Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
90 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 0/577 Week: 68/135 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deconversion experiences
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3463 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 91 of 299 (593679)
11-28-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICdesign
11-28-2010 12:22 PM


Re: More of the same BS
Try backing them up with solid evidence and stop using the Bible to attempt to prove itself.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICdesign, posted 11-28-2010 12:22 PM ICdesign has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6007
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 92 of 299 (593680)
11-28-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Meldinoor
11-28-2010 12:45 PM


Re: Catch 22
Meldinoor writes:
Actually, I'm standing here, looking at the world and claiming that it does not even appear to be designed.

That's my take on it, too. And the more I study it, the clearer it becomes that it is not designed.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Meldinoor, posted 11-28-2010 12:45 PM Meldinoor has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-28-2010 7:48 PM nwr has seen this message

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6007
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 93 of 299 (593684)
11-28-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by GDR
11-28-2010 12:47 PM


Re: More of the same BS
GDR writes:
I think that many of the deconversion experiences happen because people find the Bible contradictory and inaccurate.

I think that understates the problem.

As I see it, the problem is this:

  • Christian theology asserts that the Bible is infallibly true;
  • even those denominations that do not assert infallibility of the Bible still assert that the Bible is the source of their theology;
  • the Bible text does not actually support a lot of core Christian theology.

It takes a really strained way of interpreting the Bible to find it consistent with Christian theology. There's a thread here on Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? that well illustrates part of the problem.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by GDR, posted 11-28-2010 12:47 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 11-28-2010 5:52 PM nwr has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 94 of 299 (593685)
11-28-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICdesign
11-28-2010 12:22 PM


Re: More of the same BS
ICDesign writes:

Old Testament Prophecy // New Testament Fulfillment

Isaiah 52: 13&14 // John 19:1-3
Micah 5:2 // Matthew 2:1
Isaiah 7:14 // Matthew 1: 18-21
Daniel 9:25 // Galatians 4:4
Genesis 49:10 // Luke 3:23-38
Zechariah 9:9 // Matthew 21 1-4

First, you would have to provide evidence those events in the NT actually occured. Second, just by reading the OT "prophecies" in context, they have nothing to do with Jesus, nor are some even prophecies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICdesign, posted 11-28-2010 12:22 PM ICdesign has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 95 of 299 (593688)
11-28-2010 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICdesign
11-28-2010 12:22 PM


Re: More of the same BS
bluescat48 writes:

You make the statement about fulfilled prophesies, therefore it is up to you to back them up with evidence.


......here are just a few...

Old Testament Prophecy // New Testament Fulfillment

Isaiah 52: 13&14 // John 19:1-3
Micah 5:2 // Matthew 2:1
Isaiah 7:14 // Matthew 1: 18-21
Daniel 9:25 // Galatians 4:4
Genesis 49:10 // Luke 3:23-38
Zechariah 9:9 // Matthew 21 1-4

Admittedly, it's been a few decades, but I recall prophesies being fulfilled in The Lord of the Rings, in particular The Sword That Was Broken. And more recently fulfilled prophesies in the Star Wars saga.

Would you discount those fulfilled prophesies? For what reason?

Do you now begin to understand?
(obviously not, but one can always hope)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICdesign, posted 11-28-2010 12:22 PM ICdesign has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 226 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 96 of 299 (593693)
11-28-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by nwr
11-28-2010 3:55 PM


Re: More of the same BS
nwr writes:

I think that understates the problem.
As I see it, the problem is this:

Christian theology asserts that the Bible is infallibly true;

even those denominations that do not assert infallibility of the Bible still assert that the Bible is the source of their theology;

the Bible text does not actually support a lot of core Christian theology.

C S Lewis said this in his book called Miracles.

quote:
Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology – the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

I agree that the Bible is a basic source of my theology but frankly so is all creation, and so is my fallible reason. Christianity makes sense of this world in ways that nothing else does. That is my view which I've expressed before in other threads so I don't want to go through another round of trying to defend it.

I recently participated in a thread where I expressed many of my views on how God relates to His creation. GDR in thread, "Is Evolution the Work of Satan?"

I go back to my earlier point that it is the bodily resurrection of Jesus that is central and essential to the Christian faith. If the resurrection was an actual historic event then the Bible can be read in light of that. If I were ever to come to the conclusion that I was wrong in my belief about the resurrection then I would view the Bible quite differently.

On the topic of original sin by the way I see it this way. Some where along the line the love of self came to be entrenched in all of us. (Looking out for number one.) Christianity teaches that we are to minimize that and maximize our love for all of our creation.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nwr, posted 11-28-2010 3:55 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by frako, posted 11-28-2010 6:13 PM GDR has replied
 Message 101 by nwr, posted 11-28-2010 7:58 PM GDR has replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 97 of 299 (593695)
11-28-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by GDR
11-28-2010 5:52 PM


Re: More of the same BS
I go back to my earlier point that it is the bodily resurrection of Jesus that is central and essential to the Christian faith. If the resurrection was an actual historic event then the Bible can be read in light of that. If I were ever to come to the conclusion that I was wrong in my belief about the resurrection then I would view the Bible quite differently.

