Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

That may seem ridiculous to you and you may well know well what Dawn believe but if so, he is simply wrong. The definition I gave you is the meaning as used in the Nicene Creed and so applicable to any church that subscribes to that creed.

quote:

---

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

---

---

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

On FaceBook, Ed Babinski, deconverted extreme fundamentalist, posted a link to a Christian article reviewing a book about church youth deconverting in droves: WordPress.com -- because of the web filters here at work, I cannot open it to copy and post excerpts from it here. One polling source cited a large percentage (that I cannot remember, but I think about 60%) of people raised in "conservative Christian" churches deconverting by age 22 and the conservative Chrisitan (and surprisingly honest and frank) No webpage found at provided URL: Barna Group as estimating 80% deconverting by age 29. And they also cite that instead of those deconverts moving to a different Christian denomination, a rapidly growth proportion of them is leaving Christianity altogether.From my quick scan of the article this morning, it tries to classify the deconverts into several different groups depending on what it sees as the general cause of their deconversion. It also tries to call upon churches to study this problem and try to find ways to reach potential deconverts and prevent deconversion from happening.I believe that, like Dawn, those churches will just go into denial and blame the deconverts for what the churches themselves have caused. Of course, from my own cre/ev perspective, I would largely blame the problem on those churches choosing to base their theology on "creation science" and ID lies and deceptions, such that massive disillusionment sets in when those kids grow up and learn some actual science and discover that they had been systematically lied to all their lives. But there are many other reasons for deconversion than that.

---

This article demonstrates yet again that deconversion is a very real phenomenon and not something that Dawn can merely poo-poo away, like he does the rest of reality. And that it is indeed a very great and growing problem for churches, one that they must take very seriously.Edited by dwise1, : added paragraph on end.

Shouldn't that read one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Perhaps but it doesn't.Looking at all the English language versions I can find, none show any commas.

---

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

that's quite debatable. certainly, the bible portrays a unified israel, under a monarch -- and the division occurs later. but there's a lot of thought that david and solomon might never have existed, and the israelites were really always 12 separate tribes who only loosely unified into two countries. certainly, this is how the modern middle east works... but that's really a topic for another thread.i just wanted to point out the difference between the sons of israel, the nation of israel, and the nation of judah. fundamentalists tend to conflate all three, simply because they don't know any better, and can't follow the book of kings (never mind the ideological point that israel was an idolatrous nation, and judah wasn't at least after josiah).

---

אָרַח

Just wondering, with no commas it appears that one & holy modify catholic rather than church.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I'm not seeing the problem here.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

How are they misrepresenting it? thats a foolish statement, of course they are. They are a part of it by indirect implication, especially when one is discussing the Old and New testaments If both are inspired from and by God, only God can tell you what the meaning of the prophets is or is not. Knowing whether you believe that the OT and its prophets were inspired by God, is of vital importance.If they were not, the it matters little what either of the writers in either testament had to say, correct? Friend, I have encouraged you to bring your strongest argument here from that thread. I assure you I am not afraid of any argument you may produce But my friend, you are the one representing YOUR position, whether I understand the OT or not. You will have to explicate your position on these matters to see if it requires me to think differentlyBut is simply ridiculous to assume that anyone could have a discussion without a proper frame of reference. In this instance, the inspiration of those prophets and the ones in the NTIf neither are inspired of God, who gives a rats behind what they had to say about anythingIf they are, then it stands to reason, that only MORE inspiration could give the explanations of such prophecies, correct?Without the concept of and belief in inspiration from God, as the prophets claimed, one could not even begin to trust whether the writers were the claimed writers, or if what they were saying was even accurate or believable. This would of course include the OT prophets, correct?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well, it's relative. It's not a problem if one wants to encourage deconversion. It is a problem for the churches that they are deconverting from, and can be a source of problems for the deconvert.If the deconvert is driven to becoming an atheist, what kind of atheist will he become? Everything he knows about what atheists think and do has been taught to him by his church. I'm sure you've been lectured by fundamentalists about what atheists think and believe and do, some really sick and twisted nonsense that couldn't be further from the truth. Do you really want to see these kids deconvert and follow what their church had taught them about being able to do anything they want, have no morality at all, not be responsible for anything they do, and destroy themselves and those around them in hedonistic excess?I am an atheist and I do feel that deconversion is a good thing. However, I don't want someone to deconvert until he is ready to. I do not want to see someone forced prematurely into deconversion by the stupidity of his religion and religious leaders. It might be different if there were an established atheist community that could inform deconverts the truth about atheism and to serve as models and mentors for the new deconverts, but that does not exist yet. Indeed, when I first heard Dan Barker (former life-long fundamentalist, former ordained fundamentalist preacher, named "America's leading atheist", and co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) speak at a meeting of Los Angeles' Atheists United (I heard it on their 15-minute weekly radio show), he briefly related how he had lived in Southern California all these years and went through his deconversion here, alone and isolated, and didn't meet any fellow atheists until he moved back to Michigan: "Where were you guys when I needed you?" New deconverts transitioning to atheism normally do not know where or how to find other atheists -- especially true in Dan Barker's time (1980's), but fortunately increasingly less so now with the internet.

