"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:..."

I am debating the notion of God in the old testament having mercy, kindness, justice , wisdom ( all good by extension )and is caring. The purpose is not to engage in unhealthy debate or evangelism but rather to show with insight that my points are valid and to win this debate. Despite my colleague adding the notion, all fiction, it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. I intend to use the parameters of the old testament as he has permitted whether fictional or not. The definition of morality for man has always evolved with the times. I would not go as far as to make the distinction between the God of the Old Testament and the other testaments or of a different religion. This lack of consistency would negate my arguments . One thing I should mention is that biblical scholars backed with historical evidence have shown the man in his injustice and arrogance has greatly tampered with the current version of the bible as we have it; hence we find various contradictions and mistakes and outright inaccuracies ( for instance Moses writing about his own death- also refer to who wrote the bible by Richard Elliott Friedman amongst other scholarly literature) by this self evident fact, it is very likely that the bible-old testament reflects a lot of the view points of people who changed and authored it as opposed to what God actually commanded, it is a futile exercise to copy and paste verses which we deem socially unacceptable today and use them as proof of God's un-deity like traits when there is a big question mark about their validity. One example I can think of is the curse of Ham, which appears in the old testament- it has been explained by many people as the "black skin_- this would entail the Negroes, Abyssinian , or Africans , however you would like to call people of dark skin ; if we go with this, it would imply that God created a race of people to be oppressed , an act of extreme injustice, however upon further review one can clearly see that this story was inserted by the Israelites to justify oppression and subjugation of the Canaanites with whom they were having a conflict , hence it is man who is cruel and unjust that he would go to such ends for political goals as to change a scripture he considers sacred. This can also be seen in modern times when countries spend billions of dollars on propaganda to discredit their enemies and ideologies contrary to that( think US movies against Soviet Union Communism etc) Going with the merits of the old testament , the first act taken by God is the creation of Adam and by extension man. Adam was created and placed in the garden of Eden with his wife, so let us review this, Adam was none existent and lifeless , then God gave him life, the greatest of gifts, and I would argue the greatest act of mercy, he gave him the ability to be, to love, to smile , to laugh, have family, engage in intellectual discourse , to have free will and to choose. A few months ago I was watching a You tube channel for a man that was raising red ants, a colony or something , he made a statement that I found somewhat revealing about the nature of human beings, he said, " I provide for these ants everything ,I am the master so things must go how I want them to go", this was very revealing, as man is not capable of showing mercy or restraint when he has absolute power an example of this is the millions of people who have been victims of tyrants through time simply because they did not share the same race, ideology or social standing amongst other things. God in the old testament created out of his own will, a creature that he endured with insight, intelligence and emotions, he gave ,man freedom and placed him in a garden which symbolizes the fulfillment of every desire. Is this not an act of Love and friendship? Human beings plan when they make things, for instance a car has certain safety features which serve a purpose, so by extension, it is obvious that God too would have a plan for man, hence he placed a test for Adam , for all the trees in Eden , he could eat from ,except one. The symbolism of this was to signal the purpose of man's creation, the spiritual dimension of his life ( the implied struggle between good and evil as evidenced to this very day) , his purpose ,and the manifestation of free will and the ability to differentiate right from wrong; he was given choice, something we exercise to this day, for instance I made the choice to respond to your debate, just as you made a choice to start the debate; the same way every man has a choice between forgiveness ,mercy and love or hate and murder. Adam had to choose between continuing in that bliss of Eden or the unknown of the tree that he had been forbidden, and by his choice came the consequences to him and his offspring since then, this is what we could term as sin. The disobedience of God results in sin, and that results in consequences. Exemplified in our daily dealings when murderers are put in prison for their crimes, we imprison them as an act of justice , a natural consequence to sin against man, a highly spiritual motivation as justice is not an object but manifests in occurrences- this could not happen in a place of bliss like the garden of Eden. For his part, Adam was expelled with his wife from a sanctified(Eden) place and placed upon the earth so he could redeem himself; this story has played out countless times , men who stand against injustice even if it costs them their