The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
DavidHudson
Con (against)

The lord our god is NOT one lord according to the bible therefore everything god is, is false

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 866 times Debate No: 112905
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

PART 1
There"s after all no possible way that this god is "one". That"s according to the printed text of the bible. That thus proves that the god of the bible, everything that this god stands for is false, deceitful, incorrect and wrong about god making the bible unsound and fraudulent. Indeed the bible speaks of polytheism NOT monotheism.
Now pay attention to the videos below as they prove there are many gods of the supposed "one" god) in the bible. Both videos are titled the same. But who really cares? Both have a huge impact on the subject matter being presented. Both are also irrefutable.

http://www.youtube.com... - God's of the Bible
http://www.youtube.com... - God's of the Bible

Now here"s a few quotes from the videos and some verses from the bible (I am using three different translations the King James Version KJV, the English Standard Version ESV and the New International Version NIV because the ESV and the NIV are used by the videos as translations and the KJV is the most read. Regardless its pretty funny and tragic to see how many of the verses are completely off and have nothing to do with each other which is not a surprise and thus proves once again why the god of the bible would not use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication.")
* Psalms 82:1 "(A Psalm of Asaph.) God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." KJV
* "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:" ESV
* God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the "gods": NIV
All three versions use the term "gods". Yes that"s PLURAL people. "Gods" More than one god.

* Exodus 18:11 "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." KJV
* "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people." ESV
* "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly."NIV
Again all three versions use the term "gods" meaning more than one god.

* Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." KJV
* "Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." NIV
* Then God said, "Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ESV
Footnotes Genesis 1:26 The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam
"Us" and "our" are plural = many NOT one. If the words were singular then it would read "Let myself OR Let me make mankind in my image according to my likeness.

* Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: KJV
* Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever"" ESV
* And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us,knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Again, the word "us" is plural. Its not singular. So who exactly is this "us" So who are these "us" that popped up from nowhere?

* Genesis 11:7 "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." KJV
* "Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech." ESV
* "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." NIV
Indeed "us" is plural. It is NOT singular. So once again who is this "us"? Oh and I get it, these "us" must lower themselves to "go down", and there confound their language? "us" lowering themselves to that of humans? That's odd.

No invented excuses and or flat out lies will be considered. Now watch video #1 at the 5:45 mark.

Indeed the bible clearly states that there are other gods.
* Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." no other gods? Why would god admit to other gods? Strange he did here and it discredits him.

The video missed this by one verse. Its not Matthew 16:15. Its Matthew 16:16. Regardless all English translations read the same.
* Matthew 16:16 "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
"It clearly states that jesus is the begotten son or the offspring of god. And god is the father of jesus. Period. So when you realize that there is a god the father and the offspring or the child or the son of god you realize that there are now two gods. jesus is a god whether he"s a demigod or whatever, regardless he is now a god like god himself. So we"re talking about 2 gods right there alone. That"s polytheism NOT monotheism."
------
PART II

* Psalms 97:9 "For thou, LORD, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." KJV
* "For you, Lord, are the Most High over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods." NIV
* "For you, O Lord, are most high over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods." ESV

* Exodus 15:11 "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" KJV
* "Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?" ESV
* Who among the gods is like you, Lord? Who is like you" majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? NIV

* 1 Kings 8:23 "And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart: KJV
* "Lord, the God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth below"you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way." NIV
* "and said, "O Lord, God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing steadfast love to your servants who walk before you with all their heart;" ESV

Indeed those are some of the verses and interpretations by god showing his superiority to other gods" Now you in being a christian, are you going to walk away and say hmmmm "how do verses like these make sense if other gods do not really exist? The ancient authors are not comparing god to imaginary beings. In order for these exaltations to be logical and non blasphemes to ancient israelites, the gods which Yahweh is compared to must be real.
Then what was the purpose for the bible to mention them in the first place? And if they do exist, then its "gods" plural meaning many gods.

* Exodus 12:12 "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD."
* "For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord." ESV
* "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord." NIV
"This statement which comes from god"s own mouth makes no sense if the gods of Egypt were not real. It dishonors god to boast about passing judgement on imaginary beings."


PART III
So your task in this irrefutable debate is to prove that your god according to the bible is monotheistic and NOT polytheistic and that Deuteronomy 6:4 "The lord our god is one lord" is correct.

Rules for this de-vine and conquer debate:
If you decide to debate with me then it is an absolute requirement that you bring along with you some evidence that will be tagged along by your belt-side. Because if not and its some hoop-lah mumbo jumbo as is with most christian debaters, especially the teeny bopper ones, those still in high school with an obvious high school edumacation on something in which they clearly know nothing about, they think its funny to invent excuses and flat out lie, well it will become that time for me to become a piranha full of insults and rightly so and thus bite off your you know where areas with absolute glee.

Absolutely no creationists of any kind will be accepted. Why? Because they cannot stand behind their product, namely their god, when it comes to hard times. They after all most certainly don"t believe in their god at---all. Because if they did then they would put their god on trial again. So why haven"t these mighty creationists done as such? The answer is so simple. What? Do you think that they are stupid? No in fact they are smart. They will not put their god on trial again because they know that they will 100% lose. That"s because they cannot even prove that their god even exists. In fact nobody can. All they have to go on is faith based oriented. And faith is not evidence nor truth of any kind. Faith cannot be proved. So it is your better bet to not mention one single thing that has anything to do with any creationist as it will not be tolerated.

