All judgements are "pre-judgements", because we fallible humans are never privy to all the relevant information. Therefore, complaining that using preferred gender pronouns is a form of "prejudice" is insufficient to demonstrate that it is reasonable and polite not to comply.

No one is "obligated" to use preferred pronouns, new names, old names, or to say anything at all (unless subpoenaed). Perhaps, however, some of us consider the good manners associated with complying with an addressee's wishes as to what name or pronoun he or she prefers a form of politeness and good manners.

AS I've pointed out, your "consent" baloney is mere nonsense. We needn't "consent" to practicing good manners; we can chew with our mouths open, refuse to say "please" or "thank you", and try to cut to the front of the queue. Or we can misgender people. Nobody is forcing us to do otherwise (except in the case of the queue, where "cutting" might be dangerous, depending on the size of those already in line.)

Basic good manners suggest we should call people by the name they request us to use (even if it is not their birth name). The "prejudice" and "consent" arguments for treating pronouns differently are unpersuasive. They seem more like insufficient justifications than reasons.

No, I don't object to misgendering because I don't believe in using 'correct' gendering either. Gender is a prejudicial way to talk to one another. You see, in some actions I could easily be observed as having the gender of the opposite sex. In their eyes, because gender is simply a subjective prejudice, they would see me as the gender of the opposite sex, and would not be misgendering. And yet if I decided to think gender was important, I can very likely have a different idea of how my sex should act, and thus it would be a difference of opinion and not fact.

I see my behaviors as irrelevant to my sex. Subjective communication asserted as objective reality does not lead to clear communication. That is why I use sex references and not gender to other people. Act and live as you want. It doesn't change the sex that you are. And in no way does anyone have a moral right to assert someone is rude if they aren't using prejudicial language.

You're really losing this one Ecurb. Try less mocking attacks. Try addressing my points more clearly. And give a serious look at consent. You're coming across as a kid, not a serious debater. That can change, but you need to shape up a bit. — Philosophim

Lots of words involve "prejudice" (as you define it). "Kindness" suggests a prejudice for certain varieties of action. "Morals" suggest a prejudice in favor of ethical rules. ""Prejudice" is a form of "judgement" -- sometimes an inaccurate one based on incomplete data, sometimes an accurate one based on incomplete data.

Gender-based norms have been prevalent in every human society. However, they differ from culture to culture. This suggests they are not based on sex, but on "gender", which is culturally constituted.

Using titles is also prejudiced. We think (with insufficient evidence) that someone calling herself "doctor" is well-educated about treating disease. Should we refrain from using "doctor".

Debating with you is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it.

I'm educated for example, and I've always used pronouns to reference sex, not gender. — Philosophim

"And, doggone it, I'm not about to change with the times." Any of us who have seen emails where people list their pronouns and identification forms where people list their pronouns must be aware that the pronouns are meant to relate to gender, not sex. Therefore, it is not a "lie" to use someone's preferred pronouns. Of course you are free to do so, but your excuse that complying would be a "lie" is mere silliness. Therefore, there is no moral excuse for your rudeness -- your excuse is simply that you don't want to change the way you speak as the language changes. That's not a matter of morality -- it's a matter of stubbornness.

Yes. Every single criminal act, every single violation of another human being involves violating their consent. Its not something to be taken lightly — Philosophim

First of all, that's not true (or only trivially true), and secondly, many legal acts violate people's consent. The murderer who is hauled off to prison doesn't consent to being incarcerated. Whose "consent" is violated when I run a stop sign on my bicycle when there's no traffic? So violating someone's "consent" occurs constantly. Sometimes it's legal, sometimes it isn't. I guess, then, it IS something to be taken lightly, unless there are mitigating factors.

"Its ok to steal five dollars because he has a lot of money and won't miss it. — Philosophim

Well, Robin Hood is a revered hero. I suppose you side with Guy of Gisborne, though. "Stealing" is a legal matter, since all property rights are legally determined. Sometimes it is morally justified, sometimes it isn't. Robin Hood thought the rich Normans were over-taxing the poor Saxons, and that their property rights were therefore unjust, and by "stealing" from them he was enhancing justice (despite the lack of "consent" from his victims). All property rights "violate consent". Does the homeless person "consent" to sleep on the street instead of in your house? Or is he violently constrained from doing so by the police (and gun-toting home-owners)?