lives, imagine the millions in both world wars, or individuals like Gandhi, Martin Luther king (last 100 years) and the likes; I contend that it is part of the redemption man must seek by shunning evil/sin and attempting to live an enlightened life. This goes to show that there is some planning in play here, if God was truly in need of man, Adam would certainly have not eaten from that tree, so the notion of God's jealousy is misunderstood as he would not have designed things in their current state if he had the impulse of jealousy. The act of creation is the single greatest act of love in the universe, for one was lifeless and given life, and on top of that, he kept(keeps) his life even though he or she lives a life of disobedience. Man who never tolerate such insolence if he had the power ,but God does; forbearing and merciful .it is also in the old testament that we have laws/ guidelines like love your neighbor as you love yourself, is this an act of vindictiveness or care? Another thing we should consider about God in the old testament is that , he made laws and gave man the choice to follow them, he did not impose these laws on man, but respected the free will have gave man. How can God be a control freak yet he does not force man to live by these laws? We have verses such as "The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he had made" (Ps. 145:9), or treatment of the poor "If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother" ( the list goes on) but all this goes to show God's compassion. More verses show compassion than what is contrary. How can God be a bully when he gives people the choice to obey him or disobey? Does he bully them into denying his existence or into believing in him? How exactly does this work? A deity has the right to institute laws as he wills( that's the point of being a deity ) even Kings of the past and leaders today do the same; as such ,going by the old testament, if he condemns homosexuality and sends a severe punishment on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, it does not mean that this is an act worthy of our condemnation or labels like homophobia, and it is not an excuse to reject his moral authority because it does not succumb to our desires; this is tantamount to rejecting the validity of a political authority and being in open revolt because he/she supports a moral position that you reject; I do not think we have sufficient ground for this claim as such claims will always come up, evolve and change with the times. This has been an ancient debate and God was perhaps called homophobic then as he is now by you, yet I do not see how that has a bearing on his attributes of caring and mercy as he created these people in the first place with knowledge of there actions. A quick selective history: I am using examples to show the attitude of society from our forefathers ,the non biblical/ ot origins. Homosexuality is the defining issue of our time and a lot of information out there is clearly laced with opinion and could not stand up to scientific analysis, and obviously no opinion is tolerated except what society deems acceptable , another contradiction in modern concepts like free speech however; ( both sides are able to manipulate facts- one more so than the other, and man will always justify his actions even with outright deception and lies ) Hindus are prohibited from homosexual acts (Manusmrti 11:174)-" A twice-born man who commits an unnatural offence with a male, or has intercourse with a female in a cart drawn by oxen, in water, or in the day-time, shall bathe, dressed in his clothes"- key word unnatural OFFENSE Buddhism-Vajrayana/Tibetan View the purpose of sexual intercourse simply to reproduce, therefore for lay people, homosexual intercourse does not fulfil that purpose and is not necessary. Dalai Lama -We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers,From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct." homosexuality was criminally sanctioned under Soviet law Will you claim that all Buddhism ( per Dalai Lama), Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Atheist states ( Soviet Union and frankly modern day China ) are all homophobic? and if you do, then you must recognize that only Islam, Christianity and Judaism are the Abrahamic faiths that subscribe to the old testament, so by your definition, man for the most part has been homophobic, why then is it God that we condemn ? This societal resistance to homosexuality cannot be simply discounted as homophobia, it is a simplistic view of a very complex issue, what this shows is that non OT sources(including atheist states-soviet union) have writings and teachings that are considered morally superior by the adherents and homophobic by their foes. Just because modern man's moral compass has changed, it does not give him the right to judge his forefathers ( who in many cases where morally superior) and by extension , the notion that being homophobic is a bad thing is ridiculous, as this is subjective not objective, and we could argue the merits of being homophobic or not but that is irrelevant. Say as an argument , in 1,000 years sex between people and children or animals is legal , sanctioned and protected by the law, people at that time would consider us backward and "aniphobic" or "pedophobic" (coining new terms) and would consider scripture that condemns that act the same and by extension God, so this notion of homophobia as it relates to God is both subjective and irrelevant as