If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has commited child abuse.

Ultimately, this debate is likely to come down to whether or not God can be considered either the parent (legal guardian) or caretaker of any child. Pro's previous rebuttal does nothing to help make the case that God would indeed be considered as such.Pro concedes that when the God is referred to as "the Father" or "our shepherd" that these are metaphors. Allow me to quote Pro's definition of a metaphor: “A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.”In particular, the line: two unlike things. Conceding that "the Father" and "shepherd" are metaphors concedes that, in the Bible, God and being a father is not the same thing (I don't think anyone questions that God is not literally a shepherd). Instead, the Bible is comparing God to a father and shepherd. Just as a family looks to their Father for leadership, God is to be looked up to as a leader of men. The shepherd analogy only solidifies this notion. Pro is attempting to make the argument that a role model would be considered a caretaker. If my childhood role model showed up to my house unexpectedly and murdered me, they would not be accused of child abuse--again they would be accused of murder.Let's look at a real scenario. If I hire a babysitter, then while I'm gone and my children are under the babysitter's care, the babysitter mercilessly beats one of my children (perhaps even until they die), then this is grounds for child abuse. It is grounds for child abuse because I, the parent, left my children under the care of the babysitter. I do not think Pro can produce an instance where someone in the Bible left their child alone with God under the auspices that God would look after the child in the parent's stead.The passage from 1st Kings (about picking kings) is not helpful for either Pro's case or Con's. Con concedes that God did pick the kings so it is incorrect to assert God allowed them free reign, however, choosing a leader hardly suggests God is a caretaker either. In the United States, the states vote for the president (through the electoral college), so the states choose the president, but this does not mean that the states are its citizens' caretakers. No doubt the states have a responsibility to voters, but it is not a caretaker role.1 Peter 5:5-7Pro writes: "Why put your worries on God if he is not in some sort of caretaker role willing to take care of them?"Con has already answered this question which Pro did not rebut. Here is Con's response from Round 2:"Casting their anxiety aside, Con argues is not saying that they should fall down and wait for God to do everything for them (like a child does towards their parent), rather trying to comfort them. Saying, do not be afraid because God is "on your side" (so to speak). This is sort of like me being confident on the school playground because I [am] friend's with the biggest guy."Con (R2): “I want to remind voters that Con does not believe Pro has proved that God can be considered a parent or caretaker, however for the purposes of the rest of this rebuttal, we will assume that part has been met.”Pro (R2): "I want to remind Con that without a convincing argument to support ones merely stating your beliefs is an argument from authority, and not a good reason to buy into Con’s view."I don't understand the purpose of this statement. Con has made arguments for why God should not be considered a parent or caretaker. If Con has made this point (which I believe I have), then there is no reason to even rebut any of Pro's examples. So for the purpose of the rebuttals that followed, Con assumed God could be considered the parent or caretaker. The whole point was to show, even if God acted as the caretaker, that the charges would have been murder, not child abuse."She [Andrea Yates] was found not guilty by mental disease or defect."She was accused of and indicted on murder charges. Whether or not she was found guilty is somewhat of an aside. Assuming we did not think she was insane, she would have been convicted (and was) of murder. Later, in appeals, it was overturned due to insanity [5].I think it's less about what she was found guilty of and more about what she was accused of. If she had not been found insane, she would have been guilty of murder and not child abuse. Likewise, if God was found to be insane, we would absolve him from the deaths he caused, but as it stands, Con agrees, God did act with intent (mens rea) and is thus guilty of murder (but not child abuse).Con is actually surprised that Pro would drop the Egyptian plague. Con believes the great flood is actually the weakest argument. This is akin to using a weapon of mass destruction. To say that God is a child abuser because the flood killed many innocent lives is to say that Harry Truman is a child abuser because he caused many innocent children to die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--surely no one will make that claim?Even so, the Egyptian plague of killing the first born, is exactly that: murder.Still, the strongest evidence, Con agrees is the killing of Uriah's child. There are two things:1) "If it was God's intent to kill then why 7 days of sickness and suffering? Death was not the only intent."Psychopaths do some very strange and morbid things. Even so, why do some countries execute prisoners in horrific ways?"Methods of torture used by Hussein's regime included assault with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; electric shocks to the genitalia; scorched metal rods being forced into body orifices; the crushing of toes and removal of toenails; burning off limbs; lowering prisoners into vats of acid; poisoning with thallium; raping women in front of their family members; burning with cigarette butts; the crushing of bones; the amputation of ears, limbs, and tongues; and the gouging of eyes.[12]"[6](the [12] is the source that Wikipedia uses)Why go through this trouble when a simple bullet to the head or even hanging would often times be far more humane? The reasoning is obvious: to inflict suffering and to send a message. Indeed this is exactly what God was doing to David by killing the child born to Uriah's wife: God was punishing David by murdering one of his children.2) It is clear that God committed 1st degree murder in this case:first degree murder - although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner) ..."[7]Was God's actions deliberate and premeditated? Obviously yes:1 Samuel 12:13-1413 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” [8]It is clear that God tells David that he will kill the child (through the prophet Nathan). This is clearly premeditated murder, not child abuse. Furthermore, was God taking care of the child? No, it is clear that it was not God that was caring for the child, rather David and his attendants:1 Samuel 12:1818 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”[8] Sources:[5] http://en.wikipedia.org... (this is really the same Andrea Yates source as before)[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Iraq#Other_atrocities [7] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [8] http://www.biblegateway.com...