Well let's look at the Yahweh's actions and pronouncements as described by the bible.
Commands, condones and commits genocide.
Nope, He brings judgment on the cultures that inhabited the Promised Land for their wickedness. He tells Israel to drive out these inhabitants that live there because these people's wicked values will corrupt Israel, and He wants His people to be pure and holy before Him so He can teach them in the way of righteousness. Since they did not listen to God that is in fact what the biblical narrative reveals, they become corrupted by these people groups and so often these people groups wanted to destroy them. That would prevent the coming of the Messiah, as promised. God would have been proven impotent by not being able to fulfill His promises. Thus, God will not let this happen. How could He compromise Himself? Even though Israel is constantly shown to be disobedient to God, He continues to preserve them instead of judge them, until their sin is heaped up to the limit. Then He brings judgment on them and disperses them for a time that they will learn a lesson, then He brings them back into the Promised Land until the fulness of time is reached for Him to reveal His Son, the Saviour.
Holds people guilty until proven innocent (original sin).
God is omniscient, He knows all things. He knows that if it was you or me in the Garden we would have chosen to disobey God, just like Adam. With Adam came the corruption of what God created as good. Adam passed down his traits and influence to his progeny.
Holds people guilty for crimes committed by other individuals (original sin).
Explained above. Adam was our federal head but we would have done the same thing. Knowledge without wisdom is evil and that is what happens when human beings choose their own way rather than what is good as revealed by God.
Prefers rape of women to consensual sex between men.
Not true. This is a misrepresentation and a constant talking point of those who oppose and hate God.
Humans choose to rape.
Condones the ownership of people as property in perpetuity including being granted as inheritance.
Not the type of slavery that is inhumane. It is for the protection of the poor or those in debt, or, in the case of war, a war reparation for the damages done. With a foreign person, the person was bought with a price, for the Law forbid the kidnapping of anyone with the penalty of death. Thus, it had to be mutually agreeable. As with our employee/employer relationships, the ownership was one of advantage for both, unlike many ANE cultures. A 'slave' in Israel could own property and the 'property' clause was not like the intent witnessed in Egypt or North America, as I have pointed out with SkepticalOne. I have cited numerous passages where God commands Israel not to treat foreigners as they were treated in Egypt. I have shown that God requires of Israel and us to love our neighbour and not harm them. Thus, it could not be chattel slavery where there was mistreatment. And if the slave was mistreated I showed how in Israel there was an escape clause, as well as answerability to God for doing wrong in not loving others. As for discipline, there were consequences for wrongdoing, both for a 'slave' and owner/employer.
And what makes you think that your situation is much different from that of ancient Israel? As an employee, you AGREED to the conditions set forth by the employer. They own what you do while you are at work. You are their property while you are in their building. They have an obligation to protect you and you have an obligation to preform the duties required by the contract. They have the right to punish you for damages or wrongful actions, as stipulated in the contract you signed on commencement of employment.
Commands Capitol punishment for many transgressions.
Teaching Israel the sacredness of the covenant they had agreed to.
Punishes the very best and most loyal of his servants just to prove a point to a third party (job).
Satan, in his wickedness wanted God to show him how loyal Job was, that given the circumstance Job would disavow God. He was sure of it. God said Job would not. The trials Job went through were rewarded with a double blessing after He demonstrated that he would not forsake God. That is a typology and spiritual lesson for us as Christians. Because of the unjustness of this world we, as Christians, will be treated poorly, persecuted. Our not giving up or denying Him results in our double blessing too.
Murders children (the flood, the slaughter of many tribes in which the hebrews were commanded to kill all the livestock and babies) and even removes freewill (which I am unconvinced exists but since the biblical view of morality is predicated on choice this seems pretty telling) in order to justify killing more children (hardened Pharoah's heart so that he could kill the first born of Egypt).
I believe that free will was only present in Adam. He had the choice to sin or not to sin. Because we inherit and are influenced by Adam's choice we no longer have the option not to sin. We sin all the time, as we do not hold to the Ten Commandments. We steal, we lie, we harm our neighbours in all kinds of ways.
Don't get me wrong, it is not that we don't have a will a volition. It is that we choose to sin because of the corrupt nature we inherited in Adam. We desire things that are not right, not good. We continually see evil all around us and that influences us also. We like to do evil. It is our choice. We choose to commit adultery or lie to our fellow human beings. But there is an age of accountability, a point at which we are able to make these choices. But little children, I believe the Bible teaches, are covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. He died to save them because they were not yet guilty of doing or practicing sin or understanding the difference. That is the difference between them and adults. Adults understand wrong and yet still do it.
All of what I am saying here can be demonstrated through biblical passages. I am not taking the time to do so, but I can.
Condemns people to infinite punishment for finite transgressions including such things as having a bad attitude when one says one of the names of Yahweh, falling in love with persons who have the wrong genitals, and being skeptical of a being who purposefully cloaks itself in mystery as some sort of test of faith (a questionable virtue hinestly).
Wrongdoing is not following what is right, what is good. Since God is pure and holy, He will not accept sinful beings in His presence except for judgment of their vile deeds. Although there are decrees of judgment those who do not want to accept God and His righteous decrees will be separated from His presence because a bad person, a bad apple, will contaminate the whole flock/batch, just as a little yeast spreads through the whole loft of bread. A righteous Judge will not allow evil or wrongdoing to go unpunished. What GOOD judge would do that? There is a penalty for sin (wrongdoing). It is separation from a pure and holy God. Heaven would not be good if we had a mass of people all doing their own thing. It would be just like what we witness here on earth. Now, God created humanity for eternity, to enjoy Him forever. So, when a human being rejects God he/she is separated from the presence of God forever. That would be hell, everyone doing whatever evil is in their heart to do.
If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.
Sure it is good enough. As an atheist how do they get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and changing? How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)? How do we identify 'good' when two different people believe the opposite is the case? Who is right then? How does that make sense, two people with opposite views on the same thing both being right? How can it?
If there is no ideal, no best, how is good determined? What best do you have to compare it to and how do you ever get better when the standard is always fluctuating. Better in relation to what??? So, demonstrate that atheism can logically make sense of goodness. Why is what you believe good? It is because you believe it? What about me who believes the opposition? Can't what I believe be good if everything is relative and subjective? No, it can't. Why? Because it goes against the laws of logic that you cannot contravene and still make sense of ANYTHING. So, you can be an atheist, but you can't be consistent and you can't be logical as to morality. Show me otherwise by providing something objective and universally true, by necessity. I do not believe you can without God.
Thus theism and Christianity are more reasonable than atheism in this aspect and others.
It fails the test of livability. I do not want to "be next" under this system.
No, you are wrong once again. I have given reasons why it does not and they are reasonable to believe. To get honest you would have to tackle all the points I have made and refute them as unreasonable. That means we have to delve deeper into morality and justice.
