The bible is immoral

I do not choose to intentionally insult someone in a debate. You seem to be the one hurling insults for absolutely no reason. Your retort has nothing to do with my statement about pulling the whole Bible. The context of that was that it would be too long and we do not have sufficient space to accommodate the text. You responded with a snarky response and then I reconfirmed my stance. Hurling insults doesn't make that any less clear. You use quotes and videos from YouTube. That's akin to using Wikipedia as a source for scholarly work...it's no good because it's unreliable as a source. So your argument is invalid if you nest it in these quote and videos. It's not "evidence" to support you, it's confirmation bias to make your argument sound valid...when in fact it's weak. I'm sure you do have friends and loved ones like that, and I'm glad you do. Everyone, regardless, should have those that they love and whom love them. I'm not resorting to personal attacks though, this doesn't belong here. You're not paying attention and I do have an argument that I have stated many times. (The Bible is not moral, but it is not immoral either. The interpretation of morality is subjective based on the reader.) Your "evidence" doesn't address this at all and you have only brushed it off...I don't know why. You frame the Character of Jesus around a strictly Jewish frame, which is ineffective. There are few Christians that profess to adhere to the OT, Jewish, law. To hold Jesus to a Jewish standard does nothing when you hold a Christian to it, it's a false comparison. I'm paying attention to what you say and I have been breaking it down piece by piece, accordingly, since my second response when you gave a back-handed warning that was unsubstantiated. I don't think that you're an idiot, I think you're so heavily biased that it hurts you. It corners you and prevents growth and you have created a sort of misanthropic view of those who are theists, making you anti-theistic. #1, Those verses don't say the words "God loves murder", you have equated that since there is murder in the Bible, God must love it. It is reductionist and you have pout blinders on to come to this conclusion. No one made the claim about these fascist politicians that you have mentioned, pertaining to God. This is another red herring from you, so you can hurl insults. I truly think that you are equating God with human actions, a sort of misnomer. I'm not rationalizing suffering in the Bible, just simply stating that it happened, you are applying the emotion to it. #2 That is an entirely biased statement. Not many people, theistic or atheistic, would say that the Bible is based on God's ego, whether is a "superior ego god complex" or not. This statement, in fact, is what is fundamentally flawed. #3 These verses sound like a statement of what is to come, predictions of things to happen. There is nothing in it that indicates a "hate" for women, children, etc. It plainly seems to say that these events will happen, cause and effect. There is no emotionally charged word that is attached to the actions, save for Lamentations 22:22, but I mentioned in a previous round that Lamentations is poetry to mourn the burning of Jerusalem; the writer is rationalizing what is happening, there is no narrative of God actively killing someone but a man reasoning that God is angry and he allowed Jerusalem to burn. (All in the form of poetry) Like I said, you fail to pay attention to what I'm saying in favor of your own words. So, if you were to attach morality to anything in Lamentations, or anything like that, look at the writer and their context and then judge. Don't just fly off the handle and assume. #4 This is another black/white fallacy. Just because something is undesirable doesn't mean that it is enjoyed, that's such a shallow argument. Your modus operandum is that God is omnipotent and that I believe in Satan. Now, I don't doubt that you may have experienced suffering, but it's rude and insulting to think that someone else couldn't have experienced more suffering. You don't know me, so that is rude, uncalled for, and I ask that you not do that...please. Firstly, I don't believe in Satan as an anthropomorphic, singular figure. I think that there is a spirit of evil in the world, but I don't play the blame game and dumb responsibility on the character of Satan. (Not all Christians believe this though) Concerning God being omnipotent, I find that I don't know if God is omnipotent and I don't make that claim one way or the other. I find it more effective to speak of God by negation, using apophatic theology instead of positive, catophatic, theology. I'm getting carried away, this has nothing to do with the argument, but theological understanding. Biblically speaking though, the OT folks used stories like Job to explore and explain the open-ended question of innocent suffering. No one, atheists and theists, know why innocence suffer and if any of them makes them claim, with such fierce belief in their own point, they are arrogant and ignorant. This quote addresses free will, and I have noticed that you force the subject of free will into things. Free will is a hard thing to rationalize, I believe in it though. (A fun fact, Sam Harris, a militant atheist like yourself, makes a convincing argument that free will doesn't exits.) Just knowing that both theists and atheists have a hard time with free will and predestined behavior shows how complex this is and you cannot reduce it, at least effectively, and force it into the argument. You should look at Sam Harris and Alvin Plantinga, see what they have to say. You may enjoy those readings, whether you agree or not. Again, you're making arguments for free will and against Chrsitianity that don't belong. I don't have an opinion one way or another on these statements...they don't belong here and have no effect on the morality of the Bible. #5 I see what you mean and I agree that many Christians, not as a whole but the majority, try to rationalize. In doing so, though, they make the discussion more confusing and are no closer to a concrete answer. I don't profess to know this answer, like I said above, these are open-ended questions that we can only attempt to answer individually. (Like my claim originally about it being subjective based on the interpretation of the individual.) But, to have these emotions, "peace, love, kindness, care, harmony etc" you must have the opposites as well, "evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury jealousy."; you cannot have heat without cold, light without dark. If there was only these good things in the first place, they wouldn't exists...we would have no concept of what love is without knowing what hate is. To know pleasure, we must know pain, to know joy, we must know suffering; this is the human condition. Your frustration the existence of negative emotions and suffering is not indicative of the Bible being immoral, but is indicative of you superimposing your own frustration onto the Bible and then making an unsubstantiated claim about it. This statement makes no sense, you're not addressing my point, but responding to it instead. You make no point with it, other than that you don't understand what I said. I don't think that it is perfectly ok to "butcher" innocence, I think that you are applying your own frustration onto me and the Bible. You are making assumptions that don't stand to reason. Again, you're resorting to personal attacks that are uncalled for and unappreciated. I would tell you, though, that I do have friends that would do things like that for me, and I hope that you do as well. No one deserves to be alone and everyone deserves to have someone love them and to love someone else. Me conforming to your beliefs won't do me any good, in fact, I think that it would push people further away, at least in my case. It's unfortunate that you believe these things. You run from arguments and points, you use bad sources like YouTube and quotes from YouTubers (in the context of their videos on said sight). You ignore what others say to you and fail to acknowledge their argument. Your skills at debate are poor and you lash out at people with personal attacks when they are not welcome and they are unprovoked. I hope that you can move beyond personal attacks, ad hominems, non-sequiturs, red herrings, black/white fallacies, etc. for the sake of your debates in the future. I think that you are a smart person and you have the ability to do so much. However, I think that you have failed to convince me of your claim, in fact, you have proven to me that you know very little of what you speak of, almost proving yourself wrong the long the debate goes on. The debate, itself however, has devolved into you brushing off my points and just insulting me. I wish you well and I know this is a bit passive aggressive, but it seems characteristic of my responses at this point: You have failed, Do better.