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

Con

The subject of the debate, when saying, 'The lord our god is NOT one lord', seems to allude to Deuteronomy 6:4. In a Hebrew interlinear, this is:
'sema yisrael; Yahweh elohenu Yahweh ehad.'
The Hebrew itself isn't so much the point as that the use of God's name seems to clarify the point it's making - that it isn't making a claim about how many gods there are, as such. That is to say, Yahweh is one Yahweh - he is not, for example, part of some trinity, he wasn't some collective godhead - a point that needed stating to the Israelites who had just come out of Egypt where there were various trinities and such things. Even if you were right about there being many gods like him, this scripture, the titular claim of the debate, would not be contradicted. However, I will nevertheless show that though the word 'god' can be used of other beings, they are not like Yahweh (or Jehovah, Yahewah, Jahveh, whichever English transliteration of the Hebrew is used).

It's surprising to start out with a scripture that Jesus himself pointed out the meaning of. The first scripture you quote is Psalm 82:1, which speaks poetically of those appointed as judges, appointed to represent God, hence why it goes on to criticise them for their corruption, and speak of how they will die for it. Verse 6 says, 'I said, 'You are gods', with reference to God having appointed them to that position (if they were literal gods they wouldn't need telling that that's what they were!) - and Jesus quoted this Psalm in John 10:34-36:
Jesus said to them, "Don't your Scriptures say, 'I said, "You are gods"'? The Scriptures cannot be discredited. So if God calls people gods (and they are the people to whom he gave the Scriptures), why do you say that I'm dishonoring God because I said, 'I'm the Son of God'?"
(God's Word Translation)
Jesus specifically points out the correct understanding of this scripture - the 'gods' spoken of in Psalm 82 were people, the people to whom that scripture was directed, not literal gods.

While there are unique things about Jesus, he isn't the only one referred to as a son of God. Adam is also referred to that way (Luke 3:38), and in Genesis 6:2, we see that there are others. Indeed, I think it's fairly common knowledge that angels are referred to throughout the Bible - the next reference that springs to mind is the angels that visited Abraham, and there is certainly a speech about a conversation between God and his angels at 2 Chronicles 22, and the book of Job starts off with an account of a meeting taking place between God and all his angels (and Satan). So I'm not sure why you would be surprised by God's use of plural pronouns. Of whom was he speaking when he used words like 'we' and us'? Well, maybe all his angels, maybe just a few (like in Genesis 18), maybe just himself and one other - maybe just himself and Jesus. There isn't that much you can infer from a plural pronoun, but it isn't news to a Christian that there were other beings around with whom God could communicate.

Now whether these are other 'gods' is a largely semantic dispute - it basically depends on whether you choose definitions for 'god' and 'angel' that have a certain amount of overlap. We have already seen that humans can be referred to as gods, so the scriptures can certainly refer to angels in the same way, for the same reasons. The crucial points still remain, that these beings are subordinate to Yahweh and inferior to him. (Well, not all subordinate in the sense of obedient - there are Satan and others who are rebellious, but that isn't relevant right now.) This point even Jesus acknowledged, being himself in that set of beings, or 'gods' if you like, inferior to Yahweh. He acknowledged that he himself had a god.

"I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." - John 20:17 (KJV)

"the Father is greater than I" - John 14:28 (ASV)

His disciples recognized this about him too, that Jesus had a God just as they did - the same one.
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom" - Ephesians 1:17 (NIV)

In light of what's already been pointed out, your quoted scriptures from Part II could easily be argued to be simply making that same point - that God is above anyone else like Jesus or the angels (or indeed, Satan and any who follow him). But given that several of them are part of songs (in Psalms), and one of them specifically makes its comparison to gods "in heaven above or on earth beneath", it is also possible they are making comparison to the imaginary gods people believe in. The Bible does this a lot - it was the whole point of the test on Mt. Carmel, for instance. Why was a bull prepared for Yahweh and one for Baal if not to make a comparison between the two of them? And yet, the point it seems to make is that whereas Yahweh was real, Baal was imaginary - as Elijah somewhat aggressively pointed out to those praying to Baal:
"At noon Elijah started making fun of them: "Pray louder! He is a god! Maybe he is day-dreaming or relieving himself, or perhaps he's gone off on a trip! Or maybe he's sleeping, and you've got to wake him up!"" - 1 Kings 18:27 (GNT)

Likewise, Isaiah 44:13-18 (a bit long to quote) tells the story of someone who chops down a tree - half the wood he burns as fuel, but half of it he makes into an idol, and calls it his god. The chapter points out how foolish this is, and that clearly this man's god has no more power to save him than the wood he'd burned did. It then points out how much better it is to rely on Yahweh, with all that he has done, (pointed out in verse 24). Clearly, such comparisons do get made, and this scripture is not questioning whether the god to which Yahweh is here compared is an imaginary one - in fact, it emphasizes that point.

With all that said, let us finish by considering the meanings of monotheism and polytheism in common parlance, by just looking at the opening sentences of the two Wikipedia articles on Monotheism and Polytheism:
"Monotheism has been defined as the belief in the existence of only one god that created the world, is all-powerful and intervenes in the world."
"Polytheism ... is the worship of or belief in multiple deities, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religions and rituals."
Note that part of the common understanding of monotheism is to believe in one God that is all-powerful - the existence of other powerful spiritual beings less powerful than that God does not contradict this definition, that's common to the majority of monotheistic religions, most of them have a concept of angels for instance. Further, part of polytheism is having a variety of deities that you worship - to believe these other entities exist but that only one should be worshipped again falls under the definition of monotheism. So none of the scriptures you have shown suggest Christianity to be polytheistic.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

You can toss out all the names you've come up with for your god because here's his real name according to your bible... Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

OK we are NOT going to get into the trinity crap because you have no proof of it. Regardless, it doesn"t explain the "us", "our" and "gods". And the OT was written by DIFFERENT authors from those who supposedly wrote the trinity ideal thousands of years later who cannot stack upon whatever they wish for a language dispute. Also we are speaking of god only, not jesus who was clearly a false prophet, so everything stated about jesus will be tossed away. And really, YOU see jesus as---a--god, so that right there is more---than---one---god!!!
And"
John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
It does no good to claim that "Let us" is the magisterial "we." Such usage implies inclusivity of all authorities under a king's leadership. Invoking the Trinity solves nothing because such an idea is more contradictory than the problem it attempts to solve