I simply ask that my consent or lack thereof to not lie to someone else be respected and understood as my moral right. From my view point still, I hold the moral view point while you seem to want to violate consent for the emotions of a particular group of people. — Philosophim

As I've clearly pointed out, using preferred pronouns does not constitute a "lie". You have a "moral right" to misuse the language, to behave rudely, and to ignore the preferences of others. Who said you didn't? And I have the moral (and correct, and logical) right to say such behavior is rude. I suppose morals are manners writ large -- so rudeness is a trivial form of immorality (assuming it is morally correct to "do unto others"). Would you object if people misgendered you? If you would, why would you want to misgender
others (now that it's clear that this involves no "lying")?

Incorrect. Most people do not even understand gender as used in gender theory. And you did not invalidate my point that there are people who do use pronouns to refer to sex. The "What planet do you live on?" is an indicator of your frustration in realizing you can't counter that point. I have not been disrespectful towards you. Initial disrespect is always an indicator that you are losing the discussion. — Philosophim

Oh, bunk. "What planet do you live on" was shorthand for saying language evolves and most educated people are now aware that pronouns refer to gender, these days.

So you are agreeing with me that its a lie, and that people are being asked to lie for someone else's feelings. — Philosophim

No. As should be obvious from my posts.

I am saying, "Even if, as is not the case, you are correct that using new pronouns for someone's gender is a lie, it is still not wicked."

If your 'good natured lies' make my consent trivial, then you share the same mentality as a thief. — Philosophim

Oh, no! Horrors! Well, I perhaps lack some respect for property rights. You misrepresent my position
(despite my clear posts). Your consent is irrelevant because it would be a trivial favor on your part to use the gender pronouns people desire. Trans people (about whom I know very little) are probably obsessive about their gender (why else would they bother becoming trans). So I assume it's more important to them than it would be to you (if you have normal sensibilities).

Pronouns for most people represent sex indicators, not gender. — Philosophim

What planet do you live on? These days, for most people pronouns represent gender indicators.

Because I am allowed the respect of my consent. And you don't get to disparage me for deciding what I do, and do not consent to in my life — Philosophim

We have freedom of speech. That includes your right to misgender people, and my right to disparage you for it. I'm not threatening to throw you in prison, or fine you.

With regard to lies: I'm a fan of Mark Twain, who said, "Show me a man who don't lie and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." Generous, good-natured lies harm no one, facilitate happiness and lubricate social interaction. Lies in and of themselves are not wicked; they are wicked only if harmful or malicious.

Your "consent" is trivial. Charity and a lack of egoism suggests their feeling are more important.

If its a legal name change, no. If its not a legal name change, I'm under no obligation to call them a name they've made up for themselves. Can I call them that? Yes. Do I have to or is it considered good manners? Not at all. That's up to the each individual to decide. Its called consent. — Philosophim

Not true. Of course it's a mere vernal sin to call people by one name when they've asked to be called by another. Nonetheless, kind, well-mannered people won't do it. You don't "have to" -- but it's rude not to.

The same is true for titles. If someone asks to be called Ms. Jones instead of Mrs. Jones, it's rude not to comply. Why should pronouns be so different? Is it so important to recognize a genetic or biological truth in a pronoun? Doesn't finding that important indicate prejudice? And if it isn't important, why not act in the interest of kindness and comply with the person's wishes?

Your seeming obsession with the topic is bizarre. Let's just try to get along, and when people ask us the favor of referring to them by a particular name or pronoun (which may be different from their birth assignment) why get all hoity-toity about it? Wouldn't it be kinder and easier just to do them that small favor?

