The Christian flavor of God is immoral

Apology: I do apologize for using aggressive rhetoric. I was not aware of this, however if you see it this way, I do hearty apologize. [Rebuttal] "Majority Christian belief. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians live in the third world and still maintain a very literal interpretation of scripture. But for the sake of my opponent I agree to adopt his adapted interpretation of some literal and some allegorical interpretation, and hope that he agrees to define clearly what parts are literal and what are allegorical and by what authority he makes that delineation." My Response: Ok, my opponent has conceded this idea. Extend it. "Lets start with the book of Numbers. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians view the story of the Israelites wandering in the desert as literal, especially in light of their adoption of the 10 commandments, a document purportedly given to moses literally during that time. I believe that my opponent would have a hard time finding a majority of Christians willing to state that Jewish theology and belief in the Torah as historical and literal is mistaken?" My Response: I say that I do take this story literally and contextually. I believe that God did indeed give the Jews the 10 Commandments, plus others. I do not believe, however, that some historical aspects are indeed false, and only used to advance the entire message. "The categorization of the murder of thousands of captive mothers and children as just is not tenable with evolved human morality. God's consistent tendency to punish the children of naughty parents is immoral." My Response: Take the story of Jericho, for instance. God had the Israelites destroy the city. God did however save a prostitute. The reason was that the prostitute was repentant of her sins. The city was not. Therefore, the city deserved punishment. Again, the message is clear, those that are truly sorry will be forgiven. Those that are not sorry are punished. My opponent takes the killings literally. However, I have 2 responses: 1) There is no historical record that these killings ever took place. 2) The killings is just a message of punishment for sins committed. "I am sure this will be interpreted liberally as allegory, but one still should ask why God tends to utilize allegory in such inhumane and immoral ways? In every culture, the destruction of the innocent is deemed abhorrent unless associated with religious practice, and the God of the Old Testament is no exception." My Response: The examples you do show are indeed only contextual. you do ask, why would that be used then? Simple. Back in the time of the creation of the Old Testament, the messages had to be shown in the time period of that time. People understood harsh retribution as justice. E.g. Hammurabi's code. The message was understood not from a literal meaning, but from a contextual meaning. "The use of the allegory or metaphor claim is liberally applied to absolve God of behavior that we all as humans find immoral" My Response: Again, the reason is not what you state, but for people of that time to understand the message. Link my response above to this one. "A majority of Christians believe that God is moral, which is what this debate is all about, so why not ask the reader to extend the entire debate? The point of the argument is that Christian belief is flawed, especially as it relates to morality and its origin. A majority of German's thought Hitler had their interests in mind, even through the end of WW2, that didn't make it the case." My Response: I think they should extend this entire debate against you. The initial premise you gave, about the majority of Christians, has not been fulfilled on the Affirmatives side. You have failed to meet this criteria. Therefore, this will be my 1st voting issue. "Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is not a story, but a directive from God, it is a part of his covenant with his people. Furthermore, the contextual message isn't that God punishes those who act immorally at all. The contextual message is that the believer should punish those who act immorally. The Law requires the believer to stone his family members, not to wait for God to take vengeance on the naughty Buddhists." My Response: You are missing a big point. Non-believing is a sin. However this is not the only sin that warrants punishing. E.g. In the Old Testament, adultery was considered a sin that warranted hell. Also, killing warranted hell as well. E.g. Cain and Able. The contextual message remains the same: Hell is a punishment for a life of sins that were not forgiven by true sorrow. "My opponents rebuttal to my response to contention 3 is proven incorrect by the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace, a doctrine held by a majority of Christians. God clearly didn't create hell to punish immoral behavior, he created it to punish unrepentance and non belief. The story of the thief on the cross DOES highlight this point, and I submit that the Christian belief in instant forgiveness irrespective of a how a life is lived is further proof of the immorality of their flavor of God." My Response: My opponent now concedes the idea of punishment for more then just non-believing. He then says well, instant forgiveness still shows immorality. This is untrue. First off, someone cant just be forgiven. The just be truly sorry for their actions. E.g. A parent will forgive their child when the child admits his guilt and that what he has done is wrong. He doesn't warrant forgiveness if the child just blows off a quick I'm sorry then wants an ice cream cone. God knows if you are truly sorry. "I will concede that neither of us know what Hitler or Stalin did during their last minutes on earth, but not that Christian doctrine allows for them to enter heaven with true repentance." My Response: Well, let's see. Hitler shot himself in a ritual killing with his wife and right hand man. Obviously against Christianity. Stalin, was a devoted Marxist who promotes atheist in it's largest form. So, the readers can infer that they did not look for forgiveness, and are now in hell for their horrible crimes on earth. "This is not a view held by a majority of Christians, it is a new doctrine created to absolve God of the doctrine of hell as a place of eternal suffering" My Response: Take Catholicism and liberal protestantism. Catholicism has approximately 1.31 Billion members. This is the doctrine given out by the Church. Catholicism alone has more members then any other sect of Christianity. Therefore, this belief of hell can be seen as the majorities view. "Gods inclusion of the serpent in the garden of eden, and his allowance of the temptation of Adam and Eve without a knowledge of good and evil, shows a complicit involvement in the introduction of sin to mankind. Free will cannot be argued if there is no knowledge of good and evil. Also God's knowing creation of Lucifer resulted in sin, therefore he created it." My Response: If you wish to debate this literally. Adam and Eve had a choice to eat from the apple. They choose to take on sin themselves. god didn't force them to, it was by their own free will. [Voting Issues] 1) My opponent conceded my topical negation. I.e. that the majority of Christians view God as the moral authoritative being. 2) My opponent has failed to actually prove that the majority of Christians actually take the bible literally. I have proven that they do not. My opponents arguments are based solely on the idea of specific passages being literal. Therefore, my opponent has not proven that the majority Christian view of God is immoral. 3) My opponent doesn't really make a case himself of why God and Hell cannot coexist. He never fully warrants it. He just asserts it in the first round. Furthermore, he has the burden of proof, which has not been fulfilled. For these reasons I urge a negation.