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

The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7/29/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,708 times Debate No: 116986
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

The god of the bible would not be stupid enough, Nor dumb enough, Not ever, To use text as a form of communication to god.
(Taken from Dossier of Reason and it only covers a minute portion as to why YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible) Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, And how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, Some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2, 251 languages, Representing 193 million people, Lack a Bible translation.

Of course there will be A LOT more thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense, Logic reasons why this god of the bible would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible, In later rounds.

RULES: Prove that the god of the bible would use text as a form of communication to god.

(A little hint: If you do not see the comedy of errors as to why this jungle brat god would never use text as a form of communication, Well let's put it this way, Not be intelligent to not use text ---ever---, Then you are blind behind the mirrors within your eyes)

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

Con

Well there's not much else to use. Unless he wanted to give a sign from above to people every time he wanted them to understand something.

The bible may or not be based upon the actual words of god, And you're right that regardless some amount of meaning will be lost in the translations.

But god can get someone to understand something without using direct and exact words. He doesn't ever use direct and exact words, As far as I know, Apart from what the bible says. Communication could happen when a person in conversation drops a line that has a special significance to the other, Or when someone opens a fortune cookie to find an answer, Or when one flips to a random page in the bible and pokes their finger down randomly, Reading the verse it landed on. Or it could be that as you read the bible, A verse answers your questions. Shaped symbols are as good for sending a message as anything else in the physical world.

I've never had any of those happen to me. I don't know how communication by god even works, Because I've never had a miraculous incident happen to me. I've never had anything that jumped out at me and said "this is too much of a coincidence" or even "this is pretty convenient". I don't know whether god would NOT communicate through written language. I don't know what the real way he does things is. But I wouldn't rule textual language out as an answer just because it's impossible to communicate straight. God can make miracles happen, And it would not be beyond him to arrange things so the right translation goes to the right person.

The original meaning doesn't matter anymore if it's lost to time. What should matter is the meaning a person ends up reading and remembering, And thinking about.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

"Unless he wanted to give a sign from above to people every time he wanted them to understand something. " Wow. You are the only person who has solved this debate out of the 15 times or more that I have run this. Yep, God if god would never use text, Not ever, As a source of communication, The worst form of communication possible. Especially for man to foul up this superior ego god complex in which the bible is entirely about and nothing else with translation after translation after copy after copy after dead language after dead language and that's only for beginners. And especially to god, In which nobody can even prove even exists, He'd want his ego to be blabbed all across the universe without any mistakes that text would most certainly not accomplish. Certainly god if a god would have foreseen this and avoided text because of this flubbing. This god character can simply talk to us. The bible, Text, Is not evidence of any kind. So nothing more need be said. And nothing more on my part needs to be presented as to why (and there's really so so so much more) god would never use text as a form of communication. I'll save it for when I shall fire up this debate again sometime in the near future. Again, I congratulate you for getting it right! Its really not that hard to think about once somebody gets that "ah ha moment" that is really nothing more that a little bit of thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense and logic. Please tc and have fun!
Xiutecuhtli

Con

Your tone through all of this is condescending, Like you're the teacher here, Congratulating me and saying I had an "ah ha moment", And pretending I finally came around to the side of "thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense and logic. "
It's hard to understand most of your argument because the sentence structure and capitalization is all over the place, But I think I'm getting a subtext of sarcasm?
This sort of thing is more like fighting than arguing, And I'm not here to fight. If I shout insults back, You'll close your mind even more, And no person with something true to say can change your mind when you're like that.

Did you read at all past the line where I said the only other alternative was divine signs every time he wanted to communicate? That was the only thing you mentioned from my side of the argument, And that was supposed to be something he obviously WOULDN'T do. I was being facetious (sarcastic). Maybe my argument is as hard for you to understand as yours is for me? At least I got the general idea; you did not.

"And especially to god, In which nobody can even prove even exists. . . "
You can't prove anything exists.
Isn't this supposed to be a hypothetical argument? It's about whether he MIGHT use it, Not whether he DOES.
I think what you're really trying to do here is find a contradiction in what Christianity says, And we can debate about that if you want to do that instead.

My argument:
I don't belong to a church, I only USED to, So I'm kind of at a disadvantage because I don't know all the details about what the bible says god is supposed to be. The only information I have is that god is supposed to be perfectly powerful, Smart, And good, And that god is supposed to have created everything. If god is perfectly powerful and smart, He can find or MAKE a way to use text as good communication.

Even if the translations scramble the original message, A person can read a new translation and the words could tell them exactly what they NEED to read. God should be able to work with coincidences that way with the bible, Or with a horoscope page, Or a fortune cookie. You could open a fortune cookie and take out the message: "Time heals all wounds" or something like that, And it will turn out to be the answer to one of your big problems.

I don't think that the history part of the bible is trustworthy at all anymore, But there are some good moral stories in the bible (and some bad ones, So you have to use common sense for which ones you should follow).
You're right that a lot of the bible says things that make god seem all superior, Vengeful, And petty. I don't trust those parts at all, Which means I can't trust any of the good-seeming parts either, Since they could be wrong too. But the tortoise and the hare was totally wrong, And it gave a good lesson.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

If my tone is condescending, Oh well it how I talk. And I"m not going to change for you or anyone. If you don"t like my praise towards you, That"s entirely your problem.

"It's hard to understand most of your argument because the sentence structure and capitalization is all over the place, " Now I don"t get why my argument has capitalizations all over the place, But it seem like after ANYONE uses a comma, Right after that comma there are now capital letters. Go figure. Also debate. Org has completely done away with anybody and everybody using youtube videos as any kind of a link. When somebody saves it to their arguments or posts, The codes to the videos are somehow altered so that the videos become worthless. As far as someone using links, Well if you notice, Those generally don"t work either as when saved to arguments or posts they are separated from their structure so the only way that they can be used is if someone were to copy and paste those links into google or yahoo or wherever. Its like debate. Org has spat on its users who want to use outside information as evidence to help support their case rather than having that person type out 50, 000 characters, A complete and useless way of running things because NO ONE processes that information in comparison to watching a 10 or even 20 minute video. I personally have very bad hands and cannot type much, And may one day say f--k it.

