Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise

The question,.. "Given the Bible, is Gods action in murdering the babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise." Answer- NO. Given the Bible God is Omnipotent, omniscient, giving him unlimited authority, awareness and understanding. This, in regards to the Bible, gives God all the power to be his own authority (arbiter) on moral judgement and opinion. In fact, given the Bible, he the only arbiter of morality to any of those subject to give praise, which would be anyone, as required to prove my opponents resolve. Given the Bible, God is justified in killing the babies because God himself is justice. Nothing God ever does is unjust. Given the Bible, God killed those Egyptian kids because God owns all human life, and he has every right to take it away. Given the Bible, For us human beings to murder is unjust because we were not given that right to do so. But because God has the full right to take anyone's life, for him to kill anyone is not unjust at all. Given the Bible, Can be, and is, his own and our, arbiter of morality. (Given the Bible that is.) ****** "That's like asking the suspect to sit as judge and jury at his own trial." -- Arguing this outside the realm of Christian theology, which is what you wish, would make it like O.J. Simpson as the suspect on trial and the Brown family being the Judge and Jury. A judge would have to be neutral, and Jury of his peers. lol. ******** My opponents resolution implies 2 results are possible. If A and B are opposites,.. and 'A' is my opponents resolution. A= God is morally repugnant therefore undeserving of praise. B= God morally correct and deserving of praise. - To an atheist for example, neither premise is logical as praise wouldn't be offered regardless of 'A' or 'B'. Ruling my opponents resolution illogical. Again, an atheist doesn't offer praise to God not because of God's morals in accord to the Bible, an atheist doesn't offer praise because they think God doesn't exist. Or, an atheist views God as a figment of story,... My opponent would still fail because Gods actions would still require justified within context of the story. Gods character values were determined by the story line or plot, the Bible story being the arbiter, and the story saying God is morally good and praise worthy. Another way to look at this is Harry Potter. A character in a book,... when taken out of context or away from the story line, some would consider Harry immoral for practicing witch craft and casting spells onto people. However, putting Harry's actions back into context of the storyline, and his action were morally permissible do to the greater good as the outcome given the story. Much like taking Gods actions of sacrificing his son out of context; when you put it back into context, you see this action resulted in salvation for mankind, ergo, morally correct. However you look at it,.. the resolution fails. My opponents resolve is not reached with his premise. But rather the premise that God is not worthy of praise because he does not exist. A point that requires no regard to Gods morals in accordance with the Bible. The point I put forward is this,.. My opponents premise requires 3 assumptions. 1.) The Bible is correct/ true. a. In accordance to the Bible, God is his own authority on morality and it is us that are subject to his moral guidelines b. In accordance to the Bible, Gods actions resulted in greater outcomes, thus it can be argued that Gods actions were just and morally permissible 2.) God exists a. According to the Bible, God is worthy of praise 3.) God is either praise worthy or not a. Given 1 and 2, God is considered worthy of praise, and opposing views in accordance to the Bible would be morally repugnant. SOOO,.. to satisfy my opponents resolution we must first make the above 3 assumptions. If God is presumed real, and the Bible is correct, than moral intrinsic value is inherent to the Bible and God as arbiter of morality. In other words, this is like if at your own home you are allowed to wear shoes inside, but at your friends house you cannot. At your home, shoes in doors is permissible, at your friends they are not. This concept applies here, if we assume the above Christian Theology is correct, (putting us in "GODS house" if you will), it is Gods rules we would have to adhere to. Or like going to another nation, for instance a German 18 year old can legally drink in Germany, but if he were to go to the U.S. he could not. His own laws Germany are extrinsic once he assumes residence in the USA. ********* "I'm not sure why my opponent is so reluctant to address the verses I have mentioned" --> I addressed these verses in my R1 points of the Bible's stance on God and Suffering. http://answers.org... ****** Closing, Point 1.) My opponents premise is not proved logical, rather illogical given that his resolve of "undeserving of praise," is reached in disregard of the his premise, Given the Bible, God is morally impugnant. God would be found undeserving of respect not due to his morals in accordance to the Bible, but rather because he is believed to not exist. Point 2.) My opponent attempts to take the Bible verses out of context and offer them up to be judged out of context. Not only is this going against what his own resolution calls for, but It is illogical given point 1. Those judging in an outside context obviously would not offer praise regardless. Point 3.) My opponents resolution calls for the 3 assumptions given above. 3a. The Bible is true 3b. God exists 3c. God is either praise worthy or not >> If we adopt the assumptions as our own, holding them true, as my opponents resolution calls for,... Then we by default adhere to Christian Theology, which states given the Bible, moral intrinsic value is inherent to the Bible and God as arbiter of morality. So it would be presumed that: 1. God is fake, therefore unworthy of praise despite PROs premise. 2. Given the Bible, God is true, and is the arbiter of his and our morality. Either way, my opponents premise does not satisfy the resolve, the key component in assuming it the most correct. I believe that my position in this debate was satisfied in that I showed a more logical premise to reach the same resolve, and that I kept a Biblical character in the context of the Bible as required to satisfy the topic of the debate. Thank you readers, and Thank you to my worthy opponent.