The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

I implor voters to vote not on their original beliefs, but on how well we debated. I ask my opponent to limit the last round to rebuttals only. There are two issues with these assertions. .. The gift of healing is not represented as a superpower which the believer can use at will, it is represented in Scripture as a move of God's Holy Spirit through the believer, at the impulse of God not the believer. Specifically this impulse of the Spirit is for the edification of the Church. My opponent assirts that I have not shown satisfactory proof that the healings claimed by some churches are wholesale false. I shall expand on my proof. However, the Bible clearly states that it will work. We see hundreds of cases where people with treatable diseases were killed because they did not take medication, but rather relied on faith healing--which failed them. If it is the impuls of God and not the person, then why is it that it has failed numerous times? say that . Also note that my opponent has sought to only attack the healing aspect of this passage and therefore acknwoledges that snake handling, poison drinking, and speaking in tongues are no longer in question. The reason I did not attack speaking in tongues is because I was afraid of running out of room. Furthermore, if I could attack and destroy just one part of the Bible, the entire thing is ruined; therefore, it isn't necessary to do so. But since you asked, I'll at tack speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is called "glossolalia. " Glossolalia is the fluid vocalizing (or, less commonly, the writing) of speech-like syllables, often as part of religious practice. Logical Explanations (Taken from . http://en.wikipedia.org...)1) Mental IllnessAs Pentecostalism expanded in the 20th century and attracted the attention of the wider world, psychologists initially thought of glossolalia in pathological terms, thinking that it was caused by mental illness. In 1927 George Cutten described speakers in tongues as people of low mental abilities.2) HypnosisWhat is taught is the ability to produce language-like speech. This is only a partial explanation, but it is a part that has withstood much testing. It is possible to train novices to produce glossolalic speech. One experiment with 60 undergraduates found that 20% succeeded after merely listening to a 60-second sample, and 70% succeeded after training: Our findings that glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance[…] support the hypothesis that glossolalia utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings. That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech. On final attack on speaking in tonguesglossolalia go back as far as 1100 B. C. Furthermore, many non-Christians have also practiced Glossolalia. I urge you to see this source . http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net... Speaking in tongues as we see it today did not come about as a result of studying the Bible. It just out of the blue happened. It should be of extreme concern to all Christians, because as already shown, it is not uniquely a Christian practice by any means. Various studies have revealed that speaking in tongues is present in non-Christian religions all around the world. It is practiced in China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arabia, Burma, and Arctic regions just to name a few. Glossolalia is found among the Eskimos, Japanese séances in Hokkaido, in a small cult led by Genji Yanagide of Moji City, the shamans in Ethiopia in the zar cult and various spirits in Haitian Voodoo and is also found extensively in African tribal religions. Since history records that the practice of tongues goes back well before Pentecost in Acts chapter two, which was speaking in foreign languages, is speaking in tongues as we see it today from God, or as some claim from demonic sources or are there other explanations? Does what Paul speak of in regards to spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14 relate to what we see in Churches today? Why do Christians that practice speaking in tongues as we see it today, now call it a heavenly language or the tongues of Angels from the same page. RC4) There is one big attack on the fact that some people go unpunished. God is just. Therefore, he CANNOT let sin go unpunished. God is unchangeable. Therefore, if God lets sin go unpunished, he is not just. Therefore, he cannot be God because he contradicted his very nature. RC5) I shall expand on the argument and give 100% PROOF that he was talking about the 2nd coming. 24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. 28Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: 29So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. 30Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Mark 13:24-30Clearly, it is talking about the tribulation period and the second coming. vs 24: Tribulations, sun darkened (eclips? )25: Stars fall 26: Son of man returns27: Rapture. http://www.biblegateway.com...It may be possible that "Generation" is referring to the Jews. However, as seen in previous verses, this cannot be the case. "There be some standing here until these things occur. .. " (paraphrased. )I did not respond to the single/plural distinction because it is not central to my primary argument in this contention. I was simply proposing an alternate theory to show that my opponent's argument is not the only possible one. I have proved both of your theories wrong. Back to you, con. Good luck in voting. You have proved yourself worthy of being my opponent.