The God of the Bible is mostly evil

On to the debate! Basically, you are using what is known in philosophy as the “Objective moral argument for the existence of God. ”In case you do not know what that is, it states this: 1. If objective morals exist, then God exists. 2. Objective morals exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. This is a very incorrect statement. To use objective morality to prove God exists is illogical. This would be it. Remember that we are assuming that the Christian God is real. God exists. God never changes and he is always true and good. God’s morality is objective, because he cannot change. God’s morality can be seen in the Bible. The morality of the Bible is objective. It’s a rough outline, but I think you can see the picture I’m trying to paint here. However, this argument fails miserably because there is no ground for the 1stargument! The very first point fails! Does God have to be the author of objective morality? If you can prove that God has to be the author of objective morality, then you have a won debate. However, you cannot prove that. Why can’t I prove that? Also, God doesn’t necessarily have to be the author of morality, however I have never seen anyone else offer a position based off of something absolute. If you can show me a system of absolutes that do not change and are able to translate them to morals, then you may be able to say if something is evil. However, you have not presented one so far and introducing one now may be pushing the limits on abuse, but if you have one introduce it. So, if God is all good and all perfect, then how could he possibly allow slavery? But who created sin? If you think about it—God did! This article admits that God did not create sin because he is holy and cannot create sin . http://carm.org......(from a reputable, Christian source. ) God has two types of wills, his direct will and his permissive will. We have permissive will when we sin because he allows us to sin. This works with the same way with slavery, he used his permissive will to allow slavery to come about. Now why did he do this? Well he sees all outcomes so for some reason that we don’t know (because we can’t see the outcome) God permitted slavery to come about. The Law simply was a reflection of God’s character. God did not create sin because sin is the act of doing something that is opposite of God. This is what is described throughout the Bible. Now you can believe differently, but this is the nature of sin, the law, etc. as described by the Bible (which is the precedent in this debate). Let me provide some Biblical and logical evidence that God created sin. The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.1 Corinthians 15:6 This statement does not say that God created sin; it seems my opponent has yet again taken another verse out of context. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again I will extend my arguments from the last round with a few details added. My opponent FAILED to answer the last two questions I asked him last round and also dropped other arguments such as “I have no idea what so ever, how my opponent jumping from my claim that he has subjective morality, to saying that I should therefore support Hitler would like to see how he got from the first point to another unrelated point. ” He is consistently dropping arguments that he is unable to answer, while also not responding to any questions I have for his case. “My opponent in his first round presented several verses. I examined those verse and showed how my opponent had either taken the verse out of context, used an incorrect translation, etc. And he did not defend his position on any of those verses. He did bring back the verse he had previously brought up on the subject of slavery yet he still failed to attack my arguments for that as well. He disregards my second and third contentions completely! If this was a formal debate I could claim victory right now due to my opponent not attacking the majority of my case. However, for the sake of the debate I will pursue. My opponent took verses out of context in the first round, and then my arguments in the second. I expect him to do so again, but I stand by my first contention. So I want the last question in this round to be what basis do you have to say anything is wrong? ” I will explain more in my closing argument.