The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NKaloms
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text 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 2 votes the winner is...
NKaloms
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 436 times Debate No: 104085
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

backwardseden

Pro

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god.

Rules:
For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.

NKaloms

Con

Hello backwardseden, I accept your debate.

To begin, I would start by defining communication and the different types of communication.

Def. of Communication - the imparting or exchanging of information

There are 3 basic types of communication. 1) verbal communication, in which you listen to a person to understand their meaning; (2) written communication, in which you read their meaning; and (3) nonverbal communication, in which you observe a person and infer meaning. (open.lib.umn.edu)

To start, I would ask my opponent why he believes that text form is the worst form of communication? Text form is very useful to store and teach information. If it wasn't for the Romans documenting their history, we would know little to nothing about them. The Bible is a great way for God to communicate to us because by having people write it down, we don't have to worry about having scholars remember all of it in their brains, which they may unintentionally (or intentionally) change parts of it.

So to restate my first question, why does my opponent assume text form of communication is the worst form of communication?

Sources:

http://open.lib.umn.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro


See? That’s why I hate debating with teeny boppers still stuck in high school and or a dropout with obvious limited intelligence and a stunted edumacation. No offence. Its just how thing are.


Now exactly what is the first sentence of this debate?
“god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god.”


Now let’s look at a few definitions for “text”...
1. the main body of matter in a manuscript, book,newspaper, etc., as distinguished from notes,appendixes, headings, illustrations, etc. 2. the original words of an author or speaker, as opposed to a translation, paraphrase,commentary, or the like: The newspaper published the whole text of the speech.3. the actual wording of anything written or printed: You have not kept to the text of my remarks. 4. any of the various forms in which a writing exists: The text is a medieval transcription. 5. the wording adopted by an editor as representing the original words of an author: the authoritative text of atullus.
Now do you really think a god according to your bible would actually choose text as a form of communication so everybody can get it wrong?


Let me help you out a bit. And please read these and take it all in and think about them before reacting because they are all true...
“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

“If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We’d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor.” Christopher Hitchens


In other words, there’s no evidence in text with translation after translation with copies upon copies over the thousands of years with absolutely no possible way to trace it back to the original. So how on earth is anybody expected to get what they are reading correct? Its impossible no matter which bible you are reading with over 100 different English translations alone. Do you you really think your god would be that stupid to not have the insight and not know this? The simple solution is to have actual evidence and talk to us as an example. But no. The god you worship, in which case you cannot even prove even exists, plays a hide and seek game with you and uses faith. And faith is not a path to truth at all now is it especially again, when your god can talk to us as evidence.


NKaloms

Con

My opponent's main issue with the Bible being a written document is that because there are many translations of it and many different groups interpret it in many ways, God (being an omniscient being) would not have wanted his word to be written down because he knew that people would get it wrong.

Well, there's a simple answer to this. God established a Church to interpret the Bible without flaw. Jesus Christ established his Church in Matthew 16:18. Of course God knew there would be division and different interpretations of his word. That's why he made sure his church would be able to interpret it correctly. The Catholic Church throughout history has interpreted the Bible infallibly throughout its entire history. Which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are figurative are answered by the Popes and Bishops throughout the history of the Catholic Church. But even when Catholicism was the only form of Christianity, groups formed and broke off of the Church because they had their own interpretations(along with other reasons).

It wouldn't have mattered if God wrote the Bible himself, people would still find a way to interpret it to their own wants and desires. Keep in mind the Bible was not written by God, it was written by humans inspired by God.

I still do not understand why my opponent believes that text form of communication is the worst form of communication for God to use. He has proposed that text form is the worst and then gives no evidence to back up this proposition. In order for his statement to be true he must provide evidence. You cannot just state something to be true and then that makes it true. Give me evidence for why your statement is true and stop attacking me with ad hominem attacks by saying I'm not smart because I'm in high school or whatever. That is irrelevant to this debate. If my arguments are good, then it doesn't matter if I'm male or female, tall or short, in high school or not in high school. My education is irrelevant to my argument.

My opponent also talks about how God must not exist because of some reasons. If he would like to debate those reasons
he showed me then I can do that on another debate; but for now I thought this debate was assuming that "if" God exists, he would not use text communication.

