionship, and intimacy as non-gay people?
2) Tell them that simply being gay* or pursuing a relationship with a member of the same sex is immoral?
4) Tell them that there is no non-sinful outlet for their sexualities or desire for relationships, and that their only non-sinful options are to live a lie with someone to whom they are not attracted or remain celibate and lonely for life?

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place? Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?


By "gay*," I mean people with an innate, exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they act on those attractions.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 28 by ttruscott]

If my Dad told me that Dodge makes the best truck and I repeat his claim, how am I under the burden of proving they are the best or only even proving he said that?

It depends on how you make that claim. If you say 'My dad says and I agree with him" it's one thing. If you say 'Dodge makes the best truck and that's the truth!' and want to be taken serious, you should be prepared to defend that claim. You are free to defend it by saying 'Because my dad told me so' though. How serious you are taken after that statement remains to be seen, however.

If GOD tells me HE deals with us honestly, why am I held accountable for proving it?

If you claim it to be true, you should be prepared to show why it's true in your opinion. Your reasoning can be as serious or silly as you want - and don't expect others to agree - but, especially in a forum such as this, claims need supportin' evidence in order for it to be considered anything past a random statement.

Basically, it all depends on how a statement is made: I Believe is different than I know and the context in which they are used and directed.

[Overcomer]

Haven wrote:

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place?

He didn't. He created Adam and Eve as heterosexuals. Their disobedience brought sin into the world. As sinners, they gave birth to sinners who also gave birth to sinners who then gave birth to more sinners, etc., etc., etc. Kind always begets kind.

Therefore, all human beings are born with sin natures. However, we don't all commit exactly the same sins, sexual or otherwise. Some I think we all share -- like arrogance and self-interest, for example. Others we don't. Some people commit the sin of homosexuality. Most don't. Some commit the sin of adultery. Most don't. Others commit the sin of pedophilia. Most don't.

God is not the author of sin. Human beings are. God offers the one and only way to resist sin and overcome the temptation to commit it through the persons of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Ask any ex-gay who is now a Christian and living free from the stronghold of homosexuality. He will testify to that. Dennis Jernigan is one of the most vocal about leaving the lifestyle behind:

http://ex-gaytruth.com/encyclopedia/dennis-jernigan/



Note that Jernigan was sure that he was born that way and there was no way out of it, but he learned that he was wrong. I am sure there are people who "feel" that it's part and parcel of who they are, but feelings are unreliable. This is why no one's morality should be built on feelings.

I also think it's necessary to define "anti-gay". If you use the term to mean a person who hates gays, then I object to being called anti-gay since I don't hate gays at all. If, by anti-gay, you mean a person who hates homosexuality, then that describes me. I hate any sin that keeps people from being in a loving relationship with God for eternity and which robs people of the full life God wants them to have here on earth.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 31 by Overcomer]

Note that Jernigan was sure that he was born that way and there was no way out of it, but he learned that he was wrong.

As the saying goes, there's an exception for every rule. Sexuality isn't 'this or that'. We, as a species, know and understand so little about human sexuality - why we like what we like, why we don't like what we don't like, etc. - that we can't honestly make a determination of 100% gay/straight.
What it comes down to here is that a person has a preference which is fluid and, in many cases, changing. Which is to say, again, not everyone is 100% gay or straight in their desires if they're honest with themselves.

If, by anti-gay, you mean a person who hates homosexuality, then that describes me. I hate any sin that keeps people from being in a loving relationship with God for eternity and which robs people of the full life God wants them to have here on earth.

You are aware there are a great many gay christians that are gay and love god, yes? I wouldn't think one would say those people are 'wrong' in their personal life they share with god - at least not anyone who is a christian.

God is not the author of sin. Human beings are.

