The God of the Bible is Immoral

First I will begin by stating that bringing up bible verses that present God in a positive light does not weaken my argument at all. In fact I would expect that the writers of the bible had it in their minds to speak positively about the god they believed in. The whole point of the bible is to advertise God, and serve as a guide for proselytizing the Christian religion. Bringing up good verses about God in order to defend the bad verses about God is kind of like when Cosby defenders defend Cosby by bringing up the good things he did. A person's good actions never justify his/her bad actions. By the way God does endorse human sacrifices. The greatest example of this is Jesus Christ himself who was a human sacrifice to God. I know it's hard to believe but God uses cannibalism as a punishment against the Israelites. This is evidenced in the earlier bible verse I pointed out. Tell me why an all loving god would cause his people to starve until they have no other option than to eat their children, and each other? (Sounds like something Kim Jong Un would do). What kind of cruel punishment is that? Con's argument defending God's advocacy of slavery is poor to say the least. Con begins by implying that the slavery of the bible was acceptable because it wasn't as harsh as American Slavery which is incorrect by the way. Biblical slavery did involve capturing people against their will and forcing them into slavery. This was not some form of indentured servitude. In Exodus 21:4-6 If the Hebrew slaves said they wanted to stay (probably because they did not have a set income to take care of themselves because they were not being paid, being that they were slaves, or they didn't want to leave their families behind because they stayed with the master) then the master would bring them to the door post, and bore their ears through with an aul. And if you beat them within an inch of their life and they didn't die then it was okay because they were property. (Sounds a lot like the excuse that slave masters used in America). Con only points out guidelines for owning Hebrew slaves, and how it is only for a set period of time. But what about non-Hebrew slaves? According to Leviticus 25:44-46 If you were a Hebrew you could own foreign slaves for their whole lives, and you could even pass them down to you kids! When it comes to Paul, and slavery, Paul, and the rest of the biblical writers could have just said that slavery was a human injustice, but the bible never prohibits slavery, it just condones it. Except when it happened to the Hebrews because God only cares when it happens to his own people. Even then he allowed it for 400 years, and after freeing them from Egypt, he was okay with them enslaving themselves. smh Another example of the new testament condoning slavery is Titus 2:9-10 in which Paul is instructing church leaders to "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive". So yes Paul does happens to be okay with the concept slavery. And as for Numbers 31, what else did it it mean when it said "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves". Even if it didn't mean rape, and it meant marriage then forced child marriages are wrong as well. Now concerning genocide, Con states that "In that pre-enlightenment mindset, saying "utterly destroy them" does not mean each individual dies". which then begs the question WHAT ELSE COULD THIS SENTENCE HAVE POSSIBLY MEANT?.lol The bible sometimes even goes into great detail into what exactly is destroyed. For example in Joshua 6:21 it says "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword."