Is God(Christian) a standard of morality to follow

Thank you for your response, and I will take this paragraph by paragraph: Paragraph 1.) "My contender BoggyB seems to be confused as to the topic here which is...Is the Christian God Yahweh a role model of morality to follow or not." - Con. I am beginning to be confused now. I was inclined that to believe that your thesis was that the morals and teachings of God (Yahweh) are flawed, and that God doesn't have good morals. I was under the impression this was your point, and I even said this in my first round argument. "Now that we've explored the definitions we can summarize Cons thesis thoroughly: "The Ideas and teachings and morals of the Bible, and of God the Father, shouldn't be widely accepted as right because they are not of high quality." - Myself. Con didn't directly oppose my assumption which I clearly stated, and argued against it by trying to show that God's actions against humans are immoral. Now Con appears to be saying that God was just in what he did, but that humans shouldn't attempt to use his morals. If this was your real statement, the I agree, no one Here on earth is God so they shouldn't try to play God, but Con never explicitly stated this. Con was unclear to what his real argument was, so that's why I made that assumption, (which I have just quoted). Con didn't deny it and began to argue against it. If you wanted to argue a different subject you should have explicitly stated in your first entry. Paragraph 2.) Let's summarize the what Con said: Con says that every verse I quoted in my arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, because they are all said under duress. Obviously, this is a possibility, but Con has no proof. I'll say what I said previously, the Bible has 40 authors over a span of 2000 years, yet it is consistent, which is evidence against Con's point. Thirdly, Con is completely disregarding everything I presented based off a claim that it was under duress, but doesn't hesitate to use the same Bible, written by the same men, for his arguments. This is a fallacy on Cons part. Paragraph 3.) Paragraph 3 is a red herring and ad hominem. A red herring is something that is irrelevant to the debate [1], and an ad hominem is personal attack [2]. Con rambles on about how I'm a coward and many other irrelevant things. He has strayed from the subject at hand and committed two fallacies. Paragraph 4.) Con compares God's principles to a mob boss. I think this is an unfair comparison. God created man (giving him authority), and a mob boss is merely a contemporary human. "You pervert the word love itself by even associating it with this scenario." God created man, and the earth and it was perfect. God did this out of love, and gave but simple commands to man. Man refused this and accepted the consequences willingly. Paragraph 5.) There isn't anything for me to rebuttal as it is merely a comparison of a christians view of God, and an atheist's opinion of God. Paragraph 6.) "BoggyB says that because God is God, he can do whatever he wants. So, if he wants to violently destroy an entire nation of innocent people, he is morally allowed to do so. But what kind of "morality" is this? How awful." I'm not even sure how to respond to this. This is not even close to what I said. I have already stated clearly how God was perfect forgiving and just. I showed how man is not innocent, which Con ignorantly claims, and I have showed how since God laid down the rules and consequences, he has the right to take the lives of the sinners who knowingly broke them, in every example Con brings forth. "BoggyB made statements to this effect. "God gave us life, and he can take it away when he wants." How atrocious. When scientists are able to create new living beings that have desires and can feel pain, will we then be morally permitted to torture, rape, dismember, and murder them if we feel like it? This seems to be what BoggyB is arguing." Another unfair comparison. I showed the difference between God and how he has authority, because he created everything. I'm not saying that scientists would have authority over anything they create. This is another red herring on Cons part. Conclusion: Con accuses me of cherry picking verses but is guilty of this himself. Con disregards all verses I brought forth but doesn't hesitate to pick his own from the very book by the same authors "under duress." Con used numerous Red Herrings and ad hominems. The verses I brought forth supported claims that God is moral, and that he is forgiving. Con didn't address this other than say they aren't "serious." Con uses Murder as one of his only reasons as to why God is immoral, but he contradicts himself yet again by taking this example of "murder is immoral" from the Bible itself. Con thoroughly ignored my examples throughout of how God has authority, and kept saying the "genocide of innocent people" and unjust killings after I clearly showed with verses how God was just in what he did. Please vote Pro. Thank you. Sources: [1]. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2]. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...