Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: steve austin
Post Volume: Total: 918,261 Year: 5,518/9,624 Month: 543/323 Week: 40/143 Day: 2/11 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 76 of 566 (596197)
12-13-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by bluescat48
12-13-2010 1:29 PM


bluescat48 writes:
In reality, those things shouldn't be exposed to adults. There is more than enough genocide, rape , incest and other evils in reality. We don't need reinforcement in Biblical stories, through which some have attempted to justify that evil.
also being fair, "attempted to justify" is probably not accurate either. while some of the evils are examples of evils, sure, others, like genocide, are specifically advocated. the bible does portray genocide as justifiable, and even commands the ancient israelites to commit it against certain enemies.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by bluescat48, posted 12-13-2010 1:29 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by bluescat48, posted 12-13-2010 11:36 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 77 of 566 (596198)
12-13-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by frako
12-13-2010 3:58 PM


frako writes:
And is totaly consistent there are no things in it that contradict itself like:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
your other examples aside, i do not think this one is a contradiction. we are dealing with a single author, in this case, and part of the same source text. the author simply believed that the sun was not the source of light, at least for the first three days.
stupid, but not contradictory.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by frako, posted 12-13-2010 3:58 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by frako, posted 12-13-2010 7:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 78 of 566 (596201)
12-13-2010 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
12-13-2010 10:40 AM


If, for example, I look at the Bible and see that it is just a collection of writings on a variety of subjects addressed to people of different eras and cultures and that there is no "unity of doctrine and theme", would that be sufficient reason for me to throw the beliefs you try to market away?
You would be wrong and the answer is, No
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 12-13-2010 10:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 12-13-2010 7:25 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 79 of 566 (596203)
12-13-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
12-13-2010 11:17 AM


The OP doesn't say anything about convincing you. I don't think anybody here would try to convince you that water is wet. What people are telling you in this thread is what convinced them.
Then provide a valid reason in argument and statement form as to why I should deconvert
Dawn Bertot you should deconvert because..............., without just complaining about this or that
You can feel free to try to convince me that a children's story is true.
That you responsibility in this thread
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 12-13-2010 11:17 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 12-13-2010 10:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 80 of 566 (596205)
12-13-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2010 7:15 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
jar writes:
If, for example, I look at the Bible and see that it is just a collection of writings on a variety of subjects addressed to people of different eras and cultures and that there is no "unity of doctrine and theme", would that be sufficient reason for me to throw the beliefs you try to market away?
You would be wrong and the answer is, No
Dawn Bertot
You might think that, and of course that is your right.
However, I believe that you claimed that ..
quote:
Because the Koran is not like the Bible, it cannot sustain itself by its internal evidences, in the nature of historical and archaeological support 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
Why if I look and find that there is no unity of doctrine and theme in the Bible (which is pretty obvious to anyone that understands there is not even such a thing as "The Bible") is that not sufficient and supportable reason to throw away the god and religion you try to market?
If I find the Bible to be just a collection of writings on a variety of subjects addressed to people of different eras and cultures, why is that not sufficient?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 7:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 81 of 566 (596206)
12-13-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by arachnophilia
12-13-2010 11:32 AM


Re: scriptural unity
from what i understand, and i've only begun reading the quran, there's little question that it was written by a single person. this alone, if true, would grant it far more unity in thought and message than the bible, which had approximately 100 authors, living over the course of close to a 1000 years.
Not if inspiration is involved and that is the point of the Koran, it is just the Old Test copied with some additions and without the Historical support, archaeological backing and Prophecy
understand scriptural unity is probably a sticking point for you, but the idea that someone can actually read and understand the bible and come away with such an idea is just sort of silly.
This is wrong concerning unity, simply due to the theme of the Messiah alone
surely you've noticed there is a new testament and old testament, and they are decidedly different in tone? surely you've noticed that paul advises against covenants that were previously mandatory? let's set contradictions and such aside for now -- surely you noticed that the theology changed at some point, right
Because he was following the words of Christ that "it was finished" and all was fulfulled
Read Galatians "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances, that which was against us and contrary to us, nailing it to the cross
There is amazing unity and purpose in theme. Only someone not paying any attention at all, or trying deliberately to avoid it, would miss it
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 11:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 7:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
(1)
Message 82 of 566 (596208)
12-13-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
12-13-2010 11:34 AM


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.
Yes, because it is a copy and reprint, with a few alterations to the facts of the Bible. The Koran has no theme of purpose, , except that which is borrowed from the Old Testament, its random spiritual concepts strung together, with no ultimate purpose, as that in Genesis, where it states
"Through thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" Fulfilled in Christ
This is simply one of many themes and ultimate purposes that the Koran cannot boast, especially if it was written by one person
Have you ever read the Bible?
Sheesh.
I notice this comment with no example or comment to follow. Did you have one
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2010 11:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by frako, posted 12-13-2010 7:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2010 9:30 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 83 of 566 (596209)
12-13-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by arachnophilia
12-13-2010 7:00 PM


