The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LuxCoke
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

No "god" of the bible would be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,433 times Debate No: 118845
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

NOTHING is established in scripture so everybody can get it wrong as there have been 0 updates in at least 2, 000 years. There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trace it back to the original. And there"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly. Not you, Not the pope, No minister, No priest, No pastor, No-bo-dy. And within those translations and copies throughout the generations, Characters and what they have said, Especially with its leading characters, Namely god and christ, Their quotes/ verses have changed over time. Oh really? Who has the right and or know how to change ANY of god"s language to update it to whatever they felt like and or to amputate it into ---their--- language? Did they consult god and or jesus to see if this was OK? Of course not. And more importantly did they get it right as an updated version to what these characters would say in this day and age, Or even back then when the translations were updated? So once again god if as stated was reasonably intelligent, In which he"s clearly not, Would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible because he would have certainly have foreseen all of these major faults. Oh and btw, Nobody can even prove that this god of the bible exists!

Rules:
Prove that the god of the bible would use text, Namely the bible, As a form of communication. (Hint: think of at least 25 more reasons why he would not)

Only those that think they are christians will be allowed to accept this debate!

Be intelligent. DO NOT INVENT EXCUSES because I will know better and you will thus rightly be insulted with my brand of insults.

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
LuxCoke

Con

The God of the Bible is wise to communicate through written text.

First, My positive argument: Because God said so.

1. I am a Christian. According to the Bible's definition of a Christian, I am a student (disciple) of Christ. I believe what Christ taught. Since Jesus Christ is truly God, His words have ultimate authority. Colossians 1:16-17 reads "For by him all things were created, In heaven and on earth, Visible and invisible, Whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, And in him all things hold together. " Christ is the Creator of everything, Including every fact in existence. And Jesus believed in the supreme authority of the Bible, And thus so do I.

2. The Bible is self-attesting in its authority. The same Spirit of revelation we experience in nature (Romans 1:18-22), Is experienced more loudly and clearly in the words of the Bible (2 Peter 1:19).

3. "The Bible evidences itself to be God's Word by the heavenliness of its doctrine, The unity of its parts, Its power to convert sinners and to edify saints; but the Spirit of God only, Bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in our hearts, Is able fully to persuade us that the Bible is the Word of God. " - Benjamin Keach (1). I would further add that the Bible's inerrancy further evidences itself.

4. The Bible uses claims for itself to be the very word of God in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God". This point is valid and sound, But doesn't offer much explanatory power on its own. I only include this argument because it would be absurd to call something "the Word of God", If it does not claim the same thing for itself.

Second, My negative argument:

>NOTHING established in scripture. . . 0 updates. . .
I don't understand this critique. God spoke clearly and correctly the first time, So there is no need to update.

>There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead languages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trace it back to the original.

There are many translations, But I deny the "translations upon translations" narrative. The vast majority of translations are translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, And Greek manuscripts. The Bible is not a telephone game where the next translation depends on the previous translation. "Ad fontes! "

For the number of copies, This is true, But it does not help your case. There was one original manuscript, Which was probably copied 100 times. Then the original wore out. Then each of those 100 copies were copied 100 times. And thus you might think of this model more like an evolution tree, As opposed to the telephone game. So when we have 10, 000+ manuscripts, And you can determine family trees, Then going back to the original text is not too terribly difficult. Dan Wallace has a good video describing this process, Which is accepted by both Christians and skeptics (2).

Dead languages is irrelevant since we know how to read them.

>So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly.

You would have to know the correct interpretation to say "you are interpreting it falsely". Under my worldview, I can say "you are wrong", Because the Bible is clear.

>Their quotes/ verses have changed over time.

Please give an example.

>Who has the right and or know how to change ANY of god"s language

Nobody! We are in full agreement here! :)


>or to amputate it into ---their--- language? Did they consult god and or jesus to see if this was OK?

We have precedent for doing this because the apostles did the same thing. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, And yet they almost always quote a Greek translation (LXX), And the gift of tongues was given by the Holy Spirit to explain the Scriptures in languages the speaker did not understand. This did not absolutely replace the Hebrew, But it allows for translations to be used in instruction and worship.

>Nobody can even prove that this god of the bible exists!

I cannot prove that God exists in a similar sense that I cannot prove the laws of logic exist. They are fundamental presuppositions. I can only point out that you suppress the truth. You cannot judge God - He will judge you.

