(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

Defense round four."1) God's killings in the Old Testament.My opponent’s first piece of evidence to prove that the God of the Bible, the Christian God, is malevolent is the fact that He killed creatures in the Old Testament. While I do not deny the claim, I should point out the fact that my opponent submitted no evidence of such events occurring in the Old Testament (i.e., no Scriptural citations). As a result, I have no way of responding to the specific events that my opponent had in mind." ScruggsI have provided evidence, the evidence is secondary, an interpretation of the Bible in lieu of the primary source, the Bible. The main reason to do so is ease of reading. The Bible is cryptic and contains many books and words. Reading a brief summary is much faster and easier. Furthermore, you haven't proved me wrong, all you telling me is my sources could have been more direct. "My opponent did provide a list of things that God supposedly did in the Old Testament, but provides no Scriptural citations. Rather, his citation is to a book that one has to purchase. He simply copy and pasted the description of said book and submitted it as evidence. Surely this is not proper. He then provides a quote from Richard Dawkins, who is not credentialed on the subject. Ironically, the Richard Dawkins quote also provides no Scriptural citations." ScruggsYou don't have to purchase the book to get the basics of the book. Richard Dawkins is an expert on religion. If only by investing enough time on the subject. A common definition of expert is to spend 1,000+ hours on the subject. I think it is self evident that Richard Dawkins has spent at least 1,000 hours on the subject of religion and thus is an expert on religion."And why is killing inherently a sign of malevolence? In most modern and civil societies where justice systems exist, there is a death penalty. Cops can justifiably kill criminals. Home owners can justifiably kill intruders and those who intend to do harm. My opponent failed to touch on the distinction between murder and a justified killing." ScruggsMy opponent does have a point that in certain circumstances that killing is justified. Yet, I thought it was obvious that at least some of these killings were unjustified. Killing someone's family for a crime? That's considered pure evil. This is as bad as some forms of organized crime. Even, the worst mafia doesn't burn offender's family's alive."Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?" stupidape round two."The closest my opponent comes to providing a Scriptural citation is mentioning the flood. While I am not one who believes in a global flood, I will defend it regardless. Why did God decide to flood the earth and rid it of man? His reasoning can be found in Genesis 6:5-8:“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.’ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”So it was not God that was malevolent, it was mankind. But what would a benevolent God do? Would he kill the righteous with the unrighteous? Surely not! This is why he saved Noah and his family. We hear about Noah’s righteousness in Genesis 6:9, which reads: “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” " ScruggsI find it interesting that you personally don't believe in Noah's flood. This seems like an ad hoc fallacy. Since Christians are taught and believe the Old Testament to the best of my knowledge. As for justifying the flood, sure they were some criminals that can be justified killing via the flood. Yet, the sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, aunts, nephews, fathers, mothers, and infants of those criminals? This is genocide plain and simple. I cannot understand how you can view infants as evil or animals or plants. How is a tree evil anyways? This is irrational. Chipmunks, rabbits, and songbirds all considered evil by God and must be eradicated? Save for a few on Noah's Ark. I cannot even fathom your point of view. Furthermore, what makes Noah good and those hummingbirds, trees, children, and infants evil? I cannot possibly understand how children and babies can be considered evil."I might also add that my opponent failed to provide a reason as to why humans practicing incest is evidence for the God of the Bible being malevolent. " ScruggsYour right, just as with the killings, I assumed that pointing out the killings and incest was enough. The idea of justifying genocide or incest is foreign to me. I still standby that simply pointing out God's killing and forced incest is enough. That we do not need to challenge basic assumptions like does gravity exist? Is the Earth spherical? Is genocides immoral? Is incest immoral? "Did God allow slavery? Yes, as is indicated by the passages provided by my opponent. Does that mean God is malevolent? Of course not." ScruggsAs above, I think pointing out that God allowed slavery is sufficient. That attempting to justify slavery is challenging basic assumptions. Just as reality exists and the sun is real, slavery is immoral, even if it is mitigated by a few laws. Furthermore, you ignore the part about being able to beat a slave with a rod, and if the slave recovers within two days, there is no punishment. By not responding to this part you have effectively conceded the point about a slave and rod. Let me reinstate it. """"20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [6]""All of man is guilty. We are not innocent. We are born in sin and are sinners. “Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3).” [2] With all of that said, any person who goes to hell is not undeserving of it. We, as humans, are all deserving of it." ScruggsAgain, with labeling children and infants, maybe even fetuses as evil. I just cannot perceive your point of view. We are as different as light and shadow. This paragraph of Scruggs only further proves God's malevolence. The idea of labeling children, infants, and fetus as sinners and deserving of Hell is not only immoral, but insane in my opinion. As for the elect, less than 1/2 the population is Christian, thus the elect are failing.