The Christian flavor of God is immoral

It is clear that his position is well thought out. I do believe, however that his argument rests on assumptions that need to be addressed. Namely that God is the authoritative being behind the existence of Morals and God is totally good. I will address his contentions in the order he presented them. Contention I: The Christian God is one of love. My opponent conveniently forgets to mention that the Christian God also told Moses to 'take vengeance' on the Midianites which led to the genocide of captive mothers and male children as documented in Numbers 31. So while Jesus implores followers to love their enemies, his Father implores Moses to murder them in cold blood. One should also note the drowning of the children during Noah's flood, innocents killed because of God's rejection of the actions of their parents. At this point most many Christians seek a way to distance themselves from the God of the Old Testament, even though they claim trinitarian unity between him and Jesus. So lets take a closer look at the other words of Jesus, just to cover our bases. Matthew 10:34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. ' 37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. " In this passage we can clearly see that Jesus did not intend to bring peace and harmony to the earth, in fact he states that his presence with actually create enemies out of family members and implores his followers to disregard love for parents and relatives when it supersedes their love of him. If his proposed actions were beneficial towards mankind, one might excuse that statement however it is important to explore the use of the word Sword in his claim. In John's vision in Revelations, Jesus is seen returning to earth on a white horse, bearing a fiery sword, destroying all those who didn't believe in or accept him as lord, a direct reference to his claim in Matthew. The destruction of those who don't believe in Jesus, because of a lack of evidence or because they are compelled by other humans to adopt another God is immoral and exactly the same as his fathers destruction of innocent children during the flood. Contention II: Morality Morality does not come from God. This can be proven in the evolution of human understanding of the nature of God, and changes to our interpretation of his Law. For instance, If my opponent was to murder his parents because they were trying to convince him to adopt the teachings of Buddha, most people in the world would consider his actions immoral. They would be correct, however God told the Israelites to do exactly that in Deuteronomy 13:6-10. God's notion of the right thing to do, is wrong compared with our evolved sense of morality. Most Christians will attempt to distance themselves from the Old Testament God again in this case, with claims of Jesus abolition of God's law due to fulfillment. However that ignores the fact that at one time it was the law of God and is in fact immoral. Morality is a result of human empathy and reason and clearly changes over time as society adopts new information and incorporates it into our sense of right and wrong. It is not emanating from a God who stopped the earth from rotating for a day, so that Joshua could kill the rest of the Amorites, documented in Joshua 10. Contention III: Hell is necessary for morality The existence of Hell is not imperative for the existence of moral behavior. That is an unsubstantiated claim. In fact, the opposite is actually true. I argue that Osama Bin Laden did what he did precisely because he was following his interpretation of God through faith, and wanted to avoid Haawiya, or Hell. The same can be said of Serbian Christians participating in the genocide of Bosnians or the actions of Catholic crusaders. Justice requires punishment for bad behavior, but hell is designed to punish non believers, not naughty folks. As proof, I submit the story of Jesus and the thieves on the crosses next to him. One believed before he died and went to heaven despite a life lived poorly. The other did not believe and as a result is in hell. So Hell is not in fact a judgement of behavior as my opponent claimed, it is actually a form of punishment for rejecting Jesus or God irrespective of the life a person lives. Hitler, being brought up Catholic, likely thought about God and sought forgiveness right before pulling the trigger. So could be in heaven while Gandhi is being tormented in hell, because he rejected Christ as divine. The same could apply to Stalin, a seminary student, who could have sought forgiveness at the end of his life. The Christian doctrine of salvation by grace negates my opponents claims of hell buffering morality. Finally God cannot be Loving and submit humans to eternal suffering. Even the lives of men like Pol Pot and Hitler and Osama bin Laden do not equate to the requirement of an ETERNITY of suffering, let alone the life of a man like Gandhi or Buddha. God, being the creator of all things, including the decision of what the wages of sin would be, had the option to choose a more fitting punishment for sin and the rejection of his son. He was not forced by something greater than himself to accept hell as a punishment. He chose it, which based on the disproportionate amount of suffering involved was an immoral decision. God is not Just, because of his involvement in creating man's sinful nature. If necessary I will expound on this in round two, but keep in mind that God created Lucifer, and allowed him to enter the garden with Adam and Eve. Justice requires an unrelated third party to judge a case, God, being omnipresent, omniscient and the creator of all things cannot be just as he is intimately involved in everything on earth, therefor he is only serving his own interest with absolute power. More morality discussion coming in round 2. Thank you for your attention as I urge you to consider the actions of God and how they really relate to morality.