Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Yet reading only one of your posts proves beyond unmitigated doubt that a donkey can type rubbish.P.S.: You owe me royalties on your arguments from authority.

---

Nonconformists come one at a time.

i refuse because it will utterly derail this topic, and there is a certain merit to having things in the right places. those wishing to learn about or debate prophecy are probably going to be looking in the prophecy thread. there is a reason we try to stick to the topic on this board -- everything quickly becomes chaos if we do not.why exactly is it so hard for you to go post in that thread? er, you are complicating the issue entirely too much. if the text is not truthful, it's not inspired. or god lies. take your pick. no, it does not follow. because then the reader would have to inspired as well. at which point, the bible itself no longer serves any function. it would have no reason to exist. you are more than welcome to examine that position in the prophecy thread. however, i think you find that this "fuller and expanded meaning" is generally a tiny sliver of the actual prophecy, taken entirely out of context, and that the real prophecy as written in the OT has the fuller and more complete meaning. no, it really doesn't. it only matters whether or not the NT claims of fulfilled prophecy are supported.

---

אָרַח

If both the NT and OLD writers were inspired, then there is a theme, its Jesus Christ, all the way throughBut only God could make this clear in the nature of more inspiration, correct?If neither were not, who cares who Jesus was correct? At best he was a liar and the prophets were insane because they believed they had performed miraclesOh yes, inspiration matters greatlyThe difference between the Koran and the Bible, is that the Koran clearly even by a simple application and reading has no theme anywhere. It seems to be random sayings slung together w/ on obvious purposeSince I can find an obvious and clear theme between the testaments, atleast attested to by the Nt writers. perhaps you could go to the Koran and find the some sort of themeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

perhaps the problem is that you're simply not inspired. see, if you don't think it's inspired, then you obviously won't see the themes.

---

אָרַח

yes. believe it or not, the bible is not that hard to understand. you just kind of have to read it. i don't know why you think it's so incomprehensible.

---

אָרַח

Yes, we all agree that YOU see some obvious and clear theme between the testaments, but that is irrelevant to the questions I asked, as is the Qur'an.In case you missed them, here are the questions you were asked.

quote:

---

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 that I asked if what I described would be a sufficient reason.If someone looks at the Bible and finds no unity of doctrine (and note that you have never shown such a unity of doctrine) and theme (and note that you have never shown that there is a common theme or explained how that could possibly be true since there is no such thing as "The Bible"), would that be sufficient reason?Remember, in case you have forgotten, that the topic is "Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion ".Edited by jar, : left out the word see in "...YOU see some..."

---

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

Do you think its filled with allegations of miracles?So should i look at it as if those claims are not true as well?When you remove inspiration and the miraculous your left with nothing but rambling, insane, liars, corrrect?Dawn Bertot

oh, clearly you can't tell that they aren't true, because you're not inspired.

No, for two reasons. One you have ignored the obvious and clear evidence that lends support to the scriptures verses other writings we have already discussedSecondly, based on a lack of and ignoring that evdience you have rejected even the notion that it may be inspired by GodWhich renders your approach to discredit Christ silly, seeing you dont even believe the writers you use to discredit him.Strange logicDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

First, if you think you have actually presented any evidence, please provide a link to the post where you included that evidence.Again, if you can show where I "rejected even the notion that it may be inspired by God", then provide a link to that post.If you can show that I at any time have tried to discredit Christ, please provide a link to that message.Remember Dawn, people here can actually check what has been posted just as we can check to see what is actually written in the Old and New Testament.Finally, you still have not addressed the question. I'll try yet again in the hope that you will understand what is being asked.If someone looks at the Bible and finds no unity of doctrine (and note that you have never shown such a unity of doctrine) and theme (and note that you have never shown that there is a common theme or explained how that could possibly be true since there is no such thing as "The Bible"), would that be sufficient reason?There is nothing in there about YOUR opinions, it is a straight forward question related to their findings. If they look at the Bible and find no unity of doctrine (and note that you have never shown such a unity of doctrine) and theme (and note that you have never shown that there is a common theme or explained how that could possibly be true since there is no such thing as "The Bible"), would that be sufficient reason?

---

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

This gibberish seems unrelated to my point. Perhaps this is because you find my point unanswerable, or perhaps this is merely another manifestation of your long, hopeless, pointless struggle with the English language.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This makes a lot more sense with the extra word inserted.

nothing of course could ever dispel my view of the evidence of scripture or its inspiration, buts lets assume for a moment, it was not inspired.Besides there being no need to demonstrate whether Jesus was the messiah, if there were no inspiration(IOWs who would care)what evidence exacally would you use to refute that idea? Excluding theTalmud, which Jesus often corrected, lets stay strickly with the OT prophets. Why is your statement factual? Here speaking of inspirationNo. Not only because it says so, but it is in line with what the Old testament taught concerning a Messiah and the fact that God never intended the jews to have an earthly kingSecondly, the Jewish writers of the 1st century were in a much better perspective to know what the prophets meanings were. Thier perspective would have been much better than oursThirdly, your position assumes that an earthly ruler was what God intended. This is why the do not appear to match to youHowever, Gods words to Samuel about kings and kingdoms, more closley matches that of Christs and the ApostlesGod should have been thier only king. Christ reinforced that sentiment in his ministry and words."My kingdom is not of the world""The kingdom is within you""All authority has been given to me in heaven and earth"So your conclusion is invalid concerning the prophets, or more specifically Gods intentionsIt might interest you to know that not even the prophets, often understood what the fulfillment of thier words were or the words they spoke, according to Peter. But then we cant trust Peter can we, because he was just as uninspired as the Old Teastament prophets, correct?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Wow that some fine sidestepping sonJar, do you believe (that from your perspective that the Old testament prophets were inspired of God?Yes, No, I dont know, theres no way to tell, etc, etc, etc. I have clearly shown a unity of doctrine in the main purpose of the scriptures to begin with, Christ If God is its author and the prophets were speaking by his authority and inspiration, it is a BOOK and has the unity of theme I demonstrated between the OT prophets and the ones in the NEWNo, to answer your question directly, that would not be suffiecient reason to deconvert, because, they have not looked hard enough and would have ingnored both reason and revelation. anyone can walk away from anything, thinking this or that, or that they are justified, but they are not doing it for a good reason, if the dont see unity of theme and purpose. Its to easy to missJar, is the Bible Old or New or both inspired by God, in your opinion? its really not a hard question to answerDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Begging your pardon. Is there a point to the above comment. If you have an argument, then just present it.Even if you are actually a ninth grader, Ill take it nice and slow so you can follow alongForgive me if it wasnt you that claimed to be a ninth grader, in times past, I thought it was you but I could be mistakenDawn Bertot