The Christian flavor of God is immoral

"I do believe, however that his argument rests on assumptions that need to be addressed. Namely that God is the authoritative being behind the existence of Morals and God is totally good." My Response: This debate will be full of assumptions. E.g. That God actually exists and that Hell actually exists. Therefore, some assumptions must be made for the sake of this debate. Furthermore, since my opponent has claimed this statement: I argue that the God presented to humanity by a majority of Christians is immoral. From this statement we can infer that this debate will revolve around the majority Christian belief, which fits my definitions of God. Therefore, this definition will be extended for the remaining rounds. "My opponent conveniently forgets to mention that the Christian God also told Moses to 'take vengeance' on the Midianites which led to the genocide of captive mothers and male children as documented in Numbers 31..." My Response: My opponent has immense knowledge on the Bible. However as an overview for the round, I argue that the majority of Christians do not take the whole entire bible literally. With this, let me continue. The God presented in the old Testament portrays the just side of God. The New Testament God and Jesus portray the loving side. Both necessary for a moral being. "In this passage we can clearly see that Jesus did not intend to bring peace and harmony to the earth, in fact he states that his presence with actually create enemies out of family members and implores his followers to disregard love for parents and relatives when it supersedes their love of him." My Response: My opponent misses the contextual meaning behind these passages. The message behind them is that your love for earthly possessions and earthly loves cannot supersede that of your father creator. Also, my opponent takes specific passages without looking at the: A) Contextual Message or B) Opposing passages. Furthermore, do not look at arguments from my opponent that the Bible must be taken literally for the majority of Christians do not believe this (Key: majority is what we are debating) "In John's vision in Revelations, Jesus is seen returning to earth on a white horse, bearing a fiery sword, destroying all those who didn't believe in or accept him as lord, a direct reference to his claim in Matthew." My Response: My opponent makes a very big flaw with this. Jesus would destroy those who followed the anti-Christ and the devil. This shows that they must be punished for worshiping immorality and the devil. "Morality does not come from God. This can be proven in the evolution of human understanding of the nature of God, and changes to our interpretation of his Law. For instance, If my opponent was to murder his parents because they were trying to convince him to adopt the teachings of Buddha, most people in the world would consider his actions immoral. They would be correct, however God told the Israelites to do exactly that in Deuteronomy 13:6-10. God's notion of the right thing to do, is wrong compared with our evolved sense of morality." My Response: Morality coming from God is what the majority of Christians believe. So extend this point. He then brings up a killing analogy. This example is flawed because it is saying that your parents deserve death because they tried to convert you. You could just say no, you have the right to believe what you wish. He then says that this is waht God did. I have 2 responses: 1) We don't know if that actually happened or if it was just a story. 2) He misses the contextual message: God punishes those that act immorally. "Most Christians will attempt to distance themselves from the Old Testament God again in this case, with claims of Jesus abolition of God's law due to fulfillment." My Response: My opponent seems to like to quote Scripture, however he has a biblical flaw. Jesus specifically said he would not abolish the law, but to fulfill it. I.e. fulfilling the two sides of God: justice and love. Since I do not have enough room, I will just respond to my opponents attack on my contention 3. My Response: He brings up Osama. Fundamental Islam is a twisted view of Islam itself. The majority of Muslims are not in favor of blowing themselves up to escape hell. They know this is wrong. He then says that hell is there to punish non-believers. This is totally in accurate. The purpose of hell is to punish a persons immoral acts on earth. Not believing is a sin, but its not the only sin that warrants punishing. My opponent then brings up the Cross Example. He fudges the story of this. The reason that the bad thief went to hell was because he refused to ask for forgiveness for his sins. The good thief did, he was truly sorry for his sins. Therefore, he was let into Heaven. He then brings up Hitler and Stalin. Turn this turn. Hitler and Stalin were Christians, yes. However both rejected religion. Both believed that their acts did not warrant punishment. Extend this as an argument for my contention 3. He then argues that God didn't have to make hell. Hell is the separation of a person with God's love. They are totally alone. The majority of Christians don't believe that you burn in fire. The doctrine of hell is that you are separated from God's love because you have broken his moral laws and have denied his love. "God is not Just, because of his involvement in creating man's sinful nature. If necessary I will expound on this in round two, but keep in mind that God created Lucifer, and allowed him to enter the garden with Adam and Eve. Justice requires an unrelated third party to judge a case, God, being omnipresent, omniscient and the creator of all things cannot be just as he is intimately involved in everything on earth, therefor he is only serving his own interest with absolute power." My Response: god didn't create sin. He gave us free will, which in turn made sin. It was humans that made sin, not God. God just loved us so much that he wanted us to be free on our time on earth. Except every action has a consequence. That consequence is hell. Also, justice does not require a third part to judge. This is a narrow view of Western Justice. God is the judge, he decides if you warrant hell or heaven. You then make him sound like a human. God doesn't serve his own interest by putting people in hell. We send ourselves to hell, God judges our own actions. So essentially God is the third party. It is us and God. We do the actions, God judges those actions. Be it good or bad. Hell is the final punishment for a life of immorality. Round Overview: My opponent has essentially failed in his attacks because a lot of what he said isn't what the majority of Christians believe. Christianity is dominated by Catholicism and Liberal Protestantism (i.e. protestantism that doesn't believe in literal interpretations or pre3desitnation). Since my opponent has established the beginning premise of the majority of Christians, then any attack my opponent makes which goes outside the realm of Catholicism and Liberal Protestantism can be dropped. Extensions: 1) Extend my Topical Negation 2) Extend Contention 1 on the fact that his attacks were bibically literally. *Refer to Round Overview. 3) Extend Contention 2, for the same reason, i.e. overview. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.