The God of the Bible is mostly evil.

My opponent in the last round has changed up his argument, drastically. He has completely dropped his argument that God is mostly evil because he broke his own rules. For readers who do not want to have to go all the way back to read this, I will copy/paste it below. I asked my opponent to define what moral code God was breaking when he ordered instances of rap, murder, and slavery. My opponent answered: //"What moral code? The "Law of God" specifically the 10 commandments. "// I specifically refuted this in the last round though by showing that if we accept the existence of God, we accept that his rule of law is an objective quality of the universe. We can then draw on the fact that we know God did not create the laws of physics for himself to abide by, seeing as he allegedly breaks them numerous times in the Bible in the form of answering prayers and performing miracles. So are we to conclude that God created a moral code as part of the universe in the same way that physical laws are an objective part of the universe, but then agree that he can break any physical law but not a moral law? Of course not. God, the one of the Bible, is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent. To say that God can be evil is the same as saying he can not be all-powerful or all-knowing. It contradicts the very definition of God. Even if we were to agree that moral laws as created by God are different in quality then physical laws, we must ask ourselves if God is still wrong in breaking them. I agree that he did the things my opponent described him as doing, but did he break a rule? To answer this we must think to ourselves, if a 31 year old man smokes a cigarette, is it against the law? Of course not. If a 3 year old girl smokes a cigarette is it against the law? Of course. But is the fact that it is wrong for a little girl to smoke a cigarette make it automatically wrong for the 31 year old man to have a smoke? My opponent here makes the mistake of assuming that God's moral law is universally applicable to everyone and anything. We of course know this reasoning to be fallacious. If a tree falls on someone's house and kills someone, is that tree guilty of breaking the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill"? Does the fact that animals rarely practice monogamy make them all guilty of adultery? When you look at this issue of whether or not God broke his own rules, you must ask yourself, did God intend those rules to be all inclusive? Does he intend to punish trees for falling and killing or apes who have multiple partners? Or did he intend for them to govern over humans? I will let the voters decide on that aspect of my opponent's case. Now to move on to the rest of it. My opponent also tries to change the definition of God to something much more vague. He tries to change it to "the name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions(and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism". I will however ask the readers of this debate to glance up at the title of this debate. It says "The God of the Bible is mostly evil. " By this my opponent means the God of Judaism and Christianity. If my opponent is to accept some of the Bible, he must accept all of it. The God of these two religions is necessarily defined as being omni-potent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. In the first Vatican Council God is defined as: """almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined""" When my opponent decides to argue on the God of the Bible, he is necessarily accepting these qualities. If my opponent is to argue ONLY on the bolded part of his definition then he cannot argue that God is mostly evil seeing as his definition does not describe any specific god, acts by god, or attributes of god. Again, as with whether or not God meant his own rules of moral conduct to apply to him, I will leave this matter of definition up to voters. Now let's move on to the specific points made by my opponent in the last round. My opponent begins by quoting me in saying that for God to be evil would be to contradict the definition of God. For a clarification of this point, see above. However my opponent's response to this quote is very intriguing. He writes: //"We all know that slavery, rape and murder is evil. "// However this statement is much too vague. It would be like if I said: "We all know that smoking cigarettes is wrong. " It is too vague in the sense that according to government legislation, it is "wrong" for a baby to smoke but not for an adult to smoke. This also applies to God. It is wrong for a human being to kill because God says it is wrong. It is wrong because our Father in the sky decreed it to be wrong for a 'person' to commit. We know this because in the Ten Commandments, when God addresses murder he uses the noun "Thou" to address who the law is aimed at. He did not say "It" is wrong to murder. If he had then murder being immoral would be a universal rule. However he did not and so we cannot apply the same criteria of "wrong" and "right" to God. This next quote is my favorite made by my opponent over the course of this debate. The reason being that he unknowingly settles on a meta-ethical position to argue upon. So far he has simply argued that God broke his own laws and I have refuted this. However here he seems to settle on individual subjectivism. I quote him as saying: //"Your argument "if God by definition is good, then everything he ordains is good" is actually an argument against God being "omnibenevolent," since we all "know" that genocide is evil. The point is that such a God contradicts our innate sense of what good is. No one should accept a God who violates our own sense of good and evil. "// Our "innate" sense of good? My opponent is arguing that the God of the Bible is evil because his actions contradiction my opponent's own personal view of what is right and wrong. If he is to argue purely based off of personal emotion then my own opinion, which for this debate I will say is the opposite, contradicts and thus cancels out his own. I will ask my opponent, why is your own personal meta-ethical stance on what is good and bad closer to the objective truth of what is right and wrong when it is completely subjective?