The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

If a god exist, he is a terrible communicator.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 977 times Debate No: 64659
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




Round 1 will be acceptance
Round 2-3 the arguments

No real rules. Just argue your position

Winner should be decided by who made the best case for their position


"Round 1 will be acceptance." I accept!
Debate Round No. 1


First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

In order to support the proposition that, "If a god exist, he is a terrible communicator," I will be looking at the world at large and determining whether the world has received clear and reliable communication from something we might call a god. To begin I will first list what characteristics make up a good communicator.

Here are 10 characteristics that are considered traits of a good communicator.
1. A clear, concise message.
Simplify your thoughts, present your information in a manner clearly understood
2. Understand the recipient.
Understanding your audience so your information is presented in a way that the audience can understand
3. Empathy for the recipient
Effective communicators see the information from the perspective of the audience.
4. Effective listening
Communication is a two way street. Good communicators are good listeners
5. Ask for clarification, when necessary
Good communicators ask for and offers further clarification upon request
6. Adherence to facts
Effective communicators offer facts more so than gossip and rumors
7. Awareness of body language
Make eye contact to the person you are talking to as much as possible
8. Provision of proper feedback
Feedback is important in maintaining a positive conversation and ensure both parties are on the same page
9. Include praise when appropriate
Effective communicators know when to offer praise to those who they are communicating with
10. A positive attitude


When an individual, whether mortal or magical, practices these ten characteristics of good communication, their message is clearly understood. If the message isn't understood then the good communicator would enter into a clear dialogue with those whom the message is to be delivered, achieving a clear understanding. Patience and empathy for the audience and their ability to understand the message is of utmost concern for the communicator. The communicator will spend time clearly delivering the message to those who have difficulty understanding it. These are the traits of a good communicator.

When we look out into the world, is this what we see when we consider a god and his "attempts" to communicate with our world? If it was the case that some god has successfully communicated his message to the people of Earth, we would expect to see a more unified idea of what this god wanted and expected from us. We would expect to see and largely unified set of beliefs and instructions on a Earth sized scale. The vast majority, perhaps even all, would agree with what the communicator has communicated. Think of a classroom with a really good teacher, with good communicating skills. The students of that classroom would have a clear understanding of what was expected of them, concerning all aspects of the class. Some students may not follow the instructions. But, they would be very aware of what the instructions are. Is this the world we see when we consider a god and his communication attempts?

No. We see no such unified understanding. If communication has happened it has failed in a significant manner. There are presently 20 major religions on the planet. Many more minor or tribal religions. This is not what we should see. An effective communicator should deliver us a more unified religious planet then the one we see. But, the problem is actually worse then just different religions. Even those within a particular religion cannot agree on what the actual message is. Christianity as an example has between 20,000 to 35,000 different denominations within this single religion. Christians themselves, who agree on the general text of their own religion cannot agree on one clear message within that religion. If the communicator was a successful communicator we should see greater agreement, much greater agreement. Islam also doesn't posses a unified understanding. Sunni and Shi'a denominations within Islam cannot agree on a correct understanding of their religion. Islam is said to be only understandable in it's native language. This doesn't reflect a good communicator. A good communicator would make the message widely understood. At no time in human history do we have a period in which we could claim a clear message from a god which is a good communicator.


Not only is religious variations and indicator of a poor communicator of religion, the text don't often blend with the facts we have discovered about the world. This is clearly seen in the book of Genesis, facts we've learned about the world don't fit with what is communicated within the text. There is no accurate description of the universe we live in. No description of galaxies, planets, stars or the general make up of what is claimed creation. Genesis 1:4-5 "And God saw that the light was good: and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, ant the darkness He called night. And there was evening and morning, one day." We know today, that it is the Sun that determines day from night. Here we have a passage that places day and night before the Sun. Genesis 1:16-19 "And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. He made the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the Earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness and God saw that it was good. And there was the evening and morning, a fourth day." We know day and night is directly related to the Sun. Yet here we have a passage that claims the two are separate. A good communicator, characteristic 6, includes facts. This is a contradiction of the facts we know.

