Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,060 Year: 5,317/9,624 Month: 342/323 Week: 186/160 Day: 3/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 5 of 566 (595343)
12-08-2010 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Well, there's the fact that God doesn't exist ... but apart from that I can't think of anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-08-2010 3:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 68 of 566 (596127)
12-13-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2010 9:06 AM


Because the Koran is not like the Bible, it cannot sustain itself by its internal evidences, in the nature of historical and archaeological support ...
Well of course it doesn't. The Koran's got all this crazy stuff in it about fictional characters like Adam and Eve, their supposed children Cain and Abel, some guy called Noah who survived some sort of mythical flood, an imaginary wizard called Moses who parted the Red Sea (as if!), some chap called David who allegedly killed someone called Goliath, some bloke called Jonah who's supposed to have lived inside a whale, and some chappie called Jesus who healed the blind and the leprous and raised the dead.
Obviously there's no historical or archaeological support for any of this.
Now, you were saying how the Koran was different from the Bible? Pray continue with your most interesting narrative.
... and especially in doctrine.
It apprears to be a bunch of random spiritual ideas strung together, with very little unity
The unity of doctrine and theme is one of the Bibles supports as being from God
Have you ever read the Bible?
Sheesh.
(I need not, I think, bother asking if you've read the Koran.)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 9:06 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 7:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 566 (596227)
12-13-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2010 7:45 PM


Yes, because it is a copy and reprint, with a few alterations to the facts of the Bible.
And yet when the same stories appear in the Koran and the Bible, you claim that the Koran lacks historical and archaeological support which the Bible possesses.
This is simply one of many themes and ultimate purposes that the Koran cannot boast, especially if it was written by one person
The fact that it was written by one person actually gives it the unity of thought and purpose which the Bible so singularly lacks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 7:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 9:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 566 (596438)
12-14-2010 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
Dawn Bertot, post #115 writes:
So do you have a reason why I should deconvert?
Dawn Bertot, post #138 writes:
Its not about me Moron

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 10:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 143 of 566 (596439)
12-14-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 11:04 PM


Re: scriptural unity
here is an example. I have asked you now, in nearly 15 posts to provide a single argument as to why anyone should deconvert. You presented nothing that I havent already responded to several times
And you have in fact been provided with arguments. The fact that you personally have babbled incoherently about these arguments (or "responded to" them, as you like to call it) does not mean that they have not been provided. Indeed, it is hard to see how you could have "responded to" them had they not been provided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 149 of 566 (596447)
12-14-2010 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 11:11 PM


Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
Hello, Dr A. I noticed you never provided a theme or purpose for the Koran. Does it have a recognizable theme
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
Comparing it to the Bible is ofcourse idiotic, wouldnt you agree
Let's see. Comparing the holy book of one religion, claimed to be inspired by God, containing stories about Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, the Exodus from Egypt, Jesus raising the dead ... with the holy book of another religion, claimed to be inspired by God, containing stories about Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood, the Exodus from Egypt, Jesus raising the dead ... ah yes, idiotic. I mean, where's the point of comparison?
No, clearly if the Bible should be compared with anything it should be compared with something with which it has some points of similarity, such as a giant inflatable rubber pineapple. That would make perfect sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 566 (596450)
12-14-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 11:09 PM


Re: scriptural unity
This is ofcourse a silly notion. One cannot conclude that no one knows who wrote the book, then conclude they were not written by the claimed authors
Right. Just as one cannot claim that no-one knows who killed Jimmy Hoffa, and then conclude that it wasn't Napoleon.
What would we do without your finely-tuned sense of logic to set us all straight?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 152 of 566 (596452)
12-14-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 11:14 PM


Re: scriptural unity
And of course I have responded to the ones that I had to sift through to actually find some sort of argument and the others take time, as I am encompassed with numerous responders
If you think I have missed something then simply present it
Apparently you have missed the fact that you have been provided with "a single argument" --- indeed, more than one.
Otherwise your complaint that you have repeatedly asked to be provided with a single argument makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 566 (596456)
12-14-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 11:38 PM


Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
I should know what I am suggesting or asking for.
Well, you'd think so, wouldn't you?
And yet here we are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 156 of 566 (596457)
12-14-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 11:42 PM


Re: scriptural unity
I am trying to catch up on Archs responses, other than that I would like for you to present the single argument I have not addressed or responded to in some form
As you would know were it not for your crippling illiteracy, I did not say that you had been provided with an argument that you haven't responded to (thought this may in fact be the case). I merely said that you had been provided with arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 566 (596461)
12-14-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2010 11:48 PM