Sources:

http://open.lib.umn.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

“My opponent's main issue with the Bible being a written document is that because there are many translations of it and many different groups interpret it in many ways,” WRONG. Sheesh. See? That’s why I hate debating with teeny boppers still in high school with an obvious high school edumcation and and a clearly stunted intelligence who has the brains of a fallen nightmare twig.Tell me, please (beat), what is the very title of this debate? Now get back to me when you have the answer and then go from there and then put that headliner ideal that you posted as a secondary thought and thus continue, but only if you want because I'm not sure if I want to because I want to have a debate with those that are INTELLIGENT and have an EDUCATION.
NKaloms

Con

I don't see how my statement contradicts what my opponent believes, considering what he has said in his arguments but whatever. My opponent has still not answered my previous question on why text form of communication is the worst form of communication for God and has instead opted to use ad hominem attacks. Once again, if he is to backup his claim he must provide evidence for it. I await to see this evidence.

Sources:

http://open.lib.umn.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Since this is the final round and since you must have only a preschool knowledge of the ability and lack there of to read I shall help you out ONCE AGAIN Sheesh I wish I could get someone intelligent and educated for a change to debate with. JUST ONCE would be A LITTLE BIT NICE THANK YOU!
The title of this debate is ONCE AGAIN “god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god.”
And what do you do? NOTHING except for one thing you stated in your 2nd and 3rd rounds had ANYTHING to do with that.
I still do not understand why my opponent believes that text form of communication is the worst form of communication for God to use.” oh for f--k sake DID YOU EVEN READ THE QUOTES FROM Aron Ra, Dillahunty, and Hitchens? NO YOU DID NOT TO MAKE SUCH AN ASININE PIGHEADED STATEMENT. Yes I’m angry. I have EVERY RIGHT TO BE when someone is SO AMAZINGLY STUPID just like YOUR GOD.

You mentioned the CHURCH. You mentioned CHRIST. AND YOU base your arguments on them. WHO CARES? They are NOT GOD now are they? The end.

Now I am blocking you simply because, I mean you might be the nicest person on the planet and the greatest friend that there is, and the greatest person that there to get to know, but wow, we’ve been involved in 2 debates thus far, and your stupidity and lack-there-of-education and inability to debate someone who obviously has a lot more know-how into his subject matter than you, and you are clearly playing pretend time in preschool, I mean come on here, it can’t be anything less, well it becomes turning frustration into anger. And its not worth it. Sorry. I wish you the best.
NKaloms

Con

For my conclusion, I would just like to point out that my opponent has provided no arguments for his premise and instead has only used ad hominem attacks on me. I don't know why he continues to do this but whatever. I suggest that everyone vote for Con.

Sources:

http://open.lib.umn.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
@Barcafan99 - There's no convincing a brainwashed 14 - 19 year old no matter what. So pushing them over the edge is a possible way of them getting to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, use logic. And let's face it, my insults do not do any harm, I don't threaten anyone, nor do I do anything to cause them brain damage for the rest of their lives.
Posted by Barcafan99 1 year ago
Barcafan99
civility is important pro. You will never convince anyone by insulting them.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Just kidding, of course!
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No. He/she/it would make updates on FB..But we could not created such a god at the time he was invented...
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Hilarious!
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
Already explained to the child. Very telling. If you don't like it, too bad. I blocked you long long long before this debate and others for obvious reasons. That's not my problem. That's yours. Since you want to continue to behave like a child, you go right ahead and be on your merry-go-ground. Oh btw, you should pay attention to the other debate in which I just posted my RD2 argument in which you cannot refute.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I would easily defeat you on this subject, but you've prevented me from accepting this debate. Very telling
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Arganger 1 year ago
Arganger
backwardsedenNKalomsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro starts out with a big blow in conduct, directly insulting con with, "See? That?s why I hate debating with teeny boppers still stuck in high school and or a dropout with obvious limited intelligence and a stunted edumacation. No offence. Its just how thing are. " Then continues in his next round with, " a clearly stunted intelligence who has the brains of a fallen nightmare twig" He continued to verbally assault Con throughout the remainder, going as far as to say " oh for f--k sake DID YOU EVEN READ THE QUOTES FROM Aron Ra, Dillahunty, and Hitchens? NO YOU DID NOT TO MAKE SUCH AN ASININE PIGHEADED STATEMENT. Yes I?m angry. I have EVERY RIGHT TO BE when someone is SO AMAZINGLY STUPID just like YOUR GOD." Con gets grammar and spelling because pro was capitalizing entire words more than once. Con made more convincing arguments because pro was using each round to insult con and was repetitive in doing so, not bringing new arguments to the table nor arguing off cons statements.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenNKalomsTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: "clearly stunted intelligence who has the brains of a fallen nightmare twig." is how Pro described Con. This is insulting, and therefore, poor conduct.