Isn't the more important thing to get rid of slavery and prejudice? "Lets fix a wrong with a wrong" is not a solution in an advanced culture. This is also a gross exaggeration of what transitioned people have to do through in the West. You can show up transitioned at work, everyone knows you're a trans person, and harassment and mistreatment isn't tolerated. So, lets assume that a transitioned person can go to work, has to use their natal sex bathroom, does not get called pronouns by gender, but their natal sex, and people treat them just like anyone else otherwise. You now have zero cause. Meaning your cause was never the right cause, only a poor compensation to handle a bigger cause. — Philosophim

Who cares what bathroom people use? OK -- ideally, we would get rid of prejudice. Even if we did, though, some trans people would prefer others using their new pronouns. Out of kindness and good manners, we should all comply. If someone changes his or her name, do you insist on calling him or her by their birth name (many names are gendered)? Why insist on their birth gender? "Gender" is used to modify nouns in many languages, and it is often arbitrary. At work, and among close acquaintances most people would presumably know that the trans person was trans. It's still good manners to use their preferred pronouns, just as it would be to use their new name (if they have one).

Which is more important socially? Biology, or kindness, respect for identity, and honoring the wishes of others? In a social situation, shouldn't social reality trump biological reality?

In addition, it is incorrect to say the "people treat them (people of different genders) just like anyone else". WE all have been enculturated to treat women different from men. OF course, it may be true that this involves prejudice. The chivalry of "women and children first to the lifeboats" is great for women, except that it compares them to helpless children. It remains the case that gender influence social interactions, possibly due to prejudice, possibly due to differing training and upbringings. Perhaps trans people want to be treated (and act) in accordance with their new gender.

If a short person goes around walking on stilts in their spare time its fine. If they start demanding they be called a tall person, they're wrong. If they start demanding to be put on the basketball team because they're tall, they're also mistaken. Saying, "I need to be on the basketball team to avoid discrimination" doesn't make any sense. Am I wrong? I don't think so, but see if you can point out where you see a flaw — Philosophim

The flaw is obvious. Suppose a black person (maybe one of Thonmas Jefferson's children) -- back in the days of slavery -- wanted to pass as white. If he were seen as black he could have been sold into slavery, he could have been convicted of miscegenation (if he had a white wife), and he could have been the victim of more general prejudice. If prejudice and discrimination of trans people didn't exist, you might have a point. As it is, "passing" might be the more comfortable alternative.

Why do you care? What harm does it do if some trans people pass? Why shouldn't it be up to them?

That's irrelevant. People are going to elevate prejudices whether you intone a separate identity or not. You can't use language to stop people from seeing differences. You can only teach people to not be prejudiced or sexist. — Philosophim

It's not irrelevant to trans people. Perhaps they'd prefer not to be discriminated against, and if "passing" for a gender different from their birth sex helps them do this, I don't see the problem.

No. The recognition of difference does not imply that people's prejudices about those differences should be elevated above the reality of them. — Philosophim

Of course people's prejudices shouldn't be elevated -- but they probably would be.

The OP is not a question of accepting or not accepting trans individuals, and being gay has nothing to do with being trans. Its pointing out that the phrase used to communicate a certain concept is linguistically ambiguous at best, and is most logically read as something they do not want to claim. "Trans men are men" is not meant to imply that a trans man is an adult human male. But linguistically, that is the most rational way to read the phrase. As such they need to stop using it, or amend it to fully communicate as one example "Trans men are adult human females who act in male gendered ways — Philosophim

Oh no! Out of politeness, we practice some minor ambiguity! Horrors!

To return to the OP, assigning gendered roles is not "sexist" in the normal use of the word. Sexism suggests that some gender-based roles are more valuable than others, those assigned them are thus more valuable than others. Division of labor based on sex (gender?) is traditional in all human societies. Women gathered; men hunted. Women nursed the children (I admit that trans women may not be able to) and gathering plant-based food allowed them to carry the babies with them. This division became "sexist" when hunting and warfare were seen as more honorable and valuable than gathering.

If "sexism" is a form of discrimination that harms or devalues some people, wouldn't having unique terms for trans men or trans women be MORE likely to lead to such prejudice and discrimination? I don't see the point.

I admit I haven't read this entire thread. Nonetheless, nature vs. nurture questions are inevitably unanswerable.

