On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

I have to address statements made by con. Con says: " The first problem is I will openly state that NO, I Am is not a kind being. Because he is not just a loving god, but a judgmental god."This openly concedes the debate.Con says: " Secondly: Are you an Atheist? If yes, then god is nothing in your eyes so there would be no reason to continue."This statement is insane.I don't believe in the literal existence of Zeus, however that doesn't mean I can't address Zeus's character.Atticus Finch is a novel character, but I still love him and can say he's a ethical character.Now on to my arguments.Unkind Terms Of Salvation: "Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."So not going to hell is contingent upon believing Jesus is lord. Per the previous definition of kindness, GOD is unkind in requiring worship in order to not go to hell.P1) The truly kind don't require reciprocityP2) God requires reciprocityC1) God is not kindDefense of P1- The definition presented. If one requires reciprocity, one is merely behaving in a rational egotistical way, which is understandable for a human, but not for a god. " In ethical philosophy, rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest"Humans and other Earthly organisms behave in this way, due to evolution and to meet needs.It's basic behavorial biology, organisms act to meet three ends:1. Individual selection2. Kin selection3. Sexual selection.So what's the conclusion?It's that humans very rarely, if ever, engage in disinterested altruism, thus they are rarely kind in the truist sense.The problem is that GOD doesn't need to act to meet this end or any ends, thus there is NO excuse to require reciprocity.P1) Humans act towards ends because they have needsP2) Humans arn't purely kind because they must require reciprocity to meet needsP3) God does not have needsP4) As a result of god not needing anything, god shouldn't require reciprocityP5) God requires reciprocityC1) God is not kindP1 and P2 is well established by behavorial biology. P3 is true by virtue of god's attributes.P4 naturally follows.P5 negates god's kindness.C1 is the neccesary conclusion.So I think this proves god isn't kind.Now con concedes god is not kind, so he makes some off topic comments. Con says: " He/she/it of himself is a loving, caring god. He in the bible told the Israelites time and time again that these actions will have these consequences and these actions will have these consequences. All of our strife is caused by our actions not by god's doing. He warned us of the consequences of moving away from him and of course we don't listen and look at how 'perfect' the world is. "Anything that happens to the Israelites is god's fault. Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):P1)An omniscient god knows the future.P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.C1) You don't have free will.Hell-Sending people to hell is unkind, I hope I don't have to explain why.Is god morally justified in sending people to hell?Consequentialism:P1) That which is good, promotes overall well-'beingP2) God sends people to hellP3) Hell does not promote overall well-being C1) God is not morally justified in sending people to hellDeontology:P1) Act as if your actions will become universal lawsP2) God sends people to hellP3) A universe in which people are sent to hell is a less favorable universe than in one in which people are C1) God is not morally justifiedHell is infinite suffering for a finite act. This only renders god immoral and unkind. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.biblestudytools.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...