The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler

The Garden of EdenI believe my opponent may have misunderstood the extent of my point. I am aware that, chronologically within the Bible, Adam and Eve are the only humans, living in the Garden, they eat from the forbidden tree, they are exiled, and outside of the Garden they have three children (Cain, Able, and Seth). However, my opponent explicitly states that Adam and Eve were at least at one point the only humans on Earth. This either disagrees with the passage about Cain's wife, or suggests he brought a younger sister with him, or married a non-human. Regardless of whom Cain married, it is irrelevant.My opponent states that God gave humans no desire to sin against him. This seems to be at crossed purposes with giving them free will, since this would mean designing them with an inbuilt 'firewall' against a specific branch of freedom. My opponent also mentions that according to the Bible, Satan 'came down' and tempted Eve who then tempted Adam. If my understanding is correct, what tempted Eve was actually a talking snake with legs, that was ambiguously referenced in such a way that it can be inferred to have been Lucifer, God's greatest angel. Even if this is the case, God would have designed and created Lucifer, and if truly omniscient, would have known everything that Lucifer would do, thus meaning he designed Lucifer to do those things, also meaning that Lucifer would have no free will. The sum of this is that whether directly or indirectly, God is the one who tempted Eve, and by extent Adam, to eat from the tree that he did not want them to.Ah, forgive me if I did not directly phrase the connection between God and Hitler; I had thought it would be extrapolated from my assertions. I stated "This illustrates that God has a sense of elitism, of the ideal human, and that humans are not necessarily valuable to him, even, as he protects them from outside only to torment them within." My reference to elitism and the picture of the ideal human to whom God shows favoritism were the implied link between he and Hitler.Noah's ArkThe Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.This seems to me to very directly conflict with the Con's statement "God was greatly grieved by all of the people sinning, and resolved to remove humanity except for Noah (who didn't convince God of anything), because Noah was a righteous man." Later on, as I specified in my argument, God was persuaded by Noah to change his mind. However, as demonstrated by the passage above, God's original intent was to wipe out every living thing on Earth.My opponent states that the comparison between Hitler and God is loose at best because Hitler's ideal human was one who not only followed a specific moral code, but also conformed to a specific physical identity, whereas God's ideal human only had to follow a specific moral code. I grant, Hitler was pickier than God, but I don't see how that lessens God's quest for racial purity. His intent was not to save a specific race, but to create a master race from favorable individuals, which lines up very well with Hitler's goal. My opponent also states that the people of the world were given a chance. Now, I do not know how many people he would estimate had a view of Noah's Ark, which was much smaller than the infamous Titanic, to give you a reference. Whatever my opponent's estimate, I doubt he would say that every human on the planet of that time had an opportunity to hear and see Noah's influence. That was hardly a fair warning--sort of like warning an entire city with a chalk drawing in the corner of one secluded alley. If God had, as the Con suggests, wanted the people of the world to be saved, he might perhaps have invested in a better advertising campaign. I think it still remains very firmly standing that I have established that God, like Hitler, dreamt of genocide, and sought to create a master race out of the survivors of his global war/domination (in this case, via flood).JobMy opponent calls my argument about Job fragile, then proceeds to return to how it was all Satan's fault. How God was really a good guy throughout all of this. Two simple points on the matter have I: firstly, I return to my earlier statement, about how God, omniscient and omnipotent, would have known everything Satan would do given every variation of his character before he ever created him, thus, in creating him the way he chose, he chose to create the monster that Satan supposedly became (the Bible speaks of Satan's evil, but I actually see much more genocide and suffering caused by God than Satan). Secondly, I would point out that in condoning Satan's experiment, God did exactly what Adolph Hitler did, which is to sanction the cruel experiment of another person, while remaining distant and 'uninvolved.' My opponent, it occurs to me, may not be very familiar with Adolph Hitler.Sodom and GomorrahYou're right, in that, now that I examine once more, the Bible does not explicitly state that Sodom and Gomorrah's acceptance of homosexuality was the cause of God's decision to destroy the cities. However, my opponent has his 'facts' very mixed up as to how events progressed in that story. My opponent states "The two angels, sent to Lot's family to warn them to leave the city before it was destroyed, at first decide to sleep in the city square. Lot, seeing them there, knows that they'll be dead by morning if they sleep there. He takes them to his house and lets them spend the night, but during dinner a group of men start banging on the door. They demanded the angels be given to them so they could rape them." According to Genesis 19, Lot met the angels at the gate and offered them a place to stay. He did not do so with the purpose of saving them. Furthermore, when the locals surrounded the house and demanded the travelers be surrendered to them for sex, A) it is not specified that rape was the intention (Sodom's culture may have included surprise orgies), and B) Lot's characters is significantly defaced when he offers his two teenage daughters to a crowd of libidinous homosexuals in place of his male guests. While my opponent is correct, the Bible is no more explicit than to state that the people of Sodom were wicked, it may have had something to do with the surprise orgies. Regardless of God's declaration of the moral state of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, it remains that he resolved to kill the whole populations of both cities. Like God, Adolph Hitler declared his victims to be wicked, and his own cause righteous. I fail to see the difference.Lady LoveYes, I apologize. I did get carried away and stray off-topic by including some unrelated filler about the relationship between God and Mary. I will dismiss the point except for one issue: my opponent states two interesting things: God is omnipotent, and God sent Jesus as a sacrifice for mankind. Now, I think it is implied that my opponent would hold the purpose of this 'sacrifice' to be part of an elaborate plan to save humanity from sin. If the first-mentioned point is true, that God is omnipotent, it seems bizarre to me that he would go to such lengths with alternatives.RevelationMy opponent seems to have ignored entirely my point that, according to Revelation, God is to be creating a utopia for his ideal humans, whatever race that be, while the non-ideal ones are tortured. My opponent is quite wrong that Hitler cared only about race, and not about actions.To be continued.