Regardless, To nearly 100% of everyone I debate with, I am the teacher, Just like to nearly everyone who makes the attempts to debate with me, They think they are the teacher. That"s---what---a---debate---is. However, Usually and I"d say a good 90% of the time or more, When someone tries to debate with me they invent these excuses form something in which they clearly know nothing about for a subject in which they profess to having knowledge upon and they really don"t. And since they don"t they have to pretend that they do and thus invent excuses for it. BAD IDEA. Especially for someone who knows better. And believe me, I do know better, A lot better. These people are so ridiculously easy to spot. And many, If not most also have no genuine friends or loved ones in which is a HUGE red flag. PrimeministerJoshua812 is absolutely 100% guilty of this. Not only that but he"s been caught of flat out lying. He knows it. I truly hate that.

Did you read at all past the line where I said the only other alternative was divine signs every time he wanted to communicate? I did but perhaps what you don"t get is that it wasn"t needed nor was it required.

"You can't prove anything exists. " Sure you can through mathematical equations. They after all are the only facts that there are. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak. God (and I always use that name with a small "g" yet now everty single time that I type that thing"s name it gets capitalized. Wow what a gross disconfigurization. ) no matter which language you speak can always be disproved. Not only that but according to Stephen Hawking (perhaps the smartest person who has ever lived) and his colleague, They have come up with and equation showing that something does come from nothing. In other words, God was not needed to have created the known universe.

"Isn't this supposed to be a hypothetical argument? " You don"t get that its not an argument. I laid down my sword.

"It's about whether he MIGHT use it, " Well you nor anyone can think of any reason, Not one, Why god would ---ever--- use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible.
Alright I guess you want more reasons as to why this god of YOURS would ---never--- use text as a form of communication. Wow.
NOTHING is established in scripture so everybody can get it wrong as there"s 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 langanguages 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. 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 knowhow 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 consulte 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? 100% certainly not. So once again god if as stated was reasonably intelligent 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.
* In the Bishop"s bible, The one before the KJV, The word "Tyrant" was used I don"t know how many times 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. " The words "evil" and "disaster" are completely 2 different things and words and have 0% of anything to do with each other and completely change the meaning.
* Even worse who is the arrogant a$$ that changed what his god had said and it happens constantly throughout the bible? Now since these changes are made it means that if it happens once, It going to happen twice and if its going to happen twice its going to happen four times which means its going to happen eight times which means its going to happen sixteen times which means its going to happen thirty-two times and on and on, Thus meaning that whatever version is read is a convoluted mess, Because after all there"s no original version to compare any version to. And even if there was an original, What idiot is going to interpret so that ALL, Each and every person on earth is going to understand it? Text is the worst form of communication to god, And of god is even remotely intelligent, In which he is clearly not, He would have foreseen though all of this bile and corrected it and simply not used text with all the mistakes that abound.
JG 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, Because they had chariots of iron. "
(tee hee THAT'S REALLY way beyond silly. So this is how I will defeat/ set up a defense against your god is if I have iron chariots. And all the nuclear bombs on earth and all the supernovas and all gamma ray bursts IN THE UNIVERSE EVER will not be a defense and not be able to defeat god, But alas, According to the schizophrenic of unsound mind in whoever wrote the damn thing bible *take a breath please* iron chariots will. Again this is proof as to why your god would never rely on text as as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible because of utterly silly verses like these that DO PROVE your god is NOT omnipotent and yet YOU in being the uttery imbecile that you are, In continually being proven wrong, You still search for truth in your bible. Now why is that when you haven"t proven one god damned thing? )
* GE 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
"20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, And because their sin is very grievous; 21 I will go down now, And see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, Which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. "
(Since god didn't know what was going on according to VS 21, It means he's imperfect and not omnipotent which is yet another reason why this god of yours would ---never--- rely on text as a source of communication, The worst form of communication possible. Especially to prove himself false)

"The only information I have is that god is supposed to be perfectly powerful, Smart, And good, And that god is supposed to have created everything. If god is perfectly powerful and smart, " Then wow to a 0% of nothing, You know nothing about this supposed god. Thank god. If you were to even have read the smallest amount of the bible you would find out the exact opposite. I'm sure you know about the great flood - correct? The deliberate genocide of every single living thing except for two of everything. This wonderful god murdered babies, Children and pregnant mothers. He would have had to. He drowned and suffocated them. Babies still suckling on their mothers nipples. I mean I can show you A LOT more if you want. "He can find or MAKE a way to use text as good communication. " To who? And then you have to ask why? Especially if"

"Unless he wanted to give a sign from above to people every time he wanted them to understand something. " With text you get pages torn, Languages that die out, Copies upon copies, Translations upon translations, Generation gaps unfulfilled, Instructions that people did no get from god - unless they were perfect - well the bible isn"t perfect. In fact its far from it. We"ve seen that. Etc etc etc So this god character, Do you really think for a trillionth of a second he"d EVER want to use text to spread his word unless he"s a complete dick and likes to spread false information and play children"s games? Now which do you think would be better? That's why I stopped after your first sentence. The answer is point blank obvious.

I"m out of space. And I still haven't covered everything as to why god would ---never--- use text.
Xiutecuhtli

Con

I see a lot of insults, And I don't see how those will get you the win in this debate. You call them parts of "your writing language", But the language looks more like evidence of emotional bias. "I laid down my sword" is not quite true, Yet.

You only apply the insulting "stylistic phrasing" to your opponents' views, And the opponents themselves (Ad hominem attacks, Such as your allegation that PrimeministerJoshua812 has no friends. It's my turn to say that "they invent these excuses form something in which they clearly know nothing about for a subject in which they profess to having knowledge upon and they really don"t. [. . . ] BAD IDEA. Especially for someone who knows better. And believe me, I do know better, A lot better. These people are so ridiculously easy to spot. " Laid down your sword indeed! ).
I don't think any English teacher will buy your excuse about "writing style" when it refers to the typos you make, Either. (There are typos not caused by debate. Org, Mainly grammar and repeating the same idea twice accidentally, As you can see from the quote I used above; also spelling mistakes such as "form". All of these mistakes are not intentionally made, But you intentionally don't attempt to improve your writing in that respect, So they are still your fault).

If "[you aren't] gonna change for [me] or anyone else" then that only means you won't learn from your opponents' perspectives. You'll stay limited to what you can discover by yourself, Which is less than what you can discover with your own AND another's discoveries. If you are content to a lesser state of mind, Then you have no reason to look down on my point of view. Maybe you should "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye": a quote from the bible, Which communicates a second point as well: That someone with an eye for the good lessons of the bible can learn from it. Looking for incriminating and/or contradictory evidence in the text only points out more clearly that the text is no longer a reliable source of facts about history. It's important that one realizes that a bible is for moral guidance, Not archaeology.

