There's too much hate in God

A Metric:My opponent did not provide a metric, so I will be providing one myself. I'm sure my opponent will find it agreeable, although due to the wording of the resolution, it is hard to find a metric that's less vague than the wording of the topic itself. Too much hate is now to be defined as a level of hate which hinders God from being good.We can agree that some level of hate is good. A just God who does not hate evil is a logical paradox. So God must at least hate evil. Of course, this means we need to establish what is morally good. Since my opponent is attempting to disprove Christianity by using its own assumptions, I will bring up Biblical morality as the basis of morality as it pertains to God's actions. But I'll get to that in a second.I want to address an essentially dropped point:Free Will:My opponent is making the non sequitur analysis that because God has the power and knowledge to stop something bad, that he must or he's actively causing the bad thing. Non sequitur is a logical fallacy that means that the point doesn't logically follow from the premise to the conclusion. I did go through a logical process of describing how man's free will and the existence of evil is necessary for the greatest good possible: a loving relationship with God.In other words, my argument is not simply "an excuse," it is a proper logical analysis. This is important, because we must only take into account things that God directly caused. The Bible isn't necessarily full of the righteous. In face, a lot of the historical books tell you about a lot of rulers or regular people who did a lot of bad things. According to the standing analysis, these are not God's fault.Now I have 6,000 characters to explain Biblical morality as it pertains to God and how the wrath of God is good, because I feel that's necessary for this debate. Keep in mind as I'm writing this, it may not feel comfortable. It may not give yout he warm fuzzies. However, truth is not found in feelings. Truth is something that accurately describes that which is real or corresponds to reality. Truth is not emotive.Let's go:What is Good?That which is good is that which God says is good. Why is that? Imagine it like an inventor. An inventor creates a vastly complex machine. You ask, "what is this part supposed to do?" He tells you its purpose, but you think it looks like something else and decide you should take it out because it looks bad. Unfortunately, that was central to the machine working, and now the machine no longer works. The inventor decided what was good and what was bad as it pertains to his machine, because he created it.As in that example, the Creator of the universe is the one who decides what is good and bad in that universe. He is also the most important thing in that universe, or in fact the only thing good in this universe. Do not take that statement lightly alongside the analysis of God killing people. We're going to get to God's wrath here in a second.Greater Sins:Because God is the Creator and the one who decides what is morally good and the only good thing in the corrupted universe, that means that sins against him are the greatest sins one can commit. In a vast majority of my opponent's examples, the people who were punished by death were the ones committing sins directly against God such as idolatry and the destruction of God's image (themselves).Remember that last sentence for this bit.God's Image:Man is created in God's image according to Genesis. If God is the best thing in this universe, and God is in fact bound to value Himself as the greatest good (as a being who understands what is good) then God would not take the destruction of his image (humans) lightly. It's not that God is comfortable with the killing that had to happen, it's that humans are too adept at rebelling. Not just mindless rebellion, but a very active rebellion and a spitting in the face of God.God, according to his nature, had to order the death of some people groups who were corrupt from the inside out in a direct rebellion against him.God's Wrath:God's wrath should actually be viewed as something which is good and necessary. Justice means that there's an ultimate truth, which is good. Justice is a direct response to that which is good and true. So yes, in cases where a culture has become so rampant with a sort of demonic mindset, such as Soddom and Gommorah, then they must be destroyed or they corrupt that which is good.We actually have examples where the Israelites not killing peopel resulted in the corruption of Israel. [1] Women used seduction to trap the Israelite men into their way of thinking and convinced them to follow their idols. This is why often God commanded that everyone except for virgins and children be killed. However, there are some cases in which the culture would've been so corrupt that no one could be left alive without the corruption of Israel.Why is this good?It's natural to ask yourself this question. I don't blame you for being skeptical of genocide. The carries a heavy connotation, but the fact that it sounds bad doesn't make it bad. Like I said, truth is not emotive. In fact, I believe God evaluated things on a cost benefit analysis. If leaving a certain group of image bearers alive would further or lead to the glorification of his image, then God would've let them live. However, if letting them live would result in the destruction of his image and the cursing of his name, then they had to be killed.We already know according to Biblical principles that God is the most important thing in the universe. The only good thing in the universe. So if God is the only good thing, then why would it be okay to attempt to curse that? That should be the greatest sin of them all. And since sins of lesser severity are punishable by death, then why should this sin not be punishable by death?Maybe because it makes us feel like God is petty or egotistical. Honestly, if you were the greatest being in the universe, you would have a right to have a focus on yourself. Especially if you created a race of people to enter into a loving relationship with you, only for them to rebel and continue rebelling for thousands of years. God has a right to value himself, because he created everything. Logically, nothing else can be more valuable than him.I can explain this more throughout the debate, but I have to address something else my opponent said, because I think it's an argument.On that last bit in my opponent's round:My opponent apparently has not read the Bible. It's easy to Google verses where God commanded someone to kill without giving the Bible another thought, but to claim that the voices of the people are not heard in the Bible is absurd.In Job, Job does quite a lot of speaking his mind to God. In the historical books, we hear a lot about what God's people thought and what everyone said. They're written a historical records. We also hear them speaking their mind like in the prophecy books and in the epistles.Even Psalms is just one long book of things that a multitude of humans were saying. Some books of the Bible don't even mention God (Ruth and Esther).And as for actual children, there were children who were kings, like Josiah. Jesus even tells adults that they should be more like their children. Of course, the people who wrote these books were adults who could read and write, but adults in ancient Israel were people 12 years old or older. People just old enough to think critically.So my opponent's complaints and rants are unfounded.Summary:Most of my opponent's arguments fall in the non sequitur or baseless assertion category. I don't see any attempts on my opponent's part to analyze verses of the Bible. He's just saying verses and telling you to take them at face value, which is the biggest mistake you can make when interpreting the Bible.Thank you for reading.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...