Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

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!

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!

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!

Dawn, here is a history of your lie. These quotes are what you yourself wrote.It started in the Deconversion experiences topic:
Message 220Dr Adequate and I both immediately told you that it was not at all about your own personal deconversion:
Message 222 Message 224When 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 Message 61 Message 79 Message 92 Message 115 Message 116 Message 128"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 118And 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 Message 150Dawn, 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.

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.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.

2200 post of incomprehensible crap is nothing to brag about.Any sane or moral person would be very embarrassed by your dismal record.

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

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

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. 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. you might want to double check that one. one of job's friends actually speaks the word "torah". 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. 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? 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

fun fact: none of the gospels are written in first person. the only books that use first person are the epistles. considering lifespans, yes there is. yes, i did. pretty much anything evangelical is misguided. and apologetics is what he did. that's the technical and correct term. it has nothing to do with whether or not you said. it just happens to be wrong. 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

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. yes. i do.

quote:

---

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

---

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. agreed! you misrepresent me. 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

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

please note my post count, to the left.

---

אָרַח

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

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?