i promise you, it's not. i'm generally the only one who presents anything relating to judaism, and i'm not jewish. you've been lucky, ramoss dropped one message in this thread. he is probably our most prominent (only?) jewish forum member. we used to have amlodhi, but he doesn't seem to be active anymore.in my 6 years here, i've seen judaism discussed, outside of christian contexts, about as frequently as the book of mormon or quran, from LDS or islam sources. you're funny. clearly, that is a test. and if that kind of test is not good enough for you... well, then perhaps we should go back to my test: deuteronomy 18. you missed the point. it's okay, it was subtle, i know. i didn't spell it out for you, and hold your hand through it.the septuagint is a translation of the hebrew bible into koine greek. like any translation, it has its quirks. we know that matthew was copying from the septuagint, because where he quotes from the OT, it retains some of those quirks. one of them is the word "virgin". the verse in the septuagint is translated using parthenos to mean "young woman".similarly, luke, in copying down the genealogy of christ, also retains a copyist error, where the septuagint scribe duplicated a name accidentally. not of those details, they don't! they confirm that, overall, what we have of the bible is probably pretty close to the source. in the same way that matthew is a liar: he wrote down the words of his teacher. i don't see a gospel written down personally by jesus, ergo, the gospels must all be lies. right?oh, but the title. yeah, don't get too hung up on those. titles are traditional, and many of the titles you're familiar with don't appear in the hebrew bible. for instance, genesis is called "in the beginning", exodus "names", leviticus "called", numbers "in the desert", and deuteronomy "word", all after the first or second word in the book... because the books do not actually have titles. all titles, and chapter numbers, and verse numbers were added later, and are traditional. calling a book that comprises the prophecy of isaiah "isaiah" only makes sense. it doesn't mean that the author is a liar because you think it had to have been written by isaiah personally. your notion of how the scriptures are written is just wrong. this is not isaiah's fault. doesn't matter. again, this is not about the validity of isaiah. it's nice that his words were more or less accurate, sure, and if they were written after the fact, that's probably bad. whatever.the point is that matthew misrepresent the words of isaiah. well, it's a good thing i haven't done that then. perhaps you should re-read my post. there's nothing about what i like or dislike, or believe to valid or invalid. it's simply an examination of what isaiah says versus what matthew says.personally, i happen to like this jesus fellow. i think he expands on the positions of the law and the prophets, in his teachings. but it's really too bad that matthew can't faithfully read that law or those prophets. dawn, as i stated above, you can't seem to tell a claim from it's own contradiction. you agree with my reading of isaiah 7, but don't see how that contradicts matthew. you agree that the prophets and priests in isaiah 28 were false, but don't see how their teachings are also false.your claims are meaningless and gibberish -- mutter after mutter -- because you do not have even the most basic foundation in logic. you seem to think that claim "p" and claim "not p" are indistinguishable, and so all your logic breaks down because then nothing can ever be refuted. we can never hope to follow a premise to a conclusion, because we can't even get past the premise.so, your claims about logic are truly funny, dawn. please, keep it up.

---

אָרַח

it is, however, the part that matthew quotes. and the context shows that that part could not have related to jesus. you are more than welcome to post anything else from isaiah you feel is about jesus, especially if its quoted by a NT author. but so far, all you've proven is that you don't know how to read. i know! how silly of me to read the bible! indeed, "critical thinking" and "commitment to the scriptures" (in the way that you almost certainly mean) are polar opposites. rather, i am thinking critically about the scriptures. i recognize that this is anathema to you, but i suggest you try it. otherwise, you come away with thinking it's a big book of "precept after precept", and fail to see the true beauty of the text. again, it is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether matthew faithfully represents his sources. he could have been talking about a complete work of fiction -- intellectually dishonest quotemining is still intellectually dishonest quotemining. it doesn't matter what that source is, only how matthew relates it. i'm sorry, i was unaware that christianity has no basis in the old testament. if this is your argument, i formally withdraw my point.

---

אָרַח

"it's all inspired, because i said so, and you have to inspired to see it" is not really a good rebuttal to any of my points, as i have detailed. pot, meet kettle.you have yet to demonstrate that you can read the bible, and understand what it means. your quotes are continually out of context, and frequently rebut your own points. perhaps this is simply endemic of christianity; i don't know.

