The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler

Thanks to my opponent for his response.The Garden of EdenI realize my opponent specified this. I don't enjoy the idea of incest either, but back then it was both physically and socially acceptable. It was that or his mom. But this is irrelevant. We both know that.My opponent has acknowledged two truths. God is omniscient. God created all people. However, he misunderstands the point of free will. God didn't create us so that we'd fail. He created us, knowing some would fail. He didn't banish us to Hell. He created us, know whether we would choose Him or not, but did not make that choice for us. We have to be able to understand this. I beleive there is no flaw with my lego analogy. Suppose, after your friend stomped his foot on the lego structure, you were to go back in time and get another shot at it. If you were to leave it there, would you be at fault? Or would the desire of your friend to cause himself excrutiating pain be the culprit? My opponent seems to believe that we'd be responsible for keeping it out of our friend's reach. Is this true? Especially when our friend will just find a way to reach it each time we move it?My opponent makes a fatal error that I brought up before, and will bring up again. We are debating God as if He was all that He says He is in the Bible. If God is Holy, He can not be malevolent.Also, one final possibility that my opponent doesn't realize is, since God is omniscient, He may know that creating humanity, even with all this knowledge, will result in greater good. Considering the fact He's holy, this is probably the case. I only say probably because, since God is omniscient, and we are not, there are an infinite amount of other possibilities.Noah's ArkSuppose I paid 5 cleaners to tidy up my house. Now, suppose I gave them one stipulation, don't track mad all over my carpet! However, when I return 4 of the 5 maids are guilty of breaking that guideline I gave them. I fire the 4. The 1 maid who didn't disregard my command could be referred to as having "found favor" with me, couldn't she? It's far more likely than her having to beg for me not to get fired along with the others.As for other versions,ISVThe LORD was pleased with Noah, however.God's Word TranslationBut the LORD was pleased with Noah.KJV Cambridge EditionBut Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.This is a small sample size of a great many. In no commentary fo the Bible, nor in any previous translation, will you find it implied that Noah had to beg for favor. This is all conjecture from Pro.We can not operate under the assumption that the Bible is not true, but its portrayal of God is. The Bible portrays God as having given us the Scripture. This argument makes no sense, nor do I see the impact.My opponent then asks why God didn't send a sign the people would beleive. However, yet again, my opponent chose to debate a topic where we must assume that God is as the Bible describes Him. He is omniscient. He knows whether or not the people would beleive in the signs He provided. If God just gave a sign everyone would have to accept, then He would be denying humanity the free will He gifted us in the first place.I accept that I don't know if the world's population was concentrated in one area. However, again, you are trying to use examples that would seem unfair if a human performed them, and measure them up against a Holy God. This is an illogical approach. If God created everything, He also created the abilities of men. He created what was possible and what was impossible to mankind. If we are to accept the Bible's portrayal of God, then He is omnipotent. He could have gathered all the people of the Earth, or could have given the world's population a vision. Maybe He didn't do anything, because He knew that they wouldn't accept Him anyways. We may not know, but if we believe the Bible, we can trust that God is holy and just and He did what was righteous.Knowing Hitler was a man, his (quite uglier) intentions, and his (quite uglier) actions, we can deduce that he was evil. Essentially, you can not compare a man to a God.JobI accept that responsibility.God designed Lucifer with free will, knowing that Lucifer would use it to betray Him. He wanted to give Lucifer the fair choice of accepting Him, however. The rest of my response is basically just reiterating what I've said above.I must apologize. I will address you directly for this. Dear Torvald, I do not, in any way, mean to state a single thing about your children. I wasn't even aware you had them, and wouldn't wish any amount of evil or strife on you or them. I do not wish to use them as a weapon, nor an argument. I just fell back on an old analogy that I've had success with in the past. Would you please forgive me?As far as the debate goes, I believe I had already covered all your points on Job. If you wish to point out one I have yet to address, please do.I did not mean to attack anything of my opponent's, and I'm sorry he felt that way. Really. I am merely a man defending my faith. As far as my "idle speculation" however, it is not idle speculation at all. Once again, since we are on the grounds of the Bible being accurate, we must assume God can both be Holy and allow that to happen. This is both the crux of my response to Job and Noah's Ark. Yes, it is probably getting old by now, but the fact of the matter is, it can't be proven false by Pro. If we have faith in the Bible's portrayal of God, then He is not comparable to Hitler. As long as this holds true, the resolution will be false.Sodom and GommorahI didn't realize it was a joke. I apologize to my opponent. I initially assumed that, due to its farfetched nature, this was a troll debate. Since that was not the case, I have elected to treat all propositions as legitimate arguments. However, I do not think that my opponent's stance on "demand for sex" possibly being consensual is sound. Demanding is not a request. They didn't politely knock on the door and ask to see the guests, they demanded, to the point of Lot offering his daughters in their stead. I know this is an immoral act, even you admitted that. But think about it. It's immoral only if the daughters did not want to be given over. Hence, rape. But alas, not the point.God destroyed the two cities. However, not only can we trust God's perfection in this case, but we have the fact that the people were obviously out of line, and a conversation between God and Abraham before the event happened. I will post a link for my opponent, and anyone reading this debate, but due to character limits I will only summarize.Essentially, Abraham was discussing with God about God's destroying the city. Abraham, knowing that Lot is in there, asks God if He will spare the righteous inside. He keeps decreasing the number of necessary righteous for God to spare them, until Abraham is satisfied that God will not destroy the cities while innocents reside inside their walls.http://www.biblegateway.com...As for Evangelism, I do not think what I did was really evangilism at all. But aside from that, you merely mentioned it's discouraged. I have tried not to be too preachy.ConclusionHistory is written by the victors, indeed. However, your resolution stated that the God of the Bible is comparable to, nay essentially is, Adolph Hitler. Again, I reiterate my point, and the main crux of what this debate comes down to. If you start from the assumption that God is as He is portrayed in the Bible, then His actions are justified. If you don't, then they're not. This debate, by the resolution, operates under the former assumption, whether my opponent argues from that position or not.Lastly, since I have a few characters left, I stress once again the difference between action caused by actions and actions caused by racial prejudice.I eagerly await my opponent's final statements, and I wish to see if he can provide a solid argument under his own resolution.