The Christian flavor of God is immoral

I do take issue with his categorization of my rebuttals as attacks. While effective in swaying the emotions of the reader, lambasting my points as attacks, does not serve to support the argument on either side of the issue, and I would politely ask my opponent to refrain from utilizing aggressive rhetoric while debating this highly charged issue. Onto the discussion at hand. "This debate will be full of assumptions" I concur, but believe that the point of debate is to discuss the merits of those assumptions? Majority Christian belief. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians live in the third world and still maintain a very literal interpretation of scripture. But for the sake of my opponent I agree to adopt his adapted interpretation of some literal and some allegorical interpretation, and hope that he agrees to define clearly what parts are literal and what are allegorical and by what authority he makes that delineation. Lets start with the book of Numbers. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians view the story of the Israelites wandering in the desert as literal, especially in light of their adoption of the 10 commandments, a document purportedly given to moses literally during that time. I believe that my opponent would have a hard time finding a majority of Christians willing to state that Jewish theology and belief in the Torah as historical and literal is mistaken? Therefore the utility of the numbers 31 documentation of events is valid as an indication of the immoral nature of God the father. "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. " The categorization of the murder of thousands of captive mothers and children as just is not tenable with evolved human morality. God's consistent tendency to punish the children of naughty parents is immoral. We see this in many cases in the old testament including the ten commandments themselves. For example I submit Exodus 20:4-5: 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. " Clearly Christians utilize a literal interpretation of the ten commandments, yet here in the middle of the second is God claiming that he will punish the children for the sins of their parents for generations. If God literally requires that Christians don't bow down to graven images, then it is logical to believe that he will punish the children of those who disobey. I am sure this will be interpreted liberally as allegory, but one still should ask why God tends to utilize allegory in such inhumane and immoral ways? In every culture, the destruction of the innocent is deemed abhorrent unless associated with religious practice, and the God of the Old Testament is no exception. The use of the allegory or metaphor claim is liberally applied to absolve God of behavior that we all as humans find immoral. This point should be included in the reader's summation of this debate. "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. " And that he will return bearing a sword, the inclusion of the sword statement was no accident, and my opponent conveniently ignores it and utilizes metaphor to absolve Jesus of the statement of violent intent. But, once again even with metaphor in full swing, why does Jesus refer to the promise of death through a sword that he holds to drive a point home? "Morality coming from God is what the majority of Christians believe. So extend this point. " A majority of Christians believe that God is moral, which is what this debate is all about, so why not ask the reader to extend the entire debate? The point of the argument is that Christian belief is flawed, especially as it relates to morality and its origin. A majority of German's thought Hitler had their interests in mind, even through the end of WW2, that didn't make it the case. Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is not a story, but a directive from God, it is a part of his covenant with his people. Furthermore, the contextual message isn't that God punishes those who act immorally at all. The contextual message is that the believer should punish those who act immorally. The Law requires the believer to stone his family members, not to wait for God to take vengeance on the naughty Buddhists. My opponents rebuttal to my response to contention 3 is proven incorrect by the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace, a doctrine held by a majority of Christians. God clearly didn't create hell to punish immoral behavior, he created it to punish unrepentance and non belief. The story of the thief on the cross DOES highlight this point, and I submit that the Christian belief in instant forgiveness irrespective of a how a life is lived is further proof of the immorality of their flavor of God. I will concede that neither of us know what Hitler or Stalin did during their last minutes on earth, but not that Christian doctrine allows for them to enter heaven with true repentance. This is what salvation by grace is all about. "Hell is the separation of a person with God's love. " This is not a view held by a majority of Christians, it is a new doctrine created to absolve God of the doctrine of hell as a place of eternal suffering. Most Christians still believe in Hell as the lake of fire described by Jesus in Matthew 3:12, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46 and Luke 16:23-24. Gods inclusion of the serpent in the garden of eden, and his allowance of the temptation of Adam and Eve without a knowledge of good and evil, shows a complicit involvement in the introduction of sin to mankind. Free will cannot be argued if there is no knowledge of good and evil. Also God's knowing creation of Lucifer resulted in sin, therefore he created it. This supports my contention that God was complicit in the creation of sin, therefor not just in judging humans for being tainted by it. Final statement. First of all I would like to once again thank my opponent for his participation in this debate, religion and faith are always a tough subject to delve into. His honest open approach is to be commended. I contend that his continued utility of metaphore and allegory to excuse God of His stated law and actions proves the initial contention that the Christian flavor of God is immoral. Basically his defense boils down to, the bible shouldn't be read literally, therefor God isn't accountable for his actions listed in the bible that resulted in the death of the innocent or laws compelling followers to kill others. My opponents claim that liberal protestantism and liberal catholisism is the majority view within Christianity, is false based on simple demographics. It is definitely the majority view of the western world, so given that, I still argue that the liberal view of the Christian God is immoral, based on his use of metaphor and allegory that utilizes violent imagery. I contend that a moral Deity would not utilize violence and allegorical threat to display love. The behavior is counter productive to the act of love. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.