The god of the bible and the bible has no place in a modern civilized society

Thank you for the debate. Apologies for the delay in posting my first round - My original argument was much longer and I had to trim it down quite significantly due to a 10,000 character limit.Ps 19:7Claim: The laws of God never change, but they do by the people who change themCorrect. The law doesn’t change - The application of the law changes.My opponent contradicted himself by asserting that they “do” change and by people.1 Pet 1 24-25 / Is 40:8These passages (Peter references Isaiah here) have nothing to do with the law. They are talking about a promise of salvation.2 Tim 3:16 It says that scripture is “profitable”, not that it is conclusive in the way the law is to be presented - we don’t kill homosexuals who practice homosexuality for example, but it’s still useful because it shows what’s right and what’s wrong at the bare bone level. At this point, it’s worth noting that God need not be confined to the Bible alone as this would violate his omnipotence somewhat.Prov 30:5The primary reason for this verse is that the “every word” spoken of here need not be about every word spoken by God about every topic, but only every word of assurance to those who take refuge in him. Claim: People change the Law based on their wants or desiresThis is the same contradiction that was brought up earlier by my opponent.Ex 31:15Ex 31:13 The Sabbath is a covenant sign. A covenant is a form of contract between at least two parties - in this case, God and the Jews. Secondly, punishment is handed out according to the severity of the crime and according to whom you offend. What my opponent is doing is conflating the culture of the Israelites with the culture of today in any event.My opponent asks “What if you have kids to feed?”This is a terrible argument. Aside from the fact that being granted the freedom to work 6 days a week as being generous, you have the same standards in any workplace today.He asks “What if you are told to work on the Sabbath or you will be fired?”Irrelevant. This didn’t happen.Claim: Deut 13 tells us to kill anyone who doesn't believe in our God and that Deu 17:2-5 "basically states the same thing"No it doesn’t. What it says is that God was developing the relationship the Jews had with himself by invoking other gods - or false gods in this case. God is telling them in advance what the reason for this is and telling them not to worship pagan deities. Anybody who tried to trick his people into worshipping other gods was punished.The people who worshipped false deities in chapter 17 were not unbelievers - they were Jews who went after other gods despite repeated warning. Secondly, if you actually read the verses my opponent has conveniently left out (verses 6-7), there needs to be two or three witnesses at least.Lev 24:16 The offence is cursing the name of God (side note: this is why when the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek, they avoided usage of the divine name - YHWH). The law included the offence, not the punishment. Punishments are subject to change.Claim: The Bible is clear and concise so that it tells Christians to kill peopleNope. That’s just a strawman. He says “Your god’s laws CAN NOT be changed.” Correct - the laws belonging to the Jews can't be no and they aren’t changed. But the law was fulfilled in Christ.Ex 21:17 / Lev 20:9 Again, the law involves the cursing, not the punishment.Mark 7:10/Matt 15:4 Jesus isn’t setting out to re-establish this law in any event. He’s using this passage from the Mosaic Law to highlight the fact that the Pharisees were making void the word of God by tradition.My opponent asks “Now should you be put to death because you curse at your parents?No, we don’t need to kill the children who curse parents for reasons I’ve repeated already. Lev 20:10Lev 20:13Regarding these passages, my opponent says “Yeah god hates both gays and adulterers But like nearly everything there’s never a reason why.God doesn’t hate the person - never does he say he hates gays or adulterers. This is a strawman. Aside from this, it’s not homosexuality that is condemned - it’s homosexual practice that is condemned. And for reasons I’ve gone into, we don’t kill homosexuals who have sex with other men.Deut 21: 18-21This wasn’t just like every single teenager in today’s society. This passage is repeated in Leviticus which was part of a section dealing with outrageous sins that would tear a nation or a family apart. This wasn’t just a one off or something light hearted, but was an ongoing rebellion. The child hated his parents. Plus where did my opponent get that this child was a teenager? Another strawman. He was a drunkard - I don’t think kids today are continually drunk in any event. Though the punishment (not the law) could be deemed severe today, how do we know that the death penalty wasn’t an acceptable punishment for near enough every transgression deemed severe in that society? How does my opponent know that he wouldn’t accept the punishment in that society? 