Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,228 Year: 5,485/9,624 Month: 510/323 Week: 7/143 Day: 7/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 138 of 566 (596433)
12-14-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by dwise1
12-14-2010 9:55 PM


Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
OK. Here it is: Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Now, just where the hell does it say anything about making Dawn deconvert? It doesn't. So I repeat my question that you evaded, Dawnette:
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?
read post 137. Where does it Say, Dawn in the OP? Its not about me Moron, its about setting out an argument as to why anyone should. I can write slower if you need me to. Thanks
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by dwise1, posted 12-14-2010 9:55 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 148 by dwise1, posted 12-14-2010 11:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 139 of 566 (596434)
12-14-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by arachnophilia
12-14-2010 5:07 PM


Re: scriptural unity
take it to jar's prophecy thread. i think you'll find that the majority of the time, ur reedin it rong.
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
and you missed the part where i pointed out that this is not unity in the slightest.
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.
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 5:07 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 11:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 141 of 566 (596437)
12-14-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
12-14-2010 10:58 PM


Re: scriptural unity
And if you believe there is actually a single Old Testament Prophecy that points to or relates to or refers to Jesus, then there is a thread open to discuss it.
Since you will provide nothing more than, "I dont like it" and "I dont see it", it like like all your other reponses, it would be a waste of time
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 12-14-2010 10:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 147 by jar, posted 12-14-2010 11:18 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 144 of 566 (596440)
12-14-2010 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by arachnophilia
12-14-2010 5:30 PM


Re: scriptural unity
fun fact: 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).
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
there is no reason to suggest that the claimed authors are not the authors, especially where inspiration is involved
Bruce and other qualified scholars place them squarely in the time they suggested as written
really Arch, surely you can do better than that
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 5:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:32 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 11:54 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 145 of 566 (596441)
12-14-2010 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2010 11:06 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
Comparing it to the Bible is ofcourse idiotic, wouldnt you agree
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 146 of 566 (596442)
12-14-2010 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2010 11:09 PM


Re: scriptural unity
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.
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
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:09 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 150 of 566 (596449)
12-14-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by arachnophilia
12-14-2010 5:13 PM


Re: scriptural unity
when one has actually read the scripture, one easily understands that quite a lot of it has nothing to do with your proposed themes.
for instance, what do you make of the books that don't even mention god?
well I have read it and studied it, so perhaps you could provide from one of them why I should become a non-believer
A bit vauge on the books that dont mention God. What is you point?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 5:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 11:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:44 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 167 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 1:52 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 154 of 566 (596455)
12-14-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2010 11:36 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:45 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 158 of 566 (596459)
12-14-2010 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2010 11:32 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:54 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 161 of 566 (596462)
12-14-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by arachnophilia
12-14-2010 11:46 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 11:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 12:02 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 168 of 566 (596483)
12-15-2010 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by arachnophilia
12-14-2010 11:58 PM


Re: scriptural unity
i'm not convinced. you seem to have come away with a severely colored interpretation; one that betrays a good portion of the text.
Paul and the other inspired NT writers disagree with you. Do you have knowledge they did not
Since you have provided no text, that you assume I have misinterpreted, I can only wait to see which ones
start in jar's prophecy thread.
fortunately we are not debating that thread, nor do I have desire, as I have already indicated, to follow Jars method of reasoning, which is repetetion without response
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?
Yes I am aware of this, the same way I am aware that Job, makes no reference to the Law, or even implies its existence
I never said every word in the OT was a messianic prophecy.
One of the main ways i know an OT prophecy was about Christ is having an inspired writer in the NT tell me its interpretation
I agree that some may not appear as messianic, but when told by an inspiried writer that they refer to Christ, it surpasses your disagreement that it is not
Think about it, why would I accept your conclusions over thiers? Can you give me agood reason?
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"
"I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and i will give to Peter the keys to the kingdom"
give me ag ood reason why I should accept your or Jars conclusions over one claiming inspiration, in a book filled with evidence
"We have not followed cunningly devised fables, but were eyewitnesses to his majesty"
Do you have better information? Its just your word against thiers and that is what it boils down to. Guess who I am going to accept
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 11:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2010 4:08 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 176 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 11:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 204 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:19 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 210 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 7:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 212 by Theodoric, posted 12-15-2010 7:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 169 of 566 (596484)
12-15-2010 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by arachnophilia
12-14-2010 11:54 PM