My point in this post is that I think the idea that sexual traits (like homosexuality or unusual gender identity) are innate is politically irrelevant, and it was a mistake for the gay community to insist that they are. Why should it matter? We are responsible for our behaviors, not our desires. We should accept people's desired gender identification whether of or not it is innate. It's simply good manners -- like accepting people changing their names. We should accept homosexuality whether or not it is innate.

If other sexual desires or identities are innate (pedophilia, for example) should that make any difference in their moral acceptability? If a tendency to violence is innate does that make assault and battery more morally acceptable?

I think you're right. The traditional view of the after life in the ancient Mediterranean was of a rather dreary, shadowy existence. The mystery cults offered a better afterlife to initiates, but Christianity was less exclusive in that respect. — Ciceronianus

The Egyptians had a different view. (I don't know that much about it, but apparently if you prepared properly it was quite pleasant).

We can all (I suppose) take note of the DH Lawrence poem:

"Have you built your ship of death, O have you?
O build your ship of death, for you will need it."

Unless it is replaced by love? — Questioner

Well, that's the Christian answer. We have moved away from religious belief, but we needn't throw out the baby with the bath water.

I am reminded of a quote from Marie Curie:

"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less." — Questioner

Knowledge doesn't banish fear; it increases it. When we know the possibilities of the future we reasonably fear them. When Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, she would "surely die". Doesn't this refer to knowledge of our own mortality? Irrational fear is cowardice. Fearing real danger is honesty which may protect us.

Evil doesn't "lie inside (people)". It is nourished and festers. But "hateful behavior" (which you claim to find inexcusable) is often its result. Of course all human behaviors are "complicated". I am certainly not claiming there is one explanation for "hateful behavior". Instead, I'm suggesting we look at the "hate" as closely as we look at the "behavior".

But if you say someone is inherently evil, you are judging them. — Questioner

I'm not judging them. I'm saying that a perfect judge could judge them. I'm also saying that evil is a human quality. We all must fear and avoid it. It's not inherent to the few, but to all of us. We don't banish the evil in our own hearts only by avoiding bad acts, but by seeing ourselves as loving, decent and honorable; by yearning for the good instead of the evil.

Also, what's wrong with judging people? I do it all the time. Of course I can judge only by their words and actions -- I can't see their motives or secret desires. Still, the idea that we shouldn't "judge" seems silly. How are we to decide whom to befriend? Whom to avoid? Whom to love?

Of course we shouldn't condemn people without evidence, but we can contemn them based on less certain evidence than we would need for condemnation.

Evil can refer to acts or to a state of being. Of course we humans are not privy to the states of being of other humans. Acc. Christians, God can judge.

I cannot judge, of course, except by examining actions. But I agree with the Christain view. Evil is a state of immorality which may or may not lead to wicked acts. Evil is a personal quality; a defect. When we say behaviors are "evil" we mean they result from this quality. "Bad" simply means harmful.

I think what he was doing was rejecting the idea of a supernatural source of evil. That evil acts don't happen because of some demonic influence. Rather, actions should be judged in the circumstances in which they happen - and yes, they can be "bad."

When I say an action is "evil" - I mean it only in the common, not supernatural, usage of the word. — Questioner

Actions are never evil. They can be bad. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison. This is clearly a "bad" thing. It is evil only if the judge had wicked motives for convicting the person incorrectly. If the conviction was merely an honest mistake, the action is bad but there was no evil involved.

Well, yes it will make a difference. Calling people evil, rather than their behavior, condemns the whole person - whereas "evil behavior" may be separated from who the person is. "Separating the behavior from the person" - is actually a mainstay of both parenting and psychology. It allows you to engage from a more compassionate place. Evil behavior may be rehabilitated, an evil person not so much. — Questioner

Nietzsche: "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad."

Behavior can be good or bad -- but it is not "evil". This is the basic Christian position, but makes sense even for us non-Christians. Evil is the quality of a person, not an action. Let's posit two pedophiles, both locked in solitary confinement. One has repented, and if he were released would never commit another crime. The other is unrepentant, and if he were released would return to his evil ways, Can we really say both are equally "good" or "evil"? Neither is behaving in an evil manner (they can't -- they're locked up).