In a sense, the biblical god is, if not the author, the permission giver, of sin. God allows sin to happen while it knew what was coming.
Why was there temptation in the first place? Why did god allow the devil into the garden when it knew what the devil was capable of and what its creation was capable of in the first place?
A test?
Surely god knew what the outcome would be or it's not all knowing. Besides, what is god trying to prove that it didn't already know?
So, while A&E may have sinned, god allowed sin to enter into the equation originally. If god didn't want sin to be part of the human experience, it would have taken ALL the necessary steps to prevent it. That's not what happened.

God offers the one and only way to resist sin and overcome the temptation to commit it through the persons of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit

If god didn't want sin, there wouldn't be any sin and thus, no reason to offer any 'out' (pun intended).

If god is the supreme being christianity claims, all responsiblilty ultimately rolls up to it. Meaning, in part, if it didn't want/agree with something it wouldn't exist. If sin exists it's because god allowed it &/or wants it to exist.
Which is fine so long as we admit it. But when we excuse god for things it could have done differently - placing blame on finite, imperfect beings like people, we are truly excusing god and lying to ourselves IMO.

[KCKID]

Haven wrote:

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place?

He didn't. He created Adam and Eve as heterosexuals. Their disobedience brought sin into the world. As sinners, they gave birth to sinners who also gave birth to sinners who then gave birth to more sinners, etc., etc., etc. Kind always begets kind.

While I realize that most Christians are honor-bound to accept the Genesis account of Adam and Eve as being factual, it is - in all probability - no more than a fable. And, for one to believe that one HAS to be heterosexual and not homosexual - no if's, and's or but's - based alone on this probable fable is, well ...it's foolhardy. Therefore I personally reject the use of the Creation story with which to, yet again, demean gay people. When will people come to accept that the Bible may not be anything more than an ancient collection of stories, myths and folklore. Below are just a few of some of the remarks from well known people who, as with the Christian, are deserving of an opinion with regard to the Bible in general.

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

"You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Ben Franklin.

"The intensity of your religious conviction is inversely proportional to your grip on reality." - Michael DeRousselle

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

"Faith is to the human what sand is to the ostrich." - Unknown

"Its 90 degrees in the shade in Jerusalem.. Where did Noah get two penguins and two polar bears from?" - Sir David Stevens

Therefore, all human beings are born with sin natures. However, we don't all commit exactly the same sins, sexual or otherwise. Some I think we all share -- like arrogance and self-interest, for example. Others we don't. Some people commit the sin of homosexuality. Most don't. Some commit the sin of adultery. Most don't. Others commit the sin of pedophilia. Most don't.

Where in the Bible is homosexuality defined as 'sin'? In all of my years of Bible study I have YET to come across a scripture that says, clearly and unambiguously, "Homosexuality is a sin."

God is not the author of sin. Human beings are.

But, they were clearly designed by 'their creator' to be lesser than the angels (Hebrews 2:7) and even the angels sinned (2 Peter 2:4)! Moreover, to NOT 'sin' would have meant that human beings were "God's" equals, would it not? Therefore human beings were clearly 'designed' by 'their creator' to sin. When it all comes down to it, isn't just about every Christian statement made (with regard to the Bible message) little more than a shot in the dark?

God offers the one and only way to resist sin and overcome the temptation to commit it through the persons of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Ask any ex-gay who is now a Christian and living free from the stronghold of homosexuality. He will testify to that. Dennis Jernigan is one of the most vocal about leaving the lifestyle behind:

http://ex-gaytruth.com/encyclopedia/dennis-jernigan/

A gay person's testimony regarding their 'conversion' to heterosexuality should be regarded by others with a grain of salt. Ones personal experience is just that and it should not be concluded that every other person in the world will be similarly 'converted'. This is, however, the intention of the so-called 'converted person and his/her religious backers. At the end of the day only that person knows whether or not any genuine 'conversion' actually took place. If it did and this makes that person happy, then fine for that person. Other people are gay and remain gay and they too are happy being who the are. What has religion got to do with the whole process of one's sexuality anyway? This quit making any sense to me ages ago.

