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

If given the bible,.. and assuming the Christian God as taught, I accept. Since we are arguing within the realm of the bible, than we are obviously assuming a Christian world view. It makes no difference which version of the Bible we choose, however, I prefer the King James version,.. its the most graphic. My opponent is going to obviously attempt to portray God as immoral according to the Bible. His verses quoted in his opening give good example of not so much why God deserves praise, but why he deserves fear. We should all be God fearing. Now I will provide you meanings behind the verses, and why according to the Bible God is biblically moral in the realm of Christianity, and deserving of praise. **************************** If the Christian world view is considered, there are a variety of approaches to the question of God and suffering. Biblical convictions include (1) suffering does not originate with God and will be eliminated at some point; (2) God works good in the midst of suffering; (3) not all pain is suffering in the moral sense; (4) and physical, transient suffering and death are relatively inconsequential compared to spiritual, eternal suffering and death. God is all-powerful, meaning He can accomplish anything that can be accomplished with power. He cannot use power to do "non-power" kinds of things, such as the logically impossible. He cannot make two plus two equal five, violate His unchangeable nature, make Himself go out of existence and come back into existence, and He cannot make morally responsible persons without allowing for the possibility of those persons making wrong choices. The Bible says that suffering is the consequence of the wrong choice (sin) of morally responsible persons. If God always prevented people from sinning, or always prevented the consequences of sin, then human goodness would be mere programming, not true goodness. We do not pat a computer on its head when it executes its program -- it is a determined function, not an exercise of moral responsibility. Suffering, the consequence of human sin, is not caused by God, but by the sin of persons with moral responsibility. Also, God has not abandoned the world to eternally suffer the consequences of sin. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide ultimate freedom from the consequences of sin. It is wrong to indict God because suffering is not yet eliminated, just as it would be wrong to indict a doctor who treats a gunshot wound he didn't cause, simply because the wound is not healed instantly. Our assurance that God will eliminate suffering is not the only comfort God gives us. While God did not cause suffering, he has given it purpose. It became the vehicle for our salvation when "Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame" (Hebrews 12:2). Complete avoidance of suffering is not an option for any of us. Our option is to waste our experience or realize God's purposes in the midst of suffering. Through suffering we can learn patience, self-discipline, trust, and many other "virtues." When we suffer we can experience the love, compassion, and self-denial of those who help us. When we help someone who is suffering, we find significance in our own lives as well. Not all pain is "bad" in the moral sense. God created us with nerve endings that use pain to protect us. Pain keeps us from burning our hands in a campfire, bending our legs back until the joint breaks, neglecting nourishment until we starve, etc. Suffering can also be a direct, just consequence of our own actions. Our sense of justice says that it is "good" when an exploiter loses his friends, even though loneliness is "painful." It is good when a mugger is locked up, even though he "suffers" the loss of his freedom. All humans have a moral conscience, even corrupted by sin and often ignored. Our conscience should not rejoice in sin, suffering, and death. When we see innocents suffering, we should experience moral outrage and seek to rescue the sufferer. When we see someone suffer death, we should experience loss and sorrow. Sin, suffering, and death are not the destinies for which God created us. He created us to enjoy perfect, good, loving fellowship with Him for eternity. Despite our moral betrayal, he continues to offer eternal life. The skeptic has it partly right -- suffering should offend our sense of goodness and justice. Sadly, he misses the rest of the argument: Because suffering violates goodness and justice, there must be an all-good, all-powerful God whose remedy restores the perfection he created. This is the hope that the Christian offers in the midst of suffering: I consider the that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. [Romans 8:8] Suffering and death in this sinful world are not without remedy. The only reasonable response to the existence of suffering is confidence in God's promises for eternity: Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . . Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. . . . Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Matt. 5:3-10] ********************** A universal barometer of morality does not exist,... But "Given the Bible," as the resolution calls for,... we are to assume the Christian world view in this debate,... even outside the realm of Christian views,... it is understandable that universal morality does not exist,.... it differs from person to person, society to society,.. it differs much to great. The resolution calls us to define our morality in context of a Christian view. We are to give accord to the Bible, ergo to assume a God, a Christian God, necessary to satisfy the resolution of either position. If we are to meet the requirements as put fourth by my challenger in assuming the Bible,... well than its most obvious that any governing factors over morality in regards to the doings of God and how we determine its repugnant or otherwise are only determined by the Bible itself. To re cap,,.... The resolution calls for us to give accord to the Bible to determine morality. But obviously the Bible has its own definitions of morality in which God is determined to held in high regards, and deserving of praise. Those that are not Christian, of course would not offer praise to the Christian God no matter what, morals aside. So the only way to argue this debate is to assume the Christian view. Of course the Christian view and those that follow the teachings of the faith, and of the Bible really would have no choice in determining morality, as morality is pre-determined by God. God and the Bible as the word of God could not be contradictory , ergo, any actions of God would be in the bounds of morality as it is determined in the Bible. My opponents is required to prove that according to the Bible, God is morally repugnant, thus undeserving of praise. Of course, when assuming the Christian God, the Bible itself becomes the guideline of morality, and any action of God described in the Bible couldn't be contrary to its own guidelines. If Gods actions don't oppose the moral guidelines of the Bible, than claiming "repugnance" is void. Since God can not oppose his own morality, ruling repugnance void, He is worthy of praise, or at least if determined undeserving of praise, it is not due to his morals.