"'The Hebrew itself isn't so much the point as that the use of God's name seems to clarify the point it's making - that it isn't making a claim about how many gods there are, as such." Oh you don"t know that and since you don"t know that and it point blank obvious that you are 100% wrong because YOU did not in any way pay any attention to the videos who happen to be right. I really hate it when people like you run amok and invent excuses and or flat out lie for something in which they clearly know nothing about. .
"and Jesus quoted this Psalm in John 10:34-36:" Umn no he didn"t. Not even close. OK that"s strike 1 for super bad misinterpretation. I decided to see how reliable your interpreting skills are with that jesus one, and wow did they SUCK. I mean where did you hamburger blackened ask that one up from?

I mean you do fully understand that no god of yours would rely on text. NOTHING is established in scripture. That"s because the christian god, if remotely intelligent in which he is clearly not, would never use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible so everybody can get it wrong. 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 trance it back to the original as no original exists in the first place. So absolutely nobody knows if they are interpreting correctly. You especially don"t.
"Now whether these are other 'gods' is a largely semantic dispute - it basically depends on whether you choose definitions for 'god' and 'angel' that have a certain amount of overlap." STRIKE 2. Where on earth do you come up with that one? Oh I get it, its another flatout invented excuse because in fact you have no idea, none as to what you are squawking about. NOWHERE in YOUR bible does it suggest ANYTHING like that. Period.
"We"" Whoah there, its not "we", its you. Only you. You make up these broad ideals that nobody of merit will ever agree with and you expect me to fall for it. Sorry. But in this case, I agree, but curtail the "we", k? "have already seen that humans can be referred to as gods" yes, that"s in other religions. Sure. Awe well gee why not impersonate YOUR godOR someone or lots of someone"s call themselves YOUR god and get away with it. There"s been a few studs that have nearly pulled it off with battle scars galore (naturally all fake). jesus is one who is the most fought after figure in history. Hong Xiuquan is another who knew himself to be the younger brother of christ. Here"s a cute family oriented video"
http://www.youtube.com... - jesus chinese brother Hong Xiuquan. And of course there"s Hitler a devout christian.
After all its really quite simple" YOUR religion is based on YOUR god, in which you cannot even prove even exists, in having a superior ego complex in which YOUR bible is all about and nothing else, and though that its first comes power, then comes fear and then comes control. And pretty near all religions are created to explain the unexplained, just like yours.
("Well, not all subordinate in the sense of obedient - there are Satan and others" Oh I get it, so according to you there are others who are "obedient" to those such as satan, in which you cannot even prove exists, which means, according to you, that others are obedient to satan and not god which means that YOUR god is NOT in control of everything, does not know everything, is not all knowing nor all powerful - hey he cannot control satan, is NOT in charge of everything, is NOT omnipotent, and most certainly is not perfect. So since all of these things are true according to your fallout in which your obviously didn"t think of its cascade, then why would anybody want to worship this god(s) in which you cannot even prove even exists especially considering the fact that this god of YOURS is clearly imperfect and truly hates children? Oh but wait, you haven"t read YOUR bible at all to not know that.
Oh and btw hopping around the bunny trail as far as translations really damages your credibility and integrity because who knows which version is correct? Because none of them are.
See that"s what I truly hate about christians is they can"t READ. Do you know what READING is? You know. Words. Sentences. "In light of what's already been pointed out, your quoted scriptures from Part II could easily be argued to be simply making that same point - that God is above anyone else" That has 0% to do with it and also as pointed out in the video (in which you clearly didn"t watch either one, but your decided to run your furry tongue amok) its the same thing"So repeating "Indeed those are some of the verses and interpretations by god showing his superiority to other gods" Now you in being a christian, are you going to walk away and say hmmmm "how do verses like these make sense if other gods do not really exist? The ancient authors are not comparing god to imaginary beings. In order for these exaltations to be logical and non blasphemes to ancient israelites, the gods which Yahweh is compared to must be real."
Then what was the purpose for the bible to mention them in the first place? And if they do exist, then its "gods" plural meaning many gods.
"At noon Elijah started making fun of them: "Pray louder! He is a god! Maybe he is day-dreaming or relieving himself, or perhaps he's gone off on a trip! Or maybe he's sleeping, and you've got to wake him up!"" - 1 Kings 18:27 (GNT)
Well duh try two verses prior "25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under."
Likewise, Isaiah 44:13-18 but has nothing to disprove "us" or "our" and doesn"t prove a "god" nonetheless. Regardless worshiping idols is the most evil thing there is according to YOUR god and absolutely requires the death penalty, no exceptions, none. Deuteronomy 13 especially Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 and Deuteronomy 17: 2-5 which basically says the same thing. So you follow your god"s orders and coone down here and kill me for the simple reason that I don"t believe and am trying to sway you. Your god is a true darling little diseased maggot to incorporate such hideous absurd laws like that one and there are hundreds more.

"Note that part of the common understanding of monotheism is to believe in one God that is all-powerful - the existence of other powerful spiritual beings less powerful than that God does not contradict this definition," But you never explained away the "us" or "our" or "gods" by any means. Its plural folks, meaning more than one god. Your god would not use text in any way to create all of this unnecessary confusion.

Now please watch the videos in which you clearly didn't do.
DavidHudson

Con

No, 'Jealous' isn't literally God's name. If that's the way you want to read things, than why not go with Psalm 111:9, "Holy and awesome is His name." But the word 'name' here is being used in the same sense as in the sentence 'I have to clear my name' - a person's name sometimes just means their standing, their reputation, and 'holy', 'awesome', and 'jealous' are just adjectives. The scripture in Exodus 34:14 that describes him as a jealous God uses his name Yahweh or Jehovah in the Hebrew text just like thousands of other scriptures in the Bible.