Note that Jernigan was sure that he was born that way and there was no way out of it, but he learned that he was wrong. I am sure there are people who "feel" that it's part and parcel of who they are, but feelings are unreliable. This is why no one's morality should be built on feelings.

Well, the following statement from Jernigan seems to be the typical catalyst for one's alleged 'conversion' to heterosexuality:

… “At church I heard people say, “All homosexuals should be shipped out of the country – they deserve to go to hell!� I felt condemned by their remarks, and I had no idea where to turn for help.�

Is it just me or can others see WHY those such as Jernigan MUST denounce their homosexuality and 'convert' to heterosexual?

I also think it's necessary to define "anti-gay". If you use the term to mean a person who hates gays, then I object to being called anti-gay since I don't hate gays at all. If, by anti-gay, you mean a person who hates homosexuality, then that describes me.

Why would you hate what others do sexually as long as it doesn't affect you??? Once again I can find no logic behind such statements. I don't like oysters and I also feel 'put off' when I see others eating them. They're 'yucky!' However, I remedy this by not eating them myself and I allow that others are allowed to eat them without asking for my permission. If they do so in front of me I don't have to look . . .

By the way, the Bible also condemns the eating of oysters so I could, if I wanted, condemn those that DO eat them just to back up my own aversion to them! Does this line of reasoning sound familiar?

I hate any sin that keeps people from being in a loving relationship with God for eternity and which robs people of the full life God wants them to have here on earth.

Well, I'd say that you have a rather severe problem if all you see in people are their 'sins' and pity them for not 'living the life' that you would have for them. You know, I not only see this as being rather 'weird' but I also see that line of thought poles apart from the message of Jesus Christ.

[Haven]

Yes, it is a western form of tribalism, which is dates back to Babylonian times

What evidence is there for the current Western concept of race going back to Babylon? Historians can trace the development of the concept from Western (including Biblical) sources.

Though some people find favor in Adonai's sight, prior to Israel leaving Eygpt, there was no favored nation. Then Adonai chose to make a nation of the mixed multitude that left Egypt to be a light to the nations.

It wasn't a "mixed multitude." The vast majority of the people, according to the Bible, were Israelites. The Bible also tells stories of Israel's god commanding the Israelites to slaughter entire people groups (including innocent civilians) for frivolous reasons. How is that not nationalistic?

The reasons for distinction are Adonai's purposes and grace.

How are his purposes not arbitrary? If you simply assume without argument that they aren't, then you simply beg the question.

As for "grace," I fail to see how the Christian god's actions show it. Wouldn't it be far more gracious not to create "objects of wrath" in the first place? Why must people be created just to be damned for grace to be shown?

B. & C. Adonai promised Yitzchak beforehand and it is through the son of The Promise that the Promise comes. So, this is not arbitrary, but by design at Adonai's appointed time.

How is this not arbitrary? The fact that it's your god's "appointed time" doesn't do anything to demonstrate that it isn't arbitrary. Why did God appoint that time? Why did he make that "Promise?" It was either for some reason or no reason.

If it was for some reason, then what could it be?

If it was for no reason, then it is arbitrary by definition.

This same reasoning applies to the rest of your lettered responses.

F. & G. The purpose of this is not to show that Adonai is arbitrary, but to show that He is not beholding to man. The story of Pharoah is used as an example. Adonai had no obligation to Pharaoh. It came to be so that Adonai could show Himself to be the Deity and that the others were no deities at all.

How is this distinct from pure moral relativism?

If relativism obtains, then (assuming your brand of Christianity is true) why should anyone care what your god's subjective morals (or lack thereof) say? Because he's more powerful? If so, then how would that be different than Cambodians unquestioningly obeying Pol Pot because he had the power to torture and kill them (notice how I didn't use Hitler )?

H. "That's not fair.", one might say. However, what is the standard by which fairness is judged? What makes one standard just and another arbitrary? Isn't it one's prospective. Therefore, from the prospective of Adonai's people, Adonai's ways for man are just.