Even if there was a guy that woke up 3 days after he was dead that still does not support that a god was responsible.

You haveto take in to account that medicine was not on the same standard as it is now. One can be presumed dead and still be alive and wake up after a period of time.

Examples:

before my time in a village not far from me an old woman died and they laid her in that place where you sprinkle holy water on her and say a prayer. Dunno about your customs though usually they lay in there for a few days and then they get buried. On the second night that she layed ther some robbers came to steal her jewlery she wanted to be buried with them as they where poking her trying to take the rings and stuff she woke up the robbers fled. And the next day she wrote to the newspaper to publicly thank the robbers for waking her. A true story if you do not believe it i think i still have the newspaper clip my mother had i can scan it and poste it you can translate it yourself.

A nother example would be a woman in an elderly home where my mother in law works, the docters pronouced her dead 3X she woke up 2x. Once in the mourge, the second time in bead cause they did not want to rush it the second time yust to be sure.

I think discovery also had a show where people where presumed dead and woke up, i remember an american in a foergin prison who woke up in a mourge.

An a noter one from discovery i believe in the 1800s a son was burying his mother when she woke up in the middle of the funeral ofcourse the priest thought that she was an abomination/ zombie or whatnot so they pressed her back in the coffin naild it shut and preformed the burialy ritual and buried her.

So you see "resurections" happen quite often.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 11-28-2010 5:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 11-28-2010 8:01 PM frako has taken no action
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 11-28-2010 10:13 PM frako has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 299 (593701)
11-28-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Meldinoor
11-28-2010 1:51 PM


Re: Great Debate Proposal
Meldinoor writes:

It's your call, Buz, although I do have a few problems with that OP as it stands.
The first problem is the fact that most of the prophecies that you reference in it have yet to be fulfilled. Now, you might make the case that the current situation in the Middle East could easily lead to the fulfillment of prophecy, but it seems to me that prophecy that has already been fulfilled would be a bit less speculative, and make a stronger case for the divine inspiration of the prophets.
Secondly, I'd prefer if you cited the relevant bible verses whenever you present an interpretation of scripture. The OP contains a lot of summaries and explanations of entire chapters, but very few actual bible citations to back up your interpretation of the scriptures. I'm not saying that your interpretations are necessarily flawed or unsupported by the text, but citing specific passages eliminates the very probable waste of time that is sifting through a chapter to figure out just which verses support our arguments.

I think I'd prefer a new OP, all things considered. But you're the one presenting the case for God's existence, so I will let you choose how to do so.

Regarding the yet to be fulfilled part, the SM makes predictions based on researched evidence as I understand SM predictions.

The most unlikely aspects of the prophecies cited in my OP of the current thread have been fulfilled in my opinion. As SM predictions go, I believe I have enough empirical fulfillment to be able to predict that the rest of the given prophecy will come to fulfillment.

Ezekiel, chapters 34 though 39 have a sequential time frame. These are the chapters which I want to debate. I will propose a new topic. In the OP I will post an introduction to these chapters, citing significant verses in the texts of each chapter to focus our debate on.

Though this prophecy is debatable, I consider it to be the most significant example of a phenomenal and observable fulfillment of Biblical prophecy pertaining to the end times.. It is the one which we have been watching on our TVs since Israel's restored nationhood.

Interesting it is that TV and Israel arrived on the world scene at about the same time. Providential? Methinks perhaps.

This topic, which I regard as very significant, is among the ones which skeptics consider to be irrelevant prophetically.

If this would be agreeable to you, it will be great to learn what your responses will be as iron sharpens iron here.

Edited by Buzsaw, : delete phrase

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix gramatical missed in preview


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Meldinoor, posted 11-28-2010 1:51 PM Meldinoor has taken no action

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 99 of 299 (593702)
11-28-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nwr
11-28-2010 3:49 PM


Re: Catch 22
That's my take on it, too. And the more I study it, the clearer it becomes that it is not designed.

Dont worry to much ICDESIGN, this is the MO for these fellows here at this board. They require the stictest evidence from any one elses position, but do not require the same of thiers when challenged on Macro-evolution, or the beliefe that the universe or whatever is a product of purely natural causes.

When pushed on it they retreat to, well we dont worry about such things, or those are irrelevant questions.

