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

To be honest I was expecting a stronger argument from Con. I will now quote Con and talk about the problems I find with his reasoning. “First, these are clearly metaphors and not to be taken literally.” Yes, they are metaphors. So is this "Men's words are bullets, that their enemies take up and make use of against them." (George Savile, Maxims)[3] Words are not actually bullets but like bullets they can cause pain. “A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.”[3] God in the bible is compared to a father and shepherd for a reason. They are both caretaker roles. Con wishes us to believe that the bible uses these icons to only indicate leadership. I rhetorically ask Con why does a real life shepherd lead his sheep. Shepherds protect their sheep from predators, lead them to green fields and cool water. Yes a shepherd leads but he leads as a caretaker. Looking at the role of a father, 2000 plus years ago, we see the father is the head of the house hold and completely responsible for those under his roof. A leadership and caretaker role. About 1Kings 8:15-16 “This seems to support Con's claim that God is not a father or caretaker. In fact, this verse is basically saying that God allowed the Israelites to govern over themselves (by allowing kings).” ….Ummmmm….. did Con miss where it says god picked the king? That is hardly letting them govern themselves. Self-governance is where the people pick the rulers. According to the Bible, God is the one who took care of picking a leader. About 1 Peter 5:5-7 “This passage is addressing young people and urging them to not be proud, yet respect their elders. Casting their anxiety aside…” There is a directionality to the casting of anxiety. Why put your worries on God if he is not in some sort of caretaker role willing to take care of them? “I want to remind voters that Con does not believe Pro has proved that God can be considered a parent or caretaker, however for the purposes of the rest of this rebuttal, we will assume that part has been met.” I want to remind Con that without a convincing argument to support ones merely stating your beliefs is an argument from authority, and not a good reason to buy into Con’s view. “The first two cases, Noah's flood and killing the first born in Egypt, are clearly murder and not child abuse. For instance, Andrea Yates [1] drowned her five children in a bathtub. “ I am dropping the Egypt charge. After thinking about it Con is right in this one case. God was actually quite humane in this case of child murder. The difference between Andrea Yates and God is Andrea was insane (postpartum psychosis) while the bible does not note God to be as such. “She did not commit child abuse--she committed murder.” She was found not guilty by mental disease or defect. The important difference between Andrea and God is mens rea if one is playing kick ball with their kid and they accidently kick the ball into their child’s face this is not child abuse. If they intentionally kick the ball into their child’s face, it is child abuse. Andrea lacked the ability to understand what she was doing was wrong. The way God kills children in Exodus 12 does not indicate suffering. God could have decided to kill in this humane way. Andrea drowning her children is like a person who thinks the rules in kick ball are to kick the ball at other people’s faces. While God drowning countless children is like the guy who kicks the ball at his child intentionally. “Likewise, in the last case of God killing Uriah's child with sickness, God acted with the intent to murder (kill) the child.” 2 Sam 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill Bible indicates it was David’s child from Uriah’s wife. If it was God's intent to kill then why 7 days of sickness and suffering? Death was not the only intent. If we look at chapter 12 light of Munchausen by Proxy we do find startelign similarities."1. This kind of abuse and/or neglect – including its sub types/labels – is not currently an officially recognized mental health diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association - it is a recognized kind of maltreatment. There is no mental health test or evaluation that can determine whether a person is or is not a perpetrator of this kind. However, this is a recognized kind of abuse and/or neglect."[4] “Pro is clearly using the terms recent act and results in death to make the case that God was a child abuser.” Actually, while this is part of it I am also arguing “serious physical or emotional harm” as well. Inflicting Illness is an example of serious physical harm. The terror of drowning is an example of serious emotional harm. In conclusions there are many metaphors in the bible that compare god to classic caretaker roles, and the bible indicating that he has picked leadership in the form of kings also shows a level of care in regards to his people. Furthermore God could have killed in a humane way but instead there are examples where he caused children suffer physically or emotionally before death. Both conditions are met [3] http://grammar.about.com... [4] http://www.mbpexpert.com... “I would challenge Pro to find a case where a child was killed intentionally and the defendant was charged with anything less than murder.” Not 100% what Con is looking for, but most if not all people in a caretaker role are able to be sane while murdering their ward in a manner that would fit child abuse as well. http://www.lasvegassun.com... I put this after my source section because it is a red herring. The fact that the vast majority child abusers don’t intend for the abuse victim to die, does not prove that one can not be charged with both murder and child abuse. “while Pro makes a very good case that God is a psychopathic murderer,” Most psychopathic murderers who have a care taker role don’t torment then kill their wards.