The teachings of Christianity are immoral

Response to Rebuttal: "The Catholic church has accepted other Gods, and it is important to some people." You must be joking. The Catholic church has not EVER accepted "other Gods" and never will; it is a monotheistic religion that claims that their God is the one true God. We just went over this with the first 2 commandments. "While I wouldn't some people would." And you are defending those people who would? You are defending the morality of stoning adulterers to death? I regret to inform you that the only rational thing to do in this scenario is to admit that killing or arresting people for sleeping around is not a rational or moral thing to do. "Islamic people would be completely fine with it. Why? A lot of people take their religion very seriously, and quite a few see this as a very important rule." Again, you defend the morality of this atrocity? If I'm arguing with someone who refuses to even concede that stoning people who work on sunday's, including people not loyal to the faith, is morally apprehensible, then I've already won. That means you have grasp on morality what so ever. "Now, the bible doesn't mean love them in a romantic way, as it is shown in the context. The "love' the bible is talking about is simply, be friends with people." ...Honestly? Last time I checked, when the bible says "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself", they aren't suggesting that love means being casual friends. You must love your neighbor AS YOURSELF. You must love God MORE than yourself. What about this do you not understand? My statement comparing God to Kim Jong Il is relevant because it illustrates that God is to be feared. He never stops watching you and even the slightest slip up will result in being sent to hell. Even after you die he continues to monitor you. A never-ending, celestial North Korea. "Two things here i. It never states YOU MUST LOVE a grand deity. ii. The Prince by Niccolo Machievelli" Your first statement is blatantly false (see the Bible quote I provided above, Luke 10:27) and your comparison to Machievelli becomes null and void as a result. As much as I'd love to break apart the hundreds of things wrong with equating human leadership to an almighty, all-powerful God, I don't need to. "And you can prove this how? Unless you are God, you can't prove he is a sadist." So I must be a sadist to claim that someone else is a sadist? What kind of broken logic is that? God created a realm where he tortures his own creations in the worst way he possibly can and he did so just because he could; he has no good reason. If that isn't sadism, I don't know what is. "This I thought was REALLY funny. God rape women?" If you had properly read my statement, you would see that I said that God ORDERED the Israelites to massacre and rape the Amalekites, not that he did it himself, obviously. Come now, you aren't even taking the time to properly read my arguments. In closing, this has really not been a debate. My opponent even didn't make any valid points outside of his viewpoint about the 10 Commandments, which I addressed. I think I have sufficiently proved my point without even scraping the surface of what I had planned I would need to say (I didn't even have to go near vicarious redemption). Thank you for reading and thanks to my opponent for debating.