---

אָרַח

It seems to be a tad arrogant to say that I don't know the Jewish scriptures.Except for an Ad hominem attack against me I don't see any value in what you say.But, examples would be claiming Isaiah 7:14 is about Jesus.. that Isaiah 9:6 is about Jesus, and Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.If you read Isaiah 7:14 in CONTEXT ... you will see that it is about Isaiah's son, not about Jesus. The term ALMAH that Christians claim is 'Virgin' is actually 'young woman'.. not virgin, and in context, the woman was Isaiah's wife .. This can be seen in 8:3-4, where "I went to the prophetess and insured she conceived'..The fact that many evangelistic Christians continually misrepresent those passages to make it about Jesus is a wonderful reason for deconversion.

yes, that is pretty funny. actually, i have a more interesting interpretation of just who imanuel was. i found a really interesting doctoral thesis on isaiah 7:14, and i'm going to post a link to it in the prophecy thread.i'll give you a hint, though. "imanuel" meant that god was on the side of judah during the assyrian invasion: adonai was the strength that repelled assyria at the walls of jerusalem.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

really. Lets see if there is no interpretation going on on your part. You have not explained where you got the definition and explanation of "child", in that passage. you gave an interpretation, but that explanation is not in the text is itSecondly, you and Ramoss clearly have a different explanation correct?Here are your words to Ramoss Im sorry I though you said you did not interpret things. Hmmmmm?Why would you need an interpretation of the child, if it is so plain in the text? Hmmmmm?No interpretation? Better go back an check that again And herein lies the problem with not only your irrational approach, but your clear and OBVIOUS misrepresentation of Gods word. Without it, no prophecy makes even the slightest senseWithout it your claims that Matthew is misrepresenting it are pointless. Really arch, use you head I can only know this if another prophet makes it clear through inspiration, correct. You could only know that the prophecies could make sense if inspiration is real and a part of that context, correct? Wrong, Christ in John 16:13, promised the Apostles that the Spirit would guide them into all truth. All Lawgivers are prophets, not all prophets are lawgiversThey were made and became prophets by God himself Nail on the head, so to speak. And of course your going to be the one to decide this for us, correct? Write me out a list of the books and passages that YOU believe are inspired and the ones that are not, then tell me why. Then tell me what your exact criteria for having such special knowledge is. More mental fence walking. Son you have aquired some facts but it is clear you dont know how to apply them logicallyReally Arch, use your head. Its all from God or its not, there is no middle of the road. So which side of the road are you on? Only inspiration could make known what God had in mind in either testament. Since you claim no inspiration and it is painfully clear you do not understand the nature and purpose of scripture, Ill take matthews claim, since you have not demonstrated even that simple point. The scriptures are about God and his plans Does it make him a liar if he suggest or directly states that the things he is writing are inspired of God and they are not actually? Names arch, are not the only test of the validity of the book.. nice dodge though.only insipration can or could make known Gods plans overall. hebrews one says, he did it in different ways at different timesto this point Arch all you have provided in the way of an argument, if it could be called that, is to claim matthew