The Christian God is Immoral

In this final round of the debate, my opponent continues to make ridiculous, unfounded claims saying that words like kill don't really mean kill, they mean change. He claims that if the Bible is taken literally, then it would show that God is all God. But by his own concession, humans wrote the Bible. So what if they mistakenly said that God was good when in reality he is not. Con provides no reason believe that the parts of the Bible that say that God is good are correct, while other parts that say that God is not good are not correct. 10th plague "Furthermore God never says "I killed the firstborns". He says "I will kill them" this is future tense." Saying you are going to kill a bunch of children is almost as immoral as actually killing them. The future tense does not make this a moral action. "Then the passage that describes the claims is written in third person. 'At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt.' God never personally claims that he committed a killing." Well, you know what else is written in third person? The parts of the Bible that say "He is Good," "God is love," etc. So when used to promote his position, it is alright for a part of the Bible to be written in third-person, but its not okay when it opposes his position. That's some logic right there. Not. So if we are allowed to find out things about God from things that are written in third person (i. e. "God is good"), then we can say that God did kill the firstborns. The Bible very clearly lays that out. No nonsense: God struck down the firstborns. "The Jews won freedom without a fight. Much like what Ghandi did for India. This was a very moral strategy to gain freedom." I doubt Ghandi would have gone and killed a bunch of English kids so the Indians could be free. Amalekite Genocide "Destroy andput [sic] to death generally just mean to "cleanse" or "liberate". Right. Not. Let's look at some definitions and synonyms: Destroy- 1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form,or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate. 2. to put an end to; extinguish. 3. to kill; slay. 4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize;invalidate. 5. to defeat completely. Synonyms include annihilate, annul, blot out, eradicate, exterminate, kill, ravage, slay, and wipe out. None of these definitions or synonyms even hint at words like "cleanse" or "liberate." Put to death- to kill; execute. Synonyms include abolish, do away with, exterminate, kill, slaughter, slay, wipe out. (Source: Dictionary.com and Thesaurus.com)Again, we see nothing at all about cleansing or liberating. Voters: Note my opponent's gross misuse of these words and please read the following Biblical passage with the proper definitions in mind. "Now go, attack the Amalakites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Nothing more needs to be said. Evil Bible Verses My opponent is using the incorrect definition of smite. When God "smites" someone, he is not hitting them, he is striking them down (dictionary.com definition 3). Kill the entire town- this has already been discussed: Kill means kill, not convert. Adultery: There is a huge difference between something being bad and something warranting death. Also, my opponent says that adultery is immoral because it involves, lying, but adultery does not have to involve lying. Killing non-virgins: Something being bad does not equal death. If the holy spirit meant something other than death, he would have been more specific, because God knows what humans will do in the future, so he would know what they would write. Romans: My opponent ignores the end of the section which says: Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them" [1]. It's very clear what is being said here. The Bible describes God as good and loving "I have successfully defended all seemingly "evil" examples of God. God is good and loving." Not so. General consensus "While just because everyone agrees with it, it does not make it right is true. The message that God is good is the MOST believed Bible passage. It is the only consistently clear passage. This is justification for believing the God is good passagesover others. " My opponent contradicts himself. He says that the majority does not make the truth, but then he says that the God is good passage should be believe over others because most people like it. Conclusion Here is why voters should vote Pro: In R1 I presented this logic: Only an immoral being would do X.God did X.Therefore, God is immoral. This logic was never challenged, and drops count as concessions. In this debate I have shown that X can equal mass murder, and that God committed/ordered mass murder multiple times. Therefore, God is immoral. It is really as simple as this: Only an immoral being would commit a mass murder of children.God committed mass murder.Therefore, God is immoral. Vote Pro!! Sources:Dictionary.com and Thesaurus.com[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...