The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

Good luck in the final round. if a 31 year old man smokes a cigarette, is it against the law? Of course not. If a 3 year old girl smokes a cigarette is it against the law? Of course. But is the fact that it is wrong for a little girl to smoke a cigarette make it automatically wrong for the 31 year old man to have a smoke? Strawman. The law specifically says you got to be 18 to smoke. There is a difference, because, according to the law, the 31 year old man is elegable to smoke. Again. I ask, "What is the difference between God ordering rape, murder and slavery and a human doing those things? "This argument FAILS MISERABLLY! As for our definition of God, if anyone would go back and carefully read what I laid out, he would clearly see that he is taking my word OUT OF CONTEXT when he is saying that I admited God to being omi-belevolent. So are we to conclude that God created a moral code as part of the universe in the same way that physical laws are an objective part of the universe, but then agree that he can break any physical law but not a moral law? Of course not. God, the one of the Bible, is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent. To say that God can be evil is the same as saying he can not be all-powerful or all-knowing. It contradicts the very definition of God. Another example of how my opponent takes my word out of context. Again, it contradicts the NATURE of God that Christians and other "Myth-wizards" have set up for him. However, it does NOT contradict the DEFINITION of God. When my opponent decides to argue on the God of the Bible, he is necessarily accepting these qualities. If my opponent is to argue ONLY on the bolded part of his definition then he cannot argue that God is mostly evil seeing as his definition does not describe any specific god, acts by god, or attributes of god. Again, as with whether or not God meant his own rules of moral conduct to apply to him, I will leave this matter of definition up to voters. What I have attempted to do this entire debate is to prove that: 1) God of the Bible is evil and 2) The god of the Bible cannot be God because he contradicts his very nature. //"We all know that slavery, rape and murder is evil. "//However this statement is much too vague. It would be like if I said:"We all know that smoking cigarettes is wrong. " Slavery, rape and murder can be proven evil. I'm sorry. Are you saying that rape, murder and slavery is not evil? Our "innate" sense of good? My opponent is arguing that the God of the Bible is evil because his actions contradiction my opponent's own personal view of what is right and wrong. If he is to argue purely based off of personal emotion then my own opinion, which for this debate I will say is the opposite, contradicts and thus cancels out his own. I think everyone is going to agree rape is wrong. Period. No ifs ands or bust. If we read the OT, we will see that the Bible is really out dated. I will ask my opponent, why is your own personal meta-ethical stance on what is good and bad closer to the objective truth of what is right and wrong when it is completely subjective? I'm not sure what you are talking about. Final appeals: It is clear my opponent was not arguing. He was throwing everything except the kitchen sink against the idea that anyone can establish an objective morality. But that isn't the topic of the debate. The topic is whether the God of the Bible is evil. If he can't agree on what "evil" is, then he has no platform from which to argue -- unless he wants 1) to argue that there are no suchs thing as good or evil actions, and/or 2) that he thinks a God that condones slavery, mass murder, genocide, and killing unobservant Jews is "good. " If the latter, he has to justify how anyone could defend these as "good" actions. He has not at all shown that God was justified in his order of rape, murder and slaver. Not has he touched on some of the evil Bible verses I have presented. Another thing. Re-read our definition of God. NO WHERE DO I SAY THAT GOD HAS TO BE OMNIBELEVOLENT! My opponent CLEARLY took some of what I said out of context. This debate is clearly won for me.