The bible is a moral book

I will rebut my opponent's arguments in the following 2 formats: one way will be by directly quoting the part I want to rebut, and I will italicize the quotes, and the second way will be if the quote is too large, I will summarize it and bold it. Now, onto rebuttals:At the time of Noah's Flood, these verses had not yet been written. It is clear, however, that God holds the parents of children accountable for them. If a child were to die in Noah's Flood, it would be at the fault of their parents.Claiming that the parent's are accountable for the death of the babies and children is shifting the blame of murder from God onto the parents. God didn't need to flood the earth. God, as I pointed out previously, hardens people's hearts and makes it that they will refuse God, and believe in delusions. Why couldn't he make the people good as a solution? Or make it easier for them to believe Noah and his warnings? Why does god only intervene in free will in order to make people believe in false things? Why couldn't he intervene in free will to make people believe in a truth and to act good? Which seems more rational when you're an omnipotent god: end the lives of all of the evil people, when you might be responsible for them being evil to begin with since you harden people's hearts, and then punish them eternally for that, or to make them act good so that they can continue living on earth? Adam turned his back on God in the beginning, and the seed of adam must bear his curse. What is moral about holding people who had nothing to do with the fall of Adam accountable for that? By cursing everyone after Adam, he punished everyone for something they didn't do. What is just or moral about that?Is God not already merciful for giving us a chance? God could let us all die and still be perfectly just in doing so - we turned our backs on him.Adam turned his back on him. We didn't. Again, it doesn't make logical sense, nor is it moral to punish people who had nothing to do with what someone did many years ago. Saying it's just for God to punish all of humanity for the action of one human many years ago, is like saying all descendents of slave owners need to be punished for their ancestors owning slaves, or all descendents of murderers need to be punished for their ancestor murdering someone. Additionally, your argument here is based on original sin it seems. Many Christian sects do not believe in original sin. For example, going back to Mormonism, since I grew up as one, they specifically do not believe in original sin. Their second article of faith, which articles of faith to them are general statements of their beliefs, states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." So, this argument my opponent is making here would only apply to some Christian faiths, I believe specifically Catholic-based faiths believe in original sin and that man will be punished for original sin. Thus, to base this argument around original sin and that mankind should be punished for it, they need to prove why original sin exists through the Bible. If it is a legitimate belief, and not one invented by churches later, it will be found in the Bible. Once more, in my education on the Bible, I don't recall running across anything that specifically supported the idea of original sin. This one I'm not as confident about, but it would still be on my opponent to provide biblical evidence of the idea that mankind should be punished for Adam's fall.Does God not have the right to call for the death of his creation who rebelled against him in spite of his meciful route for salvation?Again, much of mankind didn't rebel from him. Many people are Christians and doing their best to follow what they believe is God's will. They're not rebelling at all. Why should the rest of mankind be punished for Adam rebelling? These individuals were taunting and insulting the prophet of God. To insult the prophet of God was to insult God himself. This would serve as an example that God is a God who is not to be mocked. In light of this, the punishment for such a course of action is entirely justified.So, would it be perfectly justifiable if President Trump started puting people to death for mocking him? If it's not, why is it justifiable for God? God is incapable of murder since we have all rejected him and fallen from grace. Nobody else has authority over human life.No, we've not all rejected him. If I would have stayed in my faith, there is no way you could argue I rejected him. There's no way you can argue that life-long Christians rejected him. Again, this comes down to the original sin idea. What evidence is there that original sin is something everyone should be punished for? Is there anything in the Bible that supports this? Even if there is, it would be hard to argue why it's a good thing to punish people for actions of another person. Additionally, I was going to ask what gives god authority over human life. I suppose you could argue, "because he created us" but before you do that, I wish to point out a problem in that thinking: My mom and dad created me physically, but it's not moral for them to kill me once I've been born. Why is there a different standard for God in relation to his creations? Why is it morally okay for him to kill his creations, but not morraly okay for us to kill our creations?Acts 3:23 tells us those who don't follow Jesus will be destroyed. Is not the creator of man fully justified in destroying those who rebelled against him?Again, I will point to my previous arguments. Most of what you argue here boils down to original sin. I defer to what I've said previously.Is not the creator justified in destroying those who make a mockery of his perfect gifts, which were intended to be used for his glory, after they have turned from him and rejected him?The second part can also be deferred to what I've said previously about original sin. The first part, however, I will use an analogy: suppose it's your friend's birthday. You get him/her a gift with which they later throw away. To you, that's a mockery of the gift you gave them. So, you would be justified in killing that person becaue of what they did to your gift? No, of course not. Actually, let's make it more comparable. Let's change it to a parent giving their child a gift, and the child throws away the gift. The parent is the one who created that child. That child is particularly rebellious against their parents. Would the parents be justified in killing their child? Not in western society, at least. Would a judge be just if he pardoned a criminal, with no reparation for his crime?The crime you speak of is original sin. I again, defer to my previous arguments. I'll go along with this jude analogy though. You're essentially wanting this judge to make the child of a murderer get the death penalty or be punished for the murder that their parent committed, only because they are related to them. That is not just. The child shouldn't even be in trial. Humans shouldn't even be judged by god because of Adam's transgression. It's a ludicrous idea that isn't even supported by the Bible.