1 Cor 14: 34-35 Refer to 1 Cor 11:4-5This is also based in the Church setting. Paul also speaks of women praying and prophesying in Church.In Gal 3:27-28, Paul also stipulates that men and women are equal in Christ JesusPaul is NOT saying women can’t speak. He acknowledges this himself 3 chapters earlier when he says that both men and women pray/prophesy in the Church. What he is seemingly saying then is that women cannot teach in Church as this was a role specifically for men. This isn’t to say that women aren’t equal to men - they are.Ex 21:20-21“20 (See Lev 25:44-46) 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.”The passage does NOT say you can beat your slaves senseless. It’s actually a warning to not beat your slaves senseless, with repercussions. Accepting a few aspects of slavery does not mean God accepted slavery as a practice to be morally correct. This was established when God himself freed his people as slaves where he acknowledged the treatment of his people was inhumane. How do you know that outright abolishing slavery which was commonplace in that society wouldn’t lead to a rebellion, anarchy, bloodshed with a slump back into slavery? If I was to invoke God’s omniscience here for a second, how do you know that he wasn’t aware that this would happen if he outright got rid of slavery? God instead gives rights to those slaves as seen in the following passages:Exodus 21:16 Exodus 21:20-21Exodus 21:26-27 Slavery in the Old Testament wasn’t ideal, but slaves were given rights. The main source of slaves were prisoners of war who the Jews probably wanted revenge against. Setting up workshops (not stealing a man, letting slaves go for certain injuries, not battering them to death) to teach the Jews that this is wrong in any event was perhaps a better route to go down with the eventual aim of abolishing slavery. Freeing the Jews from a pagan nation (Egypt) was to teach the Egyptians that this practice was wrong and to teach the Jews that this was wrong - if you abolish slavery altogether, you need to do it for every other nation around you and this is what I mean when I say bloodshed would be on the horizon. There’s a lot more detail I could go into.Titus 2:9This passage also doesn’t “condone” slavery any more than the Roman Empire (who targeted Christians and persecuted them) are condoned of in Titus 3:1.Lev 26:21-22 The passage is highly dubious - Firstly, Jewish translations don't have the word “children” in there. Secondly, even if it was the case that this verse meant “rob you of your children”, this doesn’t imply the children were killed. Third, God is warning those of what would happen if they were to resist him. He would warn those BECAUSE he didn’t want them to enter judgement - he would rather they obeyed him than judge them. Hos 13:16No, God is not okaying abortion. Hosea is a prophetical book. With that in mind, God, who was their help and protection is simply describing what will happen - not ordering what he wants as my opponent would like to imagine. See the immediate context for clarification of this:Hos 13:9 Hos 14:1 Lev 26:29This isn’t something God commanded - this is a prophetic statement describing an event which God didn’t cause. This was fulfilled at the siege of Jerusalem - See Deut 28:53, 2 Ki 6:29, Lam 4:10.All in all, my opponent failed to prove anything - he has set up strawmen, contradicted himself, taken verses out of their immediate and broader context, and conflated the culture of today with the culture of Israel in that time, to name but a few errors so far.I have stated that we don’t punish sinners the way sinners were punished under the Mosaic Law, but a few verses to prove that, and show that despite being under the moral law, we are no longer under the Mosaic Law as a whole:Acts 15:10Rom 3:19-20Rom 4:13-15Rom 6:14Rom 7:1-6I just want to add a scenario that Jesus found himself in that I think highlights the purpose of the law which was to reveal sin and also why we don’t kill homosexuals, adulterers…etc as they did in the culture back then.Refer to John 8:1-11 for a story of how Jesus commanded against the death penalty for an adulteress.So here we have it folks - why we don’t apply the law the way Jews were told to. This was because to the Jews, it was an acceptable practice perhaps - one where the death penalty was brought about for every transgression and one where God was punishing the sin with the only punishment that would highlight the severity of the sin where no other punishment existed that could expose the severity of said sin.Atheism is popular today - it’s a very attractive proposition where one is one’s own boss, but let me just finish off the first round by quoting from my opponents favourite disciple - Matt Dillahunty:“I won’t believe something based on the number of people that believe it or like it.”Thank You