In conclusion we have a world that is largely confused regarding any communications from a god. We have a large variety of religions, a larger variety of beliefs withing those religions and thousands of historical gods. Religious adherents cannot themselves agree on what has been communicated. Those who believe a message has been delivered cannot agree on the message itself. The most popular religious text doesn't match the facts of the world. Good communicators use facts over assertions. The world we see makes it clear, if a god exist, and he has tried to communicate with us, his communications abilities are terrible. The populations of Earth are completely confused regarding any communication from a god. That isn't the sign of a good communicator, quite the opposite.

Thank you. I will turn it over to the Con side of the argument.


Thank you Pro for covering the “10 characteristics that are considered traits of a good communicator.” However, you are missing the most important “trait,” that is, both the source and the recipient must share the same language.

What is God's language? What stage of life's evolution will come to understand God's language? We have man's written scriptures covering many religions and beliefs throughout the ages, some of which Pro mentioned. For those of faith, including preachers, prophets and atheists, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).

On the other hand, there is a common thread that runs through all scriptures, in all cultures, that claims some entity, which transcends all life (aka God), and this entity created the universe and everything in it. By the way, throughout recorded history, not one culture was found to be atheistic; but I digress. Getting back to the creation of the universe and everything in it; everything includes the Laws of Nature, therefore, the Laws of Nature is the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to learn God's language.

When man morally follows God's handwriting hence; the evolutionary fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights, are free to morally flow having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of God's nature.

Morality (the fingerprint of God) is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

It is the recipient's responsibility from birth to learn, via the tutelage of its parents through trial and error, the language in order to understand its parents. Symmetry is found throughout nature, therefore, it is life's responsibility from evolution to learn, via the tutelage of the scientific method through trial and error, the language in order to understand God.

Life is a way for nature (aka "nature's God") to experience itself. Through the evolution of life, humanity is just beginning to learn to read the handwriting of God. Perhaps one day, we may come to read the entire script of God's handwriting, and on that day, communication will be on a different dimension that transcends our current primitive reality of some “10 characteristics that are considered traits of a good communicator.” And in saying that, “If a god exist, he is aGREATcommunicator;” for us humans are still wearing pampers on the road to utopia.

As Albert Einstein once said, “When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Con for your response.

Lets review, In my opening argument I defined the characteristics of a good communicator. I described what we should expect to see from an audience which has been delivered a message from someone who is a good communicator, cohesive understanding. Then I pointed out the evidence of religious confusion that is prevalent in the world. This evidence of religious confusion is evidence of poor communication.

Now lets review Con's rebuttal. Paragraph 1(P1) An opening thank you. (P2) Con makes some general descriptions of text and language questions. But there is no attempt to call into question the points I made and no argument that there has been good communication. (P3) Con in this paragraph points out a "common thread" of belief that is prevalent in human culture. But common thread of belief doesn't correlate with good communication. Superstition in general is a commonly held belief in all human cultures, lucky rabbits feet, don't walk under a ladder, horoscopes, fortune cookies, black cat, horse shoes, ext. There are literally hundreds of thousands of different superstitious beliefs in the world. We wouldn't argue that these superstitious beliefs are evidence of good communication. Con doesn't even argue that widely held religious belief is evidence of good communication. Con's (P3) doesn't support his position. (P4) Doesn't argue for good communication or against the points I raised at all. (P4) Morality? This paragraph doesn't even mention communication. (P5) "It is the recipient's responsibility...." Con doesn't argue that good communication has occurred, doesn't attack my points, instead argue that it is the message receivers duty to find the message. That isn't even communicating. That certainly cannot be traits of a good communicator. (P6) "Perhaps one day, we may come to read the entire script of God's handwriting and on that day, communication will be on a different dimension that transcends our current primitive reality." Con concedes the point in this sentence. Effectively acknowledging that we still don't have a complete understanding. He asserts in a "different dimension" we may come to understand the message. True or not, this is a concession that the message isn't understood. A misunderstood message is evidence of poor communication, Con concedes the evidence. (P7) Nothing here but a quote from Einstein. Communication isn't addressed.

Review of the review. Con's rebuttal has not refuted the points raised in my opening argument. Con's (P6) concedes the evidence that we are currently in a position in which we don't understand the message. The Pro position holds the stronger argument.

Further Illustration

Let's imagine we are neutral observes in a classroom of 100 students. In this classroom, we see no instructor. However, as we mingle with the class, we come to learn many of the students believe they have received instruction from an instructor. We discus with the students what their homework assignments are, the following is what the tell us.

