Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,105 Year: 5,362/9,624 Month: 387/323 Week: 27/204 Day: 3/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
jar
Member
Posts: 34125
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 196 of 566 (596544)
12-15-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 12:40 PM


Re: scriptural unity
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 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34125
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 197 of 566 (596545)
12-15-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 12:52 PM


Re: The purpose of repetition.
When you actually tell us which so called prophecies you are referring to, then we can address them.
in the mean time:
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 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34125
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 198 of 566 (596546)
12-15-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 12:58 PM


Re: The purpose of repetition.
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 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:58 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 199 of 566 (596548)
12-15-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 4:09 AM


Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
Dawn, here is a history of your lie. These quotes are what you yourself wrote.
It started in the Deconversion experiences topic:
Message 220
Dawn writes:
To assist in my deconversion, provide the points or point in these articles that would help my disbelief along
Now notice, I dont need another discourse on someone elses beliefs, but why I need to recant based on somepoint they have made
Dr Adequate and I both immediately told you that it was not at all about your own personal deconversion:
Message 222
Dr Adequate writes:
He did not in fact claim nor imply that your views would ever be altered in the slightest by the exercise of rational thought.
Message 224
DWise1 writes:
Just what the hell are you talking about? That particular idiotic statement seals the deal: you have absolutely no idea what those articles said.
When you started this topic, Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion, your false assumption that it was about your own personal deconversion was still fresh in your mind, with no indication that you had finally realized that it wasn't about you. Indeed, with very few exceptions, each subsequent time you made that same idiotic claim, which you are now lying about having made, you received immediate responses trying to tell you that it isn't about you, but you refused to ever listen.
Message 58
Dawn writes:
Ive read the entirity of the posts and I have failed to see a valid 'reason' offered as to why I should deconvert from the things I have studied and been taught through the years.
Message 61
Dawn writes:
You were a bit general in your response as to why I should deconvert, perhaps you could narrow it down a bit.
Message 79
Dawn writes:
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
Message 92
Dawn writes:
I need a valid reason to reject such evidence, especially where inspiration, intervention, divine guidance and the miraculous were and are involved
Message 115
Dawn writes:
So do you have a reason why I should deconvert?
Message 116
Dawn writes:
Did they teach you how to write out a SIMPLE, argument or proposition, the likes of which is, 30 to 40 words or less, as to why I should decovert?
Message 128
Dawn writes:
You once again, provide no argument or vaild reason why I or anyone should deconvert
"I", "I", "I", "I", "I"! Repeatedly and persistently, you kept saying it was about you. Then I directly challenged you to back it up:
Message 118
DWise1 writes:
Dawn writes:
So do you have a reason why I should deconvert?
Stop changing the subject! 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?
And suddenly with Message 130 you started your current lie of claiming that it wasn't about you and that it hadn't been from the very start. So what was all that "I" stuff about? And when jar also directly challenged you, you started repeating your new lie to him too.
But now that you were finally understanding what we had all be telling you all along, that it wasn't about you personally, you continued saying it was about you personally:
Message 133
Dawn writes:
In this area, you have failed to provide enough evidence as to why I should deconvert
Message 150
Dawn writes:
well I have read it and studied it, so perhaps you could provide from one of them why I should become a non-believer
Dawn, you are a liar. Possibly a pathological liar, but most certainly a pathetic liar, since it is so easy to expose your lies. Like Bart Simpson, whom everybody had seen doing something wrong and destructive, standing there saying "I didn't do it." Well, Dawn, you did do it and you are lying about it. Why can't you be a man and take responsibility for your own actions? Bart's a kid and can try to get away with it with cuteness, but you can't. Even using a girl's name won't buy you any slack. You have been exposed as a liar and you need to take responsibility for it.
If you had actually read the Bible -- since you have been found to be a liar, potentially pathological, we cannot trust anything you have told us to be true -- you would be familiar with the Matthew 7:20 Test:
quote:
Matthew (KJV) --
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Dawn, you are that evil fruit. Only one evil fruit out of bushels full of evil fruit (eg, multitudes of other lying creationists), but according to Matthew it only takes one.
Repent, while there is still time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 4:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 200 of 566 (596549)
12-15-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 4:09 AM


Re: Please learn how to read, Dawn
BTW, doyou have an argument that you could put forward that would be a valid reason for ANYONE to deconvert.
We have already told you that, many times, but you refuse to listen.
The general consensus here seems to be that deconversion is caused by the person no longer being able to believe what he's supposed to. There can be no arguing against that. If someone just does not believe a theology, then he does not believe it. Why should that be so hard for you to understand?
The actual cause for arriving at that point of no longer believing will vary from individual to individual, which is why each deconversion story must be considered individually. Most do not deconvert by choice and many fight fiercely against the process, doing the Bible study that you prescribe.
Whether you agree with their reasons or not, it does still happen. You cannot wish it away nor dismiss it. And you would have known all this long ago, if you had but bothered to read our responses.
Yes, you have taught me that my grammar sucks. Ill try and do better
I doubt that very much. If you were to write in complete sentences, then people could actually begin to understand what you are trying to say. That would dispel much of the confusion that you generate. Which would be counter-productive to your campaign to lie to and deceive the public.
No, you will never try to make yourself understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 4:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 201 of 566 (596550)
12-15-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 12:27 PM


Re: scriptural unity
I noticed you have 300 and something posts to my 2200, ...
2200 post of incomprehensible crap is nothing to brag about.
Any sane or moral person would be very embarrassed by your dismal record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:27 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Panda, posted 12-15-2010 3:43 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3821 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 202 of 566 (596557)
12-15-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by dwise1
12-15-2010 3:02 PM


Re: scriptural unity
I am liking Dawn's logic.
Panda's post count: 300+
Steven Hawking's post count: 0
God's post count: 0
Clearly I am more intelligent than God AND Prof. Hawking.
Edited by Panda, : He's a professor!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 3:02 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by subbie, posted 12-15-2010 3:57 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1363 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 203 of 566 (596559)
12-15-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Panda
12-15-2010 3:43 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Clearly I am more intelligent than God AND Mr. Hawking.
Put together!