Divine moral relativism. Quite possibly the worst moral theory ever invented (in my opinion).

Again, assuming your view is correct, why should anyone care what your god thinks? Fear? Self-preservation?

Might makes right, in my opinion, is an execrable way to decide what is moral.

This is classic gnosticism.

My views, which are naturalistic and secular, differ radically from gnosticism, which was a supernaturalist religious viewpoint based in large part on early Jewish and Greek thought.

My position on "kindness" comes from my philosophical commitments to:

1. Metaphysical naturalism (the idea that only physical entities exist)
2. Moral ontological non-cognitivism, specifically expressivism

"Kindness" is not a physical entity (it isn't composed of matter, energy, or spacetime) so therefore, based on 1, it doesn't exist.

Expressivism entails that the ultimate basis of moral concepts is human emotion, enculturation, aesthetic sense, and other non-cognitive processes. Because I'm an expressivist, when I speak of "kindness" I'm simply using a collection of phonemes to refer to my own aesthetic and emotional senses about how I feel I should treat others. What I call "kind" is based on nothing but my own emotional sentiments.

Therefore, it is of no use in discussion, but only as a means of self justification.

It's useful in discussion because your position, like mine, entails relativism.

On your view (divine moral relativism), Yahweh has one standard of kindness, most humans have other, very different standards. The questions are:

1. Why does the Biblical god contradict his own standards of kindness? It clearly says that he loves all and is kind in all his deeds, yet (in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament) it says he favors certain people. This is contradictory. How is divine morality even coherent if it's self-refuting?

2. What makes Yahweh's subjective moral standards any more valid than anyone else's subjective moral standards? Is it just that (assuming your religious beliefs are true) he's more powerful and has the ability to punish? If so, how is that a good reason for one to abandon her own standards for those of your deity? Should self-preservation and fear really be the only moral motivating factors?

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it. It is just not Adonai's prospective. Why is Adonai obligated to what is functional for what man defines as "sentient beings"?

He isn't, but (on your view and mine) humans also aren't obligated to follow your god's arbitrary, subjective morality.

The difference between my moral view and yours is that mine rests on biologically based human emotional and aesthetic senses that the vast majority of people share, while yours rests only on the arbitrary and subjective will of a divine being who rules by pure force.

While someone holding my position could find aesthetic and emotional reasons for acting in accordance with her / her community's moral standards, someone holding yours could only ever have fear and self-preservation as motivating factors.

But fear and self-preservation can be used as justification for any action, regardless of its morality or immorality (Stalin's secret police murdered others because they feared Stalin and wanted to live, but I doubt you'd call their actions morally justified). On your view, however, one has no more justification for following God's commands than he does for following Stalin's, as the motivations are the same.

On your view, what makes God better than Stalin? Is it simply power?

Tis is precisely what I am talking about. Those passages are not talking about an arbitrary standard of human kindness.

Ps. 36:7 We see the same term (Checed) used in verse 10. If that loving kindness is extended to all humans, why does it say, vs. 10 "O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart." That makes the Checed of Adonai selective, not arbitrary. Checed is just a loving desire, whether it is appropriate or not depends on the object of that desire, as we see in Lev. 20:17 "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing(Checed); and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people * : he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity."[/teal]

You're committing the fallacy of equivocation. The word chesed means different things in different contexts, just as the word "kind" in English does today.

Meanings of chesed

In Psalm 36, chesed does indeed refer to "kindness" as we'd think of it today. In Leviticus 20, chesed refers to sexual desire. They aren't the same thing; they're essentially two different words (just like "kind" and several other homonyms in English). Just as an English speaker can say "it's good to be kind" and "this kind of thing is ridiculous" and talk of completely different things, an ancient Hebrew speaker could use chesed in different ways. It has nothing to do with "God's [chesed]" vs. "man's [chesed]," the word is literally referring to two completely different concepts.

Titus 3:4 Yes, Adonai has been philanthropic toward mankind in that he has shown grace to some, who did not deserve it. However, again this philanthropy does not obligate Him to abide by kindness as the defined by the language, minds, and cultures of those that you believe embody kindness.

I don't believe that "kindness" exists (as anything other than an action based on one's subjective emotional / aesthetic sentiments). Kindness isn't real. I'm not judging your god (or anyone else) by my standard of kindness.

My critique of the Biblical god is internal. His standard of "kindness" is self-contradictory (see above links, especially John 3 and Psalm 145) and therefore shows that his morality is incoherent.

Who decides what is equitable?

On my view, individuals' emotional and aesthetic senses and the rational conclusions that can be drawn from them. Your view is identical, except it implores people to follow one being's (God's) self-contradictory standards out of fear and desire for self-preservation.

You mean equitable rights not equal rights, correct?

Yes, I do. I misspoke in my last post, I apologize.

To get us back on track: your view of divine morality implies that God created gay people just for the purposes of damning them (making them the objects of his wrath).
How does this not contradict his fundamentally kind and just character as described in Psalm 145 (using commonly used Biblical* definitions of kindness and justice)?

Is it kind and just to create people--beings with thoughts, feelings, desires, hopes, dreams, families, and intellects--just to destroy them for going against one's relative standards, when one created these people only for the purpose of violating those standards?

*Definitions most commonly used in the Bible -- there are different, contradictory standards.

[bluethread]

quote="Haven"]

Yes, it is a western form of tribalism, which is dates back to Babylonian times

What evidence is there for the current Western concept of race going back to Babylon? Historians can trace the development of the concept from Western (including Biblical) sources. [/quote]

I did not say that the current western concept of race goes back to Babylon. I said that racism is a form of tribalism, and tribalism goes back to Babylonian times. Also, I only said that because you were questioning me when I said that "race" is an invention of the modern scientific age. So, are we talking about racism or tribalism? Your reference refers to "the development of the concept", ie. tribalism, not the concept as it is today. One could attribute tribalism to the events recorded in the Tanakh, but the modern idea of race does not exist.

Sorry it took so long to respond, but this has been a busy week and this is a long post. I prefer to avoid long posts, because they tend to wonder off topic and result in the poster presuming agreement and extrapolating that into conclusions that are not applicable to the views that the person posted to holds and presents. I will point out those situations as I trudge through this lengthy post.

Though some people find favor in Adonai's sight, prior to Israel leaving Eygpt, there was no favored nation. Then Adonai chose to make a nation of the mixed multitude that left Egypt to be a light to the nations.

It wasn't a "mixed multitude." The vast majority of the people, according to the Bible, were Israelites. The Bible also tells stories of Israel's god commanding the Israelites to slaughter entire people groups (including innocent civilians) for frivolous reasons. How is that not nationalistic?

Exodus 12:38 KJV
"And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle."

The majority may have been direct descendents of Israel, however, the mixed multitude was assimilate into the tribes. This is precisely the opposite of racism. The acts of war were not matters of racism but cultural destruction. It is understandable that these could be confused, since at that time tribalism was common and this resulted in monoculture within each people group. Israel was peculiar at that time in that their culture was based more on law than heredity.

The reasons for distinction are Adonai's purposes and grace.

How are his purposes not arbitrary? If you simply assume without argument that they aren't, then you simply beg the question.

As for "grace," I fail to see how the Christian god's actions show it. Wouldn't it be far more gracious not to create "objects of wrath" in the first place? Why must people be created just to be damned for grace to be shown?

One can find consistency in HaTorah and many of the commandments come with explanations. The fact that someone can not discern that consistency or does not agree with those reasons does not make then arbitrary. If by damnation you mean Dante' Inferno, I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that. The why question is always a dead end. One can always ask why. Paul presents the "objects of wrath" concept as a hypothetical as a partial answer to the why question. That term is more clearly used by him later, when he points out that we have all been "objects of wrath" at one time or another.