and others are quotemining and taking it out of context. Those are observations, not an argument agains the fact that the text demonstrates God involvement and God inspirationThey cannot take out of context, what you misunderstand in the form of Gods inspiration and involvement. God cannot misrepresent his own words through time and that my simple friend is what you are missing, like an african elephant standing right in front of you, but you cannot see himBut you have already demonstrated that you dont REALLY believe that, correct? or did I misrepresent your comment in post 78 of the other threadsorry my simple friend, inspiration and Gods overall plans make al the differencebertot writes: arch writesWell that clears everything up. My simple friend it makes all the difference in tthe world, if God is behind the authors words, every detail of inspiration and Gods overall plans need to be consideredAll you have done to this point is insist that Matthew did not faithfully represent the text. Arch, God can and did do anything with the text he choosesIf God wishes that a prophecy of old refer to John the Baptist, that is his right. "one crying in the wilderness, make straight his path a highway for OUR GOD"This the single greatest prophecy in biblical historyMy simplistic and short sighted friend, its all ABOUT GOD Not only is your above comment the most ignorant statement I have ever witnessed, it demonstrates beyond any doubt you understand neither inspiration, intervention or Gods wishes and plans overall. Arch, God cannot misrepresent his own words and only inspiration could reveal to matthew what Gods words and wishes meantHey, rocket scientist, its only and just about God through time, THATS ALLWhen you adjust your meter to understand what the scriptures are about, it will all make senseBertot writes:Arch, if its only about what Isa or Matthew said its of no real value. Its what GOD SAID in both time periods, God purpose and Gods plans. Not Isa, not Matthew, not yours and not mineIts only about Gods purposes and now watch, the is why isnpiration and all its hundreds and hundreds of claims in scripture are SO VERY IMPORTANTIf you claim to understand scripture so much how in all the world can you miss that simple point. wake up and smell the coffee
your claims are meaningless and gibberish -- mutter after mutter -- because you do not have even the most basic foundation in logic. you seem to think that claim "p" and claim "not p" are indistinguishable, and so all your logic breaks down because then nothing can ever be refuted. we can never hope to follow a premise to a conclusion, because we can't even get past the premise. No problem, not a single thing I have present could be understood to be illogical or irrational. You on the other hand song and dance around passages that imply inspiration and divine guidance. One moment your on board the next your notDid I misrepresent you in post 78 of that other thread? I think not. In this thread you speak confidently about inspiration, there you dont.Again this is why inspiration and divine guidance is of the UTMOST important. Without it, its just people rambling about this or that thing. Smell that coffee bruing Arch"One crying in the wilderness, make straight his path a Highway for our God." It was only ever about God and God as ChristIts woven through time and revelation. Gives you chills doesnt it. I know it does me. Again and again Arch, God cannot misrepresent his own words. So yes Arch, inpiration is very very very, relevantDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hi Dawn,Since the topic title is a question, it might be useful for us if you actually answer it yourself as well. So:Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion?A simple yes or no will do.--Dirk.