Then you seem to say I 'have no proof' of the trinity, despite my having never made any such argument anyway - I'm not sure why you bother to say that.
I also hadn't mentioned the magesterial plural in an argument, since it wasn't an argument you'd brought up thus far, though the video mentioned it. Since you mention it now, I will point out that 'elohim', the Hebrew plural of 'god' which the video makes great mention of, can be meant as a merely magesterial plural - for example, it is used of Moses, despite Moses clearly being only one person, at Exodus 7:1.
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

"Oh you don"t know that and since you don"t know that [the meaning of Deut 6:4] and it point blank obvious that you are 100% wrong"
Indeed I don't know that for certain. If you propose a alternative understanding of it that seems more reasonable, that's fair enough. In this instance, I simply put forth what seems the most natural way of understanding the words, once you recognise that it doesn't actually say 'one lord', as you quote it in the debate title. Neither does it say 'one god', or any such thing. The Hebrew for 'lord' is 'adon', often with an 'i' on the end, and you'll notice that word wasn't in that scripture. The word for 'god' was in there (it was the 'elohenu') but only once - the word often mistranslated as 'lord' was in there twice, and it was the tetragrammaton, God's name. So, was it pointing out anything about the number of gods, or the number of lords? If that had been its intent, it was using the wrong words - at least in the original text. But you yourself later say (though for what reason I don't know), Baal was worshipped as being many gods, even though he was sometimes given a single name. Was the same true of Yahweh? It would seem that the purpose of the wording at Deuteronomy 6:4 was to answer that question, and the answer is 'no, that is not true'. I can't think of any other possible meaning of the phrase, 'Yahweh is one Yahweh' or 'Jehovah is one Jehovah'. Perhaps it could mean that he always has the same thoughts and purpose (similar to the usage at John 17:11) - but that meaning wouldn't seem to fit the context so well.
http://biblehub.com...

""and Jesus quoted this Psalm in John 10:34-36:" Umn no he didn"t. Not even close. OK that"s strike 1 for super bad misinterpretation. I decided to see how reliable your interpreting skills are with that jesus one, and wow did they SUCK. I mean where did you hamburger blackened ask that one up from?"

Well, I thought it rather intuitive (though I guess that's just because I've learned this stuff for decades - it's intuitive in the way that algebra is intuitive if you've been studying maths for decades, otherwise it probably isn't, no shame in that), but since you ask, let me back it up with some sources, various commentaries on John 10:34:

Meyer's NT Commentary
John 10:34-36. In Psalm 82:6, unrighteous authorities of the theocratic people"not angels (Bleek), nor yet heathen princes (De Wette, Hitzig)"whose approaching destruction, in contrast to their high dignity, is intended to stand out, are called gods, agreeably to the old sacred view of rulers as the representatives of God, which was entertained in the theocratic nation. Compare Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:28. From this, Jesus draws the conclusion a minori ad majus, that He might call Himself God"s Son without blasphemy. He is surely far more exalted than they ([some text removed - DDO corrupted the greek characters] etc.); and nevertheless had designated Himself, not [theos];, as though wishing to make a God of Himself, but merely [son of theos].

I deleted some due to character count, but you can find plenty more at http://biblehub.com... or just Google 'John 10:34', it's the standard understanding of that verse. What source were you looking at?

"it basically depends on whether you choose definitions for 'god' and 'angel' that have a certain amount of overlap." STRIKE 2. Where on earth do you come up with that one?"
That's just basic reasoning ability - definitions of key terms affect conclusions.
"Definition of angel in English by Oxford Dictionaries - a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God"
By this definition, the existence of angels couldn't really be said to contradict monotheism. By some other definitions, it might. Since the conclusions will depend on the definitions, all I can argue in this case is that the definitions by which I would be understood to be correct (i.e. that the existence of angels like Jesus (when in heaven) does not contradict the God of the Bible being monotheistic) are the most commonly held definitions. And, perhaps one could also argue, are the more consistent definitions - you have not yet supplied a definition of monotheism that would remain meaningful if the mere existence of other powerful beings were to contradict it, and certainly no such meaningful definition springs to my mind. (Neither does the person in the video, as far as I see.)

Some tangential topics you mention like whether we can prove God exists and whether God would use text are probably whole debates in themselves, but there were a few things that could be explained quite briefly:

"he cannot control satan, is NOT in charge of everything, is NOT omnipotent, and most certainly is not perfect."
Who said he couldn't stop Satan? He can stop you speaking against him, but lets you continue for a time. Why would we not expect that he makes the same allowance with Satan - or say that this means he is not omnipotent? In the book of Job (part of the Bible, which you strangely continue to claim I have never read at all, despite the clearly mounting evidence against such a claim) God allows Satan to make some actions against Job, but sets limits on them. He can set what limits he chooses on Satan's actions. In Luke 8:31, the angels who followed Satan begged Jesus not to order them into imprisonment - so the Bible implies they have restrictions to which they must hold, and that they can be overpowered. And ultimately, Satan can be eliminated. (Revelation 20:10)
Try to remain aware that your not knowing a solution to a biblical problem has far more explanations than simply that anyone who still believes it must not have "read YOUR bible at all to not know that". The possibility exists that others have simply studied the Bible more deeply than you, and consider the problem to have a solution - indeed, maybe one that they don't even consider that hard. Kids think quadratic equations are hard, math graduates don't - it's all relative.
https://www.jw.org...