I will disregard the meaningless name-calling and and insults, If you won't leave them out. Or rather, "I [will read them] but perhaps what you don't get is that [they aren't] needed nor [are they] required. " (If you are unaware, Brackets can be used to modify tenses or the singular/plural of words within quotes, But should not change the message of the statement).
A debate is where people can get to the bottom of a conflict of ideas civilly. "That's---what---a---debate---is. " The debate is not about teaching; it is about learning, Because teaching is about learning. People could think they are the teachers of a brick wall, But that won't be a debate because the brick wall won't learn, And it won't make the other people learn. If the brick wall had a meaningful perspective it could contribute, And it could receive the people's perspectives, Then it could debate with those people. Learning is the essential part of a debate. When one quits learning and starts name-calling and insulting, It becomes a fight, Instead of a debate, Which is why I believe that you should make an attempt to act civilly in this debate website, Unless you'd rather speak for fighting's sake than for intelligence's. Our audience, Voters or not, Will, I hope, Prefer the latter approach.

-
The above will help us communicate more easily with one another, If you will agree to accept a good idea when it isn't your own. However, If you will still close your mind to it, I will push on in the hope that other, Open minds will appreciate the ideas below.
-

Religion is not completely defined by the text it draws from. Multiple branches exist which draw from the same material. These branches are distinguished by their core teachings and practices, Which could not be based entirely on the bible or else they would not differ. Preachers are considered reliable sources as well as the bible. They may not be well-versed in history or science or other school-related skills (or, As the case may be, They might be well-versed), But they are almost certainly well-versed in morals. That is what religion is about. God therefore is not described solely by a text which we have both established is unreliable in regards to history.

To address your statement that you can prove things with logic:
Logic is self-referential because people can only conceive of things that make sense under current logic principles. They can't conceive of logic being any other way. If logic was not the way it happens to be now, People would support that different set of rules as logical, Because it was the way things were, And those people would think it could never be different. If logic happened to be a third way, People would support that third way, And would not believe the rules could be any different. People always only understand the logic that currently applies to them, But if different logic could apply, The logic is not fundamental. If two plus two happened to equal five, You would then support that statement as a proven by equations instead of "2 + 2 = 4". "2 + 2 = 4" is not necessarily true; it is only true when logic supporting it is in place. One cannot determine how likely one set of logical rules is over another; one can only know about the current set of logical rules. They could just as easily be otherwise; nobody knows whether the logical principles were required for existence or if existence could have occurred under other principles, Or even under nonsensical ones. "2 + 2 = 4" or any other statement might therefore seem indisputable, But that's only according to logic, Which is consistent throughout the current state of the universe, But not necessarily to any other universe which might exist, Nor to the background in which universes exist, Nor to the options god had in mind for the logic of the universe.
There is another reason one cannot know that "2 + 2 = 4" is an unchanging principle: Rene Descartes' Evil Demon thought experiment. Descartes presented the hypothetical situation in which an evil demon of utmost power and cunning employed all his energies to deceive a man. The man would have no means by which to verify that 2 + 2 really equaled 4 because the demon could cause the man to perceive that "2 + 2 = 4" is proven by mathematical equations when it isn't in the REAL world. Even if it wouldn't seem make sense as any other number, The demon could be altering the man's mind so that he could not conceive of "2 + 2 = 4" being incorrect. When the Evil Demon circumstance has a real chance of happening to a person, The person cannot know anything is really true, Untrue, Or real. Solipsism becomes that person's reality.

Furthermore:
The question "Would the god of the bible ever use text as a form of communication? " must logically be answered by YES, The CON (my own) side of the debate question (since you included "never" in your question), Regardless of whether one takes my point of view or yours, Because:

If your point of view is correct, And god possesses very negative characteristics, He would be very rash; enough to do something you perceive to be a foolish mistake: use text as a form of communication.

If my point of view is correct, And god possesses very positive characteristics, He would be wise and powerful enough to use text successfully, Despite the difficulties, As a form of communication.

For the underlying debate behind the question asked; to support either yours or my own overall perspective:
I believe text is a good form of communication for morals, Which are more significant to people's decisions and to god than the history of the Israelites. Even if the translations go wrong, God could cause the right verse to be read by the right person at the right time, Causing good things to happen. It therefore can communicate moral messages, Which are under his power, To people.

"Well you nor anyone can think of any reason, Not one, Why god would ---ever--- use text as a form of communication" -Your argument, Round 3-
To communicate morals to people. One reason he doesn't show his full glory to people when he wishes to communicate is that he wants people to determine things for themselves. If he showed himself to everyone and made them all know exactly what they must do, It wouldn't test the people at all. That's why people can think on their own, And that's why the bible has messages in multiple directions. One can intuit from the bible that certain destructive acts, Attributed to god, Must be correct. However, One can also find verses condemning those acts. It's not a good source of what historically happened (we both stated it was unreliable due to retranslation) so the conflict is not a disproof of god, Only of the accuracy of the bible as a source (it should be disproven; it is not an accurate source). The morals go in both ways because the bible is not meant to just GIVE people the correct answers. It contains correct answers and incorrect answers, Like a multiple choice question.

One can approach perfection without using the bible or a religion at all if one has the moral judgment to find what is truly right on one's own. Those who support science or a different religion can achieve moral character just as easily as those who are Christian. A religion, Dedicated to determining what is right and wrong, Is usually a good aid to moral character, But so is any philosophical group; any group which actively tries to figure out what is right or wrong is more likely to find and follow the right.

Religions (or any other moral guide books or groups) are like tutors. They're not meant to do your homework FOR you or give all of the answers to you as you do it, But they will help you understand, Walking you through some problems and letting you solve some on your own, So you can learn.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

I"ve ignored ALL of your pompous la la laaing doo ha"s above nothingness of aberrations dancing foods generation A+ - decades of oofing at a nuns pep rally so whatever is said during a concrete parachuting class is kept secret while phony rubbers are stretched to their limits to find out if democracy is actually true or false because that"s the way a dead presidents ghost wants it.

"A debate is where people can get to the bottom of a conflict of ideas civilly. " Oh really? According to what generation of lost gold pain in the you know where areas sprouting genes for the new bionic woman so she can save her face from a black mold transplant is this true? Have YOU ever seen a live debate, Especially ANY debate with Trump where he gets humiliated because he"s the worst president of all time and the maggot is pressed against the wall so naturally he loses his cool? Nearly ALL live debates when someone is backed into a corner and they don"t have the answers, They almost ---always--- lose their cool. However what I do is when someone doesn"t have the answers, Like you don"t, Is I spitfire insults across the board as it is my right. Yeah that"s taught in college. Also its taught in college I can leave. Also it taught in college that if you cannot back up what you say with evidence for something in which you know nothing about for something you claim to having knowledge upon and you really don"t and yet you pretend that you do and you then thus make excuses for it, Bad idea, Especially to someone who knows better, And believe me I do know better. Wow. You know something? I never get involved with something that I know nothing about. That"s also taught in college. Why? Because of so, Then your friends and loved ones, Well you will soon have no friends or loved ones. And if you do that crap to your teachers = instant F. No exceptions. None. Oh wait. Darn it. I repeated myself. Gee.