Re: scriptural unity
So tell me how we can conclude that it wasnt Paul, based on Archs bold assertion.
As you would know were it not for your chronic illiteracy, arach wrote that "none of the books of the new testament were written by people who personally knew christ (prior to the resurrection, in a real corporeal physical sense, anyways)". Which is true of Paul even according to the most orthodox of Christian views.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 171 of 566 (596494)
12-15-2010 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 3:01 AM


Re: scriptural unity
The OT says that out of Israel will come a great king, that will rule in Israel and that his kingdom will know no end.
This kingdom was of course the Church, that spoken of by Christ when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight"
Of course. Of course "king" means "not a king", and "will rule in Israel" means "will not rule in Israel".
I think I'm getting the hang of hermeneutics. So when Genesis says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", it means "In the beginning God did not create the heavens and the earth", right?
After all, if we started taking the Bible literally we'd believe all sorts of silly things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 3:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 4:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 175 of 566 (596499)
12-15-2010 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 4:18 AM


Re: scriptural unity
My guess is that you know exacally what Christ was saying concerning his kingship and kingdom, just like the rest of us, but you enjoy playing the dumb card.
But it wont be until your death bed or the fear of old age setting in that you will make the typical recant
Cowards usually operate in that manner. To bad I wont be there to see it, but my guess is that it will happen
My, my, what a nasty piece of work you are to be sure.
However, neither your real character nor your fantasies about my imaginary character seem germane to the topic or my post.
According to you, the OT predicts "a great king that will rule in Israel".
Clearly Jesus did not fulfill this prediction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 4:18 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 566 (596606)
12-15-2010 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 12:21 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Everyone make a mental note, DA disagrees that Jesus Christ is a Spiritual king over the Church (Spiritual Israel) and that is what the prophets predicted and the inspired writers in the NT make clear through inspiration and evidence
Why can't the prophecies be about Percy? He's the Internet King (moderator) of the EvC forums (Internet Israel).
So Now, all DA has to do is demonstrate why I should believe HIM, with no evidence to the contrary and why I should ignore that Christ fits and fulfills those promises, the way they were originally intended, in a spiritual fashion
There's no evidence that that's how they were intended, any more than there's evidence that they were meant to be about Percy.
In particular, it should be pointed out that none of the Jews understood them in that way. When they read about a great king ruling over Israel, they did not understand it as meaning that someone who was not a king would not rule over Israel but would instead become the cult figure of a new religion that would persecute the crap out of them for the next coupla thousand years. Otherwise they'd probably have looked forward to the advent of this "messiah" chappie a whole lot less.
Do you have any evidence that the church is not the kingdom the prophets spoke of?
Yes, because it's a church and not the Kingdom of Israel.
You can make any prophecy fit anything if you change the meanings of the words entirely. Here, I've got a prediction for you. In the coming week you'll win the lottery.
Now get back to me in a week and I'll explain to you what I actually meant by that. Here's a hint --- by "win" I don't mean win, and by "the lottery" I don't mean the lottery.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:21 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 252 of 566 (596827)
12-17-2010 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Dawn Bertot
12-17-2010 3:37 AM


Re: scriptural unity
Why is it that people cannot think in logical terms?
Perhaps you were dropped on your head as a child. Who can say?
But, now listen and pay close attention. It is ludicrous for one to assert, with certain assuance that he was not the fulfillment of those prophecies and believe at the sametime that the writers in the Old testament were unreliable, inaccurate and mythical
Here is why. If you dont even believe in the veracity and accuracy of the OTs writers and thier claims, (and that is what you are using for your source), to discredit something else, how in the world could one claim with absolute assurance he was not the messiah, while using what one believes to be faulty in the first place?
I prophecy that tomorrow you will see a grufflepuff, by which I mean an animal with five heads and purple wings that incessantly plays the trombone.
If you don't see anything fulfilling that prophecy tomorrow, then let me ask you this.
If you don't believe in the veracity and accuracy of my claims, how can you claim with absolute assurance that none of the things you see tomorrow are grufflepuffs?
It is ludicrous to assert with certain assurance that my prophecy has not been fulfilled and believe at the same time that I am unreliable and inaccurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2010 3:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Taq, posted 12-17-2010 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 264 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2010 10:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024