(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

Round three rebuttals"Before I begin with my points there is something I must establish: if we are to have this debate we must assume the existence of God; otherwise there would be no point and many of our arguments would be invalidated. " NotBenShapiroThe existence of God is irrelevant to the debate. If God exists we can debate about God's character. If God is fictional, we can still debate God's character just as we can debate about the moral integrity of fictional characters in Harry Potter and Doctor Who.I. The definition of GodMy opponent tries to change the definition of God, yet we already agreed upon the definition of God in round one. "DefinitionsGod""(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [0]"" stupidape round one.Furthermore, if you read your link it says "Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving." wikipediaTheologians get their knowledge of God from the Bible. Yet, the Bible claims God exists and is good. This is circular reasoning. "ExplanationAn argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion." [9]Just because the Bible claims that God is benevolent doesn't mean God is. There have been mistranslations of the Bible just for starters. The Bible could all be the ravings of a mentally ill person or persons. If Darth Vader said "I am good", would you believe him? What about if Darth Vader wrote a book and claimed the book was holy and that Darth Vader is benevolent? No, you wouldn't, you would have to see Vader's actions not his words.The next argument of my opponent's seems like a redundant and confusing version of the last. Therefore, the same rebuttals can be used for the "2. God is not good, good is God" part of my opponents debate."3. God gave up his only son for an undeserving worldThis has been pointed out many times but it is a very important proof of God’s benevolence.According to Christian belief, Jesus is perfect [6], in contrast with a world full of rapists, murderers, and all manner of despicable people. The fact that God would give Him up for humanity because of his love for us [5] is possibly the most benevolent act in history.The most common counterargument to this claim is that no loving God would put to death their only child, which leads into my next argument:4. Jesus willingly went to the crossThis negates any objection to my previous point, since the only real counterargument is the one I already mentioned.Jesus died on the cross willingly [4]. Since he is a part of the Trinity [2] this is proof of God’s benevolent love." NotBenShapiroI put these together, since it seems impossible to address one without the other. Jesus sacrifice was human sacrifice. Human sacrifice is immoral, regardless if the victim is willing or not. Just as slavery would still be immoral if you gave the slaves health insurance and nice food. This also runs into the problem of multiple Gods, despite the Bible claiming there is only one. How could God both be on the cross as the Son and yet be present as the Father? Since evil tends to deceive, the fact that the Bible is so confusing indicates a malevolent presence. This is not a new argument since my opponent brought up the trinity. I am only responding to a point my opponent made.Finally, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was scapegoating. Some primitive tribes perform a ritual where they put all the sins onto a goat and then execute the goat. This is called scapegoating. Not only is scapegoating immoral, it is illogical. "Description: Unfairly blaming an unpopular person or group of people for a problem, or a person or group that is an easy target for such blame.Logical Form:Nobody likes or cares about X.Therefore, X is to blame for Y.Example #1:I know I got drunk, slapped the waitress on the behind, then urinated in the parking lot... from inside the restaurant, but that was Satan who had a hold of me.Explanation: The person is avoiding personal responsibility and blaming “Satan” for his actions. Satan is an easy target -- he does not show up to defend himself and a surprising number of people believe he exists, and actually does cause immoral behavior."[10]Scapegoating is not unique to Christianity. [11] Scapegoating is incredibly immoral. "The holocaust indeed provides the greatest example of the dangers scapegoating and oversimplifying has in pointing out villains. "[12]Christianity survives by scapegoating gays, blacks, females, Satan, demons, and witches. Once people accept that scapegoating is moral, you could easily add another group of people to that list. "ConclusionMy last two points outline God’s love for humanity. His love is proof of his benevolence, since He doesn’t have to bother with us. But instead of sitting idly by He offered us a way into heaven [3].That sounds pretty benevolent to me." NotBenShapiroGood deeds are a mitigating factor for evil deeds, but do not completely overwrite bad deeds. A murder who donates to charity is still a killer. I'm not sure humans can trust a God that punishes people so severely. Perhaps Heaven is a ruse or trap. That God is a soul devouring malevolent being that lulls us into a false sense of security. Think of a pitcher plant and flies, humans are the flies and God the pitcher plant. [13] Sources.9. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...10. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...11. http://www.academia.edu...12. http://www.blex.org...13. http://www.carnivorous--plants.com...