-

Sources:
(1) http://www. Reformedreader. Org/ccc/keachcat. Htm Question 5
(2) https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=6lEmch2OAhs
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

Seasoned beatings. Oh whopppss sorry, I meant to say greetings, Yeah that"s it. Sorry. A deliberate miss-steak on my part. Will you never forgive me? I know shoot me with a brick shipyard.

OK I get that you are new at this. So I must let you know right off that bat that youtube links don"t work. You need to provide the text/ name of the video so I and or anyone can copy it into the youtube search engine and thus look the video up via that route. Granted, A few months ago youtube links did work and you could even make the videos be a part of any debate.

ONTO business.

"The God of the Bible is wise to communicate through written text. " Not if he"s reasonably intelligent. So you ultimately proved that your god is a milk dud at best. But then again you cannot even prove that your god exists in which is the presumption that this debate will go by.

"First, My positive argument: Because God said so. " So what? Doesn"t mean that anyone who can out-think your god, Like me and everybody else on the planet has enough brains to not believe is your god "said so" so god didn"t say so.

1. I am a Christian. Absolutely not. We"ll get into that if there"s space in the third RD as it has nothing to do with this debate. Regardless let"s make it simple for now" have you followed your christ and divided your family? Given up ALL of your possessions? Love your enemies? Only a complete basket case, Namely your christ would bark out such ridiculous orders that nobody who is sane can possibly follow. You don"t. To help you out here"s a video for you"
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=x-slAgzJmdU - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?

Btw, I didn"t mention jesus, Who was clearly a false prophet, Which we shall get more in depth with of there"s room in RD3, I mentioned god. "No "god" of the bible would be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication" and jesus was not a god in the first place, But a lowly unproved nothing at best. So we can delete the rest of your paragraph.

"2. The Bible is self-attesting in its authority. " And yet there"s no evidence to support anything that your god in the bible states except for stories. Anybody can make up stories. To prove it, I"m god. Now prove me wrong. So the bible by that standard is false is one reason why your god would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible.

"3. "The Bible evidences"" written by someone who didn"t know any other way, Like you. And btw, Your point is? Still doesn"t prove why your god would ---ever--- be stupid enough to use text. I get it also, So by this person"s word, In which you must follow, You believe that he directly had communication with not only the words of the bible but with god himself - correct? Well meet the prophet from who knows where? So this guy was able to talk directly to god and NO ONE else can/ could? So he MUST be correct and EVERYBODY else is wrong, Especially with their interpretations or should I say misinterpretations - correct?
Let"s see if you can put that statement through to biblical sciences from around the world and see if you can get anywhere close to a consensus. Bet yah, Yah can"t. Not even close. Because if you could it would have been targeted as being truth in which case its not now is it? Nope.

Btw, Let"s make a standing rule and do away with ALL creationists. No exceptions, None. Why? Because they are intelligent. Why? Because they will not put their product, Their god, On trial again. Why? Because they 100% know that they will lose. Why? Because they know that all they have is faith based oriented. They know that faith cannot be proved. Since this is true, Not one court anywhere in this country will accept their case. "Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty and he"s right. So since creationists cannot stand behind their product, In other words something that they cannot prove and they know it, It simply means that they cannot be trusted. So any sources that you have are also invalid for the same reasons.

"4. The Bible uses claims for itself to be the very word of God" Well I"m god. Prove my words to be false.

Second, My negative argument:

>NOTHING established in scripture. . . 0 updates. . .
You don"t understand because to you there"s only one way of correct interpretations - yours. Let"s prove how wrong you are.
* In the Bishop"s bible, The one before the KJV, The word "Tyrant" was used I don"t know how many times (its at least 400 from what completed records show) and then in the KJV that was replaced by "King". WHAT? Tyrant and King are two different and totally apples and oranges with each having totally different meanings.
* In Isaiah 45:7 KJV "I form the light, And create darkness: I make peace, And create evil: I the Lord do all these things. " In the NIV version its "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, The Lord, Do all these things. " In the NLT its "I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, The Lord, Am the one who does these things. The words "evil" and "disaster" and "bad" are completely 3 completely different words that have 0% of nothing to do with each other and completely change the meaning of the verses. With each different verse, The messages are completely different. The synonyms of each word don"t even match.
Those are from English translations only. Think of the total collapse between languages and how mixed upped messages get from language to language in English versions are so screwed up.
There"s a few more examples that I can show you if you want. But I think you get the ide nice---and---crystal---clear.
Your god if reasonably intelligent, In which he"s clearly not according to you, Would have foreseen all of these fatal errors that not only can but do exist throughout text and would have NEVER used text to begin with. This is a duh situation.

So you got your translations ideal completely wrong. Now who"s going to translate it to English, To Swahili, To a children"s version back to the NLT version and then to the Brazilian version and back to those who speak English in Brazil and make sure that the interpretations are correct and sound in which in no possible way are they? Again if your god is reasonably intelligent he would have foreseen though all of these fatalistic errors and NEVER used text, Not for any reason, Not ever.

"For the number of copies, " Its not the "number" of copies. Its the diluted copies upon diluted copies. Got it? "But it does not help your case. " Oh it most certainly does. And its NOT my case to begin with. It is those that can think, Reason, Rationalize, Use common sense, Use logic in which case your god has none in which case you cannot even prove exists in the first place, Once again. "There was one original manuscript, Which was probably copied 100 times. " Really? According to what? You? How would you know? Nice guess. Your word "probably" means that you guess outright and that you don"t have any idea and you know it. I really should end this debate right here and now on those grounds alone. I REALLY HATE IT when people flat out invent excuses for something in which they obviously don"t have the faintest clue as to what they are talking about and yet they pretend that they do and because they don"t they have to invent excuses for it and or flat out lie especially to those that know better. In this case I DON"T know better because there was one original and NOBODY knows how many copies were made, IF ANY. But one thing that is for 100% sure is that nobody from today can trace ANY bible back to the original. So NOBODY knows, And that includes you, If they are interpreting correctly.
Now suppose that there IS AN ORIGINAL that has survived? That makes things even better as to why your god would NEVER use text for any reason" who is going to interpret from this original so that EVERYBODY on the planet gets and or receives the same exact message that the original has delivered? By language barriers alone, This is an impossibility.

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=KVjmdjSsqZ0&t=163s -"Christians don't understand the character of God" | Stefan - Brooklyn, NY | Atheist Experience #668
"If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well. " Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it. " Matt Dillahunty

Surely, Once again YOUR god if reasonably intelligent, And once again in no possible way is he, Would have foreseen this truly bombastic fatalistic error and NEVER used text, Not for any reason whatsoever. Now if you cannot figure this simpleton stuff out, No offense, But something is seriously wrong with you and reread everything that has thus far been printed because we haven"t even begun as to why your god would NEVER use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible.
LuxCoke

Con


I am new to this. This is my second debate, And I only joined a few weeks ago, So I’m still trying to learn formatting. The reason I used a YouTube link is because some example debates used links. In the future, I’ll provide the title of the videos.


>I am a Christian. Absolutely not… it has nothing to do with this debate.


You made this a requirement to debate you, So I assumed it was relevant. What an odd requirement if it’s not relevant. In terms of your essential Christian practices, I have divided from my family, And I love my enemies. I have given up all my possessions in the sense that I recognize that they are only to be used in a way that glorifies God. This does not necessarily mean that I sell everything. It could in some cases, And it certainly did in the case of the man in Matthew 9:21. This is a command for the particular person Jesus was speaking to because his wealth was an idol. If we are not willing to give up our idols, Then we cannot be his disciples.


> jesus was not a god in the first place, But a lowly unproved nothing at best.


“For in Him[Christ] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).


>To prove it, I"m god. Now prove me wrong.


Numbers 23:19 says that God cannot lie. Yet you have lied when you said “God is stupid”. Your authority is not self-attesting because you are not the Creator and Sustainer of all things. You are not Ultimate. And you admit that you are not self-attesting because you ask for proof.


>So this guy was able to talk directly to god and NO ONE else can/ could?


No, There were other prophets.


>So he MUST be correct and EVERYBODY else is wrong, Especially with their interpretations or should I say misinterpretations - correct?


The writers of Scripture were in full agreement with each other. As non-inspired readers, We can be wrong about some interpretations of the Bible, But not on the fundamentals. If we were debating Baptism, Then my view could be wrong. But I cannot be wrong when I say “God exists” or “Jesus is risen”. Also, Majority opinion does not determine truth. In fact, In a world where everyone is a sinner, With many false converts, We should expect wolves to disagree on essential Christian doctrine.


>do away with ALL creationists.