dislike for something God warrants comes down to a matter of faith not societal approval. And as with all things, the current view will change, what will happen when/if it becomes outlawed again , shall we then forget our prior condemnation? The verses concerning infanticide if anything seem to me as reflections of the social contract at the time, if we take the old testament as the literal speech of God, then we would have to deny historical proofs of changing this word. But, I do contend that different times required different methods; in trying to paint his picture using something unique to modern man, would it not be ridiculous if God revealed shun all satellite related technology in the modern age , would not the people of the past have found it hard to fathom what that meant ( just as we find it hard to understand the laws that applied to them and condemn them?) , as such, it is possible that the social contract at the time found many old testament actions appropriate and wholly acceptable ( for what may be accurate) and it more likely that it was not changed as the people where pleased with it. If hypothetically speaking God had accepted homosexual activity then, it is likely that the people would have naturally rebelled , just as modern man is rebelling considering himself superior to ancient man .The same old testament says do not commit murder, so why would God say do not commit murder( includes men) and yet condone murdering children...odd. it is possible that ancient man was extremely brutal ( as seen with many mass graves continuously discovered of wars, human sacrifice and barbaric actions recorded) Richard Dawkins , the author of the selfish gene has been known to be both disingenuous , hypocritical and to tell lies obviously besides his other positive traits. Going by his book, the selfish gene would say anything however false or deceptive to further its interests hence "...jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. -" Since you diligently quote and agree with him, I find it difficult to understand how being sadomasochistic relates to God, it would imply that God is human at least emotion wise, another long stretch: sadomasochistic- characterized by or deriving sexual gratification from both sadism and masochism. So does he procreate? and have dinner and sleep too? I am not sure where this can be found explicitly in the old testament or in the proper context , it seems more like an opinion or an attempt at expressing enmity towards God not based on scientific study of actual old testament proof, so how can I respond to biases? but his colleagues can (https://carm.org...) Conclusion-"After carefully examining the chief Old Testament examples that atheists use to label God as unjust, it has been demonstrated that their criticisms and characterizations are unfounded, and their understanding of the various situations flawed. Further, rather than living up to Dawkin"s caricature of being a vindictive, impatient, quick-tempered, and bloodthirsty deity, the image of God that instead emerges from the Old Testament after a thorough study is just the opposite; God is portrayed as forgiving, patient, and slow to bring forth judgment. However, He is also revealed to be a holy, just, and righteous God who will bring justice about in His time." God is caring and just, he is also knowing of what is best, this does not always mean that man will understand clearly; that is why people who subscribe to these beliefs must couple it with faith: His kindness and care is such that he has provided a blueprint for man to follow, with advice that is suited for the humble(promise of paradise) and the stubborn(threat of punishment) . God did not institute slavery or killing people with nuclear weapons, nor murdering millions in the name of ideology, all this would contradict the old testament premise of love your neighbor (where agnostic, believer, disbeliever ) as you love yourself, it is man who acts with unbridled brutality , even scripture is not enough to restrain him . It is man who to both himself and fellow man is unjust, jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. All these attributes an be found in man, would not such a creature need advice consistently? Man has the audacity to inflict torture and brutal evil on others yet condemn God when he punishes him as an act of justice through a flood or a quake. It is man who would kill millions in the name of racial cleansing ( Nazis) and yet find fault with God. Such is the contradiction in man's criticisms of God, he defines love, care and mercy and kindness as he sees fit and only subject to himself even if it be at the expense even of his own mother, it is man who is a lair and the ultimate master of oppression and injustice, if this was not the case, why did Mao Zedong kill millions? or Hitler or Stalin and Lenin? these men all did not follow old testament teachings ( not to say that adherents have not done the same, see crusades) , and yet saw there fellow man as cattle , why did the Japanese invade China unjustly? Man is the true beast here, the beast by choice not by creation, he claims for himself purity and self righteousness unjustly. The old testament is simply a code of laws that those of faith are asked to follow, a choice really. A code sent by one who cares for him despite his vile actions, an act of mercy in that had we loved our neighbors as we loved ourselves we would not have inflicted the evil we inflict on them. What testament then has man brought?