A. 28 students believe homework is in geometry book, cannot agree on which problems
B. 21 students believe homework is in algebra book, cannot agree on which problems
C. 13 students believe homework is in calculus book, cannot agree on which problems
D. 11 students are completely indifferent and have no position on homework at all
E. 5 students believe homework is in a basic multiplication book, cannot agree on which problems
F. 5 students believe homework is to meditate on math
G. 2 students believe the homework is to be done on an abacus
H. 2 students don't believe there is an instructor and no homework was given.
I. 13 remaining students all hold individual beliefs on any homework assignments.

Now we, as neutral observers, reconvene at the back of the room. We ask ourselves a question. Has the instructor communicated well with the classroom? I ask you to consider this question honestly. Do you think the above example points to good communication on the instructors part? If you believe this above example points to good communication, then you should vote for Con's position. If recognize, what seems to be clear, that the instructor has left his classroom largely confused, and has done an overall terrible job of communicating clear instructions to his classroom, then you should vote to support the Pro position.

Clarity on the above example: A=Christianity, B=Islam, C=Hinduism, D=No religion, E=Chinese Folk religion, F=Buddhism, G=tribal religions, H=Atheist, I=various other religions. The classroom example is just a microcosm of a larger religious world. If the classroom example leads us to conclude the instructor hasn't communicated clearly with the students, we must conclude that if a god exist, he hasn't clearly communicated with the people of Earth. They are the same example.

In conclusion, we have defined the qualities of a good communicator. We have discussed what we expect to see when good communication has occurred. We have examined the evidence. The evidence of confusion points to poor communication. Con's opening argument hasn't refuted the evidence. Con's opening argument doesn't contest the definition of a good communicator. Con's opening argument (P6) acknowledges a message that isn't understood and suggest in the future it may be. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Pro position has supported itself with definition, argument, and evidence. The Con position hasn't objected to the definition. The Con position hasn't objected to the argument. The Con position hasn't objected to the prediction. The Cons position hasn't objected to the evidence and has agreed with it at some points. The Pro position holds the stronger argument. I would like to thank those who've read the arguments and encourage you to vote for the stronger position. Thank you

Thank you for your time Con.


Thank you Pro for bringing a very important subject to the debating floor.

Pro failed to address Con's very important point on the prerequisite for communication requires the source and the recipient sharing the same language. That is why we have schools, learning to communicate.

On the topic of schools, Pro gave a great “Illustration” of a classroom without a human instructor. Pro failed to see the lack of a human instructor defaults to God's handwriting instructions, an imbedded bio-program, the root of all communication, found throughout life. This bio-program is simply once alive, “Life, must have the freedom (“Liberty”), in “the pursuit of” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the labeled Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Life's Unalienable Rights is the seed to inter-specie communication. This communication is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life (inter-specie communication not covered in Pro's “10 characteristics”). In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is wrong as in negative-feedback. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant's desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally communicates Happiness. The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right (positive-feedback) and wrong (negative-feedback), the primitives of Morality.

In Pro's example, one could find students forming groups based on their interest---positive-feedback, relative to geometry, calculus, etc. Let's expand on Pro's example:

Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

The objective of morality is to keep a group alive, is the evolution of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc, the norms of society. In Pro's example, group formation of geometry, calculus, etc, is a "microcosm" not only of religion according to Pro, but the norms of society including the language of that society so it too can communicate. The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the universality of God's language, a thread that runs through the tapestry of humanity and life, the genesis of communication.

Morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.

Morality is a manifestation of communication and is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics; part of the physical Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God.

We humans are beginning to understand God's handwriting through the scientific method. For example, the US form of governance (US Constitution) a design from the discovery of Jefferson's Unalienable Rights sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are morally free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of nature.

The message in God's handwriting (the source) is a communique to humanity (the recipient) about the evolutionary road to utopia.

The title of this debate is, “If a god exist, he is a terrible communicator.” It is not a debate whether a God exist or not, it is a debate over, if there is a God, than the Laws of Nature are simply the handwriting of God. Con's position is, the Laws of Nature is a miraculous form of communication, in addition to the creation of all life throughout the Cosmos. Life communicates on many different levels, from a single living cell to us humans and beyond, in the evolution of life coming to learn the language of God. In addition to the Laws of Nature, DNA is a message from God in a living bottle as us humans are just beginning to learn the syntax of this language, while harnessing the necessary wisdom to be responsible stewards of such knowledge. The evolution of inter-specie communication with God's nature is a function of the evolution of knowledge and wisdom of the recipient, how could it be otherwise?

