The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

The unproven god would not be stupid enough to use text, Namely the bible as a form of communication

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 409 times Debate No: 119844
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

backwardseden

Pro

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

Further rounds will reveal verses that choke on themselves by mere translations, Thus the bible chokes on itself.

There will also be videos presented which will show that not only is the bible NOT evidence of any kind but will thus show that the god of the bible would in fact be pretty stupid to use text, Namely the bible as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible.

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

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

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

dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting process for this debate.
ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash

Con

yo what are you talking about bro? Of course has a god complex: he's god. How are you gonna say there's no original. It's called the bible nigga. The bible isn't the word of god directly. It's a written account by a multitude of people of God's revelations to them. So it's perfectly fine to translate or appropriate the words in it, As the text is human interpretation in the first place. God didn't right the bible homie. The bible was written by humans. What other long-term form of communication is there other than written language; especially in the 5th century?
Also you need to learn how to use capitals. Maybe if you could write a coherent sentence you wouldn't have such an opposition to text as a form of communication

I sincerely hope you grow out of this anti-religion teen phase and learn to accept Jesus into your life because right now you're just embarrassing.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

*yawn* I bet you argue with yourself from which razorblade to gnaw at those you know where areas to cut at those pimples on that happy hairy hard off during mulch season from how does your garden grow spin-itch.

"Of course has a god complex: he's god. " Um no dildo breath, Its YOUR god, In which you cannot even prove exists, Has a superior ego god complex in which YOUR bible is entirely about and nothing else. A very big difference from that scratch in you a$$. Now if YOUR god was indeed a true loving, Kind, Caring, Harmonious, Kind, Etc god, Then the superior ego crap would have been dumped long before man was rockin' in the cradle. Duh. But your tinsel mind cannot figure that one out.

"How are you gonna say there's no original. " Because none has been discovered to be traced back to. Wow. What a keen observation. Its called research in which you, An obvious sweaty piece of rear end wipe, Hasn't the foggiest clue as to what actual research is.

"The bible isn't the word of god directly. " Wowzers cabbage batbrain, Some of the verses are supposed to be god's actual furry tongued monstrosities of his very words. How else was he supposedly supposed to have spoken to his supposed prophets AND LIED TO THEM?

"So it's perfectly fine to translate or appropriate the words in it, " Well let's prove you 100% wrong right now and show you to be the pin the tail on the jacka$$ that you truly are with porcupine quills. Here are only a very few examples from what is supposed to be a perfect book:
* In the Bishop"s bible, The one before the KJV, The word "Tyrant" was used I don"t know how many times (its at least 400 from what completed records show) and then in the KJV that was replaced by "King". WHAT? Tyrant and KIng are two different and totally apples and oranges with each having totally different meanings.
* In Isaiah 45:7 KJV "I form the light, And create darkness: I make peace, And create evil: I the Lord do all these things. " In the NIV version its "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, The Lord, Do all these things. " In the NLT its "I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, The Lord, Am the one who does these things. In the ESV "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, Who does all these things. " The words "evil" and "disaster" and "bad" and "calamity" are completely 4 completely different words that have 0% of nothing to do with each other and completely change the meaning of the verses. With each different verse, The messages are completely different. The synonyms of each word don"t even match.
* Proverbs 15:24 KJV "The way of life is above to the wise, That he may depart from hell beneath. " NIV "The path of life leads upward for the prudent to keep them from going down to the realm of the dead. " NLT "The path of life leads upward for the wise; they leave the grave behind. "Now, What do those very same verses and thus their translations have ANYTHING to do with each other?
* Psalm 9:17 KJV "The wicked shall be turned into hell, And all the nations that forget God. " NIV "The wicked go down to the realm of the dead, All the nations that forget God. " NLT "The wicked will go down to the grave. This is the fate of all the nations who ignore God. " All three translations have no trouble in calling EVERYBODY wicked who ignores the God of the bible. Well gee, God cannot even be proved tested nor demonstrated. But what is really fascinating about these three translations is how each of them disagrees with what "hell" is - if there is a hell. According to the KJV there is. But not to the NIV which is the "realm of the dead" in which could easily mean something quite different. And then there"s the NLT which states "go down to the grave" in which most certainly translates to something quite different from the other two translations and one would have a very hard time in thinking that this translation would be referring to "hell" by any means. Its a complete joke.

"What other long-term form of communication is there other than written language; especially in the 5th century? " That right there proves you to be one of the top 5 dumbest idiots I've ever debated within my doing this for 43+ years and talking with approx 22, 000.

"Also you need to learn how to use capitals. " In speaking with you, I don't need to learn how to do anything.

"I sincerely hope you grow out of this anti-religion teen phase and learn to accept Jesus into your life" Oh I see, Threats now that come from your uterus while you give birth to a yodeling pimp grunge country rock star? Try harder.
ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash

Con

ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

backwardseden forfeited this round.
ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash

Con

ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

backwardseden forfeited this round.
ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash

Con

ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro calls Con "dildo breath". That's poor conduct. Also countering thots inadequate grammar vote. Not enough detail was provided.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
backwardsedenThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I couldn't get past round one because it is too painful to read Con's spelling/grammar.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
backwardsedenThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con calls Pro "nigga". That is poor conduct.

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