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

“Pro concedes that when the God is referred to as "the Father" or "our shepherd" that these are metaphors” …. Ummmmm. It’s not a concession. I originally said “So what makes God a caretaker to us all? There are many passages where God is called heavenly father [2] or some derivative of this. There are also other passages where God is depicted in metaphors as a shepherd tending his flock. ” To concede I would have to change to a point of view other than my original and admit my original view was false. I have not wavered. Voters, I hope you view this as I do, as dishonest conduct. “Pro is attempting to make the argument that a role model would be considered a caretaker. ” That’s funny I never suggested generic iconic roles like fathers and shepherd were to be looked at as role models. Some thing I did say was “a shepherd tending his flock. ” Leadership requires no regard for the followers. Being a caretaker does. Shepherds tend their sheep. Fathers protect their families. I am not saying one should or should not admire these qualities. I am saying this is the qualities that make someone a caretaker. When you think of the iconic shepherd, you think of him as a caretaker. Shepherds tend their sheep. Farmers tend their crops. To tend is a thing caretakers do. [5] “I do not think Pro can produce an instance where someone in the Bible left their child alone with God under the auspices that God would look after the child in the parent's stead. ” What does alone mean when we are talking about an intangible being? Do you know what I can do I can think of an instance where God took the wellbeing of a child out of the control of the parent. The parent begs and begs for the child’s life. If I had to guess he may have even prayed to switch fates with the child. The end result the child suffered for 7 long days and died. 2 Sam 12. The David depicted in verse 16 and 17 I imagine was in a similar emotional state as the husband in the third verse of this song "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? " Benjamin Franklin “In the United States, the states vote for the president. .. .. .” The guy on the $100 says God played a part. “Con has already answered this question which Pro did not rebut. Here is Con's response from Round 2:. .. ” 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 who policed recess that had the ultimate power. Funny thing about teachers they are in a caretaker role and they can be charged with child abuse. when we correct Con's metaphor we get a caretaker. “I don't understand the purpose of this statement. ” 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. If you didn’t understand I was really addressing the first half of the quote Con is talking about. “Con agrees, God did act with intent (mens rea)” well at least we agree on something. “Later, in appeals, it was overturned due to insanity” From Con’s own link “On January 6, 2005, a Texas Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, because California psychiatrist and prosecution witness Dr. Park Dietz admitted he had given materially false testimony during the trial” Can you at least get the fact strait? “I think it's less about what she was found guilty of and more about what she was accused of. ” Hey I agree with this too. Why Con doesn’t actually focus on what she was accused of is a good question. It seems con wants to focus what she was not accused of instead. Con is talking about no child abuse charges. Lack of a charge does not mean child abuse didn’t happen. Mrs. Yates drowned her 5 children. If Con is going to fuss about what she was not charged with perhaps Con should note what she was charged with, like the quote says is important. Mrs. Yates was only charged with 3 murders. It is clear she could have been charged with more so Cons claim is a wild speculation. Furthermore had she the mens rea she could have been convicted of child abuse as well. It is common for prosecutors to not charge a person with all the crimes they could be charged with. Con’s argument that because Mrs. Yates was not charged with child abuse neither should God is poorly thought out. “Con is actually surprised that Pro would drop the Egyptian plague. ” After further considerations the Bible does not indicate a physically or emotionally painful death. Best I can tell god magic-ed every first born painlessly to death. Mrs. Yates didn’t have that option. “To say that God is a child abuser because the flood killed many innocent lives is to say that Harry Truman is a child abuser because he caused many innocent children to die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--surely no one will make that claim? ” Like Mrs. Yates, Mr. Truman had limited options the Bible pins God as all powerful. He could have done like he did in Egypt and magic-ed everyone to death in their sleep. He could have magic-ed them to sleep as prep work too, genesis shows this ability as well. Basically that is how the lethal injection is done. Sadly God chose the emotionally traumatic drowned the children with everyone else method. I am so glad Con tried to answer my question. 1) "If it was God's intent to kill then why 7 days of sickness and suffering? Death was not the only intent. " “Psychopaths do some very strange and morbid things. .. .” 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. “This is clearly premeditated murder, not child abuse. Furthermore, was God taking care of the child? No, it is clear that it was not God that was caring for the child, rather David and his attendants: “ 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. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. There is precedent in everyday legal cases. If you cause a car accident you are put in charge of certain caretaker roles. You are put in charge of the medical bills that are generated by the process of mitigating damages. Legally this is looked at as making the other party whole. By injuring the child in the form of sickness God take on a responsibility. It is David’s responsibility to do all that he can to make sure God mitigates said injury. The injury being the illness and suffering. 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. But such standing would not warrant the abuse and death of a child who is not at fault and therefore it is not excused. Pro notes “The reasoning is obvious: to inflict suffering and to send a message. “In trying to make David suffer God intentionally made a child suffer. That is child abuse. When you take the life of a child in your hands you incur a legal responsibility for the wellbeing of that child. God chose to let the child suffer day after day, child abuse. Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation is child abuse. Events accredited to God fit this definition. I ask voters to vote Pro. [5] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...