God, as depicted in the Holy Bible, is not benevolent

RebuttalsMy opponent continues to make the erroneous claim that my thesis states that God is morally neutral. Additionally, my opponent tries to excuse his own breach of format by citing my nonexistent breach of format, which wouldn't excuse his breach of format anyway. If my opponent disagrees about the significance of the comma in my thesis, then there's no point in pursuing that any further short of hiring a professional editor. My opponent claims that a conscious mathematical God would intrinsically be benevolent, which is also erroneous and patently false. Intrinsic human moralityMy opponent was able to produce biblical quotes to support his belief that God supposedly installed humans with an innate ethical code successfully and continues to hold that this is pertinent to the topic of the debate, but not really explaining why. Then he goes on to restate my premise that God did not instill a moral code in humans that completely coincides with God's moral code as evidenced by atheists but also says he disagrees which is erroneous because what he explains that he believes is precisely what I said. Killing ChildrenMy opponent goes on to defend murdering childrenNew vs Old TestamentMy opponent repeats himself in explaining that the new testament trumps the instructions from the old testament for Christians. He seems to think I disagree with him, which I don't really, but he still then fails to defend the rules laid out in the old testament, claiming he already did which he did not because he claims that the Bible instead of being the "word of God" which it professes to be is a description of ancient society. My opponent fails to address the fact that, regardless of what he thinks the real meaning is, the Bible explicitly says that Leviticus is the word of God, not a description of ancient society and we are arguing from the Bible. Sins of the FatherMy opponent addresses an example put forth by me: the story in which Ham and all of his ancestors were cursed because Ham saw Noah naked. He explains that "seeing another man naked" is Bible speak for "sleeping with another man's wife. " Firstly, I want to point out that the Bible says "saw him naked" not "slept with his wife": perhaps they should put some better translators on the case before they call the Bible "the word of God. " Secondly, this still doesn't justify cursing all of Ham's ancestors. Ham's children have just as little control over whether or not their father slept with Noah's wife as they do with him seeing Noah naked. Thirdly, why, then, does Ham proceed to fetch his brothers after "seeing his father naked" so they can throw covers over their drunken father, is, "throw covers over drunken father's naked body" code for "apologize to Noah for Ham sleeping with his wife so their children and their children's children won't be cursed"? Inferno"One thing I consider, is that if we can flatter the existence of a soul. We can also flatter that this intangible thing must be comprised of energy. "No, we can't. Just because something isn't matter doesn't make it energy, especially when we're talking about something as foreign to science as a soul. Thus, my opponent's paragraph where he equates souls to energy in null. Even considering, I'm not sure how to refute it because it sort of refutes itself. His argument is basically that God, the omnipotent and all-powerful creator of the universe suddenly doesn't have the power to destroy energy (souls), so he keeps the bad energy away from the good for some reason and must keep them in a small space so the bad energy can't spread and the heat built up by all of the energy from the bad souls is comparable to a lake of fire. That is some of the more strange mental gymnastics I've ever seen. My opponent wraps up his attempted refutation of my "Inferno" argument by stating that God hasn't revealed himself to us perhaps due to us being unable to comprehend, which I suppose has a minute possibility but so very minute it is. ConclusionMy opponent has done a lot of things: he's played silly semantical games with me, he said he disagrees with me, then goes on to explain that he believes precisely what I believe, only helping my point, he has created a strange paragraph of metaphysical science fiction, but one thing he has not done is demonstrate that God is not malevolent.