"Oh and btw hopping around the bunny trail as far as translations really damages your credibility and integrity because who knows which version is correct? Because none of them are."
Usually it is considered that an argument is strengthened, not weakened, by citing a variety of sources. While opinions may differ on whether that applies to different translations of the Bible, certainly it does no harm to show that they all back up the same points. That was why I did it, it wasn't for convenience.

"Likewise, Isaiah 44:13-18 but has nothing to disprove "us" or "our" and doesn"t prove a "god" nonetheless."
It wasn't meant to. You raised points of plural pronouns your section entitled Part I, and I addressed them in my first four paragraphs. When I used the Isaiah scripture it was to address some of the claims in Part II, namely the claim that God would not draw comparisons between himself and a god that didn't exist - the scripture in Isaiah served to show that he actually would be willing to do that. It didn't prove anything about those other arguments because the subject had moved on from them.

"So you follow your god"s orders and coone down here and kill me for the simple reason that I don"t believe and am trying to sway you."
I'm presuming 'follow' must be in the imperative mood rather than the indicative, otherwise this would be a false statement.
Even in ancient Israel, an average Joe wasn't supposed to go and kill someone for idolatry! Earlier Psalm 62 was discussed, and its reference to the judges and how they were to represent God - the law stated how these judges would have to get testimony from witnesses, investigate, and execute judgements. (Deuteronomy 19:15-21) Average citizens like me didn't just decide to go all vigilante on anyone who committed idolatry or adultery. They testified before the judges, and the matter was decided with due process. Now, our judge is Jesus. We leave these matters to him. (John 5:22; Romans 2:16; 1 Peter 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 ) Note how an accurate understanding of Jesus' role in the Bible contradicts your first video that claims that Christianity has moved on to worshipping Jesus instead of his father (comparing it to polytheistic religions that worshipped mothers, then fathers, then sons). "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 2:5) Yahweh, or Jehovah, retains his role in biblical Christianity. It is the roles of the judges of Israel, the kings of Israel, and the priests of Israel, that have all been replaced by Jesus. (Hebrews 3:1,2; Hebrews 5:5,6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Sure"jealous" is god"s name. I mean after all you are a fundamentalist christian and since this is true you must take your bible at its word. But nah, this is only true when YOUR bible suits YOU and only you and only when you feel like it suits you and like every christian abomination, you chuck the rest that you feel like throwing into the trash because you do not feel like it somehow does not belong and that its not godly even though your god truly hates those that are gay, hates those that commit adultery, hates those that do not believe in him, hates those that curse at their parents, hates those that blaspheme, hates those that break the sabbath, etc etc etc and issues death warrants for them all. Hey he committed countless genocides, loves raped women, endorses slavery, commits countless abortions in which you as christians are so against so that"s a true super massive hypocritical contradiction, this god of yours also gives the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" and yet strangely with a zap zang and zowie, this god of yours kills so there"s another super massive hypocritical contradiction, and yet orders his henchmen to also kill for him. But no need to worry, your bible is filled with a good thousand or more super massive hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies making your bible truly unreadable. But then again, no stupid ignorant god would ever rely on text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible so people like you can get it wrong. Gee.

Mmmm wow can"t read, can yah snookums? Nope. Now let"s look at Psalm 111: 5-10 which is remarkably shoddy at best.
5 He hath given meat unto them that fear him: he will ever be mindful of his covenant. 6 He hath shewed his people the power of his works, that he may give them the heritage of the heathen. 7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. 8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. 9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. 10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
1. With EX 34:14 it was god that said the verse. Here its someone else naming his "holy and reverend" is his name. BIG HUGE MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE. 2. Fear him? Why should anybody "fear" a supreme deity that is supposed to be "loving"? But wait folks, this god character is the absolute furthest from loving and in fact a true terrorist, especially among children if there ever was one. But you have neatly chucked that part away to a big black blank hole and clearly have not read your bible for what it is. Oh and btw, there"s no such a thing as "fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom" when nobody can even prove that this god even exists. What idiot is going to want to look over their shoulders ever second of every day saying to themselves "where and how did I f--k up. I hope I did the right thing today." Apples. Oranges. As usual, god"s sorry precious frail fragile jealous superior ego complex, in which your bible is entirely about and nothing else, has its loose stains.
'holy', 'awesome', and 'jealous' are just adjectives." Well if they are, to you especially, then why do you bother reading your bible. By that reasoning alone, then you MUST consider your entire bible to be a very long list of adjectives and nothing but.

Oh and btw, no supreme deity would ---ever--- have the want, the need or desire for "jealousy". Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. Yep your god has also freely admitted to having anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil. And yep according to you this god must have sent all those emotions down to man so in turn man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going you for worshiping this thing with at least 1 billion dead all in the supposed "good" name of this god on the battlefields alone. And you think YOUR god is "love, kindness, care, harmony, peace"? Nope. If so, then why not have that from the start and never look back/ Nah your god loves hate and evil especially when he knowingly clings to those baggage emotions and there"s ---never--- been peace with god at the helm, only war, devastation, first comes power, then fear and then control. Try harder.

Oh I did make an argument against the trinity, but you being a christian, CAN"T READ. And I will not go into ANY biblehub context as it is one of the worst sites there is on the internet, much less the planet in regards for anything that is useful. If you want to send me elsewhere, I may look at it.
Now which video are you referring to? And of course moses was only one person. Gee that one seemed to have escaped me.

"I simply put forth what seems the most natural way of understanding the words," Uh huh. See that is exactly why YOUR god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. This god of your, especially with his superior ego god complex that is blatantly clear throughout his entire bible and well as his jesus in which neither of them can be proved and in which jesus was false, are all about ego and nothing but.

