The Biblical God cannot be shown immoral

Concerning Con's second paragraph, the argument that God exists is a separate subject but one that can be addressed, though to do so here would distract the subject at hand. However, Con's contention that a non-existent being can't be shown immoral is not quite correct, since it is simply a hypothesis that can be evaluated regardless of the existence of the deity in question. Concerning Con's third paragraph, one does not need to presuppose for purposes of this argument that the Biblical God is morally perfect, indeed common atheistic criticism rarely does so. Richard Dawkins, e. g. , levies a series of vague, unspecified critiques against the God of the Bible based on perceived attributes according to the Bible. One can debate the Biblical God's morality without presuming His existence, simply for purposes of theory. Concerning Con's fourth and fifth paragraph, I did not say that the only source which can inform us of YHWH's moral character is the Bible, and that personal experience and observation is inapplicable. Rather, I said that any criticisms should be viewed in light of what the Bible says - in other words, the Biblical God's attributes and justification for what He does should be viewed in the lens of scripture, so that it serves as a source of information about what God is like. In other words, it is fine to level criticisms of God's morality from observation, but the Bible can be used to make points about God's reasons and justification from a logical standpoint. Concerning Con's sixth and seventh paragaphs, the argument itself assumes that the Bible's claims of God being perfectly moral are debatable; the debate itself infers that. While one cannot simply answer criticisms of God being immoral as seen from His actions in the Bible with a Biblical statement like "God is good," one can examine the Bible for clues as to how God could be justified in said actions, and for context surrounding the case at hand. For example, it is a common accusation that God's actions regarding the Canaanite nations in the book of Judges were immoral, yet the Bible says repeatedly that God was going to destroy those nations because they were practicing child sacrifice(Leviticus 18:21,24; 20:1-5; Deuteronomy 18:10,12), and God did not want the practice spreading. (Deuteronomy 12:30-31; 20:17-18) In that context, God's actions become justifiable when it is evident God was seeking to stop a global evil from spreading in the same way we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to stop the Axis forces from conquering the world. There are mitigating circumstances for the destruction of human life when said life is doing evil and destroying other lives. Concerning's Con's eighth, ninth, and tenth paragraphs, Con is correct that for purposes of this debate one need not assume God's commands are in and of themselves moral commands deserving of punishment. The debate's inferred purpose is to question the morality of those commands and by consequence the Biblical God. However, Con is incorrect that the only reason sin can deserve punishment is that it's "wrong to disobey God. " Biblically, God is the Judge of the Earth (Romans 3:6) who has an obligation to do what is right. (Genesis 18:25) Sin itself is wrong for its own reasons, indeed these are referenced by America's Declaration of Indepence - God gives inalienable rights to men, and it is wrong for men to infringe upon these God-given rights. Concerning Con's ninth, tenth and eleventh paragraphs, there are valid explanations in the light of Biblical context for each of the cases referenced. In reference to Genesis 3, the actions of mankind corrupted their once-perfect natures, placing them under the control of a malevolent evil rebel angel named Satan. (Romans 6:16-17; Ephesians 2:2; John 8:34-35, 44) They made themselves the servants of sin/corruption by doing what was wrong, and began a process of harming one another and creation itself that lasts until the present day. As such, there was justification for the punishment of mankind. In reference to Genesis 7, we are not told the specific details in Genesis 5-6 of what the circumstances were, so it would be premature to assume that God could not be justified in the particulars as we do not know them. God, as previously mentioned, destroyed the nations in the book of Judges for committing rampant child sacrifice, and it is reasonable to assume an even greater destruction involved at least equivalent evil. Global human sacrifice or its equivalent would be justification for God hitting the reset button on humanity as it were, so that life could be born without such abuse. At any rate, we simply are not told the justification for God's destruction of humanity, and as such cannot adequately judge the moral reasoning behind it; all we know is that there could well be mitigating circumstances which would justify it. In reference to Romans 5, I would argue that when one asks why God allows evil to exist in the world they are subconsciously acknowledging that mankind perpetuates evil to such a degree that God's judgment/intervention is necessary. Hitler or other genocidal atrocities are simply extremes, humans commit evil acts against one another incessantly. Death was necessary for God to institute in the Earth so that particularly evil people like Hitler do not become constant, and are replaced by others; that the constant acts of evil they implement are kept to a minimum. Furthermore, death according to the Bible is simply a temporay waypoint before God's final Judgment when the ultimate destinations of mankind will be determined, and as such is not inherently immoral since it does not cause a creation to stop existing, merely sends that creation to a place in waiting for a final court hearing. Concerning 2 Samuel 11-12, the Bible makes clear that unborn children who die prematurely go to a place of peace. (Job 3:11-19) Jesus says of Judas that because of his egregious evil it would be better for him that he had not been born, showing that those who would do horrible evil during their lives would be better off not being born at all. (Matthew 26:24) As for God's reasoning in such a case, it was not simply that "David showed contempt for the Lord. 2 Samuel 12:14 says that David's actions gave God's enemies much reason to blaspheme, but the reason they did so is actually mentioned in earlier verses in chapter 12. Nathan begins by telling the parable of a poor man with a pet lamb who had a rich man come kill it for his supper. God's stinging condemnation of David as seen in v. 9 is that "you have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. " David had killed an innocent man so he could commit adultery with his wife, and she may not have been innocent either as she agreed to it and possibly seduced him by washing nude in sight of his palace (2 Samuel 11). Concerning Con's twelfth to fourteenth paragraphs, I would argue that if we should hold one guilty until proven innocent in court of law when we are subjects of the Creator, we should be even more cautious when potentially condemning our Maker and Judge. A prisoner should be careful in falsely condemning his judge, and a servant his king, even so should we give God the benefit of the doubt unless evidence exists showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that what God did was wrong. Ultimately, the assumption that David's wives were not involved may not prove correct, as again, Uriah's wife may quite possibly have instigated David's adultery. I maintain that the mitigating circumstances of each of the cases in question provide details through which one can see how God could be justified in His actions, and that there is no definite implication of guilt or abuse on God's part from the cases in question.