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Panda, posted 12-15-2010 3:43 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 204 of 566 (596586)
12-15-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 3:01 AM


Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes:
Since you have provided no text, that you assume I have misinterpreted, I can only wait to see which ones
i have already provided two verses, in a previous post, and requested that you explain the unity between the two. i can pick two more at random, if you would like. alternatively, you are free to explain how either verse is messianic.
i've even given you a relatively low bar to jump here. at least one of them, i could fairly easily relay a common messianic reading. not that it'd be right, of course.
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
so you keep repeating, yes. unfortunately, if you're going to repeatedly make claims you want us to debunk, and refuse to take said claims to the thread specifically written for them, there's nothing we can do. you're just going to look like an insolent child, and too scared to play with the big kids.
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
you might want to double check that one. one of job's friends actually speaks the word "torah".
I never said every word in the OT was a messianic prophecy.
no, you said it was the unifying theme. if there are bits that are clearly unrelated to any messiah, that's not exactly a unifying theme. for instance, the entire book of job, which specifically refutes several notions integral to paul's arguments for the need for a spiritual messiah.
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
that's funny. see, one of the ways i know some authors of the NT are not inspired is because their words concerning yahweh are untrue (deuteronomy 13). the OT encourages skepticism of claimed inspiration, and for a good reason. otherwise, we might be tempted to believe everyone who comes along and claims to speak for yahweh. and since they speak for yahweh, we know they're telling the truth about speaking for yahweh.
that didn't cut it in bronze age. they'd stone the guy who claimed that. why does it cut it in modern christianity?
Think about it, why would I accept your conclusions over thiers? Can you give me agood reason?
because you've read the original text they are referencing. oh, wait, no you haven't. but seriously, take it to the prophecy thread.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 3:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-16-2010 2:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 205 of 566 (596589)
12-15-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 3:17 AM


Re: scriptural unity
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,
fun fact: none of the gospels are written in first person. the only books that use first person are the epistles.
there is no time frame problem even if they were written as late as you claim
considering lifespans, yes there is.
Amazing, he calls F. F. Bruce, misguided apologetics
yes, i did. pretty much anything evangelical is misguided. and apologetics is what he did. that's the technical and correct term.
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.
it has nothing to do with whether or not you said. it just happens to be wrong.
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
you might want to actually look at that evidence. but we can discuss that sort of thing once we established that you can even read and understand the bible.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 3:17 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-16-2010 2:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 206 of 566 (596590)
12-15-2010 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 3:43 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
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
what i posted was not an argument, but a summary of my past experiences. mostly on this very board, i might add. about 6 years ago, i gave up arguing against creationism with science, and instead, would reply to every post with information from the bible.
your own posts have frequently demonstrated your willingness to betray the intent and goals of scripture, in defense of your predetermined opinion on the matter. for instance, you are willing to do away with the finer points of much of the major prophets for the sake of claiming that the entire bible is about jesus. what are you doing is raping the bible of its humanity, and beauty.
Do you have anything better than, "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush"?
yes. i do.
quote:
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
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
this is based on my experience in an actual bible study class. the professor asked everyone to check their beliefs at the door, and just examine the text for what it was. certain notions, some big and some very small, would arise from time to time, and we'd go and look at the text -- and the text would generally not support those notions. the majority of the class was surprised that the thing they had heard about bible were not actually in the bible.
But isnt that the point, we base our understanding against what the scriptures actually says
agreed!
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 misrepresent me.
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
err, no. we have some NT authors who say that the evidence leans in their favour. but the evidence is also there to plainly check -- and we must check those assertions against the scriptures as well. for instance, if a new testament author claims that jesus is the messiah because he rode into jerusalem on a donkey, we can check that against zechariah 9, and see that the prophecy also states things like the messiah bringing world peace, ruling the world, etc. donkeys aren't especially important -- several thousand people probably rode into jerusalem on donkeys on the very same day as christ.
and, as i mentioned above, the scriptures actually give a method by which we can determine inspiration. simply claiming it is not enough.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 3:43 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-16-2010 3:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 207 of 566 (596591)
12-15-2010 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 12:21 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes:
Everyone make a mental note, DA disagrees that Jesus Christ is a Spiritual king over the Church (Spiritual Israel) and that is what the prophets predicted and the inspired writers in the NT make clear through inspiration and evidence
it doesn't say "spiritual", does it? adding words kind of changes things. especially considering that the context of all the messianic bits generally indicates a physical kingdom. you know, the same way that the book of revelation does.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-16-2010 3:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1452 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 208 of 566 (596592)
12-15-2010 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 12:27 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes:
I noticed you have 300 and something posts to my 2200, do you think your tactics will work? Your a sad excuse at attempts to intimidate.
please note my post count, to the left.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 12:27 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2010 7:13 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 209 of 566 (596594)
12-15-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by arachnophilia
12-15-2010 6:55 PM


Re: scriptural unity
Uff da! His reading comprehension is orders of magnitude worse than any of us could have imagined!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2010 6:55 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by subbie, posted 12-15-2010 7:20 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5985
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 210 of 566 (596596)
12-15-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2010 3:01 AM


Re: scriptural unity
Oh, you mean like this one?
quote:
(KJV) Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
And where in the Old Testament is that prophesy located?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2010 3:01 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 12-15-2010 7:32 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 222 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-16-2010 3:32 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024