B. & C. Adonai promised Yitzchak beforehand and it is through the son of The Promise that the Promise comes. So, this is not arbitrary, but by design at Adonai's appointed time.

How is this not arbitrary? The fact that it's your god's "appointed time" doesn't do anything to demonstrate that it isn't arbitrary. Why did God appoint that time? Why did he make that "Promise?" It was either for some reason or no reason.

If it was for some reason, then what could it be?

If it was for no reason, then it is arbitrary by definition.

This same reasoning applies to the rest of your lettered responses.

There is a reason. The Promise was made in the garden, that the seed of the woman would thwart the designs of the Adversary. As a means of keeping this promise, Adonai made another promise to Avram that the blessing of that promise would come through the descendants Sarah and Him, at the appointed time. These things were not arbitrary, but according to Adonai's direction.

F. & G. The purpose of this is not to show that Adonai is arbitrary, but to show that He is not beholding to man. The story of Pharoah is used as an example. Adonai had no obligation to Pharaoh. It came to be so that Adonai could show Himself to be the Deity and that the others were no deities at all.

How is this distinct from pure moral relativism?

A particular deity is identified and a particular moral standard is established. This is just the opposite of moral relativism.

If relativism obtains, then (assuming your brand of Christianity is true) why should anyone care what your god's subjective morals (or lack thereof) say? Because he's more powerful? If so, then how would that be different than Cambodians unquestioningly obeying Pol Pot because he had the power to torture and kill them (notice how I didn't use Hitler )?

Different example, same fallacy. Authoritarianism does not equate to malevolence. An authority can also be ambivalent or benevolent. It is interesting though how you first equate HaTorah to moral relativism and then you equate it to totalitarian malevolence. There are other options. Why should any one care? Well, there are several reasons. First, in the example we have just looked at all other deities were shown to be unable to effect the various plagues directed to challenge them. Also, we have the example of Israel, where Adonai blessed them when they lived according to His ways and cursed them when they did not. This is neither moral relativism nor totalitarian malevolence. It challenges a the moral relativism of Egypt and the totalitarian malevolence of the Pharoah, by establishing one deity and one law that is based on how man is designed.

H. "That's not fair.", one might say. However, what is the standard by which fairness is judged? What makes one standard just and another arbitrary? Isn't it one's prospective. Therefore, from the prospective of Adonai's people, Adonai's ways for man are just.

Divine moral relativism. Quite possibly the worst moral theory ever invented (in my opinion).

Again, assuming your view is correct, why should anyone care what your god thinks? Fear? Self-preservation?

Might makes right, in my opinion, is an execrable way to decide what is moral.

The way you have framed things everything is relative and subjective, except maybe an absolute code to which even a deity is subject. This of course makes the code the absolute authority. However, that does not solve the problem of apparent arbitrariness, but establishes a standard that does not necessarily apply to man as he is. This, to the person who does not like the code, can also be seen as arbitrary. HaTorah opposes might makes right. The Tanakh repeatedly shows how it is not by might or by power but by Adonai's ways that man can live a moral life. If one does not wish to accept that, then one need not be one of Adonai's people.

This is classic gnosticism.

My views, which are naturalistic and secular, differ radically from gnosticism, which was a supernaturalist religious viewpoint based in large part on early Jewish and Greek thought.

My position on "kindness" comes from my philosophical commitments to:

1. Metaphysical naturalism (the idea that only physical entities exist)
2. Moral ontological non-cognitivism, specifically expressivism

"Kindness" is not a physical entity (it isn't composed of matter, energy, or spacetime) so therefore, based on 1, it doesn't exist.