So why earth should I deal with what you are saying? After all in no possible way have you dealt with the topic AT ALL as to why "The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god". With the "RULES: Prove that the god of the bible would use text as a form of communication to god. " No you just do whatever YOU want.

Of course the idea of god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication is not my idea. Its been well thought out throughout history. Wow. Did you think up that one on your own especially when in the first round I used The Dossier of Reason? And I ---always--- see, Now you are infuriating me and really p**sing me off because you clearly do not pay any attention, None, Just like the typical christian, To any evidence that is put forth unto you "If you will agree to accept a good idea when it isn't your own. " I do that all---the---time. Not only that but I ---always--- when I use others ideas I state where they came from.

"Religion is not completely defined by the text it draws from. " We"ll eliminate that ideal because its clearly YOUR ideal because no one of merit will agree with it. Why? Because what you are stating is "memory". Memory is ---always--- unreliable. Here"s an experiment for you to try" Get 9 people at a circular table. You whisper into the first person"s ear 5 sentences - something like "Its a great day this morning. I forgot to brush my teeth. I need to stop at the gas station al get some gas. I will use my credit card. Damn I don"t think I will have time to get some breakfast. " And then you whisper those 5 sentences into the first person"s ear. Then the second person makes the attempt to whisper those same 5 sentences into the third person"s ear and so on. By the time it gets back to you those sentences are so garbled and misconstrued that the original 5 sentences have completely changed. TRY IT. Better yet put god on trial again. Its the failure of faith and memory. Text goes bye bye.

"Multiple branches exist which draw from the same material. " Really? According to what? You? How would you know? I really love it when prefabricated Fido"s like you invent excuses clearly from something in which they know nothing about. Also what you are saying is that everybody, Preachers mainly, Well who are they and what do they teach exactly? See that"s the problem going from church to church is that there"s no consensus. See YOU just made up a monstrous fib from something in which YOU clearly know absolutely nothing about.
"If you try to get clarification, If you try to get what the christian orthodox view is on the law, You're not going to find consensus. You"re not going to find christians "oh here"s what christians think about" they"re all going to have this concept of this different thing now. But as far as it applies and why and what to do with it, They"re all different. Its going to be a hard argument because most have different ideas about it and most are going to change their ideas and start tweeking them as soon as they have to start answering questions because they haven"t looked into it before most of them. " Tracie Harris

"If I were you I would treat this as an exercise in understanding the whole of the fabric of societies. So maybe go ahead and talk to your pastor and don"t go in with an agenda. Go in and just interact and interview him and find out interesting things. And find out points where you agree and disagree. And then do the same thing with somebody else. Go to your local synagogue and ask them about judaism. Look up as many denominations as you can and have a chat with people. And I think what you"ll find over time is that everybody is convinced that they know the absolute truth. And everybody has wildly different opinions about what that is. " Russell Glasser

"Religious leaders are not trained in any sort of objective information. They are very well trained in is backtalk. So they might be good at making superficially convincing cases. " Russell Glasser

"To address your statement that you can prove things with logic:" Well see that"s not my ideal at all, That comes directly from Stephen Hawking. But I shall read what you have to say. I mean gee whiz. You must think you have more to say than he.

"To address your statement that you can prove things with logic:" Still with all that neurotic erotic babbling no matter which language you speak its 2 + 2 = 4. And no matter which language you speak, God can always be disproved.

"Furthermore:
The question "Would the god of the bible ever use text as a form of communication? " Must logically be answered by "no".

"If your point of view is correct, " Its not just "my" viewpoint (Oh wait you used a comma there son so wow and you used plenty of others and thus followed a capital letter with the next word "But you intentionally don't attempt to improve your writing in that respect, So they are still your fault ideal so you are a very bad bad bad truly contradictory hypocritical naughty boy)

"If my point of view is correct, And god possesses very positive characteristics, He would be wise and powerful enough to use text successfully, Despite the difficulties, As a form of communication. " Notice the first word you used was "if"? So you don't know. You guess. Yep I get it now. So you think that YOUR god (don"t even deny that you don"t believe in this arrogant crap that YOU call a god in any blithering idiot way) would NOT be perfect, That"s according to YOU, Would be imperfect enough to use text for whatever reason in which you would not give as to the why or where or when or speaking to who and how would this god of YOURS use text for ANY REASON? Screw your logic findings. You don't have any. There's no thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense and you guessed it, Logic.

"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

"We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, There"s no amount of reports, Anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, By relying on languages that die off, By relying on anecdotal testimony, That"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this. Which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate? " Matt Dillahunty

Yep you guessed it, There's still A LOT more on why YOUR god would NEVER use text, The worst form of communication possible.
I'm out of space.
Xiutecuhtli

Con

Your overboard insults are the reason why you run out of space. I have already understood that you hate me, My views, And all christians regardless of their personality or real-world value. Repeatedly saying it over and over again in different ways doesn't affect me, And disadvantages you, Unless you like running out of space.

If you want to convince me that debates should not be civil, Saying that Trump doesn't debate civilly is NOT the way to make me believe. If anything, It makes me believe debates really SHOULD be civil, Since Trump does not set an example of good moral behavior. Maybe you use Trump as a role model: you call people names as much. I think, Though, That you'll be disgusted by that thought (since you called him a maggot), So it is probably not intentionally true. I just think you should be careful not to become similarly immature.

Most people fail to keep things civil in political debate events, But that doesn't mean the way their debates end is the way all debates should be. The definition of proper debating is NOT however the politicians debate; debates aren't just a political thing. People could debate when eating dinner, Or while just talking to each other. We're having a debate now, And I'm not a politician (are you? [rhetorical question]). Politicians sometimes don't keep their cool, But we should, Because we'll think more clearly if we do; rage will make you act rash (or I should say it already HAS made you act rash).

You said "the maggot is pressed against the wall so naturally he loses his cool" and "nearly all live debates when someone is backed into a corner and they don"t have the answers, They almost --- always--- lose their cool. "
Don't you think that's a bad point for you to try to make, Since it could imply you don't have the answers? You are the one losing your cool, After all. "Don't even deny [. . . ] in any blithering idiot way", And "Still with all that neurotic erotic babbling" are just a few parts where your feelings show through; there is evidence of your anger throughout all of your arguments. You said "almost", So maybe it doesn't prove you're logically cornered, But it is a bad indication, At least.