How about do away with all evolutionists? If evolution is true, Then we evolved to survive. Our mental capacities have only developed this far so that we have the best opportunity to survive and pass on our genes. They did not evolve so that we would receive maximum truth, Only that we would survive. If survival means filling your heard with many lies, Then evolution will allow for this. So, If evolution were true, Then you have no reason to believe it’s true, Since your brain did not evolve with that intention. BUT if creationism is true, Then we have sufficient reason to believe that God created us in the Image of God, Thus endowing us with reliable cognitive faculties. So we have good reason to believe our logic and say “evolution is false”.


>They will not put…God on trial


God is not on trial. You are.


>Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence… So any sources that you have are also invalid for the same reasons.


So, You’re saying that you a priori reject my reasonings? Sounds like you have a lot of faith.


>Tyrant and King are two different and totally apples and oranges with each having totally different meanings.


Same denotation, Different connotation. Maybe that’s why they changed the word – because the connotation of “Tyrant” became negative in English usage over time.


>he words "evil" and "disaster" and "bad" are completely 3 completely different words that have 0% of nothing to do with each other and completely change the meaning of the verses.


They’re actually pretty similar, And most fair readers would agree. That being said, The Hebrew is less technical on this word. I am fine with any of these words being used. But this is a good example of how Christians should devote themselves to studying the original languages.


>make sure that the interpretations are correct and sound in which in no possible way are they?


There are many Bible translation ministries like Wycliffe Bible Translators which do a very good job. They don’t do guess-work.


> I really should end this debate right here and now on those grounds alone.


I think you should hold yourself to the exact same standard you are holding me to. For example, You said we can’t know “IF ANY” copies were made. This is really an absurd statement. If we know that some copies of copies of copies exist, Then this would presuppose a copy of a copy, Which would presuppose a copy, Presupposing an original. How can we have an effect without a cause?


The reason that this number was not made up is because we have 1st and 2nd Generation Christians quoting New Testament Scripture at length from all over. The only way this could have happened is if a high number of copies were made and distributed.


No original manuscript survives, But we have a family tree of wealth of manuscripts, So that we can reconstruct the original. Again, Atheists accept this method of textual criticism.


>Aron Ra


We can easily distinguish between the God of Israel and God’s law. Biblical slavery (neither promoted nor abolished) is not the same as 19th Century American slavery. We can easily distinguish metaphor and fact. It’s like other collections of literature in which genre and context makes interpretation clear.


-


Can we tone down of the blasphemy and insults please?


Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

backwardseden forfeited this round.
LuxCoke

Con

LuxCoke forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Well then if its they that's wrong then the entire text is wrong. And it is.

Some of my debates are copies of debates I've previously used. Most are not though.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
dsjpk5 is biased and racist against everybody. Not just me. He always takes a so-called "christian" side no matter what. No matter how badly the other side is completely walloped, He will always take a so-called christian side.

Rules of conduct are pretty pathetic here because they should not define a debate especially when the worst of the worst, Trump, Gets away with it.

"Is a debate to lay out a logical argument? To convince your opponent? The audience? Yourself? " Its all, Yes. However it is mainly to reach the audience I agree. Ehhh voters, Screw them. Who really cares when it gets down to it. Why? There's simply not enough of them to really care. I've never seen more than 3 votes on my debates. So that doesn't count. Now if I'm looking at something like 25, Sure. 3, No. Also to me debating isn't about winning the debate in voters eyes especially in the voter's eyes when this site is dominated by so-called christians. Bias. I heard its something like 75%. So its automatically an uphill climb.

Yep. I was forced to go to temple as a youngun. Bar mitzvah as a youngun by my millionaire father when he invited his millionaire friends over just so they could buy me some nice little gifts. I hated it. My brother lavished in it. REading the bible/ torah turns more people into atheists than for any other reason. Now my entire family is atheists even though I don't talk to any of them and neither would you if what happened to me were to have happened to you.

My father was jewish. Sure we practiced the holidays. My mother was christian. Yes, Sacrilege. But that's basically it for my religious upbringing. I became an atheist at 14 when my so-called christian friends had their bible's and I had my English speaking torah and we were comparing them. We noticed that the book of Ruth was out of chronological order. They thought they were so smug and smart. We took it to their pastor. He said "Well maybe its us that's wrong". BANG!
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Not a staff member.
Admittedly dsjpk5 does seem biased against you.
I imagine we have conduct rules same reason we have other debate rules such as reason for decision. DDO wanted it that way, And probably items such as those are common for debates.

Is a debate to lay out a logical argument? To convince your opponent? The audience? Yourself?
Personally I'd say the audience, Which can be just yourself or your opponent, But more often actual 'other people. Logical argument is just a good way to go about doing that. Even if the voters can't state a logical reason for why they voted for someone, They can be convinced anyway. But eh, The rules don't really bother me since it's possible to preface your debates to skirt them.