"once you recognise that it doesn't actually say 'one lord', as you quote it in the debate title. Neither does it say 'one god', or any such thing."OK I"m ending this debate because then according to you and only you and I"ve been doing this for 42+ years and you would know better than roughly 22,000 people that I"ve talked with, and according to every English translation that I have looked at, they all read "one" no matter which adjective YOU use on biblegateway.com in which I just went through to be sure - again -. And you and only you MUST know a lot better than them all.

Oh and I also googled "Meyer"s NT Commentary" and guess what? He like all creationists are utter trash and can be tossed like a gutterball into a whoopie cushion voodoo doll who smirks at a painful rectal itch while painting smiley faces on rolls of t.p. for a living as ALL of them, no exceptions, are utterly worthless and garbage. Why? Because they cannot and will not under any circumstance stand behind their product, namely their god, when the pressure cooker is turned on at absolute zero. They are pretty smart, well at least smarter than you, in that they will ---never--- put their product on trial again. Why? Because they 100% know that they will lose every---single---time. That"s because with what rolls around in their little beanies with choppers on top, they know that all they have to go on is faith and faith cannot be proved. And they know that faith is NOT evidence of any kind. That"s all you have as well also. Because your bible isn"t evidence of any kind also.

"Faith is the treason people give when they don"t have evidence." Matt Dillahunty

NOTHING is established in scripture. That"s because the christian god, if remotely intelligent in which he is clearly not, would never use text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible 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 trance it back to the original. And there"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly.

http://www.youtube.com... - Christians don't understand the character of God
"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

http://www.youtube.com... -The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!"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

Bye.

Your next post will most certainly be totally and 100% be ignored.
DavidHudson

Con

You essentially contradict yourself in your first paragraph. You say that, "this is only true when YOUR bible suits YOU and only you and only when you feel like it suits you and like every christian abomination, you chuck the rest that you feel like throwing into the trash ... But then again, no stupid ignorant god would ever rely on text as a source of communication, the worst form of communication possible so people like you can get it wrong." Here you have claimed two things (both of which I'm starting to guess ultimately come from this video series):

1. Christians ignore what is written in the Bible
2. Text is bad communication because it means we get it wrong

If Christians are ignoring what is written, how do you know it wasn't communicated accurately? You seem to have got the message perfectly clearly, for instance, that God hates adultery - so how can you claim that this wasn't communicated well? And in fact, we do expel from our congregation anyone who commits adultery. If others who call themselves Christian don't follow the Bible, and their members are allowed to commit adultery with no repercussions, infer from that what you will - but it certainly isn't because God's hatred of adultery isn't clearly communicated, you yourself have demonstrated that it is, because you recognized accurately that it was written there!


"this god of yours also gives the commandment of "thou shalt not kill" and yet strangely with a zap zang and zowie, this god of yours kills so there"s another super massive hypocritical contradiction"
You may tell a child not to touch the oven, but you as an adult can touch it. That is no contradiction. It recognizes your differing levels of knowledge. God can recognize when it's appropriate to do things that we with our limited understanding should avoid taking into our own hands.


"Fear him? Why should anybody "fear" a supreme deity that is supposed to be "loving"?"

fear
4. reverential awe, especially toward God:
the fear of God.
Synonyms: awe, respect, reverence, veneration.
http://www.dictionary.com...

I remember asking my Mum the same question, and finding that out. I was probably about seven at the time. You should really understand that the challenges you're throwing around aren't even hard ones; among those who actually follow the Bible and study it these would be considered more appropriate questions for children than for adults. Sure, among 'Christians' who don't actually follow the Bible - who certainly exist as was acknowledged in the first few paragraphs here - these questions may seem tricky. But you aren't asking anything challenging to an actual student of the Bible. This is like challenging a calculus student by saying maths doesn't really make any sense because there's no answer to what you get if you subtract a bigger number from a smaller one! Yes, a calculus student has considered answers to that, decades ago, and to imply that they've never thought about it just sounds silly. They are not intimidated by your aggressive posturing because you are asking them questions that they learned as children, and their silence in response should not be taken as an indication of being beaten, it's more wondering what's a polite way of answering and how the answer can be explained to someone who doesn't already know it. I'm not saying you can't ask these questions - but don't be insulting about it, it just makes people assume that you're probably not the kind of person who would understand an answer even if it were explained. That, not any failure of text as a communication system, is what is most likely to prevent you from learning more in the future.


"By that reasoning alone, then you MUST consider your entire bible to be a very long list of adjectives and nothing but."
You seem confused. This is what an adjective is:
http://www.chompchomp.com...
God's name, rather than being an adjective, is a proper noun. It has to be, by virtue of being a name.
http://www.chompchomp.com...
http://biblehub.com...
That's why, regardless of whether 22000 people disagree, I can be so sure that 'lord' isn't an appropriate way to translate that word (while not claiming that 'one' is a mistranslation, as you mutilated my argument), because 'lord' is just a noun, not a proper noun.
http://www.dictionary.com...


"they will ---never--- put their product on trial again."
They won't put it on trial because they aren't against it. If you have some legal complaint against it, then you put it on trial, and they will defend it! The defendant doesn't put themselves on trial!


'"Faith is the treason people give when they don"t have evidence." Matt Dillahunty'
I assume Matt said 'reason' rather than 'treason', that would at least be intelligible albeit wrong for anyone following the Bible. By definition it would be wrong for someone who follows the Bible, because they would follow the Bible's definition of faith at Hebrews 11:1 as being "evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." When they don't have evidence, they can't have evident demonstration of anything, therefore can't have faith, therefore what Matt claims would be a contradiction.
https://www.jw.org...


