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

Your overboard insults are the reason why you run out of space. I have already understood that you hate me, My views, And all christians regardless of their personality or real-world value. Repeatedly saying it over and over again in different ways doesn't affect me, And disadvantages you, Unless you like running out of space. If you want to convince me that debates should not be civil, Saying that Trump doesn't debate civilly is NOT the way to make me believe. If anything, It makes me believe debates really SHOULD be civil, Since Trump does not set an example of good moral behavior. Maybe you use Trump as a role model: you call people names as much. I think, Though, That you'll be disgusted by that thought (since you called him a maggot), So it is probably not intentionally true. I just think you should be careful not to become similarly immature. Most people fail to keep things civil in political debate events, But that doesn't mean the way their debates end is the way all debates should be. The definition of proper debating is NOT however the politicians debate; debates aren't just a political thing. People could debate when eating dinner, Or while just talking to each other. We're having a debate now, And I'm not a politician (are you? [rhetorical question]). Politicians sometimes don't keep their cool, But we should, Because we'll think more clearly if we do; rage will make you act rash (or I should say it already HAS made you act rash). You said "the maggot is pressed against the wall so naturally he loses his cool" and "nearly all live debates when someone is backed into a corner and they don"t have the answers, They almost --- always--- lose their cool. " Don't you think that's a bad point for you to try to make, Since it could imply you don't have the answers? You are the one losing your cool, After all. "Don't even deny [. . . ] in any blithering idiot way", And "Still with all that neurotic erotic babbling" are just a few parts where your feelings show through; there is evidence of your anger throughout all of your arguments. You said "almost", So maybe it doesn't prove you're logically cornered, But it is a bad indication, At least. "I never get involved with something that I know nothing about. That"s also taught in college. Why? Because of so, Then your friends and loved ones, Well you will soon have no friends or loved ones. [. . . ] No exceptions. None. " 1. I don't believe you'd know anything about whether certain people you talk to online have real life friends: You were wrong to say you never get involved with things you don't understand. 2. You think that not knowing exactly what to do but getting involved and giving it your best shot is what makes people HATE you? You're supposed to get involved in subjects you don't understand so you can LEARN. I don't know very much about psychology, For example, But I'm getting involved in it by taking a class on it next year. That doesn't mean that act will make all my friends and loved ones leave me. 3. Using insults in your language will cause people to like you less. Hopefully you don't talk so rudely to your loved ones and friends. You've interpreted "if" incorrectly a couple times now (I probably need to give examples so you won't claim I have no evidence: Argument 4, And a comment): If I choose to make a sentence this way, I can still be completely sure about the sentence I'll write. If I find any treasure, I'll be happy. The sentence isn't a claim I found treasure. If the earth had two moons, The tides would be weird. The sentence isn't even a claim that that's there's a POSSIBILITY the earth has two moons. The point is: I'm not uncertain about whether my perspective is true. ("Notice the first word you used was "if"? So you don't know. You guess. Yep I get it now. So you think that YOUR god [. . . ] would NOT be perfect, That"s according to YOU". ) To address the paragraph surrounding the quote, "Because what you are stating is "memory". ": It doesn't need to be an accurately remembered practice. Like the ugly duckling which over time became a swan as it was changed, The original message of the bible could have been wrong, Or original church practice could be wrong, But the mistranslating and handing-down can end up correcting the flaws and making the right message. The current religion could be true, With the original religion being false. No matter how original-accurate the message is, It can still be the correct message. I have been saying things along these lines since Argument 1 ("The original meaning doesn't matter anymore if it's lost to time. What should matter is the meaning a person ends up reading and remembering, And thinking about"). For the paragraph surrounding this quote: "No you just do whatever YOU want. " I'm addressing the reason you asked this question: you were trying to find a contradiction in christianity. And I only addressed this underlying debate between us because I answered the question you asked already: I proved well enough that god would use text. "Would (if he wanted to)" is still a category of "would". You should've said "does". And what about you? Do your insults actually prove anything related to the question you asked? Your long stream of unrelated words in the first couple paragraphs of Argument 4 were certainly not on-topic, Nor were any of the other useless names you called me. I don't think I'm just doing whatever, But if you think I'm getting side-tracked, You will see similar behavior from yourself. For when you said this: ""Multiple branches exist which draw from the same material. " Really? According to what? You? " Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist, Mormon (this one might not count since they draw from the same material, And then some), Methodist, Moravian, Etc. Look these up and find the sources for yourself. I thought it would easily be common knowledge that multiple denominations of christianity exist, But you decided to call my bluff, On this of all things. And then you quote Tracie Harris: "If you try to get clarification, If you try to get what the christian orthodox view is on the law, You're not going to find consensus. " This basically says (on its own, But it still does say that in context) that not all people believe the same things, Even when they draw from the same material. You've condemned and supported the same view in your argument. For the paragraph of this quote: "no matter which language you speak its 2+2 = 4", I wasn't talking about different languages, I was talking about different possible laws of physics. The laws didn't have to work out that 2+2 would equal 4, But they did. As far as we'll ever learn, They could be different too. God cannot be disproven when no statement or idea can be proven or disproven according to the Evil Demon experiment (which you seem to have overlooked). I expected you not to be interested in those complex ideas, But I hoped then and still do hope that someone else reading this would try to analyze the arguments thoroughly. ""But you intentionally don't attempt to improve your writing in that respect, So they are still your fault ideal so you are a very bad bad bad truly contradictory hypocritical naughty boy" (and the unmatched inner quotation mark is intentional; that was the way you wrote it). I already knew that those mistakes weren't from us (Argument 3, Con, Paragraph 2, Slightly before where I made the quote you imitated). I was writing that quote about YOUR mistakes, Not Debate. Org's mistakes. Debate. Org is the one that should try to improve itself for the typo you brought up; it's the one that made that mistake. But even filtering out that bug, You have typos. Regarding your quote by Aron Ra: Omnipotent beings wouldn't make any versions if they use their power to give people the knowledge directly, And they'll leave it as several versions if they don't use their power. People are supposed to apply judgment to the messages they get from the bible, Instead of blindly obeying. That's enough to address that. Matt Dillahunty: If god wanted to correct everything immediately, We'd all be perfect beings, And we'd all think the same. We'd be the same minds; we'd be god's mind. And he would not have a use for less-powerful duplicates of himself. He lets us gradually grow to reach him using slower processes such as judgment and learning. He allows for the creation of more minds and more life so that there will always be uniqueness in the world. The testimonials of HISTORY are unimportant, And god is aware of that. The morals are what matter, And the new versions can have good morals in them as easily as the old versions. A pathway to moral truth can be found in historically inaccurate stories, No matter how historically inaccurate: Even a fictional fable can have a good moral to it. Russell Glasser: People don't all agree, Because really agreeing would mean being of the same mind. If everyone was a copy of the same perfect ideas. . . (I addressed this already, So I'm saving space, Just like you could do, If you chose). Russell has an interesting opinion of preachers, But does not have or present evidence that preachers only receive training in deception. What does "superficially convincing cases" mean? A convincing imitation of a convincing case? If people BELIEVE an argument is convincing, Then it convinces them TRULY: If something's convincingly convincing, It's just convincing. You draw words from well-known, And probably skilled with words, But not necessarily infallible, People. The quotes you would agree with and use are the quotes I would disagree with and have logic against; I'm not so against all of these people that I would challenge their words THIS often under normal circumstances, But the hand-picked selections are all the ones that aim at disproving the points I made to you, So naturally I would be able to counter them if I had made a good logical path to my points before giving them.