The Christian God is malevolent.

Let"s take a look at Pro"s various points. 1. Slavery. Pro points out the Bible discourages slavery of Christians. It would be more accurate to say that it discourages slaver for Christians. That is, the Bible was written for Christians and it takes an overall negative view of slavery, though it doesn"t directly outlaw slavery. The New Testament passages I cited do encourage slavery of non-Christians. Instead, they discourage slavery for Christians because the NT was written for Christians. This is not a double standard. It is simply recognizes that NT was written for Christians and as such does not tell non-Christians how to live. After this, Pro seems to fail to grasp changing cultural values. He says that "slavery was always immoral and will always be," by which he is essentially saying, "my culture is right about what thinks it is important and all other cultures are wrong. " In our culture, slavery is immoral because we value self-determination. In pre-enlightenment Middle Eastern cultures self-determination was valued less than a functioning society. Self-determination still mattered, but not as much as it does to us. Ethics can be (and in a Christian view are) consistent through time and space. Values are not. The fact that other cultures have different values than we do does not make them wrong or us right. It makes us different, and how we apply ethical principles needs to be understood within the values of a specific culture. 2. Interracial marriages and racism. In this section Pro abandons his original idea that God or the Bible itself is racist or opposed to interracial marriages. Instead he argued that the Christian religion has been used for racist purposes. I agree that Christianity has been used for racist purposes, but this does not make God himself malevolent. A piece of wood, which can be used to build a hospital, can also be used to bash in a man"s head. That doesn"t make the wood malevolent. That means that a human can use good things for bad purposes. Asking, "Why would God write the Bible in such a way? " is an empty question. Almost everything in existence can be used be used for bad purposes. The more powerful a force is for good, the more destructive it can be when used for evil. If we are going to say that everything which has ever been used for evil is itself malevolent then we would have to say that everything is malevolent, which is obviously ludicrous. 3. Homophobia If we are going to discuss the Christian God then we need to focus on Christian theology. Christian theology holds that the "civil laws" " that is, the laws of the Old Testament that include a specific punishment " can tell us about what is important to God, but are not meant to be enforced outside of a theocracy. A theocracy is a nation where God is king, and the only theocracy in history was ancient Israel. In that setting, where God alone is king and everyone who entered that nation agreed to the legal expectation of God and was free to live elsewhere if they didn"t want that kind of kingdom, then such civil laws could be enforced. In all other nations the civil laws, such as a Leviticus 20:13, could be seen as ethical teaching but should not be enforced. So in a democracy, like modern America, the Christian God said, "Confess sexual sins, repent, and you will be forgiven. " Pro himself said that he agrees with what actual Christian theology teaches. 4. Woman hating Pro claims that the Bible is contradictory on this point, but then failed to support that claim in any way. As I pointed out above, the Apostle Paul did prohibit women from teaching in one specific circumstance, but overall support female leadership. Dealing with situations in a case-by-case nature and recognizing that not every situation is exactly the same seems like a wise way of dealing with life and speaks well of God"s character. Choosing any single teaching and exaggerating it at the expense of everything else in the Bible will of course produce a lopsided view of morality. To understand the Christian God we need to read the entire Bible and consider everything that is taught therein. 5. Anti-animal rights Pro is free to be a vegan, but certainly he must understand that the vast majority of the world is not vegan and does not consider it unethical to kill animals for food. Pro then takes issue with the idea of a burnt offering. In ancient Israel a burnt offering meant that the animal was slaughtered and its meat was cooked at the temple. I take it that Pro saw the words "burnt offering" and assumed that meant that the animal was burnt alive. Allow me to assure Pro that this was not the case. 6. Totalitarian Here Pro has changed for saying that God himself is totalitarian to instead focus on the idea that God allows totalitarian governments. This is certainly a more interesting question as the traditional Christian doctrine does not take a stand on any form of government. Democracies, kingdoms, dictatorships, etc. are not presented as good or bad. They are, so to speak, raw material. People living in those systems can do what is good or what is evil. While that Bible does tell Christians to submit to authority, saying this is supporting Stalin is overly simplistic. The Bible also talks about justice, protecting the helpless, and the importance of following godly leaders. The Bible provides complex moral teaching for a complex world. Again, choosing any single teaching and exaggerating it at the expense of everything else will produce a lopsided and inaccurate view of God. The only commands which we are told to apply universally are the greatest commandments: To love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Conclusion: I appreciate Pro"s efforts to debate Christian beliefs. However, Pro has clearly been given false information about what Christians believe and what the Bible says. Perhaps after a deeper study of the Christian scriptures he can revisit this issue with greater insight, but for now it is clear that his case for the Christian God being malevolent cannot stand.