Expressivism entails that the ultimate basis of moral concepts is human emotion, enculturation, aesthetic sense, and other non-cognitive processes. Because I'm an expressivist, when I speak of "kindness" I'm simply using a collection of phonemes to refer to my own aesthetic and emotional senses about how I feel I should treat others. What I call "kind" is based on nothing but my own emotional sentiments.

Classical was probably not the right term, since it can be interpreted to refer to the classical era. What I meant was that the root of Gnosticism is the idea of special knowledge that can only be recognized by and grants favored status to those who possessed that special knowledge. This section is a perfect example of what I referred to above regarding long posts. Here, we have a special knowledge expressed in esoteric terms applied to a general term, giving that term special significance that is not inherent in the term. As you have stated earlier kindness does not exist in isolation. It refers to a grouping of actions or the results of those actions. Your last sentence indicates this by stating what you use as a basis for those groupings. "What I call "kind" is based on nothing but my own emotional sentiments." However, that is not the only basis on which one can designate what is and is not "kind". Given that emotional sentiments are easily manipulated a standard that is based on ones own emotional sentiments is not a very reliable.

Therefore, it is of no use in discussion, but only as a means of self justification.

It's useful in discussion because your position, like mine, entails relativism.

On your view (divine moral relativism), Yahweh has one standard of kindness, most humans have other, very different standards. The questions are:

1. Why does the Biblical god contradict his own standards of kindness? It clearly says that he loves all and is kind in all his deeds, yet (in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament) it says he favors certain people. This is contradictory. How is divine morality even coherent if it's self-refuting?

Links are not very useful since when one goes to post a reply the link does not appear to work. Quotes and references work better. Judging from what you wrote later in this post I am replying to, you are referring to John 3:16 and Psalms 145.

In John 3:16 the term used is cosmos not anthropoi. It is Adonai's love for his creation, not the world population, that prompted Him to design the Promise as He did.

In Psalms 145 one must consider the context. It is a poem designed to acknowledge the kindness of Adonai and so it conflates the general kindnesses of life and nature, with the special kindness that He shows to His people. It does say, 9 "The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works." However, the term all here, which is inferred based on the interpretation of the term Towb(good) that is used in Genesis 1 to refer to all creation, is coupled with a similar statement regarding His works. So, the Psalmist is speaking to Adonai's general kindness to His creation here. We also, see this in the contrast that is presented later when he says, 20 "The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy." So, as I stated before, the nature of Adonai's kindness is subject to the object of that kindness.

2. What makes Yahweh's subjective moral standards any more valid than anyone else's subjective moral standards? Is it just that (assuming your religious beliefs are true) he's more powerful and has the ability to punish? If so, how is that a good reason for one to abandon her own standards for those of your deity? Should self-preservation and fear really be the only moral motivating factors?

No, that is the pessimistic take on it. As I stated before, Adonai's standards are more valid than say those of Egypt's because they are less arbitrary due to the fact that they are monotheistic and not polytheistic, and that they are standards that are not subject to emotional sentiments, presuming, as you stipulate, that HaTorah is true.

On your view, what makes God better than Stalin? Is it simply power?

You are setting up a false dichotomy. I am sure that Stalin and his secret police had aesthetic and emotional reasons for what they did. Also, fear and self-preservation are emotions last time I checked. As stated above, HaTorah establishes a code that is not subject to the emotional sentiments and aesthetics of romanticism, yet, contrary to the views of some, it does not dictate every detail, leaving room for kindness in it's implementation.

Tis is precisely what I am talking about. Those passages are not talking about an arbitrary standard of human kindness.

Ps. 36:7 We see the same term (Checed) used in verse 10. If that loving kindness is extended to all humans, why does it say, vs. 10 "O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart." That makes the Checed of Adonai selective, not arbitrary. Checed is just a loving desire, whether it is appropriate or not depends on the object of that desire, as we see in Lev. 20:17 "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing(Checed); and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people * : he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity."[/teal]

You're committing the fallacy of equivocation. The word chesed means different things in different contexts, just as the word "kind" in English does today.