For the Bible my knowledge is roughshod. More than because I think it's in the Bible I consider that whole love your enemy stick a positive stick due to my parents influence. Same with the whole burning in hell thing, My mother considers herself a Christian, Reads her Bible and all, Doesn't believe in it and didn't teach her kids to believe in it. So really when I did believe in the Bible in the past I just had a vague notion that people went somewhere else, Not that they were tortured horribly for eternity. Though I suppose some people are their own torture.

While I'm sure there are arguments that this means my mother isn't really a Christian and that I wasn't back then, I don't particularity care to debate them.

It is a rather impressive number of debates for the time that you've been on DDO.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Are you a staff member of DDO? The way your most recent post is written it does seem like it?

Now my opponent did state to me that this was only his second debate. So he probably doesn't know how DDO functions. Hey, I didn't when I first got started. I also lost my first debate when I shouldn't have because I didn't know that everything was required to be squashed within a limited character arena in which I do find ridiculous. I also didn't know that conduct is part of the voting process in which is quite absurd and my conduct was just fine anyway. Hers was not. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference to Trump, Easily the worst president of all time, So why should it here especially when someone doesn't know what he is talking about and yet he pretends that he does and since he doesn't he has to invent excuses for it, And or flat out lie in which is so ridiculously obvious = bad idea. Then its insult time. And my insults are funny, Original, And never meant to cause harm in the first place. LAUGH! OIr if someone says something completely stupid I may abandon the debate entirely and I do let the opponent know this and the why also.

Also in case you haven't noticed, I've lost at least 40 of my debates to dsjpk5 who would always vote the same exact same way every---single---time---on them. He does the same thing to others also. Its simple, He's racist and amazingly biased.

Well does the bible offer "love"? I can't think of one single story that is "love" from the OT. In the NT, Possibly. But let's be honest here, The NT is far far far worse than the OT. You've got the concept of hell, Sinning runs rampant, A world war, A false messiah, Etc etc etc

Well gtg please always tc and have fun
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
rson dislikes the Bible.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
I'd rather not argue his argument for him. Or the Bible in general, Main reason is the conversation would branch out life a family tree with every little thing being worthy of a long discussion/debate. I don't have quite enough interest at the moment for that. It's so rare for people to agree that they lost a debate (Not saying that you have lost in this debate)

I did notice that you had put your round in the comments. But I'm not sure that it was clear to Con to continue debating in the comments, So I just ignored that round for voting purposes. ThebelowishowIthoughtaboutvoteingsodar

Start
I'm not marking conduct point for round forfeit due to Pro saying in comments that DDO would not let him post it. It is true that DDO lately has seemed to really hate some arguments recently.
Pro did pretty much give himself a blank check to insult the other person if they disagree with him so no loss of conduct here unfortunately. Though his insults still take a bit away from him making a better argument in my eyes. If an argument is disrespectful, Insulting, It takes a bit away from it's credibility.
End

I haven't thought about how I might vote for the debate in depth. I don't really enjoy long extensive well thought out debates. It's irritating trying to weight every little thing each person says, Especially then there're so much of it.

Most likely I won't vote on this debate, Due to laziness. I 'think I've only voted on two of your debates, And only because your opponents involved asked me to. Ironically both times I voted against them. Though I think the two times I voted against due to them not really following the rules of your debates or something.

For love I mean even evil people or people who commit wrongs, Not saying in that sentence I love the Bible stories. And courage was more just a comparison with love rather than me trying to talk about courage in the Bible.

I'm sure the Bible does have a lot of information, And much to complain about if a pe
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Nope. Con did a deplorable job because he's trying to defend text as a source of communication when in fact if god is a god he would not be stupid enough not ever to use text as a form of communication, Not ever, Not for any reason. Did you manage to read what I posted here in the posts because DDO would not accept my argument for RD3? If not, Please do so as it is posted in the posts a week ago.

OK "Honestly I thought Con made a rather good argument for people being able to go back previous translation and use education to understand the Bible and other religious writings more accurately. " Think about that for a second. There's at least 3 major fallacies with that. 1. Who's going to do the translations to make sure that they are done properly? 2. From what source? There is no original source to begin with. 3. Say that 1 and 2 manage to get the workings all said and done, Who is going to read these interpretations and get the same exact message in every single language? That's an impossibility. A true god would have foreseen all of this crap and foregone text immediately. There are over 100 reasons why this so-called god would ---never---use text as a form of communication.