"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."
No. Are you - or the people in your videos who actually come up with these arguments you repeat - so naive about human nature as to believe that just because a text is written with no ambiguity, that means people will accept what it says with no ambiguity? Do you think that all those courses about Quantum Jumping exist because there's ambiguity about whether quantum physics actually suggests such a thing? Or that Flat-Earthers exist because there's ambiguity about whether the world is round? You can show something as clearly and plainly as you like - as with the no-adultery rule mentioned earlier. If it goes against what people want to believe, they will interpret it differently. There may be no logical way to interpret it differently - but that's no obstacle to humans, because humans aren't logical. Humans can always interpret things differently. There's no way a book can be written, no way a sentence can be said, no way any meaning can be conveyed, with only one way to interpret it - unless you're conveying it to a computer instead of to a human.

When people genuinely want to know things, there's a reasonable level of evidence it takes. Say they want to know about the holocaust, reading about it and how it fits into the rest of history is generally sufficient. For holocaust-deniers, you can keep providing more and more evidence - photographs, video footage from the time, people who were alive at the time and witnessed it, take them to visit the museums, and they will continue to deny it as being part of some big conspiracy, and demand more and more evidence.
Mr. Dillahunty says God doesn't "care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it." I say I've met plenty of his kind before, and provided them with as much evidence as I could provide for any fact in the realm of science, and they always keep demanding more, exactly like any conspiracy theorist. God provides enough evidence for anyone who is genuinely interested in the facts. But for people who don't want to know, there can never be enough evidence, so quite sensibly he doesn't try to provide enough to satisfy them.


While your arguments at this point bear at best a tangential relation to the topic, they are the arguments you make, so I have responded to them - there seemed nothing actually on-topic to which one could respond. If, as implied, you ignore this post, then I shall finish in my final section by trying to enlarge upon my previous arguments that God is indeed one.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidHudson 3 years ago
DavidHudson
It would seem that, since I last tried using this site, a bug has developed whereby you can't finish a debate once someone has forfeited a round. It just says, "Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options." By the next time I log on, I would expect my time for posting a response to have run out, and I still can't post anything. Here is a link to what would have been my final round, if I were able to post it:
https://www.dropbox.com...

While there isn't room to post it all here, the gist of it is that monotheistic religions are defined by one God distinguished from all other beings by his being omnipotent and omniscient. While they often involve other supernatural entities such as angels, these are not omnipotent. In polytheistic religions, even when one particular god was considered a chief of the other gods, that god was finite like the others, having a time when it was born from some other god, and having similar limits to its power. This is the definition of monotheism which fits all our common usage of the term, and when using this definition, none of Pro's arguments really are relevant - the definition of monotheism accepts the existence of other supernatural beings, which is the only thing Pro really demonstrates. It simply requires that they all be inferior to the one supreme God, which Pro says little if anything to dispute. The only way Pro would still have a case is if he had a reasonable but different definition of monotheism - which he was challenged to provide and either could not or would not do. Therefore, I ask you to vote Con, in the event that this buggy website allows the debate to enter the voting period, which I am currently not optimistic about!
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago
Fiasco
Out of respect for backwardseden's wish, and keeping in mind that he will surely not be reading this, I'd like to say a few more words.

When he said, "Let this be a very important lesson in your life that if you state something, then you'd better be able to back it up with solid evidence, or don't bother being involved with it AT ALL.", he was completely right. However, I think he should practice what he preaches.

Not sure in what case stated something and wasn't able to back it up with rock solid evidence?
Let name a couple.... (note the irony of one in context of the other, and that last one!)

-"See, you cannot even READ"
-"Christians as a whole, especially here, especially teeny boppers like you, THEY CAN'T READ."
-"...your entire religion is a fake and a fraud."
-"...you cannot possibly be intelligent enough nor edumacated enough to represent christianity."
-"Unlike you I can prove what I say with solid rock evidence. You have nothing."

I enjoyed our little discussion. Too bad, backwardseden won't be reading this, or I would have thanked him for his time and commended him on his success on writing a very funny dialogue! ;)
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Fiasco - I'd be willing to bet just like so so so many here, christians especially, on debate.org that you have no genuine friends or loved ones. What do I mean by genuine? Those that will go way way wayyyyyyyyy out of their way in time of dire need and never ask you a single question. Its a HUGE red flag and for that I cannot even pity you. But you flat out deserve it for absolutely presenting no evidence and no one will want to hang around with you because of this. See, you cannot even READ. Like I said, right and wrong, what is just and unjust. Awe gee I also stated that I don't deal with those that (I think) invent excuses and or flat out lie and (I know) those with a lack of an intelligence and an edumacation.
'When somebody votes on a debate on here, they have to list their reasons for voting. " Such a truly childish teeny bopper response. Did it ever dawn on you that they WILL LIE or invent excuses? Nah. One person votes the same exact way on EVERY SINGLE DEBATE NO MATTER WHAT. So I ban him from voting because its quite childish.
"I know it"s right and I can prove it," See, you are full of s--t. You can't prove it, you know it. OK I'm ending this. I don't deal with children who play games. Unlike you I can prove what I say with solid rock evidence. You have nothing.
Let this be a very important lesson in your life that if you state something, then you'd better be able to back it up with solid evidence, or don't bother being involved with it AT ALL. That's why you will (and you probably) have no genuine friends or loved ones. And if you do it to your teachers = instant F. And NEVER do it to those that know better. And believe me, I do know better. A lot better. I've seen your kind come come and go. And because of your antics, you-will-go.
Your not watching of the videos is an EXCUSE. And a miserable one at that. Who said you had to watch all four at once? Watch one or two. Duh. Then the next. Idiot.
Don't bother me again it will go unread.
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago
Fiasco
P.S. - sorry about all of the funny little quotation marks, DDO switched some of my other symbols into them!
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago
Fiasco
Backwardseden:

Okay. Well, if you don"t care about winning, and your only goal is truth, then why don"t you want to hear me out?

No, you don"t have a "0% chance of winning"! When somebody votes on a debate on here, they have to list their reasons for voting. The points are then awarded based on who did a better job debating, not who the voter agreed with most! Funny, though, that you"re complaining that the odds of something you "don"t care about" are against you.

