God is NOT Pro-Life

(1) Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible. TRUE (2) The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones. TRUE (3) It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles. FALSEIt is morally impermissible for us to violate the rules God commands of us. I already demonstrated thoroughly how there are rules set for specific groups of beings, without hypocrisy, and Pro did not answer that argument. He only continued to accuse me of ignoring his argument. Not only that, but Pro doesn't distinguish between different types of killing. Murder is unjustified, but war and execution not nessecarily so. A judge may sentence death, and it isn't murder. God is all knowing, and Supreme judge, so any killing he does is justified. Not only that, but Pro asserts all start off innocent, rather than guilty, as the Bible says. He then goes into the territory of an entirely different debate: If God is good, why does sin exist?Not only does Pro go off track from the subject of the debate he himself set, he violated the rule I set as a requirement in R1, that for the purposes of the debate"...the God of the Bible exists, and that the record of his character and actions are accurate in the Bible."I demonstrated from Genesis how God has authority/controlling interest/patent rights/whatever you want to call it over all mankind as creator and judge. Therefore a decision to destroy or keep is all his.Much of the middle of the Pro's final round is made up of unsubstantiated claims."our morals today have gone beyond the very atrocities that God was involved with in the Bible."Who constitutes "our?" Are we talking Americans? All people on Earth? The two of us in this debate? And how does Pro know what is morally superior if he rejects God and the Bible? This is moral objectivity with no stated objectives."I ask the CON if he would be alright with God acting out today in the same manner as He did in the past?" I, CON, am alright with God acting as he always has. Those that think God has changed from one end of the Book to the other ignore or are ignorant of much content in both parts of the Book."Dare we say that either God is immoral or those following His killing orders are immoral." No, because this broadly assumes innocence of all killed, and ignores the decision making capabilities of an omniscient judge.The Christian cannot and will not and does not say this, even though if it were to happen today the world would be appalled based on our higher standard of morals."There's that nebulous "our" again. Now Pro speaks for the moral conscience of 7 billion people. A LARGE percentage of whom are Muslim. And again, a claim of moral standard attached to...what standard? A standard is known, like the meter or the pound or the dollar, or the Ten Commandments. Being this is the last round, this is a poor time for Pro to mention a superseding moral standard and not specify what it is, and how we know it's superior."When God commands humans to mass kill other humans in the Bible to gain land, this puts other humans above the very laws that God commanded. HYPOCRISY!"If Pro is talking about the conquest of Canaan, child sacrifice and other evil practices are not acknowledged, and the assumption is the Canaanites were peaceful and sinless."You cannot justify God's actions of immorality by pointing to other scriptures to quantify it, because we know better."Another appeal to unspecified moral objectives, and the nebulous "we.""41,000 Denominations! I think God could have done a better job of making His requirements more clear."This argument seems to imply that most of the 41,000 denominations regard most the others as heretics, and split off from one another just as those few pioneers did during the Reformation. In fact, most of the reformers from which many of these denominations sprung, split off for much the same reasons from the Roman Catholic Church, that is it's corruption, hiding of Scripture from the masses, etc. Some reformers had disagreements, but language, time, and geo-political separation are the main reasons for the divisions. Puritans and Lutherans were mainly divided by the North Sea, not creed. Most Protestant denominations agree on the most important issues, like salvation and the nature of God, the rest is less important to us.[1] My opponent wishes to see division where there is far less than he thinks, despite the impressive, admittedly inflated number he cites."Your sermon at the end of your post does nothing for your defense of God. Sin entered the world because of God creating Adam and Eve to have the propensity to sin, places temptation in front of them, and then tells them to stay away from a tree and the fruit that He put there that would give them knowledge."I will point out to the audience that the Bible is full of sermons, from prophets, Jesus, kings, Apostles, and priests. The Bible has been used throughout this debate as legitimate evidence, until this round, where Pro suddenly lowers the worth of a condensed and accurate explanation of the effects and consequences of The Fall and salvation because it became personal.My argument that justified God's wrath against sin was ignored and Pro once again went off into a different debate question, "If God is good, why is there sin?"My argument that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, which is assumed true and accurate for this debate per R1, God is justified in killing us all, but does not do so immediately that we have a chance to turn to him and live, and that God is Pro-Life in commanding us to not to murder, but justified in killing the guilty, remains unrefuted.Pro has not met his burden of proof that God approves of human-caused abortion.1.) https://en.wikipedia.org...