On the other hand, Pro took the position on how God must behave in order to communicate with us humans; otherwise, God is a “terrible communicator.” Too bad Pro is trap in the narrow scope of human philosophy of what the proper “10 characteristics ... of a good communicator” is, and Pro demands such behavior from God, convoluted with man's written scriptures about God throughout the dark ages and before. Using such simple logic, it is easy to declare, “..., he [God] is a terrible communicator.”

Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
Faith isn't evidence. That is without question. I don't have faith that I'm sitting in a chair. I have evidence that I'm sitting in a chair. If you had evidence for your god, you wouldn't need faith. Lets be just a little bit honest here.

"Jesus suffered and died to take the effects of sin in his spirit." So your god isn't all powerful? He had to obey some mechanism (still not explained by you) of a blood sacrifice to remove sin? He didn't have the power or freedom to just remove it? Is this what you think? It sincerely amazes me, you guy make these grandiose claims about his nature, all loving, all good, all powerful, all knowing, ext. Then you believe that being comes up with clearly poor ideas. Slavery, obscene, yet you believe your god endorses slavery. Why plant the tree in the garden? He knows it will bring suffering. He knows Adam will eat from it. He intends to create a perfect world. SO DON"T PLANT THE TREE. Any simpleton can figure that out. What does he do? PLANTS THE TREE. Ensuring suffering, his choice to make that happen. Then he must murder all living things in the Noah story. Because, HE CHOSE TO PLANT THE TREE. Holocaust, because HE CHOSE TO PLANT THE TREE. It doesn't match. It should be better. Smallpox in the blankets, because HE CHOSE TO PLANT THE TREE.

crime, picking up sticks on the Sabbath. "God told Moses to take the man outside the camp and stone him to death."

slavery, Exodus 21, 20-21 "If you beat your slave with a rod, and your slave dies, you shall be punished. If however, the slave dies in a day or two, you shall not be punished, for they are your property."

These are the ideas of an all knowing, all loving, all powerful, being? Please. Tell me you can see through this. Open your eye and see the clues. If you care about what is true. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you just wanna believe what makes you feel good. If that is the case, I'm sorry we belong to the same species.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
God is not holding anyones sin against them. But we were all spiritually dead. Eternal life was not in our spirits.We are all forgiven, but the effects of sin was not erased. That is why Jesus suffered and died to take the effects of sin in his spirit.Now, not only are we forgiven, but the effects of sin can now be erased. Just as if one of your kids destroyed your car, you can forgive him, but the car is still wrecked. We are forgiven, but spiritual death would still be lodged in our spirit.If any man dies in that condition, that is eternal.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
nomag...... You put up that you understood the bible, even though you rejected its principles. That is not true. Bible faith has evidence. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, it is the evidence of things not revealed to the five senses.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
Cheyenne.....blood sacrifices. I'm going deeper into the idea than you are. I'm not the least bit interested in who the covenant was for. I'm looking at the idea of blood sacrifice in exchange for forgiveness. I'm questioning the rational of the idea. The idea is from the idea giver (the god of the Jews). My neighbor may apply certain ideas to his children on upbringing. These ideas don't apply to me. But, I can evaluate the character of my neighbor based on the ideas that he applies to his children. Who blood sacrifice laws were for, and when, isn't important to me. These ideas allegedly came from your god. I'm looking at the idea and evaluating the quality of it, to see if it matches what you claim your god to be, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, ext. The ideas contained in the Bible are beneath the character claimed to be the author of it, pointing to human authorship. Blood sacrifice is an idea beneath the character of Yahweh. We are told, god wants to forgive us. All he has to do is forgive us. The sacrifices are an unnecessary step. No need at all. They bring greater suffering to the world. So I will ask the question again. Only being concerned with the idea. How does a blood sacrifice remove sin? Why is the step necessary? If forgiveness is desired to give, why not just give it? Another question if you don't mind. Do you care about what is true? How do you determine what is true?
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
Cheyenne....the faith portion. I've defined what I consider faith. I've quoted a scriptural definition of faith. Faith isn't a process. Faith is belief without evidence. That is why the word faith is used opposed to the word know (knowledge). However, if you want the process of faith, I guess it would be just believe something and continue reenforcing that belief with just more unsupported belief and you will have strong faith. I personally have no respect for faith. I want evidence. If you don't have it, I'm not interested. Faith is of no use for me. Muslims have faith. Muslims suicide bombers have faith. Christian crusaders had faith. Faith is just unsupported belief. Not much required explaining.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
Cheyenne....the healing portion. Your question is a bit confusing. Principles=a fundamental doctrine or tenet, a distinctive ruling opinion. Principles of healing. Well it seems that belief in Jesus, the placement of faith in him, would be the general rule of healing. This is what I would think is the answer for a Christian. Mark 16:17-18, "And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in MY name they will be cast out demons, they will speak in tongues, they will pick up serpents, and if they drink deadly poison (wonder why this power is largely ignored?) it shall not harm them, they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover." Belief or faith in Jesus seems to be the primary "principle" required for healing. More from you, "Jesus healed ALL that came to him. How did he get that done." First, I don't believe any such thing occurred or occurs. So how is a bit of a pointless question. However, if I were to believe that might of taken place. How? Anyway he wanted. He can do magic. Magic isn't something that is explained. It's just magic. How did Jesus heal? The specific act? Magic. If you believe such things.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
nomag..... You also did not tell us how faith is released, how it is developed , when faith is.I am not asking you if you believe these things, Just explain what the bible teaches about them. You put off you know the word of God.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
nomag. Wow, that was a long one.