Behavior is never "evil" without intent. The person who reasonably believes he was defending himself is not guilty of violence -- even when he was not in danger. It's the intent, not the reality, that makes an action both evil and legally culpable. Behaviors can be (per Nietzsche) good or bad -- people can be good or evil (or, like most of us, a bit of both).

That wasn't my personal experience. For nearly 40 years of marriage, every day was an adventure. Every day had romance, right up until my husband died in 2021.

We dealt with serious illness, so maybe our expressions of love were counters to that. — Questioner

I get it. But adventure and homeostasis (stability) are at odds. Without uncertainty, there is no adventure.

I was fortunate to find true love in my marriage. It was the most stabilizing thing I have ever known. — Questioner

Romantic novels and movies END at marriage, because stability and adventure rarely coexist. A "romance" can refer to either a fictional adventure story, or to a love affair. Marriage -- in a sense -- ends "romance". So romantic love is destabilizing -- it becomes stable when the "romance" (i.e. adventure) ends.

And our prime directive as living organisms is to maintain homeostasis - in all of our systems. Balance is nature's rule. When we meet destabilizing factors, hate is among our repertoire of coping mechanisms — Questioner

But both love and hate are destabilizing -- the enemies of homeostasis. Ira Gershwin's lyric:

I was doing alright
Nothing but rainbows in my sight
I was doing alright
Til you came by.

So love is a destabilizing factor -- but it doesn't lead to hate (unless we are weirdos, whose unrequited love leads us to hate the object). WE long to become unbalanced -- we seek adventure -- and romantic love is an adventure.

The meaning of THING is an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated.

No "things" don't exist (acc. this definition). Therefore more things exist. Not one "thing" is non-existent.

Not necessarily. Love and hate begin as responses in the same neurological connections, but how they are ultimately conferred with meaning will depend on cultural factors, too — Questioner

The problem with reductionist explanations for human emotions is that they don't explain anything. Of course love and hate have "neurological connections". Where does that get us? Does it help us understand love or hate? It sounds "scientific" -- but what predictive or explanatory value does it have?

It might be that some day we can understand the neurological bases and triggers for love and hate. Until then, however, we gain more understanding from poetry, novels, essays and songs.

But the premise of my statement - we are products of natural selection - holds true. — Questioner

My complaint that this involves the logical mistake of "affirming the consequent" remains. We are (doubtless) products of both natural selection and random chance. It is a logical error to assume that because a trait exists, it must have conferred selective advantages. Of course in the case of vision, the selective advantages are obvious (although some creationists argue for irreducible complexity). Love and hate are less obvious. For one thing, attitudes toward love and hate have differed from culture to culture. If these emotions confer selective advantages for humans in general, wouldn't we expect our attitudes toward them to be similar cross-culturally?

Romantic love and its relation to marriage differs dramatically in different cultures.

It is probably true that all female mammals must have some emotional response to their offspring that leads them to nurture and nurse them. This obviously selfless behavior is essential for the continuance of the gene pool. But other forms of love (and hate) are less essential.

I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

The logical error here is called "affirming the cosequent." Darwinian evolution is based on the notion that if a trait gives us a (genetic) advantage, it will tend to become more widespread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has become widespread, it must have given us an advantage.

This is paricularly true of culturally influenced feelings and behaviors, like love and hate. Of course it is possible (even probable) that a trait or behavior that has become common has conferred advantages, but assuming it must have done so is an error

We cannot assume that because wars, witch burnings, pograms, and inquisitions have often "survived", they must have been evolutionarily advantageous.

The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden doesn't even come close to the real human experience. — Athena

Actually, it does come close. Adam and Eve are enjoined from eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. This (I maintain) represents the advent of civilization, when moral rules must become codified, and knowledge of good and evil explicit. They are expelled from Eden, and must labor for their food (Abel becomes a herdsman, Cain a farmer). This suggests the move from hunting and gathering to agriculture -- which happened in the not distant past for those who first told the story.

I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.

The physical record bears this out. Measures of health -- average height and longevity - decreased at the advent of civilization. This makes sense. A diet based mainly on the staple crop and contagious diseases that spread with crowded, urban conditions were probably the main culprits.