Please by all means tell us what that WAY is. I am more than interested to know that method.But you have a serious problem in the meantime by quoting and using Duet 13. Here it is.You first need to make it plain whether you believe Duet 13 is from and inspired by God.If it is not, then some mans opinion thousands of years ago is no STANDARD at all for determing what is valid or invalid, correct? Heck without inspiration from God on Duet 13, we dont even know if the author was or was not stoned out of his head, at the time of its composition, do we?So please, by all means, provide for me the method to identify the false prophet.BTW, I know where you going with this, but please present itDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Why is it that people cannot think in logical terms? At present I and others are comparing the OT and NTs prophecies and trying to determine whether Christ was that fulfillment.No I cannot PROVE that any prophet was inspired of God, Old or New, anymore than one could prove that the universe is a product of soley nature causes, as is claimedBut, now listen and pay close attention. It is ludicrous for one to assert, with certain assuance that he was not the fulfillment of those prophecies and believe at the sametime that the writers in the Old testament were unreliable, inaccurate and mythicalHere is why. If you dont even believe in the veracity and accuracy of the OTs writers and thier claims, (and that is what you are using for your source), to discredit something else, how in the world could one claim with absolute assurance he was not the messiah, while using what one believes to be faulty in the first place?However, if from a purely logical standpoint put in logical form, those writers were inspired of God, then only God could explain from one testament to the next, what the meaning is or is not, correct? Atleast from a purely logical approach, when discussing the two testaments That determination is based on what the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles, have to say about thier inspiration itself, by the history it supports, the doctrine it advocates, the unity it advocates in association with the OTThere is no reason to believe any of the NT writers were inaccurate in what they taught along with the historical context of those beliefsThe Gospels and Acts are good representation of historical support for those things advocated, along with Independant sourcesIOWs, there is no valid reason from an evidential standpoint to bleieve they were lying or inaccurateNow people will and have tried to pick the Gospels, Acts, the epistles and independent sources, apart, corroborating these facts, with little or no successBut is certainly not like, there is little or no support for the NTs, claimsSo there is alittle more to its claim to inspiration than yours. Yours is an assertion with no historical background and related evidenceNot to mention you just recently made it up for yourselfDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Perhaps you were dropped on your head as a child. Who can say? I prophecy that tomorrow you will see a grufflepuff, by which I mean an animal with five heads and purple wings that incessantly plays the trombone.If you don't see anything fulfilling that prophecy tomorrow, then let me ask you this. If you don't believe in the veracity and accuracy of my claims, how can you claim with absolute assurance that none of the things you see tomorrow are grufflepuffs?It is ludicrous to assert with certain assurance that my prophecy has not been fulfilled and believe at the same time that I am unreliable and inaccurate.

Untrue. Scholars who have actually studied these things can determine with very high certainty that, say, the books of the Torah were not written by some cat named Moses that left Egypt about 3200 years ago, but rather by some anonymous priestly lads 800 years later. No gods need be involved one way or the other.

---

"God is Santa Claus for adults."
- Mad Kallie

Utter nonsense Dawn.Whether the writers were inspired by God has absolutely nothing to do with whether what they wrote refers to Jesus.The way you test the claimed prophecies is to look at what was actually written and then compare that to what was later written.If you think that you can support the validity of some Old Testament prophecy of Jesus, then present the chapter and verse either in a thread devoted to that topic, or here.If you wish I am happy to discuss your alleged prophecies just as I addressed the one where you claimed Isaiah 50:6 was about Jesus (see Message 226).

---

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

Which church?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts