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

I see a lot of insults, And I don't see how those will get you the win in this debate. You call them parts of "your writing language", But the language looks more like evidence of emotional bias. "I laid down my sword" is not quite true, Yet. You only apply the insulting "stylistic phrasing" to your opponents' views, And the opponents themselves (Ad hominem attacks, Such as your allegation that PrimeministerJoshua812 has no friends. It's my turn to say that "they invent these excuses form something in which they clearly know nothing about for a subject in which they profess to having knowledge upon and they really don"t. [. . . ] BAD IDEA. Especially for someone who knows better. And believe me, I do know better, A lot better. These people are so ridiculously easy to spot. " Laid down your sword indeed! ). I don't think any English teacher will buy your excuse about "writing style" when it refers to the typos you make, Either. (There are typos not caused by debate. Org, Mainly grammar and repeating the same idea twice accidentally, As you can see from the quote I used above; also spelling mistakes such as "form". All of these mistakes are not intentionally made, But you intentionally don't attempt to improve your writing in that respect, So they are still your fault). If "[you aren't] gonna change for [me] or anyone else" then that only means you won't learn from your opponents' perspectives. You'll stay limited to what you can discover by yourself, Which is less than what you can discover with your own AND another's discoveries. If you are content to a lesser state of mind, Then you have no reason to look down on my point of view. Maybe you should "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye": a quote from the bible, Which communicates a second point as well: That someone with an eye for the good lessons of the bible can learn from it. Looking for incriminating and/or contradictory evidence in the text only points out more clearly that the text is no longer a reliable source of facts about history. It's important that one realizes that a bible is for moral guidance, Not archaeology. I will disregard the meaningless name-calling and and insults, If you won't leave them out. Or rather, "I [will read them] but perhaps what you don't get is that [they aren't] needed nor [are they] required. " (If you are unaware, Brackets can be used to modify tenses or the singular/plural of words within quotes, But should not change the message of the statement). A debate is where people can get to the bottom of a conflict of ideas civilly. "That's---what---a---debate---is. " The debate is not about teaching; it is about learning, Because teaching is about learning. People could think they are the teachers of a brick wall, But that won't be a debate because the brick wall won't learn, And it won't make the other people learn. If the brick wall had a meaningful perspective it could contribute, And it could receive the people's perspectives, Then it could debate with those people. Learning is the essential part of a debate. When one quits learning and starts name-calling and insulting, It becomes a fight, Instead of a debate, Which is why I believe that you should make an attempt to act civilly in this debate website, Unless you'd rather speak for fighting's sake than for intelligence's. Our audience, Voters or not, Will, I hope, Prefer the latter approach. - The above will help us communicate more easily with one another, If you will agree to accept a good idea when it isn't your own. However, If you will still close your mind to it, I will push on in the hope that other, Open minds will appreciate the ideas below. - Religion is not completely defined by the text it draws from. Multiple branches exist which draw from the same material. These branches are distinguished by their core teachings and practices, Which could not be based entirely on the bible or else they would not differ. Preachers are considered reliable sources as well as the bible. They may not be well-versed in history or science or other school-related skills (or, As the case may be, They might be well-versed), But they are almost certainly well-versed in morals. That is what religion is about. God therefore is not described solely by a text which we have both established is unreliable in regards to history. To address your statement that you can prove things with logic: Logic is self-referential because people can only conceive of things that make sense under current logic principles. They can't conceive of logic being any other way. If logic was not the way it happens to be now, People would support that different set of rules as logical, Because it was the way things were, And those people would think it could never be different. If logic happened to be a third way, People would support that third way, And would not believe the rules could be any different. People always only understand the logic that currently applies to them, But if different logic could apply, The logic is not fundamental. If two plus two happened to equal five, You would then support that statement as a proven by equations instead of "2 + 2 = 4". "2 + 2 = 4" is not necessarily true; it is only true when logic supporting it is in place. One cannot determine how likely one set of logical rules is over another; one can only know about the current set of logical rules. They could just as easily be otherwise; nobody knows whether the logical principles were required for existence or if existence could have occurred under other principles, Or even under nonsensical ones. "2 + 2 = 4" or any other statement might therefore seem indisputable, But that's only according to logic, Which is consistent throughout the current state of the universe, But not necessarily to any other universe which might exist, Nor to the background in which universes exist, Nor to the options god had in mind for the logic of the universe. There is another reason one cannot know that "2 + 2 = 4" is an unchanging principle: Rene Descartes' Evil Demon thought experiment. Descartes presented the hypothetical situation in which an evil demon of utmost power and cunning employed all his energies to deceive a man. The man would have no means by which to verify that 2 + 2 really equaled 4 because the demon could cause the man to perceive that "2 + 2 = 4" is proven by mathematical equations when it isn't in the REAL world. Even if it wouldn't seem make sense as any other number, The demon could be altering the man's mind so that he could not conceive of "2 + 2 = 4" being incorrect. When the Evil Demon circumstance has a real chance of happening to a person, The person cannot know anything is really true, Untrue, Or real. Solipsism becomes that person's reality. Furthermore: The question "Would the god of the bible ever use text as a form of communication? " must logically be answered by YES, The CON (my own) side of the debate question (since you included "never" in your question), Regardless of whether one takes my point of view or yours, Because: If your point of view is correct, And god possesses very negative characteristics, He would be very rash; enough to do something you perceive to be a foolish mistake: use text as a form of communication. If my point of view is correct, And god possesses very positive characteristics, He would be wise and powerful enough to use text successfully, Despite the difficulties, As a form of communication. For the underlying debate behind the question asked; to support either yours or my own overall perspective: I believe text is a good form of communication for morals, Which are more significant to people's decisions and to god than the history of the Israelites. Even if the translations go wrong, God could cause the right verse to be read by the right person at the right time, Causing good things to happen. It therefore can communicate moral messages, Which are under his power, To people. "Well you nor anyone can think of any reason, Not one, Why god would ---ever--- use text as a form of communication" -Your argument, Round 3- To communicate morals to people. One reason he doesn't show his full glory to people when he wishes to communicate is that he wants people to determine things for themselves. If he showed himself to everyone and made them all know exactly what they must do, It wouldn't test the people at all. That's why people can think on their own, And that's why the bible has messages in multiple directions. One can intuit from the bible that certain destructive acts, Attributed to god, Must be correct. However, One can also find verses condemning those acts. It's not a good source of what historically happened (we both stated it was unreliable due to retranslation) so the conflict is not a disproof of god, Only of the accuracy of the bible as a source (it should be disproven; it is not an accurate source). The morals go in both ways because the bible is not meant to just GIVE people the correct answers. It contains correct answers and incorrect answers, Like a multiple choice question. One can approach perfection without using the bible or a religion at all if one has the moral judgment to find what is truly right on one's own. Those who support science or a different religion can achieve moral character just as easily as those who are Christian. A religion, Dedicated to determining what is right and wrong, Is usually a good aid to moral character, But so is any philosophical group; any group which actively tries to figure out what is right or wrong is more likely to find and follow the right. Religions (or any other moral guide books or groups) are like tutors. They're not meant to do your homework FOR you or give all of the answers to you as you do it, But they will help you understand, Walking you through some problems and letting you solve some on your own, So you can learn.