You say that I didn"t go into the specifics of my religion because I can"t prove it right and I know it. There"s another one of your assumptions! You said that "".if you could you would have done as such to prove yourself correct and me false at all costs..." - well, no, I wouldn"t have. I wasn"t challenging you on your beliefs to begin with, so I felt no need whatsoever to prove my own religion right. I know it"s right and I can prove it, but I don"t need to in this discussion and I"m not going to follow you down that rabbit-hole. I will happily discuss this with you separately and another time, as I can see it will be quite the lengthy discussion.

At the start, I was talking about your absurd requirements on an opponent. Obviously, this is a purely subjective opinion, so I"m not expecting you to provide proof that your requirements were logical. Like I said, I wish you luck in finding an opponent whose arguments you won"t throw out on a tiny technicality, as I do think it will be hard for you to refrain from doing so based on what you"ve already said!

I"m not going to watch over an hour"s worth of video on a topic I"m not discussing right now (again, we can discuss this another time), because I"m busy getting a "pathetic high school edumacation"! But you never addressed my point on this " if I"m so terribly stupid and conceited, why on earth are you (obviously such a smart and logical person) afraid to beat me in an honest debate? I proposed a debate " Are you afraid to take it or not?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Fiasco - You don't get that I don't care AT ALL about something as super cheap as "wining". I care about what is right and wrong and what is just and unjust. And considering the fact that debate.org has an approximate 75% of those who claim to be christian, I have a 0% chance of winning at anything because of pure bias.

OK now we are going to get into it right here because YOU CAN'T READ. "My religion explains away your so-called difficulty with ease. However, you know nothing about me or my religion" Naturally you failed 100% to explain away your failing religion because if you could you would have done as such to prove yourself correct and me false at all costs to boaster your sad pathetic superior ego complex, just as your failed god and jesus is which YOUR ridiculous dimwitted dullard snot meat sow bible is all about and nothing else, and for no other reason. So why haven't you. Its because you can't and you know it. You have to come up with a childish cabbage batbrain excuse that doesn't wash your salted vinegar open wounds down the drain. Yeah I've been doing this for 42+ years a little over 2 1/2 times your miserable high school age. So yeah, I do know what I am talking about whereas you have to invent excuses and or flat out lie to keep your head above ground zero while you sleep during a nuclear war.

This case is closed because you did have your chance with your utter lack of intelligence and an edumacation.

Now here's some stuff for you to ponder and watch these four videos. So don't tell me I don't know YOUR religion, because I absolutely 100% do. I you that doesn't with its horrifying results.
http://www.youtube.com... - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?
http://www.youtube.com... - top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive
http://www.youtube.com... - God hates children
http://www.youtube.com... - God: Merciful? Maniac? Mass-Murderer?
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago
Fiasco
backwardseden:

"Do you REALLY want to do that? I've already done a few debates on EXACTLY that..."

Sure! I do really want to do that. Like I said: "Christians (as a whole) can't read" would be the title; you'd be Pro, and I'd be Con. From your profile, I can see that you have won 0 out of 60 debate so far. If you've really done a few debates on "exactly that", (that Christians can't read), it seems you've not been too successful....so I'm not sure why you'd be boasting about it.

"...only its far worse than that because not only can you NOT read, but you do NOT in any way take YOUR god nor jesus at their word which is far worse than the ability to READ. Do you know what "reading" is? You know. Words. Sentences."

Yes, I know what reading is. I think it would be pretty difficult to debate I I was illiterate. But accusing me of not taking "my God" at His word? What do you know about me to make such a claim?

"And it does so a couple of times. Who is this "us" and our"? So YOUR god is NOT one, thus your entire religion is a fake and a fraud."

My religion explains away your so-called difficulty with ease. However, you know nothing about me or my religion and can't possible know that. I'd recommend not making so many claims before you know what you're talking about!

"Case closed. You had your chance. You blew it. Bye."

This case isn't closed. I never had a chance. I never blew it. Do you really think that your refusing to talk to me equates to me losing? Not by a long stretch! You're funny, mister!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Fiasco - Do you REALLY want to do that? I've already done a few debates on EXACTLY that only its far worse than that because not only can you NOT read, but you do NOT in any way take YOUR god nor jesus at their word which is far worse than the ability to READ. Do you know what "reading" is? You know. Words. Sentences. Hey there's a few verses right here on this debate to prove that YOU can't READ. As an example YOUR bible states "us" and "our". And it does so a couple of times. Who is this "us" and our"? So YOUR god is NOT one, thus your entire religion is a fake and a fraud. And there are MANY more examples. Case closed. You had your chance. You blew it. Bye.
Posted by Fiasco 3 years ago
Fiasco
backwardseden:

"Its because christians as a whole, especially here, especially teeny boppers like you, THEY CAN'T READ."

I would happily debate you on that. "Christians (as a whole) can't read" would be the title; you'd be Pro, and I'd be Con. If you're willing to provide proof to support what you say, it would be such fun!

"I'm seeking moron theists, but not you because you cannot possibly be intelligent enough nor edumacated enough to represent christianity."

Lol, a even mere teeny bopper like me can spell "educated." I guess my "edumacation" paid off! Haha. Seriously though, If I'm a poor representation of my side (even an uneducated or ignorant one), then it should be easy for you to win a debate against me! What are you afraid of?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Fiasco - See? That's why you are a christian. Its because christians as a whole, especially here, especially teeny boppers like you, THEY CAN'T READ. Who on earth am I to seek an atheist to debate me? Um no fire ants in the you know where areas to take some nibbles to get his next highs, I'm seeking moron theists, but not you because you cannot possibly be intelligent enough nor edumacated enough to represent christianity.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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