Re: scriptural unity
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.
I agree and there is no justification for you assuming that the writers of the NT, did not know Christ. that assertion alone is ludicrous
Not only do they claim to have been with him, there is no time frame problem even if they were written as late as you claim
That dating is a bit liberal, even so, it does not lead to the absolute conclusion that they would not known or have been with him
I think it is great we are talking about this right at Christmas time
Where in the world did you get the silly notion that those writers did not know of Christ in a personal manner?
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.
Even if this were true, it does not lead to the conclusionof your assertion that they did not know him personally
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.
Ill let you demonstrate your conclusion here
i suggest you look at the actual scholarship on the matter, and not misguided apologetics.
Amazing, he calls F. F. Bruce, misguided apologetics
This is truely amazing, you really dont understand what you are doing do you? You reject without hesitation any conclusion I have drawn and say it is not possible and cannot be accepted.
Then without even realizing it ( I believe) you assume that all of your assertions and conclusions must be accepted without hesitation, because that is what the evidence must demonstrate, yet it does not
Truely amazing
You write
that is not a given fact, but rather is precisely the question under debate. your problem is that you assume your conclusions.
But of course you are free from such a fate , correct? Best evidence Arch, thats all we have
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 11:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 170 of 566 (596491)
12-15-2010 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by arachnophilia
12-15-2010 12:57 AM


Taq writes:
Yes, I did. Knowing what scripture says is independent of believing what scripture says. They are two different things.
Arch writes:
actually, i find that claimed belief in what the scripture says frequently gets in the way of knowing what scripture says. believers are so ready to betray the very thing they claim to cherish, just to get it to line up with their predetermined belief.
And of course what taq says and what you quoted from him, is simply double talk verbage, unless demonstrated on a single point in an argument form
Do you have anything better than, "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush"?
people who set out to know what the scriptures say are frequently very surprised that it does not accurately detail the beliefs they once had about those same scriptures.
You fellas are killing me with these gems of wisdom
But isnt that the point, we base our understanding against what the scriptures actually says
But here is another amazing point. You clearly, as I have read other posts of yours, dont believe it is from God or inspired of God, yet your are sure that your conclusions must be the correct ones
You imply that others that do not accept your conlcusions must of course be in error, because they do not see things as you do against the "evidence" you have collected
But using the messianic prophecies as an example, you cannot provide absolute evidence that they are not predictive of Jesus Christ. when in fact the "evidence" we do have certainly leans in that favor
So, is there any possibility that we could be correct concerning our conclusions atleast in that respect? Yes or No?
Just curious?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 12:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Taq, posted 12-15-2010 12:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 206 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 172 of 566 (596495)
12-15-2010 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by dwise1
12-15-2010 1:52 AM


Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
For your information Dawnette, I was the one trying in vain to break through your idiocy and inform you of that same thing, that the topic is not about trying to make Dawnette deconvert. Yet you kept demanding to be told what would make you personally deconvert.
You remind me of Heritic, you simply can't get anything correct.
You a funny guy. Dewise, simply because I am asking for a valid reason to convert, is not equivolent to me personally asking for it for my purposes
From the start it was meant to be set out as an argument or question and for someone to provide that reason.
Your making to much out of a cavil. You do know what a cavil is, right?
You are nothing but an unprincipled liar. Why don't you try to be man enough to own up to your actions? But, no, you are not man enough. You will just continue to try to hide your lies under even more lies, even though everybody can see what you are doing.
Im sure you are a nice guy in person and your family and the Navy are proud of your accomplishments in both Navy and writing.
But kindly and respectfully, I must say you have a long road in the area of reasoning properly
BTW, doyou have an argument that you could put forward that would be a valid reason for ANYONE to deconvert. Atleast from you perspective
Calm down Dewise1 we are just here to learn and have fun
Yes, you have taught me that my grammar sucks. Ill try and do better
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 1:52 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 2:48 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 200 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 2:54 PM 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