"I never get involved with something that I know nothing about. That"s also taught in college. Why? Because of so, Then your friends and loved ones, Well you will soon have no friends or loved ones. [. . . ] No exceptions. None. "
1. I don't believe you'd know anything about whether certain people you talk to online have real life friends: You were wrong to say you never get involved with things you don't understand.
2. You think that not knowing exactly what to do but getting involved and giving it your best shot is what makes people HATE you? You're supposed to get involved in subjects you don't understand so you can LEARN. I don't know very much about psychology, For example, But I'm getting involved in it by taking a class on it next year. That doesn't mean that act will make all my friends and loved ones leave me.
3. Using insults in your language will cause people to like you less. Hopefully you don't talk so rudely to your loved ones and friends.

You've interpreted "if" incorrectly a couple times now (I probably need to give examples so you won't claim I have no evidence: Argument 4, And a comment):
If I choose to make a sentence this way, I can still be completely sure about the sentence I'll write.
If I find any treasure, I'll be happy. The sentence isn't a claim I found treasure.
If the earth had two moons, The tides would be weird. The sentence isn't even a claim that that's there's a POSSIBILITY the earth has two moons.
The point is: I'm not uncertain about whether my perspective is true. ("Notice the first word you used was "if"? So you don't know. You guess. Yep I get it now. So you think that YOUR god [. . . ] would NOT be perfect, That"s according to YOU". )

To address the paragraph surrounding the quote, "Because what you are stating is "memory". ":
It doesn't need to be an accurately remembered practice. Like the ugly duckling which over time became a swan as it was changed, The original message of the bible could have been wrong, Or original church practice could be wrong, But the mistranslating and handing-down can end up correcting the flaws and making the right message. The current religion could be true, With the original religion being false. No matter how original-accurate the message is, It can still be the correct message. I have been saying things along these lines since Argument 1 ("The original meaning doesn't matter anymore if it's lost to time. What should matter is the meaning a person ends up reading and remembering, And thinking about").

For the paragraph surrounding this quote: "No you just do whatever YOU want. "
I'm addressing the reason you asked this question: you were trying to find a contradiction in christianity. And I only addressed this underlying debate between us because I answered the question you asked already: I proved well enough that god would use text. "Would (if he wanted to)" is still a category of "would". You should've said "does".
And what about you? Do your insults actually prove anything related to the question you asked? Your long stream of unrelated words in the first couple paragraphs of Argument 4 were certainly not on-topic, Nor were any of the other useless names you called me. I don't think I'm just doing whatever, But if you think I'm getting side-tracked, You will see similar behavior from yourself.

For when you said this: ""Multiple branches exist which draw from the same material. " Really? According to what? You? "
Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist, Mormon (this one might not count since they draw from the same material, And then some), Methodist, Moravian, Etc. Look these up and find the sources for yourself. I thought it would easily be common knowledge that multiple denominations of christianity exist, But you decided to call my bluff, On this of all things.
And then you quote Tracie Harris: "If you try to get clarification, If you try to get what the christian orthodox view is on the law, You're not going to find consensus. " This basically says (on its own, But it still does say that in context) that not all people believe the same things, Even when they draw from the same material. You've condemned and supported the same view in your argument.

For the paragraph of this quote: "no matter which language you speak its 2+2 = 4", I wasn't talking about different languages, I was talking about different possible laws of physics. The laws didn't have to work out that 2+2 would equal 4, But they did. As far as we'll ever learn, They could be different too. God cannot be disproven when no statement or idea can be proven or disproven according to the Evil Demon experiment (which you seem to have overlooked).
I expected you not to be interested in those complex ideas, But I hoped then and still do hope that someone else reading this would try to analyze the arguments thoroughly.

""But you intentionally don't attempt to improve your writing in that respect, So they are still your fault ideal so you are a very bad bad bad truly contradictory hypocritical naughty boy" (and the unmatched inner quotation mark is intentional; that was the way you wrote it). I already knew that those mistakes weren't from us (Argument 3, Con, Paragraph 2, Slightly before where I made the quote you imitated). I was writing that quote about YOUR mistakes, Not Debate. Org's mistakes. Debate. Org is the one that should try to improve itself for the typo you brought up; it's the one that made that mistake. But even filtering out that bug, You have typos.

Regarding your quote by Aron Ra: Omnipotent beings wouldn't make any versions if they use their power to give people the knowledge directly, And they'll leave it as several versions if they don't use their power. People are supposed to apply judgment to the messages they get from the bible, Instead of blindly obeying. That's enough to address that.

Matt Dillahunty: If god wanted to correct everything immediately, We'd all be perfect beings, And we'd all think the same. We'd be the same minds; we'd be god's mind. And he would not have a use for less-powerful duplicates of himself. He lets us gradually grow to reach him using slower processes such as judgment and learning. He allows for the creation of more minds and more life so that there will always be uniqueness in the world. The testimonials of HISTORY are unimportant, And god is aware of that. The morals are what matter, And the new versions can have good morals in them as easily as the old versions. A pathway to moral truth can be found in historically inaccurate stories, No matter how historically inaccurate: Even a fictional fable can have a good moral to it.

Russell Glasser: People don't all agree, Because really agreeing would mean being of the same mind. If everyone was a copy of the same perfect ideas. . . (I addressed this already, So I'm saving space, Just like you could do, If you chose). Russell has an interesting opinion of preachers, But does not have or present evidence that preachers only receive training in deception. What does "superficially convincing cases" mean? A convincing imitation of a convincing case? If people BELIEVE an argument is convincing, Then it convinces them TRULY: If something's convincingly convincing, It's just convincing.

You draw words from well-known, And probably skilled with words, But not necessarily infallible, People. The quotes you would agree with and use are the quotes I would disagree with and have logic against; I'm not so against all of these people that I would challenge their words THIS often under normal circumstances, But the hand-picked selections are all the ones that aim at disproving the points I made to you, So naturally I would be able to counter them if I had made a good logical path to my points before giving them.
Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

Indeed my overboard insults are at many times why I run out of space. You know what, Its worth it. And it you don"t like it, Leave. I"m not going to change for you or anyone else. I"m also not here to please YOU. I also did not ask a splintered yeee ha saddled without his nutrient bars welfare man to enter my debate and make meager attempts to be a 20 watt light bulb constantly turned off that doesn"t know how to do his yoga in the dork, Sorry dark, And be the hypocrite that you are. For the recorded record, I don"t hate you or any christian unless they as so-called christians (because there"s no such a thing as a true christian and that"s according to their hilarious bible as it is impossible to truly follow) go completely overboard with their hypnotic beliefs that naturally cannot be proved" (continuing) um no the ONLY thing I hate is the god according to the bible in which a 0% of this population can even prove exists.

