There's too much hate in God

Thank you for that. I'm going to attempt to address the major points throughout this debate.Irrelevant Points:My opponent is make two irrelevant points at this point in the debate. I'll tell you what they are and why just to clear it up for everyone.1) The existence of God.My opponent started this debate by arguing under the pretenses of Christianity in order to prove Christianity incoherent. This is a common approach to disproving Christianity, but it only works if we stay under the assumptions of Christianity. This means we are not debating the existence of God. In fact, if God does not exist, the resolution falls. The resolution itself assumes God exists.So we're assuming God exists.2) Non Biblical Morals.As I said above, we've established that we're operating under Christian assumptions. Since my opponent did not present a metric, I provided my metric. It was a bit late in the debate, so we needed to just agree on it and move on. I clearly stated that if my opponent did not provide a metric, I would provide one, and we would count it conceded on my opponent's part. I presented that "too much" hate is so much hate that God can no longer be considered good. Then I argued that we consider God through Christianity, which means we understand God through Christian principles. When I set the metric, I decided that "goodness" was best defined through Christian principles as an analysis of God.In other words, God and Christian principles must be together for an argument to be made against the Christian God. If we don't argue from a basis of Christian principles, then we are not properly analyzing God. If we are not properly analyzing God and his nature, arguments made concerning him are irrelevant. A proper analysis requires a full understanding, not a partial understanding. Again, my opponent's arguments do not come from an analysis of the Bible but rather the emotions generated when he reads certain verses of the Bible.Now we continue:Emotive Arguments:Again, I stress that something being distasteful does not make it untrue. My opponent's argument is entirely emotive. Most of his arguments use circular reasoning. He started with "God killing people is bad," and I said, "Not if God killing people falls into line with justice," and I elaborated on that. My opponent's response is essentially "it can't be just if he's killing people."While I provided a logical analysis of Christian principles of the Bible, my opponent has only made the assertion that they're wrong. This is unproductive to his case because it does not use the proper methods for proving Christianity inconsistent. One cannot take his own values and apply them to something else then declare it inconsistent. One has to understand the values of the other thing enough to display its inconsistency.Until then, the reasonable arguments are on my side. My opponent's arguments are purely emotive.Free Will:My opponent's analysis of free will is incorrect. There are three points I will respond to including the nature of God's will, the nature of free will, and the Biblical teachings of free will.1) That God does not have free will. Despite the fact that this is irrelevant, my opponent's assertion is based in a false analysis of the nature of God. He assumes eternity is linear, which creates the problem of infinite regression. Instead, imagine eternity like this: draw a line on a piece of paper, then imagine that paper extends infinitely in all directions. The white space is God's plane of existence, a non-linear existence, and the line is our existence, which is linear in time. In other words, God does not know what actions he will make, instead he's already made them, because he exists outside the fourth dimension, time. So we cannot say that God knows what he is going to do, only that he has already done it, just not yet from our perception. If you need me to explain how the perception of the fourth dimension differs between us and God, ask and I'll explain.2) Now onto the nature of free will for humans. He assumes that free will can exist within boundaries that restrict some possible actions. In order for true free will to exist, all possible actions must be allowable. If certain possible actions are not allowed, then we do not have free will. It's like saying, "You can choose to write your paper on whatever you want as long as it's about Abraham Lincoln or George Washington." The end of the sentence contradicts the beginning of the sentence. So in fact, in order for Christianity and God to be consistent, evil must exist.3) My opponent asked me to provide Biblical evidence of free will. Even just one verse. I'm happy to.God commands us to make choices. This would not make sense if we were incapable of making choices [1]. Such commands can be found in Deuteronomy 30:19-20 and Isaiah 48:18. The Bible also speaks of planning in Proverbs 21:5. It advises us to plan, because unless we make an active choice to get somewhere in life, we will not get there. So we have the free will to change our destiny. The fact that God knows what's going to happen to us does not mean he is directly handling it. He simply sees what happens when we make our free choices. In fact, the Bible backs this up when it says that God exercised self-control toward Babylon in Isaiah 42:14. All of this adds up to mean that God sees everything that is happening at all points in time, but he does not directly control us as to allow us to make the decision to love him or not to love him.As such, my analysis of free will stands, and my argument concerning God's allowance of evil in the world is necessary for God to remain consistent. My opponent's arguments do not disprove anything I've said.This is actually important, because if free will exists, then verses that predict or order that people be killed are often times not on God, because they weren't even said by God. Most of them are said by kings and a couple by prophets who just prophesied that other people would kill other people. So because we cannot support my opponent's analysis of free will, we cannot support his stance on the Bible thus far.BOP:Once again, it is my opponent's job to prove now that under the Christian principles that I've brought forth as a metric of God, that God is too hateful to be a good God (causing a contradiction in Christianity). This debate is not "Christianity is a hateful religion" or "God does not exist, so we can say whatever we want about him." The debate is "There is too much hate in God" or "God is too hateful." So my opponent is failing to uphold his statement by:1) Assuming God does not exist.2) Ignoring Christian analyses of God3) Arguing outside of the premise by which God may be judged hateful4) Personally attacking me (I never said that everyone had to believe the same thing I do. I'm only providing a relevant analysis).5) Talking about how children didn't write the Bible or weren't part of any major decisions in war (except for Josiah, an 8 year old who decided to tear down all temples and statues of idolatry and rebuild the temple of God. Kind of funny how he left that one out).6) Performing improper analyses of the scripture itself7) Failing to properly define free will and why it does not exist under the assumptions of ChristianityThe resolution is still not upheld.Sources:[1] https://www.jw.org...