It is required that god be ousted from power due to his violent, evil and hateful ways and behaviors

To begin, my opponent states that there are at least 1000 contradictions in the Bible. He has no evidence to support this, and is therefore basing it off of pure speculation. He also states, as he did in the previous round, that God would not communicate in text form, saying it is the worst form of communication possible. This is just an opinion which he has backed up by no evidence. Also, he doesn't seem to consider that text was the only form of communication back in the Biblical times. So other than God talking directly to people, the only other way to spread his teachings was through written documents. They did not have cell phones, internet, computers, etc. I would like my opponent to consider this question: Why, if text is such a bad form of communication, do we still use it today, when we DO have cell phones, internet, computers and other technology? I do not understand why my opponent then goes on to claim that I did not prove him wrong, when I spend most of the previous round doing so. In addition, he has not offered any feedback whatsoever on the context of the verses I gave him, and why he still feels that they should be taken literally. He continues to claim that they are just evil and nothing else. I would like him to provide me with some SPECIFIC feedback on my arguments against his. He claims that the only way to read the Bible is to take the verses literally; he claims that the only way to read the Bible is his and his only. This is not the proper way to read the Bible. While many things in the Bible are meant to be taken literally, there are things that need to be looked at in context. He continues by using the same "ad nauseam" logical fallacy that he used all the way back in round two. This is the type of faulty thinking that involves continuous repetition of a claim with the goal that its value will somehow change, or I will finally be convinced. He has said over and over again that God has killed people for no reason. I showed him several examples that clearly indicated this was not true. My opponent does not seem to understand that consequences follow choices people make, good or bad. To answer his question, "what do these verses prove? ", they show that people who make bad choices receive consequences. And yes, some of them had to be extreme. For my opponent's information, Christianity is not dwindling or failing. It is spreading dramatically throughout the world, according to "The Washington Post". So, his "attack" on me (yet another logical fallacy of his) did not work. He then proceeds to ask me how and why I proved him wrong. Here is his answer: I have read the Bible all the way through (almost, I'm nearly done) and have seen how the verses apply to the story in which they were used. Based on what I've seen, my opponent has not looked at any references that I gave him. If he as truly read the Bible, he would understand why things like this happened. He doesn't have to agree with it, but to go out and harass Christians who have studied the Bible when he doesn't even understand what he is talking about is just not appropriate. It is really easy search in Google for verses where God killed people. I speculate this is what he did. I don't think it's a coincidence that he was able to list about 30 references of killings by skimming through the Bible itself. Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com... My opponent can think whatever he wants. If he thinks he won round III, I can't stop him from doing so. I will leave that up to the voters to decide. However, he makes another faulty assumption (what a surprise) that I do not understand child abuse. His only basis for this is the fact that I disagree with him and proved him wrong. I fully know what child abuse is. After citing things I have said in previous rounds, he takes them completely out of the context that I wrote them in. Whoever is reading this right now can even go back and look. This is exactly what my opponent does when he reads the Bible. He tells me to prove to him that God loves everyone. I did that all the way back in round two. Either he didn't read them, or he did and just doesn't like the fact that they prove him wrong. I'll ask him again to go back to round two and READ the chapters and verses I gave him. He asks me why I told him he takes things out of context many times, saying "How would I know?". I will tell him how I know, for the 100th time. BECAUSE I READ ENTIRE CHAPTERS INSTEAD OF SINGLING OUT VERSES THAT LOOK GOOD TO GO AGAINST GOD. Continuing on, he goes on to try to prove ME wrong in my analysis (and failing). Why? He forgot one important part of the verse that he most likely didn't mention on purpose. I quote, "[...] and put away the abominable idols out of all the land [...]". My opponent should look at this closely. It shows, clearly, that there were idols in the land before this. People were worshiping them. This is far from innocence in the eyes of God. And he says I got proved wrong. My opponent thinks he can say that he won round two, when he didn't read the sources I gave him, or take time to analyze them. Regarding the "gays and more hate" section. Again, he doesn't seem to understand that there are consequences for poor choices. This is explaining homosexual activity; it has nothing to do with transgenderism. There were rules set in place that said that homosexuality was not allowed, and if the rules were broken, they would be punished. While several versions of the Bible word this passage differently, the message is the same. They commit a sin, they get punished. The versions he has presented me with have not deviated from the original message. They just changed the wording. My opponent seems to think that this means they are wrong. This is just like saying two plus two is not the same as two added to two. While I read the King James Version, these other versions have not changed the original message. My opponent goes on to say that nobody interprets the Bible correctly. I would like to ask him, if this is his claim, how he thinks he interprets the Bible correctly when evidence goes against him? Jumping to conclusions in such a way as my opponent did in the comments is one of the worst things to do in a debate. He asserts, "if you as a christian were to see a gay person kissing another man and then see someone raping a 6 year old child, you'd call the police on the gay couple." I have no idea where this came from. Obviously the police would be called for the 6-year-old child, as they are the ones being harmed. Either way, this is another distraction he fabricates. The original premise was that God loves everyone, even gays. He does not provide evidence sufficient to prove this is not true. He only provides references that show consequences for sinful behavior. After accusing me of telling lies, my opponent goes on to tell more lies in a single paragraph than I have seen in this debate yet. And he thinks I need to be dehumanized for telling "lies". First off, Christianity is NOT fading away, as I proved earlier. The assertion he makes that Christians teach hatred is not true. This is shown all over the world. Many organizations that help the poor, needy, and victims of natural disasters are Christian based. How can this be hatred? He says we should be spending our time doing loving things. Is this not sufficient to show you that you are wrong? According to my opponent, reaching out to help people in hard times is nothing but hatred and stupidity. I hope this isn't how he reacts to family members when they need extreme help. In conclusion, I have showed my opponent several examples of how God is a very kind and loving person. I have proved him wrong in his assumptions from the verses he has taken from the Bible (which, need I say again? out of context). I have given him examples of how Christians are loving people, while he has offered no examples of how Christians show hate. I have identified several ways he uses faulty arguments and unproductively attacks me instead of my arguments. I look forward to hearing what my opponent has to say regarding this.