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

I am sorry for you puzzlement,.. I will try to elaborate further. "Is an entity that murders babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise?" This is wrong,... that is not the question at all. The question must read like this,.. Given the Bible, is GOD when murdering babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise. --This puts the resolution in context of the Bible. My opponent wishes to take God, as depicted in the Bible, out of context and offer him up for judgement out of the context he was plucked from. -- The Bible is the required truth for believers in God. The Bible is the word of God,... since my opponents resolution requires the assumption we believe in God, and Bible which would become inherently true as the word of God, becomes inescapably the barometer of morality to all believers. Thus, God operated in the realm of his own morality and it is us as believers to adhere to his morals as the most correct. -- In other words, if you feel it is morally wrong to kick a puppy, yet you believe in God, and God says it is morally permissible to kick a puppy, than you as a believer would be expected to adhere to his ways,.. thus ruling it morally permissible to kick puppies. Even if you believed in God, but felt it still wrong to kick puppies, you would be the one considered immoral for feeling it wrong to kick puppies. ***** "Actually, given the Bible, Jesus came to save Gentile AND Jew, so non-believers are clearly capable of being saved." -- Yes, saved and permitted to heaven given they repent for the sins committed, and accept God. If they die as non believers they obviously did not repent, and given the bible (resolution) it is morally permissible for God to sentence them to eternal suffering. Ergo, ruling God morally in the good, for said action, given the Bible. "My opponent delivers this useful (?) definition of morality. Do we follow the acts of God in the above verses in our daily lives? Endorse slavery, genocide, filicide, kill babies? I think not. Ergo, by your own definition, God is immoral." -- Haha,.. nice try,.. Need my opponent be reminded that the resolution calls into question God's morality, not ours, in the context of the Bible? The actions of God listed by my opponent are to remain in context of the Bible, the meaning behind the actions,.. or result of the actions proved said action to be morally permissible given the Bible. ************** "Yes they are... and I have shown that the relationship is that God is a hypocrite, immoral, and undeserving of praise in the above Bible verses." -- The above verses were taken out of context,... thus, ineligible for stipulation in judging ones actions being immoral,.. in fact the resolution states given the Bible,.. so arguments should be held in context of the Bible in which said actions are written. So given the bible, Gods actions were ultimately permissible. (morally) My opponents resolve is that one assumes given the bible, God is a hypocrite and immoral, thus resulting in the consensus he is undeserving of praise. That is the path required to reach that correct resolve of my opponent. This obviously rules out atheists for example, since they would feel God is undeserving of praise regardless of my opponents resolution. This is why the only way to reach my opponents resolve of God being undeserving of praise do to his biblical morality, requires the belief of a God, the Bible, and be subject to the opposition that God could be praise worthy. So if one concedes to believing in God, and the Bible, they are inherently subject to laws of morality as governed by God and his word the Bible. And like the puppy analogy, if you assume God is real, and the Bible is true, as my opponents resolutions calls for, you would be subject to to the laws of morality governed by God and written in the Bible, thus ruling any contradicting views of morality from Gods views, wrong. If we assume the Bible is correct, then God operates in his realm of morality, and it is us that must adhere to that realm,... any contradicting views of morality we may have would be the ones that are considered repugnant, not his. **************