If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has commited child abuse.

I think there is little said in Pro's Round 4 response that hasn't already been addressed, so mostly I would refer readers to the previous rounds. Con will now go through R4 rebuttals (keep the previous rounds in mind where these arguments are better spelled out).Pro accused Con of bad conduct by stating that Pro made a concession. Frankly, Con finds this extremely misleading. So first, I will quote Pro from Round 3:Pro Round 3:“First, these are clearly metaphors and not to be taken literally.” - Con Round 2Yes, they are metaphors. So is this...Con Round 3:"Pro concedes that when the God is referred to as "the Father" or "our shepherd" that these are metaphors."I just leave it up to the readers as to whether or not Pro actually did agree (concede) that these are metaphors. Indeed, as Con argued in R3, Con does see that as a concession that God was not a parent/caretaker. But Con did not just state this, instead, in R3 explained why, as the definition of metaphor is stated, God must not literally be a father or a shepherd.Pro makes the claim that there are many passages where God is referred to as heavenly father. I refer readers back to R2 where Con stated that in fact this is actually only in the New Testament. Con challenged Pro to find passages in the Old Testament where God was referred to as a father and Pro was unable to provide any examples. Furthermore, Con argued that "the father" really means "the father" of Jesus. Reread John 10:25-30 to see that Jesus refers to God was "my Father" and then finally "the father" (which Con argued means "the father" of Jesus).The role model argument Con made in R3 is really dependent on accepting that the metaphor of "the Father" and shepherd are really metaphors for being the leader. I don't see that Pro offers any Bible passages to support his analysis of the metaphor as a caretaker. The closest passage is 1 Peter 5:5-7.Now the next line of argument, Con finds extremely interesting in regard to my analogy of a child on the playground:Sorry if you feel my rebuttal was insufficient. Your metaphor is poor. “...because I [am] friend's with the biggest guy."See I was that biggest guy, but I was not the ultimate authority on that play ground. It was the teachers...There are two things of interest here. The first is the absurdity of this rebuttal (for which there was none in R3). Pro claims that teachers are the ultimate authority. So are we to believe that the teacher's pet or teacher's snitch is the least picked on at recess??? I merely ask readers what makes more sense: that children are afraid of the biggest bully (which I think is implied by my analogy) or by the child who is best friends with the teacher?The second thing of interest, is that Pro attacks my "metaphor" (I think it's more of an analogy rather...but same difference). So we see that metaphors are inaccurate often times because people start attacking the metaphor/analogy rather than the actual situation. Rather than attack the purpose of my analogy--that God is a benefactor/protector not necessarily a parent/caretaker in the sense of how a child would see it, refer you to Con's R2--Pro attacks the analogy for not being exact. Sounds familiar right? We have a metaphor in that God is a "father" and shepherd, perhaps how Pro sees this is not exact either!In regards to Pro's accusation that I was making an argument from authority, Pro writes:"I was indicating that Con’s beliefs on the care taker issue are not well reasoned and the fact that Con notes his belief is poor reason to accept it as true." - Pro R4For full context, I suggest rereading this section in Pro's R3 and Con's response in R3. No, I was making an assumption to aid further debate, since if I had assumed that God was not a caretaker then it would have been pointless to attack any of Pro's examples.“Later, in appeals, it was overturned due to insanity”"From Con’s own link..."Whether or not it was insanity or a mistrial is totally irrelevant to this debate. The point is that she was indicted on murder chargers, not child abuse. "It is common for prosecutors to not charge a person with all the crimes they could be charged with." - Pro R4Then we can safely assume that God would not be charged with child abuse, rather murder.The attack against the analogy of Truman is pretty irrelevant as well. At this point Pro is only stating that to be child abuse, there needs to be suffering. Con doesn't care about this point, either way is fine. The real purpose is to distinguish child abuse from 1st degree murder. On the argument that suffering does not entail child abuse:"Do you know what I find most telling about Con’s answer of all these morbid thing listed? Never is it said that these actions are not abuse or if directed at a child, child abuse." - Pro R4It also never states that it is child abuse either. In fact it, again, seems clear to Con that these are either torture or tortuous ways to die--the latter would still be 1st degree murder.In regards to Uriah's child:"Neither David nor his attendants had sway over the welfare of the child in its last 7 days. You nor I have actually put down verse 16 till now." - Pro R4This is irrelevant to my argument. Yes, we know that neither David or his attendants could reverse God's decision to murder the child with disease. But who was actually watching over the child? Was it God? No, obviously not. Was it David, maybe maybe not, I'll accept that it wasn't, but then his attendants certainly were. It was not God that was babysitting the child so the argument that he is the child's caretaker is incorrect."If you cause a car accident you are put in charge of certain caretaker roles." - Pro R4No, you take on the role of the person that is financially liable for the accident. So are we to believe that if I get into an accident and there is a child in the car I hit, that I am guilty of child abuse? I think not."If Con cares to argue God had standing in seeking retribution in Uriah's death then it is only as a caretaker that God would have standing...When you take the life of a child in your hands you incur a legal responsibility for the well being of that child. God chose to let the child suffer day after day, child abuse."So if you decide to murder your neighbor's child, then while you were in the act of killing the child, you were the child's caretaker, therefore this counts as child abuse. No, not even close. God was never the caretaker of Uriah's wife's child, before, during, or after God infected the child with a disease that slowly killed the child.In conclusion, Pro has failed to prove that God was ever in a caretaker role of a child (anywhere in the Bible). His arguments relies on metaphors used in the New Testament. Second, all three example, Egyptian plague, great flood, and killing Uriah's wife's child, are incidents of murder. Recall from R3 that 1st degree murder requires premeditated though or planning. God clearly did this in all three case and thus is definitely a murderer, but no child abuse (because he was never in a caretaker role).