god knowingly hates children

I'll start by addressing points I did not have space to in the last round.You said before that according to me my entire debate is meaningless. I've never stated that. You've infered that from what I said. I simply said I'd much rather take my Theology from someone older than someone younger. You go on to say again that being ignored is the worst form of abuse which I can tell you is incorrect based on personal experience. So please, don't tell me I don't understand anything about child abuse. You also say that I have no understanding of Love. Well that's an assumption. I have parents don't I? Grandparents, Friends, Family many of whom were/are married. Clearly I can observe love around me. You also have no clue as to what my relational history is, so please do not pretend like you do.You say you have a voice of your own...Well yeah...you're an adult. You never addressed my points about children today unable to consent to sex, unable to marry, unable to drive, or really do most anything without parental permission. Our government and parents speak for us when we don't have the experience to speak for ourselves.All of those verses you mentioned are NOT THE SAME THING. LEARN TO READThey're not the same? That's your opinion. I also happen to agree - What Jesus says is way more important than having a kid sing a song.Now in regard to the current round.I have no opinion w9hen it comes to my God and his hating children? What then are we debating? I'm pretty sure I have an opinion that I'm using to argue. I'm totally ready to accept your POW if you could present any evidence or merit for it.You then go on to say that I'll learn should I ever go to college. Well this is you making more assumptions about me. It's absolutely none of your business, but I'll inform you that I have been, and am currently involved/enrolled.I've done exactly what I do here around my friends and loved ones, not that this is relevant to the debate, and I find myself lacking in neither. I do what I've done here with my teachers and that's what has gotten me involved in college at the age of 16. So all of your predictions about me are wrong.I have presented cases and thoughts that you have effectively ignored. You claim they're just too stupid to respond to, but then you go on to speak about needing evidence for your claims. Interesting.Yes I'm 16, and yes I believe you make baseless claims. Why are those two related now? Are these five strikes strikes by your own opinion? Because none of them, as I've shown below, are valid. Also, who's the one insulting kids simply because they're kids now? Also, you've yet to prove you know more about anything, as you're too busy coming up with ad hom attacks.According to you, I said that I have nothing to listen to in Round 1. Well let's look at this. What do you think a kid is? Because I wouldn't say I classify as a kid anymore, and if I do then the Bible records kids teaching and talking. Matthew 19:16-22 talks about a youth. 1 Timothy 4:12 talks about a young teacher. Jeremiah 1 says that a youth shouldn't say 'I'm too young.' So if I count as a kid to you, then the Bible records youths being rulers, teachers and leaders. Either you're wrong on this point or you've admitted you're wrong on this entire debate.Your quote from Isaiah is intriguing, but not unexpected. There's always been debate as to what role God plays in the creation of a child. I mentioned this before, but I don't think it can be so black and white. According to our model of hermeneutics, we interpret scripture with scripture. So when you take a verse like Isaiah 43:7 and put it next to the several verses I mentioned, you see that this issue isn't so simply afterall, and why should it be? How could we, finite man, fully understand the workings of infinite God? To say this is strike one is a very bold statement, overexaggerating how much (or in reality how little) you or I actually know."I'm not going to look up this verses you presented..."Here my opponent has ignored evidence I've presented to him, and then goes on to claim he's right. I encourage any spectator to take note of this.Threatening people with death is taking free will away? So America isn't free then, because we have laws. In fact no country has any freedom or free will at all because there are laws punishable by prison and in some cases death. Well no, America is constantly refered to as the land of the free. Laws carry punishments, and this does not mean that there is no free will. Regardless, everyone still has the will to choose not to follow these laws. Just because there's a consequence doesn't mean that the option isn't available. Also, please not how my opponent says he will again ignore my arguments.Due to text limitations, there is no space for me to print out entire verses, nor should it be expected of me. The verses I've cited are evidence, or a citation, for the Bible based facts I'm presenting. If you won't check my sources that's fine, but then you have no basis to claim what I say isn't backed by said verse.Proving miracles and stories happened is a whole other debate. We are arguing whether or not God hates children though. For God to hate, we have to presuppose, for the purposes of this debate, that God exists. If God exists we should also probably trust what he told us as accurate. Therefore, for the purposes of this debate the miracles and historical narrative in the Bible must be taken as literal.I can't prove my God exists, but there's evidence. You also can't prove gravity exists. That doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist - there's good evidence for gravity - it's a good theory. This, and thus your 'strike 2' is irrelevant to the debate.Have God's miracles grinded to a halt? Why just over the past 400 years? I for one have never been everywhere in the world at all times, such as in African and South American tribes, to observe such miracles. The miracles in the Bible are also extremely rare. There are only a couple hundred performed over the 4,000 years Scripture addressed, and the majority of them occur within the 3 years of Christ's ministry. Our debate is not on whether or not God exists though. For him to hate he must exist, and thus he is presupposed for this debate. Please do not change the subject.I never claimed to be an evolutionist. I said you were. Since you brought me up I do, however, understand the theory of evolution, and believe in parts of it. Having bred dogs growing up, I know what it looks like to see microevolutionary changes in animals. This is in no way a strike 3.I do not believe I should be put to death for cursing at my parents. Why should I? I'd rather not die, but that's a conflict of interest between my will and the maturity God expects from me. This isn't a hatred for children. The same type of expectation is held for all of the Isrealites. If you read the laws presented, there are only a couple expectations for children in comparison to the several if not hundreds of laws for God's people as a whole.I take all of the words of my God seriously. If I were to say that bread is the best food in the world and I think everyone should eat it, am I saying gluten free people need to eat my bread too? Well not really, I simply haven't addressed gluten free people because they're a minority. God did not address every single circumstance here, because there is a primary audience and a minority audience. Your 'rape victims' are by far the minority. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says rapists should be killed. Psalms 11:5-6, Romans 6:23, 1 Peter 2:9-10, the list goes on. God has in other areas made punishments for 'abuse, rape, beating, torture' as you put it. You're saying that if a man has a child these rules simply don't apply, and they're free to rape abuse and torture as they please. Well that's simply illogical and not scriptural.It is not okay to overlook passages we don't like. We need to take them in context of their surroundings and try to understand what they mean. I am in no way overlooking passages, I'm simply not adding my own opinions onto it all, which you seem to be doing. That's another thing - I feel like your agenda and demand to be right is blinding your interpretation of the evidence.Further on you've changed gears from God and hating children to God and his existence, and then to things such as prayer. This was never part of the debate, so please stop bringing it in. I would gladly have a follow-up debate on the topic(s) if you'd like though.I'll go through your verses in order.1- This verse from Deut says they killed everyone. The Men Women and Children. They left none alive. Emphasis on none. God was not targetting Children, but should he pretend they don't exist?2- Your Leviticus verse says God will 'rob you of your children.' Psalms 127:3 - Children are a gift from God. This isn't a hatred towards children so much as it is towards the people he's taking them from. In fact, this statement affirms that people see children as valuable - since God taking them is apparently supposed to be a big deal. That seems to contradict your point.3- Your verse in hosea says their women and children shall die. Again, this affirms their value as apprently there's some drastic measure being taken here. This isn't a hatred towards women and children, but towards Samaria.4- Matthew makes a historical account of someone doing something outside of the will of God because he was terrified to lose his position as King. Please tell me how this is relevant? Children die. That's not new.5- Isaiah says everyone shall perish. By this logic God also says he hates houses, silver, gold, men, and women in this passage. That's a big leap.My opponent has made several statements but most of them have been empty. To say God, who made the growth process of child to adult, hates children, is to say God hates his own design. That's a bold statement which isn't really backed by much evidence. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.