The utter silliness of god, the bible and why you should not believe in god

Response to Pro's (Round 1) Claims ContinuedConcerning Matthew 19:12 Pro writes, ". . .well that"s physically impossible and could -never- happen. Duh. Regardless, its a pretty sick verse." I assume my opponent is referring to the eunuchs "which were so born from their mother's womb" as being "physically impossible." The word being used here does not necessarily mean one who is born castrated although that is a possibility. Eunuch: "a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man" [1]. A physical deformity or other cause of impotence from birth can constitute a"so born" eunuch. In regards to Pro's contention that it's a "pretty sick verse," I would again point out that a eunuch can simply be a celibate, unmarried man, not necessarily someone who has mutalated himself. The context of the passage is marriage, though I doubt my learned opponent took that into account before responding to it with such malcontent and ignorance.Pro argues that Judges 1:19 shows that, "god must be that weak. . .Clearly a misprint in the bible, or god is man made." The verse is no misprint; unfortunately my opponent demonstrates his exegetical failures once again by taking a passage out of context. When it says that God "could not" drive out the people, it is not to be taken as God was impotent in His ability to do so, rather, God was unable through Israel to do so. While God has incredible power, power to create stars like VY Canis Majoris with His words alone, He was working through the children of Israel to provide them with the land promised to them via His covenant with Abraham. The people were not driven out precisely because of the rebellious attitude of the children of Israel. They chose to keep from driving out all the heathen peoples and thus God was unable to fulfill His end. Throughout Judges 1 we find that the children of Israel failed to keep God's command to drive out all the inhabitants and thus in Judges 2:1-3 we read, "And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: whereby have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you." He could not drive out the people because of Israel's failure to keep His command and for no other reason.Pro speciously asks, "Why would god have only sent one jesus?" The simple biblical answer is: only one Jesus was necessary because of who He is and the work He accomplished on the cross. I am not quite sure what Pro is getting at by asking this question or how it pertains to the subject at hand. Pro claims that, "Clearly more than one jesus was needed, required and was necessary to have carried out god"s word to have provided peace, love, care and kindness." According to scripture, my opponent's statement is unequivocally false: ". . .we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:10-14).Pro erroneously claims, concerning God and Christ's death on the cross, "HERE"S THE KICKER, HE COULD HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF!" Once again my opponent demonstrates that his knowledge of scripture is bereft of any real substance. Multiple passages inform us that this Christ who dies on the cross for the sins of the world is in fact the Creator Himself. Perhaps the ultimate revelation of Jesus Christ is that He is God in the flesh. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16).Pro argues, "And your precious jesus, in which there is absolutely no proof for him having ever existed in the first place as well as god, is why there is so much hatred in this world." First of all, how does a non-existent person cause anything? Second, I have already provided evidence for God, His word, and by extension Jesus Christ. As for as historical evidence for Christ's existence, it might behoove my opponent to do even a cursory search online for such evidence as it is abundant. Found this in less than a minute (which I have never read before): http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org... Pro concludes by saying, "The bible is littered with rules and regulations that no god/ supreme deity would -ever- put into play and much less expect people to believe, much less live by them. Yet the bible is supposed to be perfect in every way. So is god. Clearly both are not. Since this is true, god, the bible and christianity should not in any way be worshiped, idolized, bowed down to nor yielded to." How would Pro know what a god or supreme deity would do? His argument is untenable and arbitrary. Since Pro thinks certain of God's commands in scripture are "silly" he therefore claims that the Bible is not perfect. By what standard and definition of perfection is he arguing from I wonder? Surely not a subjective one which he himself has made up? Hmm. In any case, Pro in Round 1 has failed to, in any sense of the word, support his case.Response to Pro's Round 2 ClaimsPro curiously claims, ". . .my opponent completely ignored the first few verses stated in the bible. So round one immediately went to me because of god"s clear imperfections." Unfortunately my opponent failed to demonstrate any objective standard of perfection, much less was he able to show in any way that God and His word are imperfect and therefore untrustworthy.In an attempt to bolster his prowess in biblical exegesis, Pro argues, "Ignorance of scripture? Oh my son of weighty wheat fields to be mined, I"ve been doing this for, 40 years, studied the bible for 40 years, its translations and language, have talked with at least 25,000 people." Amazingly Pro fails to realize that there are plenty of logical people who may read this debate and find his statement lacking in any swaying power as any person can study something for many years and yet be profoundly ignorant of that which he has studied, as has been demonstrated thus far in this debate. Appeals to authority don't go over very well with prospective readers, especially when that appeal is to one's self.Pro astoundingly asks, "'biblical God of creation.' Exactly what is that?" I would have thought Pro would understand what I meant as this God is the very thing He is arguing against. How is it that one is able to rationally argue against something he does not comprehend? Pro claims, "Your argument from genetic information has 0 to do with this debate so it shall be ignored completely. I didn"t mention anything about DNA, living cells, digital codes or whatevers. I stuck to the bible specifically." Well the relevance of my argument is to be determined by the reader. Pro failed to specify that this debate should only be argued from scripture alone, rather he attempted to make a case that God should not be believed on the basis of perceived silliness in the Bible. I chose to make a counter argument from scientific evidence which I believe is a stronger case than the one made by my opponent. Just as imagine a person would argue against me if I had chosen to argue from scripture alone for the existence of God; certainly they would be inclined to make a counter argument from scientific evidence.Pro blunderously says, ". . .evolution is proven fact. It can be proven in a few short sentences, websites, TV shows in which you cannot refute and no one can." If such were the case, evolution would be an unscientific theory as no one would be able to refute it. A foundational tenant of the scientific method is the falsifiability of hypotheses and theories. Pro argues, ". . .you are 100% wrong and PBS"s Nova knows one helluva lot better than you. In other words, you can"t just say something, expect others to believe it without a shred of proof as you have thus far done." Pro's seeming appeal to authority fails to constitute a substantive counter argument against my claim. Unfortunately my opponent is incorrect in his insinuation that my argument is invalid if extensive support is not provided. Any claim left uncontested stands as a viable argument. If I said God exists because of genetics and provided no explanation or support, and my opponent failed to contest it, my argument would yet stand, however the reader would likely determine it a very weak argument. However for the sake of the reader, here is a simple defense of my argument: natural selection, a primary mechanism for evolution, works against the claims of evolutionary theory as selection only works to eliminate genetic information, not add to it. "But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created" [1]. Thus organisms are bereft of any evolutionary mechanism to allow the surpassing of the phenotypic bounds set by their genomes.Once again I am running out of space. Thus far Pro's vitriol rhetoric has failed to support his case. My arguments stand uncontested. I will continue responding to Pro's claims in the following round.References[1] - http://creation.com... [2] - King James Bible