yes, it is. you just have to read it even you said you agreed. *facepalm*i did not interpret the text in that post. i simply explained the straightforward, literal reading, based in context. isaiah does not identify the child. but it does give a number of details in the text that can disqualify pretty much anyone born after 720 BC.there are several legitimate interpretations of who the imanuel child was, and all are based in parsing the grammar of the sentence: the woman is referred to with a definite article, and the "is pregnant" is present tense. she would have been known to both ahaz and isaiah, and would have been pregnant at the time. this means the child has to be:

1. isaiah's son, who is born in the very next chapter, as ramoss interprets
2. ahaz's son, probably king hezekiah who becomes very important later in the book and relates directly to the theme of the assyrian invasions
3. representative of all children born at that time, but i feel this betrays the specificity of the grammar

so, those are your options. a child born 700 years later, that has nothing to do with either ahaz, isaiah, or assyria is simply not an interpretation allowed by the text. ramoss and i can disagree about who the child is without making the whole debate "interpretative". we both agree about who the child is not. no, dawn, the problem is that your misrepresentations don't make even the slightest lick of sense; whereas any sane, rational person reading isaiah 7 would come to precisely the same conclusion i have: it can't be aboue jesus. the fact that my approach is simply reading the text, and seeing what it has to say, speaks volumes about your claims relating to rationality.further, you have misrepresented the bible at every turn, even in off-hand quotes. you have even spoken in favour of false prophets. dawn, this is as simple as comparing two texts, and what they say. use your head. no. you have a brain. use it. further, you have given no particular standard about how we determine whether or not inspiration is present in a text. you have simply and arbitrarily assumed it for the bible, nut denied it for other similar texts. do you even read what you write? good. so were the leaders of the church of latter day saints. you might be interested to note, however, that matthew is not listed among the apostles in the gospel of john. in fact, his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the book. and even if it was, there's no particularly good reason to assume the book we have come to call matthew was written by that same matthew the apostle from the synoptic gospels. the titles of the books, as explained above, are traditional. the gospels were named much later, and do not actually claim authorship, except for perhaps luke/acts. you've never even been to sunday school, have you? no, and as i keep saying, it is not relevant to this discussion. the question is, why do you blindly accept every book of the bible, simply because they are published together? you might be interested to know that the history of canonization is a long and complicated one, and even today, there is a lot of disagreement about what should be, and should not be in the bible. for instance, the catholics have about another half-dozen books in their bibles. son, you wouldn't know what facts or logic even are. please feel free to critique me when you learn to read, and think. all of what? which canon are we talking about?this is really the kind of thing that tells me that you haven't been exposed to much actual bible study. i have one bible, called a chumash, that is just the torah, with commentary and excerpts from the haftorot (in hebrew and english). i have another that is the entire tanakh (or "old testament"). i have another that is just the new (in koine greek and english). i have several more that are both and old and new testaments. i can easily find a septuagint online, which contains books not in your bible. which canon, and why?the bible simple is not the monolith you think it is. it's a collection of texts, and different groups disagree on what should go in it. would you feel better if i did claim inspiration? of course, matthew does not, but that is beside the point. you simply have no mechanism for telling the difference. i don't know why you think this rebuts anything i've said, or what you're even trying to claim. you're somehow offended that i chose to defend isaiah against your accusations of him being a liar simply because someone else wrote down his words? i don't get it. what do you have against the bible, dawn?i have never claimed that isaiah wasn't divinely inspired. just that matthew's interpretation is not founded in what isaiah wrote -- thus, dishonest. do, the bible cannot make god's plans known? ok. i'll follow you for a second here. so, the inspired matthew reveals isaiah's true meaning. but... who reveals matthew's true meaning? ...and who reveal's that person's meaning? the argument, dawn, is so simple it barely needs stating. but since you can't understand obvious implications -- or even direct statements that i've spelled out before -- i'll spell it out again for you.you have two options, either:

1. god is honest, and matthew is not divinely inspired, or
2. god is a liar, and all bets are off

if god is a liar, why should we believe any of the bible? agreed! why, then, does matthew misrepresent isaiah? that post was a concession that the validity of isaiah's prophecy is subjective, depending on when you think the book was actually written. personally, i think it's largely irrelevant, because the power of prophecy is not in prediction. prophets are not fortune-tellers. they are the mouthpieces of god. note that leviticus 20 commands the deaths of people who presume to tell the future. sure. but the inspiration of isaiah doesn't affect the fact that matthew misrepresents the prophecy. sure, god can lie if he wants to. i agree. but if you start assuming that god does lie in his inspiration of the texts, well, as i said, all bets are off. how do we then know that anything is truthful? sure. there is absolutely no reason that god couldn't have an ancient prophecy refer to something that happens 1000 years later, or even today. but if he did, it would be obvious and speak to the power of god. it wouldn't be through shrewd manipulation and removing context and changing words. it wouldn't be sneaky, or obscured. it would be right there, plain as day -- just like all of the prophecy in the bible. er, no, that's simplistic and short-sighted.you might as well say hamlet is "about a guy" or romeo and juliet is "about these two kids." yeah, uh, thanks for that brilliant analysis. i'll stick with reading it, thanks. in that case, i suggest you start proof-reading your posts! okay, so, try and follow me here.

1. god inspired isaiah
2. god can't misrepresent his own inspiration
3. matthew misrepresent isaiah

your conclusion: "matthew must not have misrepresented isaiah". the proper logical conclusion, given those three premises, is that god didn't inspire matthew. not that one of the premises is wrong. to do that, you'd have to add another premise -- that god did inspire matthew. but this is simply an assumption that you are drawing from nowhere.in fact, as i keep mentioning, the inspiration of isaiah isn't actually relevant. it works just as well like this:

1. god can't misrepresent his own inspiration
2. matthew misrepresent isaiah

conclusion, god didn't inspired matthew. which continues to confirm my belief that you really haven't read the bible at all. or if you have, you haven't understood much. after all, to you the text is simply "precept upon precept, line upon line", like it is to the drunkards, and false prophets isaiah was condemning. the problem is that it has to be about what the bible says first, otherwise we might as well just make shit up. the only way to we have to know what god said to isaiah and perhaps matthew is what is recorded in the bible. and if one of them is lying about what the other said, well, it sort of throws credibility out the window. fine. but claims to not always equal reality. clearly, the book of mormon and the quran both claim inspiration from god, and they're both about god's purposes. why do you reject those claims? they're clearly pretty important too. ah! you've started reading that verse correctly! i have taught you something. which, kind of makes the rest of that statement a little silly, if you think about it. ha!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

haha. ha. ha.okay, i'm done now. the issue, as i keep explaining, is that you have a mush of the text. you do not differentiate one text from another. to you, it's all gibberish, precept upon precept. you do not see that isaiah is one book, with a point, and matthew is another book, with another point. perhaps there is some symbolic relationship between those points, sure. isaiah is primarily about god and his kingly servant protecting jerusalem through the assyrian onslaught of ~720 BC. matthew is about the salvation of the world through god's son. clearly, one is invoking the other for a reason. but this does not mean that those points are indistinguishable, or that matthew's invocation of isaiah is accurate in its specifics. jesus does not fulfill those prophecies, because those prophecies were never about jesus and were all fulfilled well before he was born.i know you don't see the difference. but your vision is dim and clouded. yes, you have. your reading comprehension is clearly not your best skill. i have never "spoken confidently" about inspiration in this thread. rather, i have continually noted that it's irrelevant.

---

אָרַח

comma placement fail.

quote:

---

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (Mark 1:3)

---

quote:

---

As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (Luke 3:4)

---

isaiah 40:3 says,

quote:

---

קוֹל קוֹרֵא--בַּמִּדְבָּר, פַּנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה; יַשְּׁרוּ, בָּעֲרָבָה, מְסִלָּה, לֵאלֹהֵינוּ
a voice rings out, "clear in the desert a road for the LORD! level in the wilderness a highway for our god!"

---

if it had wanted to say "a voice in the wilderness" it would have said בַּמִּדְבָּר קוֹל קוֹרֵא and not the reverse. the verse is directed at jerusalem (v2) decimated from the assyrian war, and the highway is likely for the jews returning from exile. the voice itself is perhaps that of the prophet, or god speaking through the prophet.

---

אָרַח

Oh, Silly Millie. Do you even have any idea what the topic and subject at hand is? For even though we have repeatedly give you a valid, supportable reason for deconversion, you refuse to deal with it. And instead, you attempt to divert this topic away to a confrontation between your own theology's self-serving maunderings and the clear reading of Scripture.We have given you the answer to the topic, several times, but you refuse to see. How more blind could you possibly be? (the reason for your self-delusional blindness is well-known and will be discussed in another reply).Silly Millie, have you not read my message, Message 242, in which I wrote:

quote:

---

On FaceBook, Ed Babinski, deconverted extreme fundamentalist, posted a link to a Christian article reviewing a book about church youth deconverting in droves: http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/6885/ -- 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) 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.

---

Since I am not at work at this moment, I can post the opening excerpt from that article:

quote:

---

Young people aren’t walking away from the churchthey’re sprinting. According to a recent study by Ranier Research, 70 percent of youth leave church by the time they are 22 years old. Barna Group estimates that 80 percent of those reared in the church will be disengaged by the time they are 29 years old. Unlike earlier generations of church dropouts, these leavers are unlikely to seek out alternative forms of Christian community such as home churches and small groups. When they leave church, many leave the faith as well.

---

Add to that a quote offered by Kent Hovind (the creationist spokesman whose claims even made creationists' eyes roll in their heads, until he recently started serving a 10-year sentence for tax fraud):

quote:

---

"75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject the Christian faith by their first year of college."
("Let My Children Go" video by Caryl Matritiano of Jeremiah Films,
as quoted by Kent Hovind on his fourth seminar tape at 42 minutes and 55 seconds -- with all due respect, the content at Hovind's website has always been inconsistent and that particular seminar tape might not currently be available)