". . . Saying that Trump doesn't debate civilly is NOT the way to make me believe. " Oh knock it off, I used that moron as an example. And I followed up with. . . "Nearly ALL live debates, Someone loses their cool. " Oh but wait with your full head of steam lost in some uncharted rainbow, In which you obviously haven"t paid attention to all that many, Just like you do not pay attention to the bible in which is a free admission of yours, Wow exactly what do you know and or understand? See? That"s yet another reason why this god of YOURS would never even DREAM about using text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. YOU and billions of those who read text cannot comprehend what is stated even though it is the most simplistic of terms. Now if you screw up THAT badly during the rest of your bumbling disarray of a so-called debate, You know what? I"ll end it right there.
"Since Trump does not set an example of good moral behavior"" Well gee, That was not the point now was it, Regardless even though he is completely immoral. Um no its not "maybe I" its maybe you". Now let"s move on as I"m not going to fall into YOUR egotistical pitfalls.

"But we should, . . . " Oh wait, But I do. And when other mormons, Oh sorry morons step into the underground of not knowing what they are squawking about (as stated before because like you who don"t have the foggiest idea what you are scrappings about - especially when you freely admit it) gosh darned it all damn right, You deserve to be degraded into the hall of blame. Oh ge we"ve discussed this before and YOU haven"t moved on. YOU have dragged this same subject on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on like a sheep goat spinning his lost yarn. Wow how *yawn* boring. Awe well gee are you out of topics to state or say with what has to do with the main topic? Obliviously. Ogh sorry. Obviously.
----
"Don't you think that's a bad point for you to try to make, " Nope. Moving on. "You said "almost", " Yep. Put on your dunce cap to "comprehend" that "almost" doesn"t meat "everybody".

"1. I don't believe you'd know anything about whether certain people you talk to online have real life friends:" Its very easy to spot both online and in real life how people act, What they say and do, How they type, Whether they are lying or telling the truth, Basically who---they---are and it is so easy to spot if they have "genuine" friends or loved ones. That"s the key word I use, "genuine" BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE in which I specify very clearly. "You were wrong to say you never get involved with things you don't understand. " Actually that"s not what I said. Do try harder. See that"s why YOUR god would NEVER use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible.

OK you had your chance to try to yodel his pouch of meat at his stake while he thinks the witches whichever burns at his almighty psychology poo bears at a murder of his own doing. So the cops have to hire you to find out who killed yourself. Trust me on this" You SUCK at psychology. If this was a game of poker, I"d take all of your chips before you were to have even sat down to the game. So let"s skip on down to where you try to get to the subject matter at hand, IF that"s the case.

"Because what you are stating is "memory". Absolutely it does. Gee since you have freely admitted that you don"t know that much about YOUR bible, In which case is nothing on this subject, Those who hanged around with that scab of a jesus, In which nobody can even prove has ever existed, Guess what snookums? They--could--not--read--or--write. So all of it, All the quotes by the apostles were from memory. Oh and btw, IF you were to compare bible from translation to translation and from copy to copy and from dead language to dead language etc etc etc those verses from what god and christ have said HAVE CHANGED. Oh yes, The messages also. To give you some perfect examples. . .
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, And create darkness: I make peace, And create evil: I the Lord do all these things. " KJV
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, The Lord, Do all these things. " NIV
"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. " NLT
1. The words "peace" and "light" have 0% of anything to do with each other. They are not even synonyms of each other.
2. The words "evil", "disaster" and "bad" have 0% of nothing to do with each other. They are not even synonyms of each other.
3. All 3 versions spread completely different messages.
4. How do you think this god of YOURS feels when HIS language is changed by man to suit man"s wants needs and desires? Do you think this god feels good about it? Y____? N____? Why? Why not?
5. Absolutely in no way possible would this god of the bible ---ever--- communicate in text, The worst form of communication possible because of glaring errors like these.

Another example" In the Bishops bible, It was the version right before the KJV, The word "tyrant" in which was used hundreds on times in the Bishop"s bible, Was replaced by the word "king" in the KJV. The word "tyrant" and the word "king" have 0% of anything to do with each other and completely change the messages that the bible was spreading. Yeah YOUR god would REALLY use text as a form of communication - right especially considering the fact that everything in his bible shows that he was a superior ego god complex tyrant? Oh but wait by golly, You haven"t read YOUR bible.

Another example Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " KJV
"If a man practices homosexuality, Having sex with another man as with a woman, Both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, For they are guilty of a capital offense. " Yeah the word "homosexuality" was not put into the bible until 1946. Who told these interpreters to update the bible to their will? Who says they got it right with other verses that THEY have updated?
If a man sleepeth with a man, By lechery of a woman, Ever either hath wrought unleaveful thing, Die they by death; their blood be on them. (If a man sleepeth with a man, Like in fleshly coupling with a woman, They both have done an unlawful thing, And they both shall be put to death; their blood be on them. ) WYC Huh? Yep that"s what it says. Se habla Espanol?
Do you really think YOUR god would be stupid enough to use text with all these glaring mistakes?

Here's some point bank glaring contradictions from a book in which is supposed to be perfect.
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience as well as with the fact that God allegedly does not change his mind: NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17. )

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2
God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord;. . . He heard my voice;. . . The earth trembled and quaked, . . . Because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, Burning coals blazed out of it. "
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, And takes revenge on, His enemies. ". . . Who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, And rocks are thrown down by him. "
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and self-control.

GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

Conclusion
god would NEVER use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible to god, With all the point blank errors that the bible clearly has that any supreme deity would have foreseen long before one word of text would ever be scribbled to tell a story in the way this god character has described himself in the bible as a superior ego god complex, In which the bible is entirely about and nothing more.
Xiutecuhtli

Con

From the top. ;-;
If you want to ignore advice, It's your loss. It was partially said only so people could see the inconsistency between you saying you don't have room for all your arguments and you saying filler words.
Also I noticed,
You always say "in which" where you could just say "which", Especially when you say "God, In which nobody can prove exists. . . "
Ignore it if that's what you'll do. I still don't know if you'll start following my advice once I'm not around to see you. You'll probably say you're ignoring it if you ever get a chance, But I think eventually you'll be better enough at writing that you'll change.

