The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

As Pro mentioned in the last round we have agreed on a definition of what evil is and I will abide by it fully. //"My opponent has admitted that God has ordered those things. Therefore, there is no need to debate this further. "// My opponent believes that since god did order instances of rape, murder, and slavery he must be evil or at least mostly evil. However this argument is a very clear contradiction of terms. It is like saying that a circle is actually a square because it knows a square even when it has already been agreed that it is a circle. The same goes with god. My opponent and I defined god as and agreed that god was "omni-benevolent". God is also the ultimate creator of morality and so what he does is thus automatically moral. Even without this fact that my opponent must accept I will refute his arguments in another way. Even seeing as the God that my opponent and I agreed to debate on, to be immoral, would be a clear contradiction my opponent still believes that God is mostly evil because he broke his own rules that he had set in place for his creation. Let's explore this concept in more detail with some examples. God gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments and then broke some of his own rules. I will ask the voters, if a person over the legal age smokes a cigarette is it wrong only because it is wrong for a five year old to smoke a cigarette? My opponent here makes the mistake of believing that the morality put forth in the Bible is universal, or that it applies to everyone including God. However seeing as God is defined as omni-benevolent and morally perfect these rules cannot apply to him seeing as it is logically impossible for him to break a rule because it would then make him morally imperfect which contradicts the very definition of God. The conclusion we must make from this is: A. God is not morally perfect. This is as I already pointed out is not an option seeing as it is the same as saying there is such thing as a material that is both completely yellow and at the same time completely blue. It is condradicting in nature. B. The rules which God made do not apply to him. This is actually the most plausible option. We can even look for confirmation in the natural world where we see the relationships between other rules that god has made. -God made it a rule that living organisms are finite in nature and will one day die. This objective rule obviously does not apply to God seeing as he is necessarily eternal. -God made humans finite in power. No human is all powerful. This rule also does not apply to God seeing as he is necessarily omnipotent. -God made humans finite in their knowledge. No human knows everything about everything and probably never will. Again, this objective rule about the world does not apply to God seeing as he is necessarily omniscient. Now one could argue that morality is different from physical laws of nature. I personally believe this but then again I don't believe in God. However my opponent uses God's own rules to supposedly prove that he is evil. This is important because Christians believe that the rules of conduct set forth by God are actually objective qualities of the world around them. To a Christian, adultery for example would be objectively wrong for a person to commit because morality is a constant of the universe independent of any human thought. So why should we believe that God's rules of moral conduct apply to him and have power over him anymore than we believe that he is finite in power or knowledge? We shouldn't. We must accept that God's rules of conduct do not apply to him if we are to abide by my opponent and I's definition of God. Because God's code of moral conduct that he set for humans does not apply to him, no example of God's behavior where he breaks these codes can be used to prove that God is mostly evil. I would also like to point out that my opponent misquoted me in the last round. I would like to clear that up here. My opponent quoted me as saying: //"My opponent automatically loses seeing as most of the Western world believes that the Christian god is the pillar of moral goodness. "// The full passage reads: //"If my opponent is arguing from an inter-subjectivist position then it is the community at large that decides the validity of any moral statement and in that case my opponent automatically loses seeing as most of the Western world believes that the Christian god is the pillar of moral goodness. "// I was merely theorizing on what sort of meta-ethical stance my opponent was arguing from and preparing defenses from those points of view. Now I would like to list and refute my opponent's three points. 1. Anything God does it is automatically good, even if it is evil. My opponent here does not understand the nature of morality that we are to assume in the event that we assume God exists. If we assume God exists as we have defined him then yes, anything he does is automatically good. There is no "even if it's evil" because it logically cannot be evil. However this is not even my main defense. I will ask my opponent and voters to refer to my above point. 2. You're not getting the big picture, God has a plan for those rape victims, murder victim's family etc. Strawmanning is what my opponent has done here. I have and not and will not argue this position. I see it as more of an argument from ignorance fallacy than anything else. 3. Revenge? Again, strawmanning. I am not going to argue this position in this debate. As you can see I have properly refuted each of my opponent's arguments for why the God of the Bible is mostly evil. Besides the God of the Bible being evil is logically contradicting, I showed that the objective rules of moral conduct do not apply to God in the same way that objective physical rules do not apply to him.