Sure love them all you want, They're stories without proof. Nothing more. They're stories that are filled with scientific hairbrained lunacy and things that could never happen, Hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies that number to at least 1, 000 thus making the bible truly unreadable.

That is it, People do find this so-called love - yeah in deliberate mass extinction/ genocide and many deliberate genocides at that.
Another problem is that even when shown point blank that "here this is exactly what your bible says", People still don't believe it. They instead invent excuses for something in which they know nothing about.
Yeah people get brave through the bible, When its actually destructive. If only they would actually read it.

Wasn't TRUMPMEGAMCDONALD a true piece of B
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
If I'm ever feeling in a anti religious researching mood, I will look him and the video up.

Honestly I thought Con made a rather good argument for people being able to go back previous translation and use education to understand the Bible and other religious writings more accurately.

True there's no perfect consensus, But that is a reality in a world of individuals. Still they often agree on main points or random points here and there. In religion or science.

Should we love them? Honestly, I think yes. Not sure how human it is to be 'able to do that though.
Still. . . . It's easy to brave when you are strong
Easy to love when there is strong connection
Yet bravery is at it's most commendable when one is weak yet manages to overcomes their greatest fears.
So too with love, When one is able to overcome hatred and all the obstacles that stand between recognizing another as human and being able to show empathy.
(Maybe, Or something along those lines)

Ech, I'd forgotten about that TRUMPMEGAMCDONALD guy. Unpleasent yes.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
I've got other quotes of his to be sure. But hopefully, That clears up a lot of the immorality as far as the bible is concerned.
No, I do not worship the guy. However people do worship christ and yet there's no proof, None for a sliver of his existence. Also with the barrage of telescoping of languages, By that measure alone and translations after translations upon copies upon copies with dead languages upon dead languages with a 0% chance of being able to trace back to any original. . . Sorry NOBODY, Not one person is interpreting correctly. Not you, Not the pope, No minister, No priest, No pastor, No-bo-dy.

Love your enemies is a horrific nonsense phrase. Watch this video. It will clear things up and then some. . .
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=vkXOwBIRX7Y&t=123s - top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive
You are also forgetting that there are many phrases in which this partakes in the bible. It isn't just one. Of course there isn't a consensus. That's the problem with christianity is there's no consensus. If you god from church to church, Oh say 10 within a 20 mile radius, You will probably find 7 do not have a consensus where you most certainly would expect that there should be one. Back to the "love your enemies" Hmm should we "really" love N. Korea and Putin? Should we "really" love those that chop up our children, Torture them, Rape, Them? This is exactly what this completely insane jesus BARKS and ORDERS in the bible.

Oh I agree with that, To try to do good100%. God didn't. Christ didn't. All but the precious few atheists get that. Its usually the teeny boppers that are so easily suckered in. Its because they have such low self esteem and are seeking something else.

A few months ago there was a true maggot named TRUMPMEGAMCDONALD and he would only do one RD. All of his miserable debates were about raping young 4 year old girls and him loving it. The teens would flock to him. DDO did NOTHING about it. I've seen this first hand through another.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
"The simple solution is to chuck the bible out because we don"t need it for anything, Even if there are things in it which there undoubtedly are, Even if there are things that are good which there undoubtedly are" they"re not good because they"re in the bible, They"re not good because they come from a god, They are good because they are good, And they are something that we can discover without ever having to appeal to an old book and without having to tap dance around and sacrifice our humanity to make excuses about how we treat rape victims, And how we own people as property, And how there"s some "GRAND CONTEXT" in which all of this isn"t very bad. You have sacrificed your humanity for genuflecting to your religion. And its abominable. " Matt Dillahunty

"Stop making excuses for your holy book. It is an abomination. It encourages abomination. And the more you sacrifice your humanity and morality to make excuses like "well god really wanted people to love each other but they just wouldn"t so they just wanted to nudge them in the right direction by saying you can own people but don"t beat them too damn much. " Its still a weaka$$ immoral god. And YOU are better than that. Stop making excuses for the immorality. Take responsibility for your life and realize that if a GOD tells you that you can own somebody, That GOD is a piece of s--t. " Matt Dillahunty

Here's his best one that NOBODY seems to get. . .
"Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn"t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can"t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, The most important truth your"re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence? " Matt Dillahunty
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.