"And it you don"t like it, Leave. " - I don't dislike the errors so much that I'll leave to escape them. I wasn't really trying to please myself by giving you advice, Since I would leave if I wanted to be pleased above all else. It's more that the errors make your meaning difficult to understand, Which makes debating less effective, And I value that. If you had just a small amount of chaos and errors to it, That would be fine, Since it wouldn't really impact the meaning I'd get from it.

"I [didn't] ask [you] to enter my debate" - You left this question open for debate, And should have known it could be as bad, In your opinion, As this. You basically said anyone can answer the debate. I'm someone.

You say you don't hate christians unless they act like fake christians, And you also say that real christians don't exist. That pretty much covers all christians. Also, "hypnotic beliefs"?

Next paragraph: I was telling you that you picked a bad example by picking Trump. I know you "used that moron as an example"; that was obvious. I told you that the debates people pay attention to in the political world don't rewrite the definition of a debate, Nor the ideal kind of debate. Despite that most live debates involve lack of discipline, Lack of discipline is not how a debate should be; politicians don't set the standards for morals, So they don't set the standards for morals regarding debating (I guess you won't pay much attention to the logic this time either, But voters might be more reasonable and see where you're wrong).
And then you tell me that I don't understand political debates (false assumption), Or the bible (when I only said I don't know all the details of it; I know some details at least), And then you say I must then not understand anything, When you didn't give any example I didn't understand at least adequately. I don't think you or anyone else can have a perfect understanding of something, So there's no blame on me for not understanding those two PERFECTLY.

Skipping down, I can give some evidence of my understanding:
For "God was/was not pleased with his creation:
GE 1:31 is pre-human-life, And GE 6:5-6 is post-human-decadence. God was pleased with the stage of creation at 1:31 and not pleased with the stage of creation at 6:5-6, Which is why he designed to change things at that point by flooding the earth.
What I was taught justified the flood was that any further development of human beings would have been in the negative direction, So ending the judgement section at that point in all of their lives was a good thing for them in the long-run/eternal-perspective. I think it could also be punishment, Which I address lower down, Since it's hard to explain clearly.

For "Adam lived 930 years/Adam should've died the same day he ate the fruit":
My dad told me that the 930 was supposed to be a different cycle than the year-cycle and that it was a mistranslation; it was either months or weeks, Although I'm not sure where to reference for that.
I can reference 2 Peter 3:8 which says days for God are very very long for mankind, Although that's more meant to show that his plans are long-term perspective; that isn't supposed to be a literal order of magnitude scaling.
I was also taught that Adam would've lived forever had he not eaten the fruit, So he might've had that same long-term perspective pre-fruit-eating as God, Which is why God might've said something with seemingly short-duration meaning like that while referring to something long-duration to our perspectives. I always figured it wasn't meant as an exact time limit; just short-term as Adam and God saw it at the time. Maybe the mistranslations make "the same day" capable of originally meaning "soon" or something like that.

For "God asks Cain where Able is/God is omniscient":
That was something I saw on my own and reasoned God probably knew all along. I always interpreted it as being meant for Cain's benefit instead of God's. Maybe it was to give him greater shame for his action, Forcing him to confront what he did, Or something like that. I think the idea that God is omniscient is more likely than the idea that he needed to ask a question, So whatever the truth is, It involves God being omniscient and probably doesn't involve him requiring the answer from Cain. Cain DIDN'T give God the answer, Lying instead, And God still knew the truth, So that's more evidence it wasn't really unknown to God.

For Vengeance/Benevolence:
I never tried to sort that one out until today; those other things were easy explanations that fit into the basic principles I had learned, And I had already easily solved those.
I kinda consider the vengeance a punishment of wrongdoing, Not rage, And punishment is a tricky spot to define as moral or immoral, For me. "The wrath of God" might just be severely destructive consequences that terrify people so that they think he must be angry, Just like with the stereotypical island tribes thinking a volcano erupting is a sign of their gods' anger.
It does explicitly say he's angry in at least some of these versions, And it's the narrator saying so, Not some character in the story (the narrator is usually considered doctrinally correct, Even though it's just the author of the section). Maybe that does mean the bible's contradictory, But it could be the authors' perspectives on God's actions.
The words themselves come from the authors, And they don't get direct revelation for word choice of every line (nor do translators); they just do what they remember, And things are written how the authors interpret them. If God ever explicitly mentioned his emotions (not just "you will provoke my wrath" because it could just refer to something destructive, Not rage-motivated) in a scripture, That would shed some light on it.

For "God can't be seen/God is seen":
I considered that so closely analogous to being unable to comprehend infinity that it was pretty obvious it referred to that. People can't comprehend God's full glory/nature because he's infinite (EX 33:18 was "show me your glory", Which would've been inexpressible to a human mind, Which is why God said no), But he could show finite forms like a cloud or a light, Or a generic white-robed figure (it's not the face he chooses to wear that would be impossible to comprehend).

Though you might call it "just backtalk", It's not definitely disproven since it can be explained somehow.

Back to where I left off above: "You have dragged this same subject on and on. . . " This is relevant to the debate.

""Almost" doesn't meat "everybody"": I already said that; it doesn't make sense to correct me when I told you "You said "almost", So maybe it doesn't prove you're logically cornered. " I know almost isn't everybody. I called it an indication, Which was at most what it could be.

"The words "evil", "disaster" and "bad" have nothing to do with each other. ": Evil and bad are usually synonyms. Bad has alternative meanings beyond what evil means, But they don't have nothing to do with each other, That's for sure.

"It is so easy to spot if they have "genuine" friends or loved ones. ": It's easy for you to assume you know, But you can't be certain without being there to see for yourself, No matter what you suppose about how personalities relate to friendships. If you're supposing certain personalities tend to discourage good friendships, It should be obvious that a name-calling and insulting person would have one of those personalities. Would you lose friends if everyone found out about the hate you're putting down against christianity here? How many of your friends are christians? Do you shun christians? If you act differently elsewhere, Are you being "genuine", Then, To them, If these are your true views?

