God, as depicted in the Holy Bible, is not benevolent

I will start by addressing your claim that you were only arguing for a malevolent God, with a copy and paste from your original post. "I am going to argue that God, the almighty creator depicted in the Holy Bible, is not benevolent, or malevolent." If you had said, (..is not benevolent, BUT malevolent.) it would be a different story, your comma however, does not change the meaning of this sentence, which would firmly establish you arguing for Gods neutrality. This being the case, you failed to establish Gods neutrality, and have lost, which is a steep penalty for poor reading comprehension, and speaks to a possibility that your reading comprehension concerning other texts, much more difficult to understand, such as the Bible, may also be skewed. My opponent denys that understanding Gods overall intentions as Benevolent, or Malevolent, is an attempt to understand the mind of God. I hold that an attempt to understand ones intentions, is an attempt to understand their mind. My opponent Claims that math which could show Gods existence, would have no bearing on the topic, concerning either his malevolence, or benevolence. I would counter that a conscious mathematical mind which is part of, and forms all of nature, would almost certainly have the best intentions for his creations, as they would technically only exist within himself. My opponent states: "Then he goes on to explain that God gave us free will and conjectures that he instilled us with his ethics so we may avoid evil behaviors even if his written word is corrupted or lost to history. He does not cite any biblical reasons to believe this, nor does he demonstrate what this is supposed to mean to the debate. I hold that my reasons for including this are relevant to the debate, and Here I will offer a biblical example, as you desired to see. Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. 2 Corinthians 1:12 ESV / 6 helpful votes For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience, that we behaved in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God, and supremely so toward you. Proverbs 28:26 ESV / 4 helpful votes Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered. Accordingly, the Apostle John declares to the believers of all ages, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things:" All things that are needful to your having a "conscience void of offense toward God and toward man." My opponent then goes on to state: "God obviously could've done a better job by guiding us morally, especially since we can already see what happens when his "word" or religion is stripped from us by observing atheists, who have nothing but the innate ethics that God "built into men." As we can learn from them, their human ethics differ very much from God's as God resents many things that secular humanists don't, such as homosexuality for example." I disagree. Though we have differing views on spirituality, or the lack thereof, I know many Atheists, who conduct themselves as good and caring people, and I am sure they too, have a conscience, feeling bad when they hurt others intentionally, lie, cheat, ect. The point that they may not agree on every point of morality in a Christian sense, or believe that conscience is something God given, does not exclude them from having an overall built in guidance toward good. Also, You cannot know rather or not God could have done a better job of guiding us morally, as you are not God. Nor have you spoken to him on the topic. My opponent points out that I began rebuttals, early. I would point out that format no longer matters when he already forfeited by failing to define God as neutral, and therefore my response is simply in the spirit of overall debate. My opponent claims that Gods destruction at times also included children, as they had to be present on the earth at this time as well, and that this is evidence of his malevolence. Verses like the ones below, show that the sins of children are pre-forgiven, and that the day of our death is actually better than the day of our birth. To Christians, death is passage to a second life, one in which children are guaranteed happiness and paradise. Flattering this vein of thought, God taking the children from the toxicity of growing up an in environment full of evil men, who could have been doing only God knows what to small children, was truly an action of supreme benevolence. You only take this physical husk so seriously because you believe that may be all you have, this is not in line with Christian thinking, so, I do understand the difficulty with the subject. Ecclesiastes 7:1 "A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth." I am writing to you, little children, because the sins have been forgiven you for the sake of His name. 1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them.. You recall my statement "Firstly, many Christians consider old testament to be trumped by new testament after the coming of Jesus, in which these things are not repeated." And then argue, "God, having passed these laws at any point, is going to have to be answered for by my opponent, something my opponent refuses to do because it's impossible." First off, I never refused to argue this point, I actually clarified my point with other examples which you have not covered. However, It is relevant, because the Bible is an inclusive book. Jews however, do not believe in the New testament, and also have other religious texts. Them omitting part of the story, has nothing to do with the Christian viewpoint, which includes the entire book. If God gave men at one point, a set of rules, and then many years later, gave a new set of rules, the new rules are the ones applicable. Just as if they change any rules in the NFL, those are the ones teams will have to abide by. The same for changes to the stock market, or any other similar situations. When authority makes new rules, those are the new rules.. fairly easy concept to understand. I dont think it requires further explanation. You dispute my comment "Secondly, just because something is printed in the Bible, does not mean it is in fact, the word of God." by giving an example of (...the same Bible that is held, everyday, above ministers' heads and called "the word of God for the people of God.") I already pre clarified any confusion in that same paragraph, where I was sure to state, after giving several examples which additionally help clarify my point "They are often told, this is the word of God, not, this book contains some of Gods actions, but is a historical account of ancient society, and therefore put every word on a pedestal, which may not have been intended." You refer to the Story of Ham, not seeing the severity of his crime as warranting such harsh punishment. Ancient Hebrew commonly speaks of a man"s nakedness to refer to sexual intercourse with the man"s wife. As Moses wrote in Leviticus, "The man who lies with his father"s wife has uncovered his father"s nakedness" Some difficult to understand passages in the Bible may well seem so, because we no longer use the same terms to describe certain actions. More information concerning this seemingly confusing story here. http://kgov.com... According the the Bible, there are different versions of hell, described well here. http://www1.cbn.com... The Key differences being one of infinite loneliness, and one refering to the refuse dump outside of Jerusalem. Even a third, the most popular in pop culture, specially reserved for the Devil and his fallen angels, along with those who at the end times reject God and side with Satan. One thing I consider, is that if we can flatter the existence of a soul. We can also flatter that this intangible thing must be comprised of energy. From science, we understand that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. Different modalities if you will. For instance, in magnetic field theory, you will find this conversion type relationship between Dielectric, electric, and magnetism. Also, a similar modal idea when we see water, ice, and steam, essentially the same thing, manifested in different modalities. If a soul is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed, this evil energy must be kept away from the good correct? And, if you have control over micro and macro in the universe, would you minimize, or expand this evil energy? If you wanted the energy of the universe to remain as good as possible, you would in fact attempt to minimize it. With your knowledge of science, when energy is compressed into a smaller and smaller space, the necessary result is heat. Is Hell therefore the Malevolence of an evil God, or could it be a Benevolent God, sheltering the good energies of the universe from contamination? In this modern age, I think of the bible often in terms of how science would play out in the metaphysical. Its feasible, that for God to have revealed complex details to the first people at the cradle of civilization, could have been too much for them to comprehend, or, may have accelerated the human race to an unhealthy extent. Not to mention there could be 'X" number of reasons we will never be privy to, or even be able to comprehend the actions of a God. IQ 147 vs IQ infinity. For instance, just as your dog will never have the comprehension in this life to add 2+2=4, how do we know we are also, not similarly limited in comprehension?