God is Great.

I thank Con for his response.First, God does not cause bad things to happen. Humans are the ones who cause bad things to happen. Second, God knows that bad things happen, but He does not intervene as He gave humans free will. Third, God is all powerful, but He lets evil exist since there is a purpose for it. However, Con implies that he believes God does not have a morally sound reason for letting evil exist. Ian, how could you know this? "Perhaps there is a higher purpose for "evil" to exist that we don't know of but God does, like when a toddler kicks and screams and cries when he gets his shots. Why, oh why doesn't someone stop the evil doctors causing this poor toddler to suffer? Because, even though the toddler doesn't realize it, the "evil" that is causing him pain is ultimately helping him. To claim that the world's 'evils' cannot possibly have a greater purpose is to claim omniscience yourself" (1).Now, there are many medical miracles that people witness (2). Numerous children get haunted by using spiritual toys like the Ouija Board. In fact, even a witch warned people to "steer clear" of the toy (3). You said everything can be explained/contains the possibility to explained using non-supernatural methods. So, could you explain how the aforementioned cases occur? My opponent refers to commands from the Old Covenant, which was meant for the Israelites back then (4). Yet, Con says "us" as if those are direct commands for us to follow today. Furthermore, God only killed many people because He is just, and therefore must punish sin (otherwise He would not be just). In the process of punishing it, He made sure that the Israelites would not be harmed with immorality, lest it would prevent the birth of the Messiah (5). Technically speaking, the Golden Rule does come from the Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, the only difference is that God specifically made the Rule innate in our species (Romans 2:14-15). I am glad that my opponent brought this up, because this only proves the Bible true even further. The verses prove how everybody knows the Golden Rule, regardless of how geopolitically separated they are. For example, China was geopolitically isolated for thousands of years (6). Despite the isolation, the Chinese still knew the Golden Rule, because it was written in their hearts. After all, Confucius himself said, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." Again, I say that the fact that everyone knows the same Rule is because of God. Where would all those isolated people know their senses of morality from? I believe that human rights and all those concepts that Con mentioned are good, as long as they are in harmony with the Bible. However, some of those things can be abused and go beyond the line of morality. For example, one can express pornographic messages in public, but that would cause other people to commit adultery. Also, liberals often justify abortion, saying that woman can do whatever they want to their bodies. However, they fail to realize that what's growing in the womb is an independent human being that is even capable of having a different blood type. My opponent fails to realize that God came up with these commandments because He did not want anybody to worship any other gods (which were unreal). By doing these things, they would be keeping themselves away from the truth, therefore signifying the sinfulness of breaking those commandments. God also did not want anybody to say His name unnecessarily. This is not because the Lord has ego issues, but because people would be blaspheming His holy name when they are supposed to worship Him. For the fourth commandment, my opponent needs to know is that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath (Mark 2:27). My opponent simply made a straw-man argument when he said that "three or four" commandments have to do with God being jealous or vain. When one looks at each one of these commandments, he would be able to see that these were written for the betterment of men. Those morals are self-evident, but I repeat that The Law is written on peoples' hearts everywhere regardless of isolation. Moreover, Con says, "The only two commandments that can be called 'good' are do not murder or steal, which would seem to make god a hypocrite." When did God ever murder, Ian? When did He ever steal? Also, not all killings are murder. God has killed many people, but none of those killings happened to be murder. There are criminals facing capital punishments, but are capital punishments murder? No. God was simply being a law enforcer, and a just one at that.Loving your enemies is good, because hatred would only bring up another cycle of hatred. This is proven by how a Hindu man named Gandhi did not fight the British with love in lieu of hate. If Gandhi used violence, then that would have only brought up more grudges among both the British and the Indians. After all, he said, "Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.” Most people who are considered as "Christians" are not really Christian. For example, Roman Catholics (who make up half of the global "Christian" population) do not believe in the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice to be saved. They believe in faith and works, instead of faith alone (7) Christianity, if properly followed, would be a force for good. The true Christians happen to be Baptists or Presbyterians (a lot of them happen to be born-again), and it wasn't those groups who committed mass murders like the Catholics did. Con brings up events like the Spanish Inquisition, which unfortunately does not help his argument one bit. In fact, I am happy that this supports the Bible even further. The Bible says that there will be many wolves in sheep's clothing in Matthew 7:15, such as the various popes and other false prophets like Joseph Smith of Mormonism. Such people who follow the wolves in sheep's clothing are not saved, for they believe in spiritually dangerous heresies. Contrary to Ian's conclusion, I wish to say this: An unbeliever may strive to be a "good" person in an earthly sense, but a born-again Christian (like a typical Baptist or a Presbyterian) would usually have the upper hand in that. History proves that a lot of non-Christians like Catholics (8) and Atheists (Joseph Stalin, anyone?) have committed mass murders (9). After all, the Bible said that unbelievers are indeed wicked. Now, Con makes the baseless assumption that I was born into the Christian faith. I was in fact born into practicing Hindu family, and I converted to Christianity years later. I do not believe in the other gods because none of them have left behind records of miracles, prophecies, or have come up with scientific accuracies, unlike the God of Christianity.Actually, one moral action that a believer can do is continually repent to God after he sins. An unbeliever cannot do this, because, well, he is an unbeliever. However, an unbeliever can repent and believer the Gospel, but then he would already be turning into a believer. Plus, that would not be continual repentance when he first becomes a Christian. He would only perpetually repent (after sinning) after becoming a believer. There is not a single evil action that only a believer can do. Everybody (whether one is a believer or not) is able to break what's written in the Ten Commandments. Sources:1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://undergroundhealthreporter.com... 3. http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk...4. http://carm.org...5. http://carm.org... 6. http://china.mrdonn.org...7. http://carm.org... 8. http://history.howstuffworks.com...9. http://www.hawaii.edu...