God has commited most of the 7 deadly sins: Part 2

Thank you to con for his strong argument. I am quite impressed, but don't think I won't win! My oponent sure is commited, he found 4 sites that showed how God didn't sin. Too bad they all go too waist. My oponent is stating that God doesn't sin. But killing is a sin, as stated in the 10 commandments. . http://www.bible-knowledge.com...In the old testament, he FLOODED THE ENTIRE WORLD! That obviously killed a lot of people. He killed the Egyptions by drowning them in the red sea. He killed lots of people in the old testament, but he didn't sin? !? !? !? ! I THINK NOT. The defenition of kill is:To deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay. ' God has killed, therefore he sinned, therefore my opponent's argument is invalid on that point. Also, this isn't a debate of if God has sinned in general, it is a debate about how God has committed each of the 7 deadly sins. Due to the 8,000 character limit I am unable to point out every thing that is wrong in each of your arguments. My opponent says this, but his argument is about 4000-5000 characters long, leaving a lot more characters to attack my argument, so that point means argument. I also think it's funny you bring this up because that is exactly what you did with my arguments as well. On the contrary, I attacked every point on my opponents rebutle on my case. I don't know where you see that I don't, but whatever. Sloth: My oponent is stating in his rebutle that cancer is a way that humans don't live forever on earth. And that God can't allow people to live forever. Wow. That is so stupid, I don't know how to respond. So, God doesn't want us to be immortal, so cancer is a good way just to kill us! ?! ?! ?! ?! ?! ? While its true that we would be miserable if we lived forever, cancer is just a way for us to die? !? !? !? !? !? That is an awful argument! By stating this, the neg is stating that cancer is a good thing, something we should be joyful about because it allows us to DIE. YAY CANCER! !! !! !! !! No. Cancer is not something to be joyful about. It is a painful, and stressful way to die, and it is in no way something to be happy about. I don't understand why my oponent would even say that. He only covered that sentence, so I assume that the rest he agrees with. Greed: God on the other hand, since his power is not gone as you claim it is, he could always get our attention again because he is still all powerful even if humans do not think he is. So, he will use his powers unlike the doughnut to get his worship back? Sounds pretty damn greedy to me. My opponent is now saying that God can use his powers to make people worship him, but then he says God doesn't need worship a sentence later. He is contridicting himself. Then he says we need to worship him because it helps us. Wow. So worshiping us helps us. .. .. . how? My opponent doesn't say how, except it makes us closer with God. So, being close to God doesn't benefit him? So, if my opponent is against the resolution, he is saying that God doesn't want to be close to God, because that would show that God wants and needs our prayers and worship, because he needs to be closer to God. No matter where he stands, he go's against himself, or his side of the resolution. Envy: In a word, no. Worship does belong to him. He is not jealous of what is someone else's which is what envy is. YES! YES HE IS JELEOUS! If he wasn't, why would he punish those who worship false Gods? Like with the Israelites in the desert who worshipped the Golden Calf (. http://www.biblegateway.com...), they were punished. It says in the 10 commandments that You shall have no other gods before me. (. http://www.bible-knowledge.com...) Because he says this, he is envyous, and he is most definately "jealous of what is someone else's which is what envy is" which is word for word what my oponent states in his argument. My opponent is agreeing with my case. He also doesnt cover anything else, only a sentence, so I assume he agrees with the rest. Pride: If they really wanted to build a tower to reach heaven, it is unlikely they would start on the plain of Shinar, which is about Sea Level. Common sense says they would start on one of the a nearby mountains. Ready any bible commentary, the thought that these people thought they could actually get to heaven is ludicrous. If they were dumb enough to think they could "could actually get to heaven", then yes, they are ludacrous, like my opponent states. Therefore, they are not smart enough to have a good place to start, so obviously they didn't think things out. Everything else on my argument for Pride is still strong. Gluttony:God would still have power without our prayers and worship. So no, you did not show this to be true. Wow. Must I keep repeating myself? This is getting tiresome. God, without worship, without recognition, would have no power, because he has no influence on anybody, simply put. Everything else on Gluttony is still strong. Vanity:You are right when you say that the government does not follow God's every will you are correct, but the bible is not directly opposed to the death penalty. Also, you still have yet to show that if people rebel against God, he is unjustified in killing them. My oponent says that the Bible is not directly opposed to the death penalty, but, again, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS INSTITUTED BY GOD SAY "THY SHALT NOT KILL". So yes, the bible is "Directly opposed to the death penalty". First off, killing people for not worshiping him has nothing to do with envy, it would be greed if anything. HE AGREES WITH ME THAT GOD IS GREEDY. HE AGREES. EVERYONE, READ IT AND WEEP. He agrees that God is greedy, I win greed automatically now, he himself explicitly agrees, I win that. However, I think again we have to look at it from the perspective of did God do this for him or did he do it for us? I would very much argue that the flood was a good thing. It would have wiped out a lot of non-believers and since there is less non-believers there is a better chance that the next generations of people would have been believers and gone to heaven. Therefore, I do not think the flood was an act of vanity/wrath but rather an act of love for you and me. Wow. Again, just like the cancer argument, I am left speechless by how outragous this is. But, alas, this is debate, so I must continue. THE FLOOD WAS A GOOD THING? !? !? !? ?! ?! ?! ?! ?! THE FLOOD WAS AN ACT OF LOVE FOR YOU AND ME? !? !? ?! ! WHAT? !? !? !? !? !? ?! ?! Again, my opponent is basically spelling out "YAY DEATH! !! !" The flood killed many, many people, and killing is an example of vanity/wrath, so my opponent agrees with me that the flood killed lots of people, no one really can disagree that, so God has commited Vanity/wrath. I did not mean to personally attack you. All I was saying was that the argument you presented was clearly contrary to what was written in the bible. I am sorry if it seemed like I directed it towards you personally. I apoligize first of my my sarcasm and rudeness. I shouldn't have taken it to heart. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. " Genesis 2 Well, God may have said that, but my opponent ignores the fact that the devil is the most evil, diabolical, and influential being ever to exist. Sin and temptation is much easyer to commit that good. My oponent may say otherwise, but lets bring up doughnuts again, shall we? If you are on a diet, and you know your not supposed to eat the doughnut, just like we're not supposed to sin, your gonna want to eat the doughnut A LOT. Just like sin. The devil influenced them, and God knew that, yet he still banished them to an eternity of sin and screw over all of humanity because they were convinced by Satan, the most influential being ever. This is such wrath, I can't see how it isn't.