|
Author
|
Topic: Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: catholic church
Not if you substitute universal (as is the meaning of catholic) in the phrase. It is saying that there is one church, a holy church and that it is a universal church. Remember this creed was developed at the same time that the various "Sees" were being recognized and their privileges acknowledged.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 257 by bluescat48, posted 12-17-2010 10:52 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
Message 257 of 566 (596845)
12-17-2010 10:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 256 by jar
12-17-2010 10:17 AM
|
|
Re: catholic church
It appears to be semantical.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since 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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 256 by jar, posted 12-17-2010 10:17 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: scriptural unity
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. Or better yet, you can claim the next day that Dawn really did see a grufflepuff in a spiritual way which Dawn was completely unaware of, therefore the prophecy was fulfilled.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: i writes: yes. that information can be found in the old testament, generally in the verse surrounding the prophecy the NT authors are misrepresenting. How are they misrepresenting it? there is a whole thread devoted to this topic.
my beliefs are not the topic of debate. 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 no, as you repeatedly state, this topic is about why you or anyone should "deconvert". since i have not, the only way my beliefs would become relevant were if you were to try and convince me to "deconvert".
If both are inspired from and by God, only God can tell you what the meaning of the prophets is or is not. no, that's just silly. what is to stop just anyone from claiming inspiration? i could very easily say that yes, you are correct, only god can say -- and because god talks to me, i know that the rest of your point is wrong. after all, he said so. how would you know that i'm not telling the truth?
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? no, it's all irrelevant. you can very easily check what they say against what the NT authors. i do not need to assume that either is "inspired" to notice that they do not match.
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 the problem is, it will utterly derail this thread. which is why there is a separate thread for it. i can promise that it will utterly derail this thread -- we've had previous prophecy threads that derailed themselves on the account of one single prophecy that happens to be rather highly valued by christianity.
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 differently my position is that the fact that jesus doesn't accurately represent the jewish messiah is a valid and supportable reason to "deconvert". for the argument about why that is a fact, see the appropriate thread.
If they are, then it stands to reason, that only MORE inspiration could give the explanations of such prophecies, correct? no. it should not take a prophet to understand the prophets -- or every believer would have to be a prophet. and since you are not, that sounds like a good reason to "deconvert" too.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
Dawn Bertot writes: 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. no dawn, deut 13 is basically common sense. if a prophet speaks a verifiable untruth, he is not a true prophet. one does not need to believe that god inspired this verse -- or even that there is a god -- to recognize the truth of the this verse. i don't particularly need the bible to reinforce common sense. but i recognize that you do. my opinion on the inspiration of the text is quite irrelevant. but you believe that the text is inspired, so deut 13 should means something to you.
אָרַח
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: scriptural unity
No I cannot PROVE that any prophet was inspired of God, Old or New, correct. you can, however, prove when they are not. as it turns out, it's actually much easier to prove a negative than it is to prove a positive. jewish messianic prophecy, and christian claims of fulfillment do not match. one or both of them must be wrong.
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 OT so, basically because it says so?
There is no reason to believe any of the NT writers were inaccurate in what they taught along with the historical context of those beliefs sure there is. the gospels don't even match each other.
אָרַח
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.6
|
Re: scriptural unity
Why is it that people cannot think in logical terms? I know, right? That post clearly states that I am God inspired, and you have shown zero evidence that I am not God inspired. Therefore, logic dictates that I am inspired by God. Right? Until you can present evidence that I am not inspired by God then my statement stands. Jesus was not the Messiah.
At present I and others are comparing the OT and NTs prophecies and trying to determine whether Christ was that fulfillment. No you aren't. You are assuming that the NT authors are inspired because the Bible says so, therefore whatever they have written is de facto fulfillment of OT prophecy.
But, 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 mythical Did I miss my history lesson where a Jewish King conquered the lands of the Middle East around 30 AD? If not, then the prophecies were not fulfilled. To get around this rather obvious failure of prophecy the NT authors argued for a "spiritual" kingdom. IOW, when the evidence doesn't match up to prophecy just invent new evidence. Even more, you can't even show that Jesus existed in the first place. So why should I believe that prophecy was fulfilled by a Messiah that you can't even demonstrate existed in the first place?
The Gospels and Acts are good representation of historical support for those things advocated, along with Independant sources The historocity of the Gospels and Acts are the very thing under question. You are assuming your conclusion.