So dont be to bothered by thier double standard or thier lack of ability to provide hard evidence in those areas either

Thier also permitted to go as far off topic as they wish, belittle and demean as much as they choose without suspension or being told to quite participating in any given thread

Such is life here at the EVC forum.

heres a test ICDESIGN, ask them to provide the same type of evidence for those issues I presented above and watch the excuses and complaints start to fly

The only way to engage such fellows in such questions as you have presented on design is in a public formal debate, where one is not fettered by such limitations

But amazingly no one will step up to the plate

But to keep on topic here I can say I have never seen a single "argument" presented by evos or atheist that even began to sway my beliefs even slightly in the opposite direction

I was priviledged to be raised where debate was not only practiced but encouraged to defend ones faith

I was privileged to have the best debaters and apologists reason could offer, through the years

I have seen and participated in the best of the polemic scene and have saw the skeptics positions demolished time after time

We encourage any and all that will, to step up to the plate to debate design and anyother issues in that connection

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nwr, posted 11-28-2010 3:49 PM nwr has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Meldinoor, posted 11-29-2010 12:43 AM Dawn Bertot has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 100 of 299 (593703)
11-28-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
11-26-2010 1:19 AM


My story is simpler than most. And not as filled with family strife.

My family was nominally Protestant, mainly from my mother's side, Scottish. Actually, my father's side, Irish (County Mayo) and southwest German (Baden), was Catholic until his normally non-religious father "got religion" in one town and the entire family converted to Protestant and remained so after his father lost his new-found religion after having gotten cheated by the church leaders in a business deal. My grandmother was very religious --Protestant -- for the rest of her long life, but my father had quickly become disillusioned with religion because of the rampant hypocrisy he saw continuously, though for his mother's sake he continued to attend church regularly until his 21st birthday. But in our family he never expressed his religious views; I did not learn of them until more than a decade after the events of my own deconversion, thus he had made no contribution to that deconversion.

As I said, we were nominally Protestant. In elementary school in the second half of the 1950's, my mother had signed me up for Released Time Religious Education. I attended church with our neighbors, members of a mainstream Protestant church -- I do not remember what denomination it was except "Protestant". Then when I was about 11 years old, I accompanied church members to a Billy Graham revival in L.A., which motivated me to be baptized in our church.

Within a year, I began to strongly feel that I needed to get serious about religion, which first required me to learn just what it was I was supposed to believe. Obviously, I was supposed to believe what was in the Bible, so I started to read the Bible, just as I would any other book (at the time), from beginning to end. Even though it was very likely not required by my church, I took a naïvely literalistic approach to my reading. It was totally incredible! Really! I could not believe what I was reading. I don't remember exactly how far I got, though I'm pretty sure that I had not made it to Lot's incestuous rape by his daughters (Genesis 19:30+), since I did not learn about that one until a couple-few decades later. So, since I could not believe what I was supposed to believe, I could not be a Christian. My only choice was to leave, which I did.

Basically, that was my deconversion. It was a personal choice that I really didn't discuss with anyone, except to let my neighbor know so that she would not expect me to accompany them to church anymore. I didn't really have any family members to worry about. Nobody else in my immediate family attended church, though my older sister and her husband are now fundamentalists. I never brought up the matter with my grandmother and one of my great-aunts, who had converted to Catholocism when she married my great-uncle, never bothered the kids but rather would continually rag on my mother that we non-Catholic kids were going to Hell and it was her fault.

Then in extra-curricular reading in high school (I have always been an avid reader, though for the past couple decades it's mainly been technical) I learned more about Christianity's bloody history. As I entered into college, the "Jesus Freak" movement hit, 60's hippies now getting "turned on to Jesus" -- back then, a "freak" was a hippie, usually identified by his/her drugs of choice (as related on History Channel's show on Woodstock, a normal introductory line was "What you got?", meaning what drugs would they share) and a "straight" was a non-freak. A number of friends got "hooked on Jesus" and I became a kind of fundamentalist "fellow traveller" (borrowed from the McCarthy red scare which sought to indict non-communists who had communist friends or acquaintences), in that I learned a lot about Christian fundamentalism while never accepting it. The more I learned, the more skepical I became. It just did not make any sense at all, especially not biblical literalism and their obsession with demonology.

It was during that time that I first encountered "creation science", mainly through two claims: 1) living mollusks had been carbon-dated to be millions of years old, and 2) a NASA computer calculating the moon's position back to the distant past stopped at roughly 6000 BC stating that nothing existed before that time and when brought back to the present had a one-day discrepancy which was accounted for by Joshua's Lost Day. That first claim just didn't seem right, plus considering all the other non-creationist BS that I'd been getting from them, it seemed prudent to distrust this one too; in my researching in the mid-80's, I found the source of that claim and found that the mollusks in question were fresh-water living in streams fed from limestone sources such that the vast majority of the carbon they were getting was very "old" carbon from the limestone, not from the atmosphere as carbon-dating depends on, and as the source article itself pointed out and warned about. Now, try to remember back to 1970. Computers were near-mythical machines that virtually nobody was able to anywhere close to, and most of those who did could get no closer than the windows encasing the computer room. But even before I had come to know anything about computers (1977, computer technician training, 1980, computer science degree), I knew full well that what that claim was saying about what a computer could do was complete and total bullshit; even many Christian writers denounce it.