I did not ask you if you believe in healing, just explain the bible principles of healing. The word says Jesus healed ALL that came to him. How did he get that done, biblically, is all I am asking.The word does explain it, if you are not spiritually dense .

Blood sacrifice. That is a covenant action. When God made covenant with Abraham, he gave him the levitical law. He was to keep those laws perfectly. God also swore by himself, that if he ever broke the covenant , he would also have to destroy himself. That was tough. Now the law was not for this Abraham to keep. There was no way he could ever keep every word of that law. It was given for Jesus to keep, and he could keep it.

Now God told this Abraham, I know you broke this covenant, don't kill yourself, kill a goat, kill a lamb. Spiritual death is a messy condition to be in. It took blood to catch a man's attention to how deadly it is.

I am Cherokee indian. We have blood covenants also. And most African tribes did also. When 2 people get into covenant, they are forever bonded in blood.If one would ask the other to do something, he should be willing to do the same.That is why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son as a covenant partner. When Abraham raised that knife, God was forever sealed that when the time came for him to sacrifice his son, Jesus, he could not back away. To break that covenant , or his word, God would have to destroy himself.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
Cheyenne......explain the principles of healing. Not exactly sure what your question is. Don't think you are talking about natural healing. So I will assume you are discussing supernatural healing. A few points, claims of supernatural healing seem to be completely unfalsifiable. "Praise the Lord, he healed me." How do I know that is true? I cannot. One thing I find suspicious though, why no one with a lost limb is ever healed? If the lord is willing to intervene with cancer as an example, why not a limb? If find this a bit suspicious. Faith? Are you asking for a definition? If so, I would define faith as belief with insufficient justification. Hebrews 11:1 defines it "Now faith is confidence of what we hope for and assurance of what we do not see." Me not liking the message. You might wish to stop buying into the Atheist stereotype you've been feed. I have no problem with the message. If I had a choice, the message is true or false, I would choose true. But, I care about what is true. Not what I prefer to be true. With the traits you assign god, a much better system should've been achieved. If you care about truth Cheyenne, you must compare what you would expect to see, with what you see. The better fit is a natural explanation of the world. Not what I would necessary prefer, but what is overwhelmingly likely to be true. Since we are asking questions, I would like to ask you one. Why does blood sacrifice remove sin? Why not just forgive it if you wish to forgive it? Example. My daughter breaks curfew. I can forgive her free of charge. I can forgive and punish, in hopes she will not do it again in order to avoid punishment. Or I can do what your Bible does. Tell her she must sacrifice a squirrel in order to be forgiven. How does that work? Apparently god what to give us forgiveness. Why not just offer it? Why the need for a animal/human/deity sacrifice? Make sense of this for me. I don't think it makes sense, you do.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
nomag...... If it is not hard to understand. Then explain the principles behind healing, Tell us what faith is. How do we get faith. How is faith released.How is it developed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: God is not a bad communicator. Some people just don't know how to listen