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

I"ve ignored ALL of your pompous la la laaing doo ha"s above nothingness of aberrations dancing foods generation A+ - decades of oofing at a nuns pep rally so whatever is said during a concrete parachuting class is kept secret while phony rubbers are stretched to their limits to find out if democracy is actually true or false because that"s the way a dead presidents ghost wants it. "A debate is where people can get to the bottom of a conflict of ideas civilly. " Oh really? According to what generation of lost gold pain in the you know where areas sprouting genes for the new bionic woman so she can save her face from a black mold transplant is this true? Have YOU ever seen a live debate, Especially ANY debate with Trump where he gets humiliated because he"s the worst president of all time and the maggot is pressed against the wall so naturally he loses his cool? Nearly ALL live debates when someone is backed into a corner and they don"t have the answers, They almost ---always--- lose their cool. However what I do is when someone doesn"t have the answers, Like you don"t, Is I spitfire insults across the board as it is my right. Yeah that"s taught in college. Also its taught in college I can leave. Also it taught in college that if you cannot back up what you say with evidence for something in which you know nothing about for something you claim to having knowledge upon and you really don"t and yet you pretend that you do and you then thus make excuses for it, Bad idea, Especially to someone who knows better, And believe me I do know better. Wow. You know something? 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. And if you do that crap to your teachers = instant F. No exceptions. None. Oh wait. Darn it. I repeated myself. Gee. So why earth should I deal with what you are saying? After all in no possible way have you dealt with the topic AT ALL as to why "The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god". With the "RULES: Prove that the god of the bible would use text as a form of communication to god. " No you just do whatever YOU want. Of course the idea of god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication is not my idea. Its been well thought out throughout history. Wow. Did you think up that one on your own especially when in the first round I used The Dossier of Reason? And I ---always--- see, Now you are infuriating me and really p**sing me off because you clearly do not pay any attention, None, Just like the typical christian, To any evidence that is put forth unto you "If you will agree to accept a good idea when it isn't your own. " I do that all---the---time. Not only that but I ---always--- when I use others ideas I state where they came from. "Religion is not completely defined by the text it draws from. " We"ll eliminate that ideal because its clearly YOUR ideal because no one of merit will agree with it. Why? Because what you are stating is "memory". Memory is ---always--- unreliable. Here"s an experiment for you to try" Get 9 people at a circular table. You whisper into the first person"s ear 5 sentences - something like "Its a great day this morning. I forgot to brush my teeth. I need to stop at the gas station al get some gas. I will use my credit card. Damn I don"t think I will have time to get some breakfast. " And then you whisper those 5 sentences into the first person"s ear. Then the second person makes the attempt to whisper those same 5 sentences into the third person"s ear and so on. By the time it gets back to you those sentences are so garbled and misconstrued that the original 5 sentences have completely changed. TRY IT. Better yet put god on trial again. Its the failure of faith and memory. Text goes bye bye. "Multiple branches exist which draw from the same material. " Really? According to what? You? How would you know? I really love it when prefabricated Fido"s like you invent excuses clearly from something in which they know nothing about. Also what you are saying is that everybody, Preachers mainly, Well who are they and what do they teach exactly? See that"s the problem going from church to church is that there"s no consensus. See YOU just made up a monstrous fib from something in which YOU clearly know absolutely nothing about. "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. You"re not going to find christians "oh here"s what christians think about" they"re all going to have this concept of this different thing now. But as far as it applies and why and what to do with it, They"re all different. Its going to be a hard argument because most have different ideas about it and most are going to change their ideas and start tweeking them as soon as they have to start answering questions because they haven"t looked into it before most of them. " Tracie Harris "If I were you I would treat this as an exercise in understanding the whole of the fabric of societies. So maybe go ahead and talk to your pastor and don"t go in with an agenda. Go in and just interact and interview him and find out interesting things. And find out points where you agree and disagree. And then do the same thing with somebody else. Go to your local synagogue and ask them about judaism. Look up as many denominations as you can and have a chat with people. And I think what you"ll find over time is that everybody is convinced that they know the absolute truth. And everybody has wildly different opinions about what that is. " Russell Glasser "Religious leaders are not trained in any sort of objective information. They are very well trained in is backtalk. So they might be good at making superficially convincing cases. " Russell Glasser "To address your statement that you can prove things with logic:" Well see that"s not my ideal at all, That comes directly from Stephen Hawking. But I shall read what you have to say. I mean gee whiz. You must think you have more to say than he. "To address your statement that you can prove things with logic:" Still with all that neurotic erotic babbling no matter which language you speak its 2 + 2 = 4. And no matter which language you speak, God can always be disproved. "Furthermore: The question "Would the god of the bible ever use text as a form of communication? " Must logically be answered by "no". "If your point of view is correct, " Its not just "my" viewpoint (Oh wait you used a comma there son so wow and you used plenty of others and thus followed a capital letter with the next word "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) "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. " 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 (don"t even deny that you don"t believe in this arrogant crap that YOU call a god in any blithering idiot way) would NOT be perfect, That"s according to YOU, Would be imperfect enough to use text for whatever reason in which you would not give as to the why or where or when or speaking to who and how would this god of YOURS use text for ANY REASON? Screw your logic findings. You don't have any. There's no thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Common sense and you guessed it, Logic. "If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors" how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can"t distinguish between the law of Israel and god"s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take figuratively. We don"t know what we"re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn"t make any sense. It doesn"t matter how its translated. It doesn"t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well. " Aron Ra Actually it wouldn"t be written at all. What"s wrong with your god comin" down and talking to people? "Hey you know some of that stuff that"s in the book? I"m here to correct it. " Matt Dillahunty "We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, There"s no amount of reports, Anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, By relying on languages that die off, By relying on anecdotal testimony, That"s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this. Which shows either god does not exist or doesn"t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate? " Matt Dillahunty Yep you guessed it, There's still A LOT more on why YOUR god would NEVER use text, The worst form of communication possible. I'm out of space.