Meanings of chesed

In Psalm 36, chesed does indeed refer to "kindness" as we'd think of it today. In Leviticus 20, chesed refers to sexual desire. They aren't the same thing; they're essentially two different words (just like "kind" and several other homonyms in English). Just as an English speaker can say "it's good to be kind" and "this kind of thing is ridiculous" and talk of completely different things, an ancient Hebrew speaker could use chesed in different ways. It has nothing to do with "God's [chesed]" vs. "man's [chesed]," the word is literally referring to two completely different concepts.

Even if we accept the homonyms argument, that does not address the main point regarding the fact that kindness is dependent on the subject. Adonai shows general kindness in allowing the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, and He also shows a different kindness to those who live by Adonai's ways. It is like one who plants a garden and one who does not. Both are blessed with rains, but only the gardener is blessed with vegetables.

Titus 3:4 Yes, Adonai has been philanthropic toward mankind in that he has shown grace to some, who did not deserve it. However, again this philanthropy does not obligate Him to abide by kindness as the defined by the language, minds, and cultures of those that you believe embody kindness.

I don't believe that "kindness" exists (as anything other than an action based on one's subjective emotional / aesthetic sentiments). Kindness isn't real. I'm not judging your god (or anyone else) by my standard of kindness.

My critique of the Biblical god is internal. His standard of "kindness" is self-contradictory (see above links, especially John 3 and Psalm 145) and therefore shows that his morality is incoherent.

Previously you appeared to present kindness as an overarching principle, that is only understood by those who experience it. That is what I compared to Gnosticism, due to it's mystic knowledge component. Now you say that is not what you are using to judge the term "kindness", but speak of it as "self-contradictory". This seems to imply a singular concept of "kindness", which I have shown is not the case in the Scriptures. Kindness is variable trait, that is dependent on context. It can refer to an absolute, but not necessarily.

Who decides what is equitable?

On my view, individuals' emotional and aesthetic senses and the rational conclusions that can be drawn from them. Your view is identical, except it implores people to follow one being's (God's) self-contradictory standards out of fear and desire for self-preservation.

These are the presumptions and conclusions I was talking about. I do not remember acknowledging your "emotional and aesthetic" standard being definable, let alone able to result in rational conclusions. If I recall, I compared it to something that would be proposed by the greco-roman mystery religions. Also, you just said, "I'm not judging your god (or anyone else) by my standard of kindness." and here you are making just such a comparison. ASre we testing for internal consistancy or comparing different views. If we are doing both, we need to keep those comparisons seperate, so that we do not get confused, unless that is your intent.

You mean equitable rights not equal rights, correct?

Yes, I do. I misspoke in my last post, I apologize.

Apology accepted, but again let' try to keep things as clear as possible.

To get us back on track: your view of divine morality implies that God created gay people just for the purposes of damning them (making them the objects of his wrath).
How does this not contradict his fundamentally kind and just character as described in Psalm 145 (using commonly used Biblical* definitions of kindness and justice)?

Is it kind and just to create people--beings with thoughts, feelings, desires, hopes, dreams, families, and intellects--just to destroy them for going against one's relative standards, when one created these people only for the purpose of violating those standards?

*Definitions most commonly used in the Bible -- there are different, contradictory standards.

Ah, we finally get to the point of all of these linguistics gymnastics. No, my view does not imply that, you infer that. My view states that Adonai makes humans with the ability to do many things and left to their own devices, they will do any or all of those things. Some of those things are not consistent with Adonai's ways. Those who do those things bear the consequences of those actions. I have already explained that Psalm 145, in a poetic manner, refers to Adonai's kindness to mankind, a general kindness that permits life on earth to all humans and the natural benefits that attach to that, and additional kindness to His people. If some individuals wish to find fault with a deity that they don't believe in because He does not show kindness to them equal to what He shows to those who do, then excuse me, if I do not lay awake at nights worrying about that.