God is good despite evil.

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi As I begin my final round I want to take a moment to sincerely thank Pro for this debate. Although I may have caused some friction between us, I truly enjoyed this discussion.I want to stress that throughout this debate it was not my intention to infer that Pro is a homophobe, nor was I suggesting that he should commit acts of violence. Rather, I was trying to get Pro to accept the obvious moral shortcomings in the Bible. After reviewing his arguments, I still think that his defense of the crimes against humanity found in the Old Testament is weak. Apologists often try to defend the savagery of the Bible by making statements like, "It was a brutal civilization back then, so the Israelites had to act brutally against their neighbors" hoping that this argument is enough to distract skeptics from pressing the argument.YHWH'S IMMORALITY REVIEWEDNotice that Pro barely addresses the horrifying passages regarding slavery. He acknowledges that slavery is in the Bible, but he doesn't make the leap to say that it's wrong. Rather, he seems to defend slavery in the Bible when he writes, "The Hebrew people of the late Bronze age were like other people of their time. The kept and bought slaves. They viewed women and daughters as property. God wrote laws that put limits on their behavior at that specific time and place." But what are those limits? As I illustrated, the Bible clearly states that Israelites could beat slaves to death so long as they lived at least one day, as if one minute more would make such a horrible action any more acceptable and moral?Also notice that he did not address the passages in which YHWH commands the Israelites to destroy children, infants, and pregnant women. My opponent is pro-life, but why didn't he take some time defend these passages as he did the passages like Exodus 22:23-24?With regard to Exodus 22:23-24, I appreciate Pro's defense of this verse and I on a certain wavelength I can understand it. I also understand that the verse doesn't directly state that rape victims should be killed. At least not in so many words. While I appreciate Pro's defense, there are two very big problems with his defense. First, it makes no distinction between a woman who is caught in the act of adultery and a woman who is under duress. For instance, what if a woman's assailant held a knife to the her throat and threatened to kill her if she screamed? What if he gagged her so that she couldn't make a sound? But let's suppose for a moment that Pro's defense is airtight. Is adultery worth the penalty of death? If so, I ask again, does Pro think it's okay to kill a betrothed woman caught in the act of adultery?My opponent goes on to write, "Con whines about God ordering the killing of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13). And then forgets to mention that you'd be executed for adultery and bestiality too. Any form of sexual immorality was severely censured in ancient Israel. He brings up the execution of witches and then forgets to mention the execution of false prophets right along side them."It seems to me that Pro is destroying his own argument for YHWH's morality by adding to the list if biblical crimes that are punishable by death. The Bible says, if you're gay you should die, if you hit your parents you should die, if you're a witch you should die. As if this weren't enough, Pro gives more reasons why you should die. Die, die, die, die, die! It seems that this is all the Bible calls for when it comes to YHWH's paper-thin ego and moral shortcomings.SACRIFICEI find it interesting that Pro mentions that the Canaanites sacrificed babies to their pagan gods. He's absolutely right, but what Pro doesn't mention is that the ancient Israelites also sacrificed newborns to YHWH. In Exodus 22:28-29 we read, "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me."Apologists insist that this verse has nothing to do with infant sacrifice; that it simply means to consecrate an Israelites' firstborn to God. But if that's true, why does the command to consecrate the firstborn oxen or sheep so early in its life? This argument by apologists is inherently weak.The point is that child sacrifice was a common practice, even among the Israelites. As John Loftus writes, "Child sacrifice was probably only considered evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity. [1]."CONCLUSIONPro states that there are passages which I didn't read in their entirety. In truth, I have read them in their entirety, which is one of the many reasons why I no longer believe accept Christianity. But I don't have to read them in their entirety. While I don't accept the verse as true, Romans 2:15 says, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Believing this to be absolutely true, William Lane Craig states, "God’s moral laws are written on the hearts of all people so that everyone has an innate sense of our moral responsibility before God and of our failure to live up to the demands of the moral law. [2]"If it is true that God's moral laws are written on everyone's heart, then Pro and WLC should know that slavery, rape, and infanticide are wrong, and no amount of apologetical gymnastics will make them right, even if these acts are done by YHWH's people. Thank you for your time.BIBLIOGRAPHY[1] http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...