Then a decade later, around 1980, an ICR debate was staged at the university near where I was stationed. Amazed that creationists were still around, I started studying "creation science" to learn what evidence they really did have. Instead, I learned that all they had was lies and deception. Three decades later, that story has not changed one single iota.

During the time I've been trying to have discussions with creationists (from mid-1980's on), I've found that they must continually guard against certain thoughts. This agrees with what I had learned as a fellow-traveller and with the testimonials of former fundamentalists, such as Gary * , a friend at church (UU). As an atheist, I feel free to pursue any line of investigation and to question anything, as I have done.

{* FOOTNOTE:
One day Gary picked up some furniture we were donating and we went for a Korean BBQ lunch. He told me how for many years he had been a fervent fundamentalist. During that time, he would encounter every day things that contradicted his beliefs, things that he had been taught did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to be true. He would just cast a blind eye on such troublesome things, but as each day passed he would have more and more such things to avoid noticing. Finally, all that self-delusion and denial just proved too much for him to maintain. So he applied the Matthew 7:20 test to Christianity and found that it failed miserably. BTW, you should start reading from Matthew 7:15. Now he's self-described "an atheist and a thorough humanist" and he finds that he is so much happier and spiritually fulfilled than he was as a Christian. The only thing he misses is being able to express gratitude to God. But isn't that a small price to pay for freedom and ability to see Truth?
}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 11-26-2010 1:19 AM Meldinoor has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6007
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 101 of 299 (593704)
11-28-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by GDR
11-28-2010 5:52 PM


Re: More of the same BS
GDR writes:
Christianity makes sense of this world in ways that nothing else does.

I was fine with the teachings of Jesus. But too much of Christian theology seemed inconsistent those teachings.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 11-28-2010 5:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 11-28-2010 10:28 PM nwr has seen this message

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 102 of 299 (593706)
11-28-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by frako
11-28-2010 6:13 PM


Re: More of the same BS
As I understand, the entire tradition of wakes was to make sure that the person was actually dead. This dated back to when a physician might not be able to accurately ascertain that his patient was actually dead; in a comatose state, a person's vital signs could be so weak as to be undetectable by most people. There was a general paranoia about being mistaken for dead and buried alive, no doubt fueled by some popular macabre stories, such that there were inventions created to enable a person buried alive to signal that fact to those six feet above him; eg, a rope tied to a bell in the tombstone.

I've heard a song sung by a local Irish band about an Irishman who died, so they held his wake. And it took the sound of the jar of whisky being dropped and broken to revive him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by frako, posted 11-28-2010 6:13 PM frako has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2010 9:23 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4071 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 103 of 299 (593708)
11-28-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Meldinoor
11-28-2010 12:45 PM


Re: Catch 22
Meldinoor writes:

Actually, I'm standing here, looking at the world and claiming that it does not even appear to be designed.

Allrightiethen. So you are choosing to put your
faith in the idea that the body you live in (for example)
does not have even the appearance of design?
Am I understanding your position correctly?

What exactly is your definition of a design and please
give me an example of something that would meet that
criteria.

With great bewilderment,
IC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Meldinoor, posted 11-28-2010 12:45 PM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by articulett, posted 11-28-2010 10:49 PM ICdesign has taken no action
 Message 109 by Meldinoor, posted 11-28-2010 11:12 PM ICdesign has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 299 (593713)
11-28-2010 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by dwise1
11-28-2010 8:01 PM


wakes & waking up
Hi dwise1

I've heard a song sung by a local Irish band about an Irishman who died, so they held his wake. And it took the sound of the jar of whisky being dropped and broken to revive him.

Tim Finnigan's Wake
http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/Finnegans_Wake.shtml

Classic.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 11-28-2010 8:01 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
GDR
Member (Idle past 226 days)
Posts: 5410
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 105 of 299 (593723)
11-28-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by frako
11-28-2010 6:13 PM


Re: More of the same BS
frako writes:

Even if there was a guy that woke up 3 days after he was dead that still does not support that a god was responsible.

You haveto take in to account that medicine was not on the same standard as it is now. One can be presumed dead and still be alive and wake up after a period of time.

But that isn't what is meant by resurrection. What you are talking about is resuscitation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by frako, posted 11-28-2010 6:13 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by articulett, posted 11-28-2010 11:09 PM GDR has replied
 Message 112 by frako, posted 11-29-2010 4:02 AM GDR has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022