The Biblical Actions of the Christian God are Inconsistent with Its Biblical Attributes (et al)

Again, I call the reader's attention to my opponent's concession: "There are inconsistencies to God's Bible because God's standards (which He holds himself to) and those standards, which He holds us to, are in conflict." ****************************************** Some responses: >> "You reposted in three hours. I feel kind of dirty. I must confess I do not believe that you read all of that information in a meaningful way." I'm not convinced you did either, as the information is obviously logically inconsistent and heavily biased with an apologetic tone. >> "To prove to you that you did not read= the quote you gave from Justin Martyr shows you did not understand the words that preceded the statement. He was teaching Jews in that they were contradictory." Actually, I'm pretty sure you're misreading the text. Regardless of how Justin Martyr explains the contradictions away, he still recognizes they are there. Here's more context... "If we do not accept this conclusion, then we will fall into absurd ideas, as the nonsense either that our God is not the same God who existed in the days of Enoch and all the others... or that God does not wish each succeeding generation of mankind always to perform the same acts of righteousness. Therefore, we must conclude that God, who is immutable, ordered these and similar things to be done only because of sinful men, and at the same time we confess Him to be sympathetic toward all men, prescient, needful of nothing, just, and good." Obviously, this logic is egregiously flawed. It basically says, "There is a conflict if we assume that God is righteous and murderous, so we'll just assume that our sins are the reason God wants us to commit genocide." >> "The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone's personal moral intuition)... You see in this a failing in the Logic of point 3. It is personal moral intuition you are pointing to. " God's moral intuition apparently includes the notion that it is morally acceptable to kill children. >> "To address Children you will see that God has no problem sending them to heaven." Oh - I see now... the fact that they'll go to heaven makes it all right to kill them... Right... >> "When you understand the principles in the Bible you come to understand that the letter of the Law was not the important thing but the spirit behind the Law was." What was the spirit behind the law to kill homosexuals? What about boiling a kid goat in its mothers milk? Or the spirit behind God's orders to commit genocide? ************************************************ 1. On Slavery My opponent asserts I didn't understand his source. As though there is something hard-to-grasp about the fact that God opposes oppression and orders people to conquer other nations and keep slaves. It seems I am not the one with any misunderstanding on this point. The notion that I need to study apologetic propaganda appalls me - the average Christian, whose notion of God we're dealing with, has undoubtedly not read OR understood this material. Furthermore, understanding of heavily biased works does not even answer the questions of the debate topic. The appeal to this kinsmen redeemer nonsense is simply a way of saying "God ordered them to sin and they sinned, but Jesus died for their sins, so it's all even in the end." This is ludicrous. 2. On Righteousness. My opponent asserts components of righteousness present in a passage that talks about Jesus fulfilling a prophecy... Obviously he has not read the passage he references, or draws some bizarre understanding of the passage that is not supported by the actual language of the Bible. Furthermore, we're not talking about Hebrews - we're talking about God sparing Lot as a just and righteous man who offered his virginal daughters to a mob to be raped and the committed incest with them. 3. On Perfection in God's Law. My opponent obviously does not understand the notion that God creates these covenants with man. It is immaterial who breaks them. If the covenant was perfect, there would be no need for a new one formed on "better promises." If the first one was perfect, there COULD BE no better promises. Ergo, the first covenant was not perfect; ergo, the law of God is not perfect. 4. On Mercy in War/Oeace. My opponent asserts that I did not address any of his content in his source. Consider that his source explains away the notion that the outrageous butchering of the Amalekites was not genocide because it was not "ideological, retributive, developmental, or despotic." However, it is quite clear that an order from God commanding genocide is ideological in nature. Furthermore, the article attempts to get God off the hook by claiming that there is no moral absolute preventing killing of children - as though this has any import for the genocide of the Amalekites... If genocide is wrong, God commanded evil. On top of this, the article states that "God was outraged at Egypt's infanticide, at Canaanite and Israelite child sacrifice, and at the abandonment of unwanted newborns in the desert by wandering nomadic tribes" - an unusual position for a God that kills babies and is supposedly "slow to anger" to take. The article's conclusion states: 1. "The case of Amalek does not conform to known patterns of genocide, and therefore cannot legitimately be so called." 2. "The Amalekites had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade." 3. "The only two choices were leave them to die slowly/agonizingly or kill them quickly/violently." The first statement is nonsense considering the fact that an order from God qualifies as ideological genocide. The second statement qualifies the action is retributive genocide, and the third statement simply reinforces the notion that this was indeed a slaughter... a slaughter that included the women and children, right down to the last ox and a$$. Clearly not genocide by any means... ******************************** More Responses: >> "You picking them apart only shows that you do not understand anything I said. You spoke without knowledge." My opponent keeps stating this without any evidence for it - I understand his reasoning perfectly. It just happens to be egregiously flawed, which is why I pick apart his points. >> "Lot was an "afflicted" righteous man. You did not know prior to this debate that the Bible teaches levels of righteousness and Lot was not accurate in desiring to send out his daughters to the mob." What the deuce is an "afflicted" righteous man?? This doesn't even make SENSE. Lot was inaccurate in sending his daughters to the mob? Inaccurate? Again - this is just nonsense. >> "You did not understand that People invalidated the Old Covenant by not keeping it." Yes I did - I explicitly addressed this point. >> "Slavery is not an issue for God. God is concerned with your eternal welfare first and will use bad things to save you." Obviously if he uses "bad things," he commits evil. >> "God is merciful and patient, He waited 430 years for the Land of Canaan to become so destitute it needed to be wiped out." Oh I see - God waited around till genocide was as bad as it COULD have been. How considerate. ****************************** My opponent has done utterly nothing to refute my claims - he simply asserts I don't understand and offers flawed logic for an explanation. Ladies and Gentlemen, the debate is clear. AFFIRMED.