My Final Argument:
You went back to talking about how messages change over time, And you did not respond to any of the instances where I wrote things along the lines of "The final message in a game of Chinese Whispers can be more truthful than the original, " or "The messages each person hears along the Chinese Whispers line can be exactly what that person needs to hear. " God, With his strategic ability, Can plan events to lay out like that. And it could be accurately interpreted by the people if God can foresee their minds' interpretations as well.
All of the stuff you talk about is how the Chinese Whispers game didn't work perfectly, And you give plentiful examples of how translations worked wrong, With the same message not coming out in the end, But maybe God wasn't trying to get it to come out the same. Maybe each person needed an individualized message to get the best outcome.
Even if the final message is untruthful, It can help a person to understand a related issue accurately. Just like the fable about the Tortoise and the Hare, The Bible doesn't need to be perfectly true for it to teach people. That's why God might be stupid if he wants a text to stay the same forever, Or stay true forever, But he wouldn't be stupid if he wanted it to stay useful, For him, Forever.
The seriousness with which people take morality while reading the Bible helps them discover right and wrong, Even if the Bible isn't a morally trustworthy source. That's why the Bible is a vessel for God's word: It teaches.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Xiutecuhtli

The all knowing stuttering ego of backwardseden he's the first to inform all that they know nothing and that he possesses a monopoly upon all knowledge. HaHaHa what a joker. This loser demands that all others become his doormat. . . Think he alone has justification to express his crude rude behavior. . . Assumes the center of attention spins around himself. . . Has an addiction for compliments. . . Lives as an energy vampire. . . Lacks all empathy for others feelings. . . Totally lacks self esteem deep down. . . Only jabbers his opinions and does not know how to listen to other people. . . He's a taker and never a giver. . . Probably has no other hobby other than worship himself. . . Pretends that he has friends while all others do no. . . Values only himself. . . This dude has a small universe, His statements employ "should" and "must". . . The friends of this loser - only superficial. . . He feeds off of other people's psych. . . Totally incomplete, That's why he does not finish debates. . . Lacks internal confidence. . . Can not imagine other viewpoints from his own. . . Opinionated having only superficial knowledge. . . Harsh critic of others. . . Has virtually no long lasting relationships. . . Lacks the ability to feel empathy for others. . . Behaves as the arrogant type. . . Inadequacy defines his life. . . He maximizes his opinion and minimizes all other opinions. . . He thinks the world owes him. . .

Please everyone should pity this fool and don't treat him too harshly, His fragile ego cracks like an egg. He hides his damaged ego with loud outbursts and allot of bluster.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
It's the beginning of the end now. :P
My favorite part was when he said "Wow what a gross disconfigurization. "
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Nah. Didn't even read it. Your hyperbole that must have come from your corpse during the rigor mortis stage of the shebang powwow in RD5 by clear guesswork and you not looking up the verses at all to see that they are CLEAR contradictions with 0% of room for error only shows you were flushed down feet first to the god of turtle wax with your celery brain hypnotist in tow going snap grackle poop. I mean what else could possibly be the explanation?
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
Well I guess I can go back to the previous way of doing it, For now, Then be better after I'm done here.
"Better" didn't really work at the first argument anyway. ;/
I was just going through with the anger-motivated over-precision because I figured it was the only way, And I guess it is the only way, But that doesn't mean I liked it. You are right that I was angry while not liking it.

I would get tired of the incomprehensible metaphors/unconnected words in arguments 4 and 5 and just skip them all, But I worry that I would miss something if I did. I don't really need to understand the metaphors to get the general message, And the unconnected random words are meaningless, But there could always be something in there that is valid, So I have to read every line. Some paragraphs don't have any of the confusion, So that's mainly why I know you're capable of making sense.

If it isn't anger motivating you to spill out the insults and strings of seemingly random words, Then what is it? You didn't start this way.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Awe garsh and then I see a very big post down below in which I haven't read all the way through. I mean why should I when a tepid sheep like you can't even examine himself to see his problems in his cracked mirror laundry list? Oh, And I don't hate you. Get outside, Mow the sky, Seek out the closest watermelon seed for heaves sake!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
You don't like being angry. BUT YOU ARE ANGRY. Flat out angry in fact. How much of your RD 4 did you take up trying to use your false psychology to psychoanalyze me? You know what? I simply got tired of it and moved on. As it was phenomenally boring.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
Maybe I should be serious here, But I shouldn't be rude, All nya-nya-nya semi-colons and big vocab and taking such a Smart-Alec tone with you.
I just have no idea how to talk smart without being rude like that, And I really need to find a way because rude isn't a good solution at all.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
I feel like these comments are escalating in frustration just like the debate rounds.
I kinda want to quit talking like this.
I called your language anger-revealing but I always get a lot more precise when I'm angry.
I don't like being angry.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
I said "if you say that they were part of your language" which doesn't say that you DID call them part of your language (note the "if"); I wrote that phrase because, Knowing you, I expected you would excuse the insults that way, So I addressed that possible excuse, If you were GOING to use it.
Here's why I expected it:
"If my tone is condescending, Oh well it how I talk. And I'm not going to change for you or anyone. "
You excused your condescension by saying it was how you talk. "How you talk" was a synonym for "your language" as we used those phrases, And it would also be a synonym for "your writing style" or a few other terms we could use to describe the same thing. You were already running on the train of logic which would excuse everything that way: "It's who I am, So you should tolerate it". But just the fact that it's who you are doesn't mean you aren't being and acting wrong.

You also call my language gibberish, But a person with a higher reading level would understand me. You, On the other hand, Well, See for yourself:
"When you don't have any idea what the flying pregnant fetus screw you are squawking about. "
"Pompous la la laaing doo ha"s above nothingness of aberrations dancing foods generation A+ - decades of oofing at a nuns pep rally so whatever is said during a concrete parachuting class is kept secret while phony rubbers are stretched to their limits to find out if democracy is actually true or false because that"s the way a dead presidents ghost wants it. "

I had misgivings about accepting the debate when I saw "would not be dumb enough" in the question, An unnecessary way of phrasing it which belittles the idea that he WOULD use text; in other words, Belittles the opponent's entire point, Without you yet seeing the logic the opponent would present. You say you should've ended the debate, But I regret starting it.

Nearly all christians can't read? Just a feeling; no support. And look at your own level of writing!
Read your work bef
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Xiutecuhtli - Yeah you must be a christian. Because you like nearly all they CAN'T READ which is yet another reason why YOUR god would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. Where did I state or say that "they were part of your language, " in referring to "invent", "pretend", And "lie"? OK. I'm done. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your mundane gibberish. I really should have ended the debate after you stated "It's important that one realizes that a bible is for moral guidance, " when you don't have any idea what the flying pregnant fetus screw you are squawking about. AND you freely admitted it when you state something completely ignorant like "So I'm kind of at a disadvantage because I don't know all the details about what the bible says god is supposed to be. The only information I have is that god is supposed to be perfectly powerful, Smart, And good, " Wow. Well don't you think you should read the damn thing?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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