The God of the Bible is Immoral

Pro begins by stating that bringing up positive moral character described in the Bible does not weaken his argument. If so, then his argument is not in support of what he chose for this debate. Even if we grant his idea that the God of the Bible did evil things " a supposition I am certainly NOT willing to grant overall " the debate topic Pro is defending is that "the god of the Bible is immoral." He did not set the topic as "the God of the Bible has done immoral things." If we going to consider if the description of God found in the Bible is immoral or not then we need consider the full description of that God, not just the parts that Pro would have us focus on. We all recognize that an individual might do some immoral things but that does not mean that the individual is overall immoral. Pro then returns to the argument cannibalism, once again entirely ignoring the context of the passage. The passages that Pro quoted in favor of his interpretation all speak about the horrors of war and not the commands of God. If Pro wishes to argue that the problem of evil " the existence of moral evil or suffering in the world " itself make God immoral that would be an interesting debate. However, that is not the debate he has chosen nor is it an argument he has made. We are talking about the description of God in the Bible, and these passage say nothing about God approving of or accepting cannibalism. Pro then returns to the issue of slavery. Pro points out that a slave could choose " notice that this is a free choice " to remain a slave for life. Pro says that this is because they had no have a steady income. This is true. We are talking about a more difficult time when for many people the choice was slavery or starvation. Or, if not starvation, at least they would barely be able to survive. So at that time slavery did exist so that people could find a way to survive. If Pro believes that leaving people to starve to death is a more moral choice then allowing slavery to exist then he would need to provide a strong case to show that is true. Pro then says that Paul should have said that slavery was human injustice instead of instructing to slave to be peaceful and honest. Here Pro seems to be suggesting that the morally right act would have been to insight revolution " a violent one, I assume " rather than allow slavery to exist. Once again Pro is not considering the larger ramifications of his view of morality. His ideas of what Paul should have said include war, death and destruction. The Bible describes a God who calls for peace, humility, and meekness. If Pro really believes that his view is better then he should have given a more complete explanation and consider fully what he was saying instead of giving short platitudes that were not fully thought out. Pro then returns to the passage in Number 31, saying that forced marriages are wrong. In this case it seems that Pro does really mean "wrong." He means "not what my culture does." Arranged marriages " Pro can call them forced marriages if he likes " were the norm in ancient Middle Eastern culture. They were normal in many cultures throughout human history, though they have fallen out of practice for the most part in recent centuries. They are different than how post-enlightenment westerners approach marriage. That doesn"t make them wrong; just different. Finally, concerning genocide Pro again brings up passages like Joshua 6:21 which talk about cities being "utterly destroyed." Pro writes, "what else could this sentence have possibly meant" other than the literal death of everyone in the city. Yet I have already told Pro what else it could possibly have meant, and what is most likely did mean. The Bible records that after some of these cities were "totally destroyed" there were still survivors. So clearly it does not mean that every individual was killed. Rather, it talks about the destruction of the culture. It talks about putting an end to a violent way of life that people have shown they will not end on their own. People died, certainly. It was war. But Bible discusses is not what Pro wants it to say.