God, as depicted in the Holy Bible, is not benevolent

RebuttalsIn my opponent's first argument, he attempts to accuse me of destroying my own thesis by accusing God of malevolence, which is not true. My thesis, as stated in the title of the debate is, "God... is not benevolent" and, as stated in my opening statements, is "God... is not benevolent, or malevolent." When my opponent quotes my second thesis, he leaves out the comma between "benevolent" and "or" which is grammatically pertinent in understanding that, by seeking to prove that God is not benevolent, I'm seeking to prove that he is malevolent and am not seeking to prove that he is neither.My opponent claims that this debate is an attempt to understand the mind of God, which is not true. This debate is concerning whether or not the Biblical God is kind, generous or organized for the good of others, so we don't have to understand his thoughts, just his actions, from a mortal perspective anyway. In my opponent's next three paragraphs, he attempts to prove God mathematically. This has nothing to do with the debate as this debate is not whether or not a God exists but rather if the one depicted in the Bible is benevolent, so I'm not going to rebut it.Then he goes on to explain that God gave us free will and conjectures that he instilled us with his ethics so we may avoid evil behaviors even if his written word is corrupted or lost to history. He does not cite any biblical reasons to believe this, nor does he demonstrate what this is supposed to mean to the debate. God obviously could've done a better job by guiding us morally, especially since we can already see what happens when his "word" or religion is stripped from us by observing atheists, who have nothing but the innate ethics that God "built into men." As we can learn from them, their human ethics differ very much from God's as God resents many things that secular humanists don't, such as homosexuality for example.Rebuttals for rebuttalsI now want to point out that my opponent has begun his rebuttals, which were reserved for Round 3. Even though I was going to reserve "rebuttals for rebuttals" for Round 4, I'll go ahead and rebut the rebuttals he's already offered as I'm sure he'll provide more for me to do in Round 4 in his next argument.The Flood:My opponent claims that God has no moral culpability in this situation since we are his creation and had become evil in the story of the flood and the only reason that seems immoral to us is because we are looking at it from a human perspective. I'll give him this one since the Bible does state that humankind was evil (though it fails to explain exactly what that means) and we are arguing from the Bible, but I just want to remark that I thought we were arguing from the perspective of the creation seeing as I defined benevolent as "kind, generous or organized for the good of others" and there is only "others" and God in the Christian universe. I also want to add that, from the vast majority of contemporary ethics, children cannot be evil or at least cannot be capitally punished for evil deeds, and there were children on the planet when God massacred them all.The PlaguesMy opponent attempts to write off the actions of God in the Old Testament with "Rather than stating all men were evil, and simply wiping the slate clean to start over again, as in the Flood story, He had the wisdom to realize, if he truly wanted to understand us and why leaders of the time were so evil, the best way would be not to view from above with disdane our actions as humans, but to literally manifest as a human, and live the experience of being human first hand." which implies that God gained wisdom which doesn't make sense. Then he goes on to explain that he conjectures that God likely looked upon mankind with abject detachment at this time, which just helps my case that he is not benevolent and that he is malevolent. Then he excuses God's many failed attempts at creating the "perfect" mankind are a result of perfection being tricky with creatures that have free will, ignoring the fact that God is perfect, all-knowing and omnipotent, which means that makes no sense at all. This also doesn't make sense because a benevolent God, even a God that isn't perfect, wouldn't try again and again to make a perfect mankind, then slaughter all of them, even the innocents (which are most of the Egyptians in this case by the way as only the ruling class were responsible for the Jewish slaves), when he inevitably fails.Leviticus"Firstly, many Christians consider old testament to be trumped by new testament after the coming of Jesus, in which these things are not repeated."This debate is whether or not God's actions in the Bible are benevolent. God, having passed these laws at any point, is going to have to be answered for by my opponent, something my opponent refuses to do because it's impossible. This is the second time I've done this debate: the first time was with a Jew who refused to defend God in the New Testament and now I'm debating a Christian who refuses to defend God in the Old Testament. My opponent must defend both as both are included in the Holy Bible."Secondly, just because something is printed in the Bible, does not mean it is in fact, the word of God."Leviticus is the word of God. Leviticus is God's instructions for his people to follow according to the Bible. It doesn't matter if the Bible is inaccurate in describing this as, just as I conceded the flood to my opponent because we are arguing from the Bible even though I think the Bible is completely inaccurate instead of just inaccurate in some places, we are arguing from the Bible, the same Bible that is held, everyday, above ministers' heads and called "the word of God for the people of God"Further Arguments The Sins of the FatherThe sins of the father being visited upon the son is a recurring theme throughout the Bible, though most prevalently in the Old Testament. Regardless, this is yet another example of God’s deplorable sense of morality. The sins of the father are just that: the sins of the father. Not the sins of the son, not the sins of any of his children, and not the sins of his children’s children. Yet God found it necessary to curse Canaan and each and every single one of his descendants because Noah, probably drunk, cursed him for seeing him naked. In fact, God directly admits to Moses in Exodus 34:7 and then to Moses when creating the ten commandments in 20:5 that he visits the sins of the father upon his children and his children’s children for many generations. Until he recants this later when he says to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31: 29-30, “‘In those days people will no longer say,‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.’” But it is too late, and all damage that he has done had been done, and God does not care to reverse it: God is malevolent.The InfernoYet the most damning of all evidence I have brought forth against the biblical God’s benevolence is what comes next: the inferno, hell, the pit, the lake of fire, the absence of God, his love, and any sort of comfort whatsoever. Hell is the epitome of all things pain and horror. Imagine getting burned on a stove top, now imagine your entire finger was on fire, now image your entire body was on fire, now imagine having that feeling for a day, then a week, then a year, then ten, the rest of your life, one hundred years, a thousand, a million, multiply that by another hundred and it still isn’t enough because Hell is forever. Hell can be found in the Bible at:Matthew 13:41-42: “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”and Revelation 20:13-15, 21:8: “The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire. But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells, idol worshipers, and all those who lie, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. That is the second death.”Imagine all the atrocities that Hitler or Stalin committed. Is it not fair and moral to punish them to suffer equal pain as their victims for as long as the compounded experience of their victims or perhaps even more? Sure. That comes out to way less than an eternity because an eternity is forever. One must know that hell is much too harsh of a punishment if even the most evil human beings to walk the Earth are seen as too good for the fate of eternal damnation.And still yet, there is no medium ground, except perhaps limbo in some Christian canon. If you die without accepting and loving Jesus Christ and God, if you die angry or gluttonous, if you worked on a Sunday one time and didn’t ask for forgiveness, hell is your punishment. Allow that to sink in, reader. I rest my case. Source(s):The Holy Bible: https://www.biblegateway.com......