|
Author
|
Topic: Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
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?
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
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.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 153 of 566 (596453)
12-14-2010 11:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by dwise1
12-14-2010 11:21 PM
|
|
Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
That is only one instance of you repeatedly demanding that we give you reasons why you personally, Dawn, should deconvert. Despite our repeatedly telling you that nobody has suggested such a scenario and that that is not what this topic is supposed to be about. I wrote the thread title genius, I should know what I am suggesting or asking for. If I didnt make it clear in the OP, I have now made it clear numerous other times here it is again genius. Please provide in argument form a valid reason (not juist for Dawn, but anybody) why anyone should deconvert Im telling you genius that is what the thread is about. Im the threadmaster
And now you are trying to claim that you had never asked for reasons why you should deconvert? You lying hypocrite! Now quit stalling and answer the fucking question! None of the deconversion discussion here nor in the other topic has ever been about you personally deconverting. Where the hell did you ever get that crazy idea? No more lies! I can only assume you are very stupid, or at best very slow dewise, I know its not about me. If you think I have missed or not responded to something, present it My guess is that because you cant present one yourself, you wont be able to recognize anyothers. But lets see Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by dwise1, posted 12-14-2010 11:21 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: scriptural unity
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. 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 Instead of complaining, simply write it out show it to me Dawn Bertot
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
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 Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
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 |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Uh, I dont think so. Given the fact that Christ meets and nearly aceeds the clearly messianic prophecies in both the major and minor prophets that is not a given fact, but rather is precisely the question under debate. your problem is that you assume your conclusions.
If Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets, as it is clearly indicated in the Gospels, the you will have to provide a better answer than, "I just dont see it". All the evidence points obviously in that direction Unity between the testaments is screaming out at you. unless you've actually bothered to read them, that is.
אָרַח
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: scriptural unity
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? So tell me how we can conclude that it wasnt Paul, based on Archs bold assertion. Im pretty sure his assertion was categorical, unless I missed something The evidence points to those claimed, unless, someone can show otherwise Again baseless asertions like that offered and proclaimed by Arch are designed to create prejudice, rather than any sort of fact finding Keep tyring though Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: 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 as Dr. A. points out, not knowing positively, and knowing negatively are two different things. we might not know who killed jimmy hoffa, but we can place some reasoned guesses. and none those guesses would ever include the famous emperor of france who lived a hundred years before.
there is no reason to suggest that the claimed authors are not the authors, especially where inspiration is involved the gospels were all written after the death of christ. well after. 40 or 50 years. those attributions are all tradition. the original books did not come with attributions. and i believe you're looking at "inspiration" the wrong way around. you're assuming it, and hammer the facts out to fit it. rather, you should assume the facts, and then see if you can reach your inspirational conclusion. you might find that it becomes incredibly difficult when you're not bending facts to fit your model.
Bruce and other qualified scholars place them squarely in the time they suggested as written really Arch, surely you can do better than that i suggest you look at the actual scholarship on the matter, and not misguided apologetics.
אָרַח
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
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 |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 339 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: scriptural unity
that is not a given fact, but rather is precisely the question under debate. your problem is that you assume your conclusions. Wrong again. Where there is no provable evidence, we have to go with what is demonstratable, as beliefs go. What does the evidence suggest here is an example. Who was truely the son of promise, for Abraham. The one the Bible claims, or the one the Koran suggests The evidence would suggest that the Bible provides the true facts in this matter, given that it carries much more evidence for its facts and that the Koran is nearly a reproduction of the Bible Its what the evidence suggests Dawn Bertot
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: well I have read it and studied it, i'm not convinced. you seem to have come away with a severely colored interpretation; one that betrays a good portion of the text.
so perhaps you could provide from one of them why I should become a non-believer start in jar's prophecy thread.
A bit vauge on the books that dont mention God. What is you point? were you even aware that there are books in the bible that fail to mention god? how do you propose to make those messianic, let alone about christ?
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: Wrong again. Where there is no provable evidence, we have to go with what is demonstratable, as beliefs go. What does the evidence suggest no, dawn. you are assuming that because jesus is the messiah you happen to believe in, with all your heart and soul, that every time the bible says anything even remotely messianic, it must be talking about him. this is demonstrably not the case.
here is an example. Who was truely the son of promise, for Abraham. The one the Bible claims, or the one the Koran suggests The evidence would suggest that the Bible provides the true facts in this matter, given that it carries much more evidence for its facts and that the Koran is nearly a reproduction of the Bible Its what the evidence suggests again, assuming your conclusions.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2010 11:55 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dr Adequate writes: 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. and luke (gospel of luke, and acts). those are the most easily identifiable authors, academically. my statement may or may not be accurate regarding james. but no, he's assuming that the "matthew" the gospel of matthew is attributed to is the disciple matthew. ditto on john. (wanna tell me who mark is? and where the other 10 gospels are?)
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:54 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2620 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009
|
Dawn asks:
So exactly what side are you on and where is it headed? Well, since we are all on the next Titanic, it really doesn't matter.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
™ Version 4.2