So the "Eden" of primitive life morphed into agriculture and civilization -- and slavery for huge swaths of the population. No wonder they longed for an Edenic past.

IN more general terms, a religious world view differs from a scientific one in that the scientific world view thinks we are progressing; the religious thinks we have fallen from an idyllic past. This is true for many religions (including the ancient Greeks', Athena) who told stories about the Gods walking the earth and breeding heroic children with humans in a glorified past.

If omniscience is infinite and beyond human comprehension, God’s actions are impossible to judge.

No. What follows is this:

If God’s actions are impossible to judge, then claims about God’s benevolence are equally impossible to justify.

You can’t have it both ways. — Truth Seeker

I don't need to have it both ways. It's one way, or the other. The Christian (which I am not) who believes the Bible is the Word of God is confronted with claims of God's "benevolence" along with histories of floods and slaughters of first-born sons. He is required by his faith to accept that God's actions are benevolent. I'm no expert on Christian apologetics -- if I were I could quote chapter and verse. But the problem doesn't seem impossible.

"Good" and "evil" are subjective concepts. So are "pleasure" and "pain". It's not impossible that an all-knowing and all-powerful (or, at least, far smarter and more powerful being than you or I) would have a different opinion about God's supposedly evil acts. After all, we humans have differing opinions. Slavery was once considered perfectly acceptable. So were lots of other things we now abhor. Why is it so difficult to accept that "perfect judgment" might differ from ours, especially when it is combined with knowledge of things (like the afterlife) about which we are ignorant?

I agree though (as I stated earlier) that if "benevolence" is defined as "in line with God's will", then saying God is "omnibenevolent" is meaningless.

By the way, lest I break the rules about careful writing, I know that "I" is grammatically correct. However, some Oxonian writer (I forget whom) once wrote: "When you hear a knock on the door and ask, "Who is it?', if the knocker answers, "I" he is using proper grammar, but you shouldn't let him in."

Wait, what's the good kind? — frank

Me.

When Europeans started trading with China in the 16th Century, they were a little shocked to discover that Christianity was already there. It was the Nestorian form, and had travelled there through Central Asia. There are still churches out there that are fusions of Christianity and Buddhism. Two thousand years. All over the globe. It's not a simple story. — frank

The Mongols conquered Russia, Poland, and much of Hungary by the 1240s. They were noted for their respect for indigenous religions -- many became Christians, Moslems and Buddhists. In fact Dalai (as in Dalai Lama) is a Mongolian word for "ocean" ("ocean of wisdom").

The Mongols improved trade routes and furthered cultural diffusion -- their empire fell apart in the 1300s largely due to the bubonic plague, which caused fear of travelers and traders (who might bring the plague). The intricate communications systems necessary for managing a huge empire collapsed.

Hyperbole abounds in religious texts. Odin is called "all seeing" -- but we know he relies on those two ravens to bring him the news. The hyperbole of the Old Testament is based on competition between different tribal gods. "All-powerful" or "all-knowing" may just imply a comparison, rather than an accurate description.

Here's Tennyson's take on "knowing":

"Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower-but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, all in all,
I should know what God and man is."

Of course the rhyme of "crannies" with "man is" is magnificent. But what does it even mean to "understand... all in all"? Does the creator of a thing "understand it all in all"? Did Tennyson understand his poem "all in all"? Or are there many interpretations and understandings?

If such a thing as omniscience is possible, then it is infinite and beyond human comprehension. Therefore, God's actions are impossible to judge, given our imperfect knowledge. The Christian must take His "benevolence" on faith, believing that if we knew the motives and results (if we had perfect knowledge) all would be clarified.

Truth Seeker — Truth Seeker

In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" William Blake asserts that heaven and hell are flip sides of the same coin. Heaven is Apollonian; hell Dionysian. Perhaps "good" is not possible without evil Creating a world in which there is evil (or in which there is potentially evil) may be (from God's perspective) the only way to create a world in which the good can be valued. If everything was good, the word "good" would lose all meaning -- it would just be whatever is.

