Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise

Very well... then I ask the reader... Given the Bible, is God's action in murdering babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise? The answer? OF COURSE IT IS!! My opponent has conveniently skipped over the notion that God cannot be his own arbiter of morality. That's like asking the suspect to sit as judge and jury at his own trial. There is no context of the Bible to remove God FROM when considering the question of morals - God is not the arbiter of morality. Morality is authority independent - If god made a rule that raping babies was morally permissible, it would still be morally repugnant to rape babies. With the puppy example... this just goes to show that a my opponent's definition of a God that would expect one to behave a clearly immoral imperative is an argument in and of itself for why that deity is immoral! *********************** See - the problem with the Bible granting God the ability to morally condemn nonbelievers is that there are ways that it is physically impossible for people to have heard of and believed in God, yet he is able to condemn them anyway according to Romans 1. >> "Need my opponent be reminded that the resolution calls into question God's morality, not ours, in the context of the Bible? The actions of God listed by my opponent are to remain in context of the Bible, the meaning behind the actions,.. or result of the actions proved said action to be morally permissible given the Bible." That's another problem - the moral code outlined by the bible includes rules like "Thou shalt not commit murder" and "you shall not boil a kid goat in its mother's milk" - rules like these carry penalties, yet God's penalties are greatly disproportionate to the offense. In addition, God has broken several of these rules himself - again, I ask the reader... is a God the murders babies deserving of praise? ******************* I'm not sure why my opponent is so reluctant to address the verses I have mentioned... perhaps he is aware that they reveal the nature of the immoral deity he is trying so hard to defend. I can defend the context of the verses if he cares to address them... but then again, he hasn't, and as this is the last round, I'm not going to be ABLE to defend them. However, they have been defended in my other debates on this subject. >> "So if one concedes to believing in God, and the Bible, they are inherently subject to laws of morality as governed by God and his word the Bible." So I have said... and so I have demonstrated that God has violated his own edicts of morality on numerous occasions. >> "If we assume the Bible is correct, then God operates in his realm of morality, and it is us that must adhere to that realm,... any contradicting views of morality we may have would be the ones that are considered repugnant, not his." My opponent states that moral views that oppose God's are repugnant. Therefore, I submit, that according to God's actions, the code of morality that my opponent views repugnant would include things like permissible genocide, infanticide, deceit, etc... I'm curious how he can defend this position when it is clear that God's actions are contrary to his own moral code. God states: "Thou shalt not commit murder." And yet... God murdered thousands of babies in Egypt.