your other examples aside, i do not think this one is a contradiction. we are dealing with a single author, in this case, and part of the same source text. the author simply believed that the sun was not the source of light, at least for the first three days.
stupid, but not contradictory.
One would think that god the one who inspired breathed on....the bibles writers would tell the inspired breathed on or whatever writer this.
It is just one of the pieces that point to the bibles human origins and pulls it away from divine origins. Or in other words it shows that the bible was written by bronze age men that had bronze age understanding of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 7:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 8:06 PM frako has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 84 of 566 (596211)
12-13-2010 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2010 7:26 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Not if inspiration is involved and that is the point of the Koran, it is just the Old Test copied with some additions and without the Historical support, archaeological backing and Prophecy
okay, granted, i'm only a few pages in, but what i've read so far is most certainly not "just the Old Test[ament] copied with some additions". rather, it is some extended commentary, much more akin to the epistles of paul.
however, it's interesting to see you state that the old testament lacks historical support, archaeological backing, and prophecy. perhaps you should phrase your sentences more carefully, as this is almost certainly not what you meant. however, as many people have pointed out, history and archaeology do not favourably back the bible.
This is wrong concerning unity, simply due to the theme of the Messiah alone
that's still nonsense. a good portion of the bible is simply not messianic, and a fair portion of the bits that are have nothing to do with the messiah you're likely thinking of. for instance, there was the messiah who lead the israelites into the promised land. the messiah who unified the tribes and ruled as the first king. the messiah who led the people back from exile...
Because he was following the words of Christ that "it was finished" and all was fulfulled
Read Galatians "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances, that which was against us and contrary to us, nailing it to the cross
err, yes. i think you fill find that i was specifically referring to galations. but how you can go from this, to this:
There is amazing unity and purpose in theme. Only someone not paying any attention at all, or trying deliberately to avoid it, would miss it
makes me wonder. you've acknowledged that there was a major shift in theology, but then go on to claim unity in the very next sentence? peculiar.
no, only those not paying attention at all, or deliberately trying to obscure the text, can miss the fact the fact there really isn't much in the way of scriptural unity.
but lets test that, shall we? i think this will be fun. i'll post two random verses, and you explain the unity.
quote:
Thy two breasts are like two fawns that are twins of a gazelle.
quote:
And Hadad died.
unity. go.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 7:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 9:12 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 85 of 566 (596212)
12-13-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2010 7:45 PM


"Through thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" Fulfilled in Christ
Aha, umm so how where we blessed, and how was this fulfilled by Christ. Did the wars stop, Did hunger stop, did anything bad stop??? Or was this one of those blessing be blessed my child and then you walk out of the church and get hit by a car. The milk carton can bless the world in the same way.

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 98 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 11:26 PM frako has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 86 of 566 (596213)
12-13-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by frako
12-13-2010 3:58 PM


GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Not the light of the earths sun on the first day
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
A careful reading of the chapters makes it clear the writer is not trying to give a detailed in exact order description of what God did at every moment
He speaks of different things and rearranges throughout the chapters. Its meant to be discription of Gods creative power, not a map to be scrutinized for contradictions
No mention is made of how God created is made either.
Or who the 'Us" is either. Its simply not necessary.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by frako, posted 12-13-2010 3:58 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 8:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 87 of 566 (596214)
12-13-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by frako
12-13-2010 7:54 PM


frako writes:
One would think that god the one who inspired breathed on....the bibles writers would tell the inspired breathed on or whatever writer this.
It is just one of the pieces that point to the bibles human origins and pulls it away from divine origins. Or in other words it shows that the bible was written by bronze age men that had bronze age understanding of the world.
i was never debating that point.
wouldn't it be cool if the bible explained string theory? stuff that no human being at the time could possibly understand? surely, if it were literally dictated by god, such things would be routine. yet, it starts out with stuff like genesis 1, which gets so many things factually wrong...

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by frako, posted 12-13-2010 7:54 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by frako, posted 12-13-2010 8:45 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 88 of 566 (596216)
12-13-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2010 8:01 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
A careful reading of the chapters makes it clear the writer is not trying to give a detailed in exact order description of what God did at every moment
i suggest that you read genesis 1 more closely, and more carefully. it is primarily about the delineation and demarcation of time, culminating in the reasoning behind tradition of shabat (sabbath). careful mention is made for the definition of a day (an evening and a morning), what makes a week (six days of work, one of rest), and for the creation of the sun and moon to mark time. genesis 1 is not only an exact order, but that is its primary intention.
this is, perhaps, what i mean about betraying the individual flavours for the sake of mashing it all together in one homogeneous lump. you have utterly lost that sense of genesis 1, for the sake of trying squeeze it together with genesis 2. you have abandoned a crucial point of the text, and the reason it was included, in order to make it like everything else. this is a disservice to the scriptures, and they deserve more respect than that.
No mention is made of how God created is made either.
again, please read more closely. god's method creation is given both in genesis 1, and in genesis 2, and they are different. 1 provides a picture of an authoritative god, who creates by verbally commanding divisions -- and his creation obeys. genesis 2 portrays a more personal, caring god who physically shapes mankind with his own hands.
Or who the 'Us" is either. Its simply not necessary.
the us is almost certainly a grammatical quirk, and not an actual plurality of entities. look:
quote:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
(v26) plural.
quote:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ
(v27) singular. same verbs, same subjects. same objects. he just seems to speak of himself in the plural when's talking to himself. he does it again in genesis 11, too. plural, "let us go down..." followed by the actual action taking place in the singular.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2010 8:01 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 89 of 566 (596219)
12-13-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by arachnophilia
12-13-2010 8:06 PM


wouldn't it be cool if the bible explained string theory? stuff that no human being at the time could possibly understand? surely, if it were literally dictated by god, such things would be routine. yet, it starts out with stuff like genesis 1, which gets so many things factually wrong...
I would have been satisfied with less e=mc2 would be more then good enough for me to have serious thoughts of converting. a simple phrase moses i say on to you thine energy is they mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied upon itself. Something the bronze age people could have not known tough what do we get the contrary things that the bronze age people thought where true like that moon and the stars are lights, that the earth has 4 corners that there is a god that keeps the earth running, that the sky is a dome above the flat earth.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2010 8:06 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 566 (596220)
12-13-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
12-08-2010 3:15 AM


Reason Being...?
Why would anyone need a 'valid, supportable reason' to deconvert?
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024