There's too much hate in God

On Parameters:The reason I was setting parameters on our debate (yes it is our debate, not just his debate) is because I was attempting to have an intelligent discussion that was focused on finding some truth. My opponent did not have to support God. He simply needed to stop asking me to have a second debate unrelated to the topic instead of actually addressing the topic. In fact, he even asked me to have a thiraddressing what I said in round two, which dovetails into my next point.How to judge the hate of God:My opponent completely ignored my second round. He simply said "that's not true, you're inventing excuses" and moved on as if that was sufficient to take down a detailed analysis that fit both a philosphical and a Biblical analysis of God. My analysis of the natre of God and the morality he abides by thereof were ignored, and thus my opponent cannot be awarded for his arguments.My opponent starts at the wrong place. He starts at his personal morals and personal disgusts. He doesn't start at the nature of God or any thing in regards to that. In other words, we have no way of judging God because we have no way of understanding him under my opponent's side. My side has a comprehensive and coherent analysis that leads from the beginning (God's nature) to the end (God's acts that may seem hateful).Of course, my opponent simply accuses me of making excuses. I'm going to be honest with everyone here, it doesn't matter what I say in regards to those verses. My opponent is relying on an understanding that the Bible should not be read as a whole book and that the statements within should be taken at face value instead of being analyzed. I cannot convince him, and I don't need to do anything in-depth to win this debate.My opponent did not bring up my second round. There you will find an actual explanation for why we can consider the Bible not only consistent but also philosophically sound. Whether you find its teachings distasteful or not, the fact remains that my opponent's only arguments were emotional rather than reasonable.In fact, my opponent used emotionally charged words throughout the debate to turn you against my side. They weren't arguments or reasonable analyses. Just words. One of them isn't even a bad thing. Can I go on about jealousy? I have the characters.The jealousy of God is a good thing. When you're in relationship, and you're jealous because your significant other is talking to someone else, that's because you love them. Not because you hate them. To think otherwise would be ridiculous. That's what I've been saying throughout this debate. God's actions are an indication of love, not hate.Refer to round two on an explanation of the nature of God's love toward us and why he treats us how he does.Free Will:My opponent has dropped this. Please consider my analysis in the debate. Actions that were ordered by humans are entirely the fault of the human, not God. God must allow free will for love between us and him to exist, and that means allowing every possible action, not just some. I assure you, rape breaks God's heart more than it breaks ours. But God has to allow humans to choose to be humans as they see fit in order to allow some to choose his ideal path for us. If God contradicted his own nature, he would no longer be God.Summary:My opponent did not uphold the burden of the resolution to prove that "there is too much hate in God." Thank you for reading.