Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

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

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

You would be wrong and the answer is, NoDawn Bertot

Then provide a valid reason in argument and statement form as to why I should deconvertDawn Bertot you should deconvert because..............., without just complaining about this or that That you responsibility in this threadDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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!

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 This is wrong concerning unity, simply due to the theme of the Messiah alone Because he was following the words of Christ that "it was finished" and all was fulfulledRead Galatians "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances, that which was against us and contrary to us, nailing it to the crossThere is amazing unity and purpose in theme. Only someone not paying any attention at all, or trying deliberately to avoid it, would miss itDawn Bertot

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 ChristThis is simply one of many themes and ultimate purposes that the Koran cannot boast, especially if it was written by one person I notice this comment with no example or comment to follow. Did you have oneDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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.

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. 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... err, yes. i think you fill find that i was specifically referring to galations. but how you can go from this, to this: 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

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.

Not the light of the earths sun on the first day 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 momentHe 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 contradictionsNo mention is made of how God created is made either.Or who the 'Us" is either. Its simply not necessary.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

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. 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. 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

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.....

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