IOWs, there is no valid reason from an evidential standpoint to bleieve they were lying or inaccurate You have things reversed. You need evidential support before accepting the Gospels as accurate. Where is it? It is this type of sloppy thinking on the part of fellow christians that led to my deconversion. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 263 of 566 (596994)
12-18-2010 10:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 253 by Coragyps
12-17-2010 9:12 AM
|
|
Re: scriptural unity
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. "who have actually studied these things " And the qualified non-liberal scholars, that have also "studied these things", are of course wrong because you disagree w/ them, correct? Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 253 by Coragyps, posted 12-17-2010 9:12 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: scriptural unity
I prophecy that tomorrow you will see a grufflepuff, Sorry, when you can boast the history, unity and details that is the 'scriptures', maybe you can make such a claim. Are you related to the fella that said there was a spaceship behind the moon to take us all away. You must be because your claim carries about as much weight Do you have any fulfilled predictions before the one you made above? That would also help us believe you You really should learn how to debate DA. Oh yeah thats right, youve never actually done it, have you? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 266 by jar, posted 12-18-2010 10:36 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied | | | Message 281 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2010 9:16 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 265 of 566 (596997)
12-18-2010 10:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by jar
12-17-2010 9:49 AM
|
|
Re: How to test writings.
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. Jar pick from one of the following The old Testament prophets WERE inspired of God The Old Testament prophets WERE NOT inspired of God Which one is closest to your belief
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. Jar pick from the following or provide another solution The NT writers WERE inspired of and from God. The NT writers WERE NOT inspired of and from God. Now, they either were or they were not, or perhaps you could say, I DONT KNOW Let me know Jar Dawn Bertot
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by jar, posted 12-17-2010 9:49 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 267 by jar, posted 12-18-2010 10:41 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Prophecy
Dawn Bertot writes: Do you have any fulfilled predictions before the one you made above? That would also help us believe you It has been suggested several times that if YOU think you have any supportable examples of fulfilled prophecy that you post them in the thread that is actually devoted to that subject. So far the three that you have mentioned were examined and there was NO evidence that any were ever fulfilled. So since it is obvious that you have no fulfilled prophecy, to try to at least deal with the topic, how about addressing the issues that have been raised? 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 264 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2010 10:23 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: How to test writings.
Being inspired does not mean that what they wrote was right, was prophecy or that YOU can understand or have even read either the Old or New Testaments. We can actually check to see what was written. If you have something you wish us to examine, please give us chapter and verse. So far every example you have mentioned has turned out to actually refute your assertions. and then ... maybe you can actually address the issues raised. 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 Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
Re: scriptural unity
there is a whole thread devoted to this topic. friend, no argument from it will derail anything I have been saying or have believed and studied. I have encouraged you to bring your strongest or comprehensive argument here, yet you refuse
no, that's just silly. what is to stop just anyone from claiming inspiration? Some of the Bible is based in sound evidence, some is faith based, like inspiration or a miracle that took place. When put together the two aspects become more believable Now pay close attention son. While there is some evidence of the testaments claims, a certain amount of faith is required to believe that a donkey spoke w/ Gods assistance If a person doesnt even believe such things against the other areas of evidence that support the scriptures, how or why would one care whether a writer was inspired to make a prediction to begin with. In contrast, if the writer was inspired, the it would follow that only God could explain a dual or an illudstration type prophecy, correct/ While a prophecy may have applied to a certain old test character, why is God not allowed to make it have a fuller and expanded meaning, for his ultimate purposes So my friend it matters greatly whether you believe they were inspired Dawn Bertot
|
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: 11-23-2007
|
|
|
Message 269 of 566 (597005)
12-18-2010 11:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 267 by jar
12-18-2010 10:41 PM
|
|
Re: How to test writings.
We can actually check to see what was written. can you check to see and understand what Gods overall intentions and purposes were by giving inspiration to the writer? Are you afraid to answer the question I put to you. If you are then, just say so. You see Jar, the problem with your approach is one that ignores simply logic. Your using a book that is filled w/miracles and the such like, that you dont believe in, to try and discredit other writings, you dont believe to accurate either. Does that make sense to you? So logically, how would you check anything against anything. You cant even get out of the starting gate Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 267 by jar, posted 12-18-2010 10:41 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: How to test writings.
Dawn Bertot writes: Are you afraid to answer the question I put to you. If you are then, just say so First, I did answer the questions you asked; in case you missed the answer I will repeat them for you.
quote:
Being inspired does not mean that what they wrote was right, was prophecy or that YOU can understand or have even read either the Old or New Testaments. We can actually check to see what was written. If you have something you wish us to examine, please give us chapter and verse. So far every example you have mentioned has turned out to actually refute your assertions. and then ... maybe you can actually address the issues raised. 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?
Dawn Bertot writes: can you check to see and understand what Gods overall intentions and purposes were by giving inspiration to the writer? Too funny. What God's overall intentions and purposes were is irrelevant; we can read what was written. If you want to pretend that there is something there that was NOT written, well, fine. Fantasy is always popular. If you actually have something you think is supportable, there is a thread devoted to the subject.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 269 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2010 11:00 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2