Satan's Rap Sheet vs God's

Thank you, Con, for the prompt response.I would like to remind everyone that this debate is not about whether God has the right to a certain course of action, but whether such a course of action conflicts with the revealed, "perfect" character of God.If God's character has not been accurately revealed, then we have no standard of righteousness and can not be held accountable for falling short of an unknown standard.If God's character has been accurately revealed, then an action that opposes or conflicts with his character can safely be considered sin.REBUTTALSAhab and MicaiahMy opponent is claiming that God's actions, and thereby his character, were contingent on the character of Ahab. So, Con's case is that the unchanging, perfect God, who claims to hate a lying tongue, orchestrated the deception of Ahab through the lies of divinely possessed prophets because Ahab was evil. Why Ahab's sinful character forced God to adapt sinful characteristics, my opponent does not say. Could the omnipotent God not have dealt with Ahab any number of ways that did not conflict with the Proverbs hate list?Ezekiel 14:3-8Again, my opponent relates the character of God's enemies as justification for God's actions. However, the character of a perfect, unchanging God should not be conditional. If God's character is contingent on man's character, then God ceases to be a perfect, unchanging standard. Con says, "God could do nothing other than deceive them because to them, the truth was unacceptable to them." I suppose simply letting them destroy themselves, or applying some other form of punishment was not an option? Why was an omnipotent God coerced into breaking character and supporting an act he claims to hate, when there were obviously other options?Innocent InfantsCon admits: "I do not believe God holds babies accountable because they are not able to understand the concept of justice, and the Bible teaches this." In spite of this admission, Con attempts to justify God's slaughter of infants by claiming that they share guilt with their parents, and that they ultimately share a common, inborn guilt with the human race. By this reasoning, no one is "innocent".If that is so, and innocent blood does not exist, then why does God say in Proverbs that he hates "hands that shed innocent blood"? Is God being coy, or intentionally pointless? If I run around killing babies, God doesn't hate my hands because the babies are guilty by association? Apparently, God himself seems to think that innocent blood indeed exists:"Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." -Exodus 23:7"Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person." -Deuteronomy 27:25"Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression." -Psalm 19:13"They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood." -Psalm 94:21"Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood." -Psalm 106:37-38"Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths." -Isaiah 59:7According to the Bible, innocence exists. If anyone is innocent, it would be infant children who are not old enough to have a proud look, a lying tongue, murdering hands, etc.There are many inconsistencies in Con's following statements about God's dealings with sinners, but I need not address them as they are irrelevant to the point at hand. No matter how God deals with the guilty, my opponent has not shown why God slaughtered masses of infant children when he claims to hate hands that shed innocent blood.Discord Among BrethrenCon attempts to justify Jesus' statements about causing familial discord by blaming the discord on those who would not follow Jesus. First, this directly contradicts Jesus' words, as Jesus says, "I am come to set a man at variance..." He did not say that the nonbelievers would create the variance. He readily accepts the blame for the discord.Second, you can not blame the affected for the effects of the affector. If you drop a rock into a pool of water, is the water to blame for the ripples? By the same token, if Jesus came to set family members against each other, the members who were at peace before his coming can not be blamed for the upset. That is not fair at all.SatanMy opponent uses ad hominem against Satan by calling him "the father of lies", but does not present instances of lying to support his claims, other than the serpent in Eden, which I already covered. Con has not shown how my analysis of the Eden story is incorrect. He has not proven that the serpent was indeed Satan, nor that the serpent intended to lie, nor that the serpent knew of the actions God would take in order to self-fulfill the prophecy of death.My opponent then claims that Satan never stops sinning and is in rebellion against God. Since this debate is dealing in Biblical instances only, Con can not prove these claims.NEW ARGUMENTSAlthough at this point it seems unnecessary, I would like to briefly discuss two events that Christians often claim are examples of Satan's sin.The Desolation of JobIn the book of Job, Satan speaks with God in heaven. God brags about Job being faithful and righteous, but Satan scoffs and claims that Job is only faithful because God has made him rich and successful. So God "makes a bet", and gives Satan permission to take everything away from Job to prove that Job will still be faithful. All of Job's livestock are stolen or burned up, most of his servants are killed, and all of his children die when their house falls on them. These unwarranted deaths are horrible, but did Satan sin?God removed his protection from Job and all but commanded Satan to do his worst, and all for a psychology experiment. Either God wanted to see what Job would do, or, worse, God already knew what Job would do and just wanted to show Satan. Either way, God is complicit in these tragedies. Job acknowledges this when he says, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away" in Job 1:21, and his family agreed when they "bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him" in Job 42:11. If Satan can be blamed at all, God still shares guilt.Satan's RebellionSatan's heavenly rebellion against God is popularly considered the first recorded sin. This is an interesting case, however, when you examine the nature of sin. As previously stated, sin is apparently anything that does not fit within the revealed character of God. If God wouldn't do it, it's sin. In this light, is rebellion against God a sin? Obedience and submission are not parts of God's character. He has no one to obey or submit to. Even if he could question his own authority, he obviously wouldn't, since he is intent on ruling the universe and having all life worship him. Therefore, if someone questions or rebels against God's authority, they are conflicting with God's goals, but not with his character. It is conceivable that someone could still be "Godly" and righteous in their actions toward other men while questioning God's authority.Although this is interesting to contemplate, most Christians agree that failing to worship God is just as much a sin as doing something that offends his character. However, even if they are correct and Satan's rebellion was a sin, that is still only one instance of Satan's sin to God's ten that I have pointed out. My opponent has not sufficiently rebutted a single one of the ten, so God is still the bigger offender in this debate.Back to you, Con.