Also, we don't know how death feels to sentient beings. They are all dead, and can't tell us.

Whining that God failed to create a perfect world -- from your perspective -- ignores how wonderful the creation is.

"3When I behold Your heavens,
the work of Your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which You have set in place—
what is man that You are mindful of him,
or the son of man that You care for him?"

Is it really fair to say that the moon and the stars are not good enough to suit your fancy? "Man was born to trouble, as the sparks fly upwards." Oh, well. Life is wonderful anyhow.

I am not convinced the Biblical God is good. — Truth Seeker

One principle of literary criticism is that it is unfair to criticize a book for failing to be a different book. The critic should criticize a book for what it is, not what it isn't.

The Bible affirms the beneficence of God repeatedly. The reader (critic) is thus required to attempt to overcome the seeming paradox resulting from God's goodness and the seemingly wicked acts Truthseeker lists.

It's not easy, but thousands of years of religious apologetics (with which I am not an expert) might help.

Regarding the "genocides": isn't it acceptable for the child who builds the sandcastle to kick it over? It might be evil for the local bully to destroy the other kid's creation -- but not for the maker.

In addition, God created a world in which death exists. To an immortal outside of time and space the distinction between dying in a flood and dying of old age might be irrelevant.

As God asked Job, He might ask Truthseeker," 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

The moral rules that apply to man clearly do not apply to God -- the finite does not apply to the infinite. Death is doled out by God in many ways -- but humans are enjoined from doling it out to their fellows.
Judging the benevolence of God by human standards is a mistake.

Regarding Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden, I happen to be reading Paradise Lost right now. Here is the magnificent ending of that epic, as Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden.

"They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld
Of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
Waved over by that flaming brand; the gate
With dreadful faces thronged, and fiery arms:
Some natural tears they dropt, but wiped them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:
They, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow,
Through Eden took their solitary way."

Was Paradise lost, or gained? "The world was all before them" and they were free. Freedom entails difficulties, but overcoming them is a pleasure (and a virtue) beyond that of simple existence without suffering.

(By the way, in "Paradise Lost" Satan is a dynamo, rebelling against an autocratic heaven. God and Jesus are more mamby-pamby. Is autocracy consistent with a utopian heaven? i'd suggest utopia must be an anarchy. Satan's rebellion lacked nobility because he would rather "rule in Hell than serve
in heaven." Other revolutionaries have followed suit. The autocracies of the Tsar or the Shah were destroyed, but autocracy merely shifted leadership.)

Also, I'm not religious. But it seems to me that judging God by human standards is a mistake. I'll grant that this makes asserting God's omnibenevolence circular.

↪Ecurb This objection trades on an ambiguity between suffering as a chosen challenge and suffering as imposed harm. Once that distinction is made, the argument loses its force — Truth Seeker

The fact that mountaineers choose suffering means that they (at least) see some virtue in overcoming it. Besides,, without suffering, courage would be meaningless., So would heroism. Have you read "The Worm Ouroboros" by E.R. Edison? It's a pre-Tolkien fantasy in which the heroes defeat the enemy, and then rue their peaceful lives without challenges and suffering, courage and heroism.

IN addition, who can know the mind of God? Maybe He values heroism more than you do? Maybe genocide offers the victims eternal bliss. OK, He massacred all those first born Egyptians, but we don't know what became of them after death.

It is true that "omnibenevolence" loses significance if everything God does is good by definition. IN that case, saying God is "benevolent" is like saying "God is God". But that's the theme of the Bible. God is good by definition. The careful reader must accept that (not in real life, but as a literary theme).

Premise 4:

A perfectly omnibenevolent being necessarily prefers the outcome that maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering. — Truth Seeker

Minimizing suffering does not necessarily maximize well-being. Without suffering (or potential suffering) there could be no adventure, no courage, no fortitude. Perhaps these virtues conduce well-being. Don't mountaineers choose suffering (because it is necessary to adventure and fortitude)? The Greeks believed that the Gods could not be heroic, because they were immortal. The reduction of their suffering necessarily led to the impossibility of certain virtues.

