The Biblical God is Immoral

"To compare someone that works on a Sunday with Hitler is ludicrous." I wasn't comparing someone that works on Sunday with Hitler. Con stated earlier that it would never be acceptable in our society to kill our neighbor. I simply (slightly humorously) gave an example of where most people would kill their neighbor. "Con never explained in what way it was taken out of context." I did actually. My opponent read the law and that was his opening argument. My opponent never read the whole passage or even thought about the reasons for the law. "If God"s writing is so easy to take out of context, then that would imply I am a superior writer and communicator than God." No...it would mean that you are dishonest and have no desire to learn anything God put in the Bible. That said, I don't believe you are dishonest. I think you just have no interest in hearing a the explanation for the law. "I am quoting bible verses that contained early Judeo laws that one should be killed for working on a Sunday. I am saying that law is immoral, therefore the author promoted immoral laws. Because I believe that the Bible is not the word of god does not mean I can"t say its laws are immoral." It is a complete double standard to use Bible verses to prove something and then turn around and say that I cannot do the same. You mentioned one law and then conclude that God is immoral. In part of my response, I used two other Bible verses to show that God is moral. Hence, we could then conclude that God has a good reason for this law (which I have also provided). "Con"s response that it is moral to kill someone for working on Sunday is that because the Bible claims that, a) the bible is true, b) God wrote the bible, and therefore the execution for this offense is moral." No actually...my opponent did that. He used a Bible verse to show that God was immoral and since they believe the Bible is true (well...they act like they do), he comes to the conclusion that God is immoral. I on the other hand showed a Bible verse that proved that God was moral and therefore had a reason for that law. In response, I am told that I can't quote the Bible even though he is allowed to. And I have never once in this debate argued that God is moral because God wrote the Bible or because the Bible is true. This whole debate has been about me showing that God is moral using other Bible verses that you ignored and by showing you how bad it was to ignore the Sabbath law. And we started off the debate assuming the bible is true since you used a verse from it to prove that God was immoral. "Living in a harsh environment where survival could be determined by predators killing your animals, weather destroying your crops, plundering by neighboring peoples or extreme temperatures, working on a Sunday would eventually become inevitable by someone trying to avoid calamity of varying degrees. Any claim that there are exceptions are simply baseless assertions." Uh no. That was actually a bare assertion you just made. The people of the time period prepared for Sunday in many ways (http://www.chabad.org...). That said, God killed the people for purposely violating the Sabbath and had other rules for unintentionally sinning. "If Con argues that not all were executed, then the ones that were, were even more unjust. Then one would have to ask why there were inconsistencies in the enforcement of the law if it is so important and so offensive to God. In modern society, we always punish someone for heinous crimes without exception." No, the one man (there might have been more) that was executed was committing treason against God by ignoring his laws. The point is that this law was for the people who directly disrespected God. And no, our society does not always punish someone for heinous crimes. But that is another debate. "The punishment in this case was execution. The crime was being out of favor with God for working on Sunday." Lets try to reword things. Sometimes this helps. The Sabbath was a sign that God truly ruled Israel and to break this law was to commit treason against God. As I recall, the United States also puts people to death for treason. Therefore all works except for acts of mercy, necessity, and worship were forbidden on the Sabbath (Is. 58:13 and Matt. 12:1-13). People were allowed to do things out necessity so maybe that Bible verse will help my opponent understand that God wouldn't kill a person for getting food for themselves. However, people who obviously disrespected God would be put to death. "According to the New Testament stories, even Jesus knew the Old Testament laws were immoral." Totally false. And again, another case where my opponent is allowed to use the Bible and for some reason I can't. But I am going to address this since the Bible never says this. Jesus simply made it clear that the old law had become obsolete since the law foreshadowed the rest the people would one day find in Jesus. Since Jesus had arrived, and since he was the "Lord of the Sabbath,"the law that foreshadowed him was no longer needed. "Would you kill your child if they disobeyed you? If someone killed their child for disobedience that didn"t hurt anything but their pride, wouldn"t you consider them a monster? Why is this not obvious?" That would be wrong and now my opponent is asserting things about this OT law that isn't actually there. The law was for treasonous people who hated God. It wasn't for children. The Bible even makes it clear that people were allowed to do things out of necessity. "This answer was given to my statement that I wouldn"t kill my children for such a trifle offense as working on a particular day. It is incredibly trifle. The amount of spite and vengefulness a father would have to have to kill his children for something like that is staggering. (My use of children is not referring to age but is conveying the relationship perceived by believers with their god.)" Anyone who disobeyed this law was not a believer. As already shown with other Bible verses, God does not put people to death unless the people are directly rejecting God as their ruler. This means that they want to be wicked like the rest of the world. So I recommend my opponent stop putting things in the Bible that aren't there. "With that said, one does not have to read the bible to know what the command to kill people for working on Sunday means." If that is all the Bible said on the matter you may have a point. But since you have inserted a lot of things that aren't actually in the Bible and because you ignore the seriousness of the crime, I don't know what else to tell you. You seem to want to believe that God is immoral. This became obvious with you Bible citing double standard. In conclusion, my opponent has ignored everything I said due to his double standards and due to his insertion of things in the Bible that aren't actually there. The law about breaking the Sabbath was for people who committed treason against God. No matter if people vote for me or not, I hope there is someone out there that sees how moral God truly is and how people will twist and add things to the Bible in order to make their case against him.