Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Of course there is even a thread devoted to examining that very question. However you so far have refused to even bring your allegations to the thread where they could be examined and instead simply try to change the subject here instead of responding to the issue that are actually related to this topic.

---

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

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since I have answered your question several times and demonstrated the the Koran is not on a par with the scriptures, that it is just a copy of OT stories strung together, with no purpose or theme, your above comment is therefore invalid Again your style of discussion does not promote debate, it consists of you repeating yourself. there is no reason to believe you wont do it there as wellI have provided as much support for those prophecies as evidence will allowIf you think you have something better than an inspired writer, then go ahead and present itYou see Jar, as in design, it comes down to the available evidence. Your disagreement with the NT is not sufficent to pass as evidence. You would need to demonstrate that the NT is inaccurate and unreliableDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And as usual, you have simply posted nonsense.I have never made that claim.If you have responded to the issues I have raised, then perhaps you can provide links to those messages.In case you have forgotten what they are, I will repeat them yet again.

quote:

---

Dawn Bertot writes:

​

A good portion of the Bible is Messianic, which demonstrates unity of purpose

​

So you claim, but which would still not indicate 'unity of purpose'. In addition you have offered no evidence that much of the Bible is messianic or that Jesus is in anyway related to any of the messianic passages.

​

Dawn Bertot writes:

​

None of these were of course the Messiah mentioned in Genesis 3:15 or the one in Isa 51, that would be called, mighty God, eternal father and Prince of Peace, fulfilled clearly in Christ in the New Law, correct?

​

So you claim but there is no mention of a messiah in Genesis 3 and the Messiah in Isaiah is most certainly not Christ.

​

If you think you can support those assertions there is a thread looking for No webpage found at provided URL: Prophecy supposedly fulfilled by Jesus. Feel free to try to support your assertion there.

​

AbE:

​

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?

---

Note the bolded parts.

---

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

Your free to address my allegations here as long as it does not get to far off topicDo you have something better than an inspired Apostle?Dawn Bertot

Wrong. You have given me no valid reason why I should accept your conclusions concerning the prophets, verses what an isnspired writer has claimedFirst provide why I should accept your conclusions over thiers, then of course we can look at your specific reasonsUnity of purpose is signified by the Apostles designation and classification of those propheciesAgain, demonstrate why I should not accept the NT, inspired conclusionsYour probably looking for a physical king as were the JewsDawn Bertot

I dont need to do anything, the NT inspired writers have already done it for me.Can you demonstrate why they are wrong? do you have knowledge they did not? Where you there as they were to witness these thingshere is what you dont understand about critical thinking.It comes down to me believing you or them. If you say they are wrong, then there is noway for me to know abosolutely who is right or wrong. So with the available evidence provided not only by eyewitnesses, but the rest of the evidence in the NT, I have to say I will choose themThat is unless you can provide something betterCan you?Here is another way you fail in critical thinking. Your trying to use passages out of a book (the OT), you dont even believe to be accurate or reliable in the first place to demonstrate why the ones in the NT are wrong. Does that make sense to you?If you have no confidence in the accuracy of the OT passages to be true to begin with, how in the world would you know that anything written anywhere else is not accurate concerning those same passagesThat is you do not trust the authorship, content or accuracy, but you have no way to demonstrate that those events are not true to begin with and your using THEM to demonstrate the inaccuracy of something elseIn one instance (the OT )you assume or imply that the author is accurate, for the sake of argument, to demonstrate the NT is wrong. All the while knowing to yourself and believing he is not the author and nothing he said can be trusted.Its almost hypocrital behavoirStrange logic and why do you care if both are untrue?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If someone finds that evidence to be insufficient would this be a valid reason for deconversion?

Let me correct that Please. define insufficient from a evidential standpointEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

"Spiritual" really is a useful incantation, isn't it? It can magically remove all contradictions.Adam and Eve didn't die a physical death that same day; they died a "spiritual death". Jesus wasn't an actual king of an actual kingdom; He was/is a "spiritual king" of a "spiritual kingdom". Black isn't really black; it's "spiritual white".One good reason for deconversion is the doubletalk and doublethink required to believe such nonsense.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This may be true and in some instances it may work. however, one would need to discard the information contained in the NTand those writersIts no surprise that even today there are still people looking for a physical king, when that was never Gods intention to begin withGods words to Samuel apply.Samuel they dont need a physical king, they have a king,. Im thier king. They have not rejected you they have rejected meIm sorry you consider it nonesense, that is your rightread it as it was intended and the unity and purpose will be obviousDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

A classic demonstration of the Dunning—Kruger effectEdited by nwr, : fix broken url as per Message 1

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

That's exactly the point. Without the "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo that you inject, the New Testament should be rejected as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. You're pre-accepting the fulfillment instead of looking at it honestly to see if it's there.That kind of backwards thinking is the cause of a lot of deconversion. Again, that's the problem, not the solution. You're predetermining the intention and mangling the text to fit your preconceptions.Edited by ringo, : Spalling.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

For instance, the need to insert "spiritual" in order to explain away contradictory evidence.

Do you think that makes sense?
Without trying I see 7 errors: 7 errors in 4 short sentences.
I have to add and remove words to get them to even begin to make sense. It appears that getting you to answer a question is a waste of time - but I am persistent. Perhaps you could explain why your English is so abysmal?You claim to be a scholar, but you can't read or write properly.Why should anyone believe your claims at being educated when all you do is convey someone that failed at school?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.