Although Kings often battled with the Church, Christianity offered philosophical support for Monarchy. After all, God rules in heaven. I'm reading "Paradise Lost" now, and Satan rebels against the autocracy of God's rule/ His rebellion is a noble one, although, like other revolutionaries, he doesn't want to change the system, merely his role in the system. It is better (he thinks) "to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

The divine right of kings mirrors God's rule in heaven. But if coercive force is a bad thing, mustn't utopia be an anarchy? Heaven and Hell suffer from the same flaw: autocratic rule.

↪Ecurb
Well, I hardly said that people lust after being forgiven on request. What a peculiar thing to say! I don't envision them achieving orgasm on actually being forgiven, either. But perhaps, for reasons unclear to me, you interpreted my suggestion people would find forgiveness of sin attractive to refer to physical attraction.

Here's how confession worked, in the old days. You entered the confessional, asked the priest to bless you, for you had sinned. You advised the priest how long it had been since your last confession. You described your sins. You were told your sins would be forgiven provided you sincerely repented and said certain prayers. Ego te absolvo peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti/i] are the priestly words of absolution on behalf of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rendered in Latin. That was the way of it.

In the Catholic tradition, one could obtain remission of temporal punishment for sins through prayer or good conduct. They're called indulgences.

Do you imagine that those who ask for their sins to be forgiven do so but then don't believe they've been forgiven until they've received some divine communication confirming absolution?

History is full of examples of Christians being assured their sins will be forgiven ( for example, for going on a Crusade or pilgrimage).

By the way, I'm no fellow traveler of yours. Neither an atheist nor a theist. — Ciceronianus

"Lust" can refer (metaphorically) to a spiritual desire as well as a physical one.

I don't know what people "believe" -- and neither do you. I'd guess many Catholics confess as a ritual act, and have no firm belief one way or another. And many Crusaders wanted their earthly debts forgiven, rather than their spiritual ones (as well as seeking earthly riches in the Holy Land).

What I was objecting to is your earlier claim that Christianity was attractive because on the ease with which one can attain salvation. But "narrow is the way" that leads to salvation; "easy is the way that leads to destruction." Isn't the "fear of God" a Christian principle?

IN addition, reductionist, psychological explanations for the spread of a complicated, many-faceted cultural occurrence tend to lack explanatory value. Although Christianity probably offered comfort to some, it offered distress to many others (who thought they were damned). Yet it flourished. I'd suggest the explanations that offer more understanding are cultural: political, mythological, and societal. Paul fought with James the Just (Jesus' brother) because he ignored the historical Jesus in his interest in the Myth of Christ. Yet it was he, more than any other disciple, who founded Christianity.

The world was changing. Judaism was a tribal religion -- but the Roman Empire had made tribalism obsolete (or if not obsolete, at least dated). The "tribe" morphed into "the set of believers". Of course this is a problem for modern Christians (especially evangelicals in the U.S.). Unlike Catholic rituals (which "confirm" tribal identity), "belief" is not publicly identifiable. Hence, a litany of "beliefs" confirming it (anti-abortion, anti-communism, etc.).

I don't agree with Cice's claim that people lust after being forgiven upon request. NO sophisticated Christian would be motivated by that. It's not the "request" that saves -- it's the grace of God who judges the souls of men. I say this as a confirmed atheist. I object to my fellow travelers offering shallow critiques of the religion which (for us Westerners) has shaped our culture and values.

Another point, apropos of what some other posters have stated:

Christianity combined Greek philosophy with Jewish law and order. The God of the Old Testament is rarely omnipotent or omniscient. He often is surprised by his people (hardly demonstrating omniscience). He seems to want to favorably compare Himself to competing Gods ("You shall have no other Gods before me").

He is also often masterful and poetic, even when He is tormenting Job he trenchantly asks him,

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?"

The New Testament God sends His only son to save mankind (although we might ask, "Who was it that set us up to fail?") Jesus represented God as philosophical - but not in the Greek, logical way. Instead, He is a story-teller, and a myth-maker. Ethics, for Him and for Christians, is not logical, but analogical. "What would Jesus do?"

So Christianity combined Jewish law with Greek philosophy, and added an analogical touch.