god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

“Which rule exactly did I break?” I said god. I did not say christ. Sheesh. Can’t you read? See? That’s why you are still a blundering teeny bopper still in high school with no edumacation nor intelligence. Its pretty easy to figure out. And if you mention christ again, that portion of that argument will thus be ignored once again because christ is a false prophet and has 0 to do with this conversation. Got it? If you don’t like the parameters, that’s too gosh darned bad. The rules are easy enough to understand. But here’s you.. You think that your gizmo christ has the equality and or is more powerful that your god. NEWSFLASH: Wrong. I am so stupid in mentioning this as I didn’t in the previous round… Wow, you can’t even prove your god, so how on earth can you prove your christ? Now that’s HILARIOUS. “Everything I said was directly relevant to the discussion at hand.” Oh it most certainly was not. Once again, only god. And in RD1 I only mentioned “god”. I didn’t mention “christ”. So absolutely NOT IN ANY WAY was “Everything I said was directly relevant…” yadda yadda yadda. BORING. “My opponent claism that God wouldn't use text because it's an unreliable method.” Text is an unreliable method TO GOD. POINT BLANK AS THE FIRST SENTENCE OF RD1 STATES. Nature Romans 1:20 - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.WRONG Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, evenhis eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”So if you make another screw up like that again, I will end this debate and declare myself the instant and rightful winner. I mean I have no idea which translation you are using, but its a clear abomination and a wrong one at that. And you just proved right there why your so-called printed in text god would NOT use text, not ever, so man like you can get meanings incorrect and false. “Dreams and Revelation & Audible Conversation - Proof isn't the topic right now.” Proof is is the topic right now? Who says it isn’t? You? What babbling baby brained infidel that sits in his highchair and burps up his peas and carrots says it isn’t? OF COURSE IT IS. And you cannot prove your side and you fricken know it you arrogant prick. “We're trying to figure out what means God supposedly uses to contact people.” Um mmm duh ummm doy umm what? Huh? Doy duh huh? I dunno, huh? What? Doy duh, huh. What? I dunno, Well you must be dummmmber than a doornail in your brain pecking at wood. Um no in its simplicity the subject is, is that in no way would “god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication”. So who cares if you want to violate that subject content? I don’t. “Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 1 - Jesus spoke in parables.” Did---Matt---ever---speak---of---christ? No---he---did---not. Then---you---have---no---case. NEXT. “Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 2 - The vast majority of Biblical books are not anonymous.” Oh yes they absolutely are. “We know who wrote most every book.” Who is this “we” stuff”??? I told you to present you where and how you get your information from. Naturally you cannot do it. Now you present it right here exactly for what you say right here and now so I can look it up. Because its 100% false and you know it. I also have information from the second biggest weekly news magazine in the country that also states the same this as Matt stated that will knock you off your stupidsvill rocker.http://www.newsweek.com... Newsweek THE BIBLE: SO MISUNDERSTOOD IT'S A SIN And they know one helluva lot better than someone like you who clearly without question has to invent excuses and flat out lie in a meager attempt to gain the upper hand. Now you present your information and exactly where you got it from and you do it right now or you will thus be percieved as a gutless wench with flase information. In other words I'm calling you on your bluff. “We also know that the Bible we have, as proven before, is what God meant for us.” Really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? Then explain to me why you are still in high school with a high school edumacation unless you dropped out? In fact um no. Totally 100% false After all Hitler was a devout christian. Hong Xiuquan knew himself to be the younger brother of christ. The Spaniards spread their filth to conquer The Inca and they spread their disease to kill off most native American Indian tribes with wonderous smallpox that YOUR god invented. Oh and btw, this christ figure that you are in so much desperate love with is the most fought over figure in history next to your god. Go figure. So that’s what your god MEANT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not me and billions of others because we have the ability to think, use common sense, rationalize, reason, and use logic in which case your god, you, religion and bible cannot possibly do. Christopher Hitchens happens to be a lot smarter, crisper, justified, more right, more honest, more upfront, more truthful that a teeny bopper punk kid like you who knows nothing about something that he tries to pretend he does. There’s no possible way you could ever outshine Hitchens, Dillihunty, DeGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, Harris, Harris (yes there’s 2 Harris’s and no they are not related) Carrier, Krauss, Glasser etc etc etc in any debate. You demeanor is a dry as drab in any punch bowl set. Not only that but you think you know everything when in fact you truly know nothing and you would get demolished by those who know a lot more than you do who knows a lot more than something. Not only that but here’s the trick of it… you know 0 about psychology and wow does it show. Not only that but you have 0 genuine friends and loved ones and wow does that show. Those in the list... They would plaster your shadow so your flesh would not be able to breathe. “How could he say 'what would change if these people didn't exist?'Well duh.You figure it out. See. That’s precisely why no one wants to have anything to do with you. “Personal Experience - These can't be proved,” See but you are a teeny bopper, scarcely 16 years old and still in high school or a flakey dropout. So---you---have---no---personal---experience. Its that simple. Now you look up Hitchens and you look at his personal experience you total dimwitted dullard snot meat sow before you take another blink of life from something in which case you know nothing of and yet you think you do so you have to pretend that you do so you invent excuses to cover for your tracks in order for you to make up for you falling behind and because of that you somehow think by doing this you can gain the upper hand. WRONG. Pathetic. “What better evidence would there be for God than him coming to Earth himself?” god was not christ. Once again, you cannot prove that god exists, so how can you prove that christ has ever existed? Duh. “Again, you cannot simply act as if God only communicated by text;” Oh for god sakes teeny bopper, LEARN TO READ. OK I’m ending this round. You have a lot to answer for. Bye.