God, as portrayed in the Bible, is unworthy of worship.

Let me remind my opponent and the viewers that we must take things literally. We are arguing about what God is as portrayed in the Bible. If the Bible says that God causes children to die, than the Bible portrays God as someone who causes children to die. If the Bible says God sends people to hell than, God as portrayed in the Bible sends people to hell. If the Bible says God is good, than God, as portrayed in the Bible is good. If the Bible says God is perfect, than we must say that the Bible portrays God as perfect. If the Bible says God is worthy of worship, than God as portrayed in the Bible is worthy of worship. Gods actions are many. You can be a militant atheist who thinks the God of the Bible commits some outright horrible acts and still agree with my case. Now let me attend to an issue that might come up. Some of the viewers, or my opponent even, might say that the Bible portrays God in many different ways but some of them are completely contradictory. In other words one might say, one verse says God is loving but what about this other verse that says God condemned whole cities to be destroyed? In that case you would not know whose arguments to side with. Thus you might be inclined to vote tie as you believe Gods attributes are contradictory and thus coming to a conclusion as to what the Bible really portrays God as is impossible. While I would respect a vote tie with this RFD, I do still wholeheartedly disagree. Let me present an analogy. Suppose the following was written about myself; Causing helpless old ladies to trip on the sidewalk brings me delight. I enjoys burning peoples houses down. I am morally perfect. Torturing little kids is a hobby of mine. Now let's analyze how this statement portrays me. 1. Causing helpless old ladies to trip on sidewalks brings myself delight. 2. I enjoy burning people's houses down. 3. I am morally perfect. 4. I torture little kids as a hobby. In some way or the other all of these have to be in harmony together. My opponents arguments that the Bible authors based Gods characteristics solely of opinion is null. This is a debate on what God is according to the Bible. Thus according to what the writers said. It matters nothing whether they were right or wrong. If I say 2+2=5 that doesn't mean it is right, but if I say according to me 2+2=5 than that statement is correct. As portrayed by my statement 2+2=5 Whether you believe the Christian God is heinous or not, when “Then the man took the axe and chopped all four of the children’s heads clean off. It was a noble and heroic act. He doesn’t deserve any prison time for it. ” Pros analogy as well is not altogether fitting. None the implications directly say of what the man is, only his actions. The Bible on the other imply Gods attributes. So what do we observe about this man from the analogy? As portrayed;1. He has chopped off four children's heads2. He doesn't deserve to go to prison. I left out the part about the act being noble because that is what we observe about the act not about the man. Allow me to present a more fitting analogy that is only slightly changed. I think my opponent may agree that it is more fitting. “Then the man took the axe and chopped all four of the children’s heads clean off. He is noble and a hero. He doesn’t deserve any prison time for it. ” As portrayed from this; 1. He has chopped off four children's heads. 2. He is noble. 3. He is a hero. 4. He does not deserve to go to prison. This clearly portrays him as someone who is noble and a hero. The question might be raised, can a heroic and noble man also go around chopping children's heads off? I would say that that is completely irrelevant. We must takes things literally and from a purely argumentative standpoint. On this factor we must conclude that as portrayed here, a noble and heroic man chops children's heads off. According to this testimony he chops children's heads off but he is also a hero. /He says that if we find two seemingly contradictory verses, one which says “God tortures all hypocrites” and “God is kind and merciful”, we should assume the second one is true. Apparently, my opponent thinks the reverse of the old saying “actions speak louder than words” is true. //Not applicable. We must assume everything that is said as true. Not literally true, but true for the sake of debate. True according to the resolution. Thus if we were to come across these two verses, we would assume that God tortures all hypocrites, and that God is kind and merciful. Of course neither of these we should literally assume. No one would believe God tortures all hypocrites and of course my opponent does not believe God is kind and merciful or that He exists even, but if we are asking ourselves what God is according to these verses, (as portrayed in these verses) we must assume these facts. According to these verses God is kind and merciful. The fact that these verses portray God as kind and merciful is irrefutable. Just because other verses might imply what God is from His actions does not mean that these verses must be discarded. Not a single time have I argued my case using verses portraying Gods actions. It is needless. I already have verses that say what God is. I already have a verses that outright says God is worthy of worship (as shown latter on in this argument). It is irrefutable that the Bible portrays God as worthy of worship because it outright says He is. My opponent has yet to bring forth any verse that says He is not worthy of worship. All my verses outweigh pros. Adam and Eve and The Plagues of EgyptMy opponents points are outweighed because he makes many of his own personal conclusions. If I were to say 2+2=5 than as portrayed in that statement 2+2=5. My opponent can argue all day long that 2+2=4 but nothing will refute the fact that as portrayed in this statement 2+2=5. Tower of Babel My opponent is correct that I did not provide evidence of why this was morally wrong. They wanted to build a tower that would reach heaven. God did not want man to be able to just come into heaven when they please, thus He disrupted it. The only reason I don't use my mine contention to refute this is because I do not think it is a sound point otherwise. Bedbugs and Praying Mantises My opponent strawmans me here. I asked for proof that God is in direct control of evolutionary process. My opponent ignores this. God made whatever these insects evolved from. This does not mean He directed evolution to create what they are now. Hell/Oblivion Gods kingdom is for His people. Those who are not His people do not get to share His kingdom thus their souls are destroyed. God is a moral judge and as portrayed in the Bible a perfect moral judge. Thus His actions are justified. Jesus the Scapegoat and Salvation by belief, not action My main point outweighs these. No need to restate what I've already said many times. I've realized that last round I spent too much time refuting pro and should have gone more into exactly how God is portrayed as worthy of worship in the Bible. This is however very simple. “I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised, And I am saved from my enemies. " 2 Samuel 22:4 As portrayed in this verse God is worth to be praised. My case has been established; burden fulfilled.