The Judeo-Christian God is Immoral

Thanks for your response, which, thankfully, is stronger than some of the arguments I've been experiencing in the comments section. However, it is still subject to flaw, and I hope to illustrate that is the case in this, my closing round. Firstly, I'd like to open with asking whether this is fair (emphasis added): "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV). Is that not the most horrendously, heinously, abhorrently atrocious thing that a woman would have to suffer? MARRYING her rapist and never, ever being able to be free of him? And please don't use "oh yeah but the context, otherwise they'd never get married, it was different then..." bull*hit, he's a rapist, and if God's morals are absolute, then this is still what is 'moral', and he doesn't even get done for sinning, it's just a civil crime.I will attempt to respond briefly to your initial points.While you are mostly correct in interpreting what I said, I must point out that not everyone everywhere must agree, only those party to the convention, that is, to which society they belong or are currently in. For example, in the United States one is permitted to carry firearms in many states for the purpose of self-defence. In most other western countries, however, this is not the case. Therefore, an American in, say, England, would be expected to abide by the customs of that nation, insofar as it does not conflict with their morality through positive action. If the American was in another country and asked if they wanted to sever the genitals of the firstborn child of a family of sinners, it is likely that they would decline to do so because that would conflict with their moral code. In this sense, I agree that my contention is the absence of absolute morality.On to your second point, that if it is only objective, without absolute standard, then it would alter over time. However, I reject your assertion that this makes it valueless. The reason we have a legal system based on precedent, followed by new judgements, re-written laws and continual development is because we don't have all the answer to the moral questions, and as we proceed in time and new situations arise, we learn more about what the "right thing to do" is. Women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, and stoning anyone to death are good examples of where we have learned and grown. If absolute morality was the case, how is it possible, then, that God arbitrated for these things to happen then but not now? Thirdly, you refuted Exodus 20:13 based on the translation I provided, which of course is fair, however it again illustrates the point that if it is absolute, why is there so much lee-way and ambiguity? A cursory Google search lent me the King James version, which is the one I think I was supposed to be citing the first time(1).May I just point out that where you say "The Lord saw how great man"s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." that God knew that's what was going to happen before he even created them. Why is he so surprised and saddened that they did what he was making them to do?Again, as a factor of morality, I dispute God's justice. How is it just if a repentant rapist goes to heaven and a charitable apostate goes to hell? Is that really better?Again with the justice, if a person bashes a baby's head on a rock, it is not the fault of the other person's baby. How can you justify punishing an innocent child, for a crime of their parents which they did not commit? This is obviously immoral by all of the standards we have discussed, except God's, which I contend is immoral.Oh, sorry, you're right, it's much more moral to kill your drunkard son.Ok, so about Jesus, yes I would give my only son if I knew that that's what was going to happen, my son was magic, and also my son is me, so I'm sacrificing myself, not my son, although he is my son, who is really me. Also, it is absolutely NOT kind and fundamentally immoral to absolve criminals in that way. Criminals should be brought to justice, not absolved for absolutely no reason. If someone on death row had a nephew, and the nephew swaps places with his uncle, so the nephew sacrifices himself and dies in his place, does that absolve the crimes of the inmate? Should he now be permitted to re-enter society? Of course not! That would be fundamentally immoral.This has been an interesting topic and I'm really glad we've done it from a cleaner angle. Good luck at the polls!(1)[https://new.biblegateway.com...]