---

Again, while Jeremiah Films wants to promote home-schooling by blaming public schools as being anti-Christian, that is not what we who have eyes see. As we have read in countless deconversion stories, those children upon learning the truth will realize how their parents and churches have lied to them. Fundamentalists have been able to survive in previous times because they could keep themselves and their children isolated from the truth, but that is no longer possible. Now the only way that a fundamentalist can defend himself against the truth is through self-deception. But that self-deception requires eternal vigilance, such as we observe you employing.Silly Millie, even you must have to admit that there is a deconversion crisis in progress. Why are the children raised in the Word abandoning it in droves? Shouldn't you be trying to understand deconversion, rather than trying to wish it away? Because deconversion is happening, whether you want it to or not. And to the very ones you believe it should not be happening to, those raised on The Word.What the frak is happening, Dawn? How can you explain it, Dawn? Why are you avoiding it, Dawn?Here is what I have observed. Christians are oh so absolutely concerned with the souls of non-Christians, whom they "love" so much that they will put those "unrepentent" souls through all kinds of infernal torment in order to convert them. And yet when a fellow "Christian" strays and is incontrovertibly committing mortal sin, such that that "Christian" is damning himself to Eternal Damnation, then all Christians, even though they may be "friends" of the endangered one, are bound by Christianity to not mutter even one warning to that endangered one of his immenent eternal Damnation. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, Oscar? Well fuck that stupid shit!

Some years ago, I participated on a Yahoo Groups forum, until the only moderator left was a creationist whose only concern was to defend the other creationists at all costs. Before that killed the forum, a creationist had repeated the "sodium in the sea" PRATT ("point refuted a thousand times", since I know how clueless you are, Millie), to which I not only responded factually, but also asked him why he had to resort to such unconvincing claims. His response was a "light bulb illuminating" moment for me. He told me that I was not convinced by that argument because I was not already convinced. Whoa! That one candid creationist response resonated on so many levels. The simplest levels showed that creationists are only concerned with claims that are convincing-sounding (at least to creationists' ears), but it goes so much deeper than that.Now, whom are the creationists trying so desparately to convince? Scientists? Ha! Anyone with any kind of education in science can immediately identify their nonsense as nonsense. The general public? Yeah, some of them may fall victim. But who is the real target? The creationists themselves!Silly Millie, you yourself provided the clue. When you proclaimed everything that was written in the New Testament as "inspired" and hence superceding everything that the prophets of the OT had actually said, and that they superceded everything else. As well as your other statements that everything else was "magic".Now, you will be required here to actually think, which I am quite sure you are incapable of. You have created a theology in which you believe. That is nothing unusual; everybody creates his own theology. For the most part, each theology is based on each individual's own misunderstanding of what was being taught to him, which in itself is the teacher's own misunderstanding, etc, etc, etc. Your own personal theology depends on several rationalizations, such as the one you presented us regarding the Gospel authors being "inspired" (according to your own particular meaning of "inspired" which is not shared by others).OK, Silly Millie, here is what you have done. It really is no different from what countless others have done before you. You have created your own personal theology. True, you have tried to pattern it after an existing doctrine and you may have been able to remain true to it to some extent, but you did not truly understand it, so your understanding is imperfect. For that matter, since your understanding was based on your teacher's imperfect misunderstanding of his teacher's imperfect misunderstaning, etc, etc, etc, etc, ... .So, you have your own personal theology. Obviously flawed. But you believe it to be true and you must support it in every way you can. So you do so. You rationalize everything you can. And you are convinced about every single rationalization, because you are already convinced. Furthermore, you need to be convinced. Because if you were to ever cease to be convinced, then the whole web of your theology would fall apart. After all, why do you think that you fight so hard against Archaphilia and ramoss and others showing you what the OT prophets are really saying?Dawn, did you start out a fundamentalist? Or did you convert?Because a convert is safer than one who was raised a fundamentalist. To be able to protect one's contrary-to-fact fundamentalist against reality, one must have emplaced some pretty powerful coping capacities. A convert can be mindful enough to install what he needs to deflect reality. But one who is born into that mindset grows up actually believing it to be true. And is utterly unprepared for reality when it inevitably hits him. Which accounts for the extremely high rate of deconversion among those born into fundamentalism.

Your guess is completely wrong. You have demonstrated repeatedly and amply your inability for rational discourse, so trying to have any kind of rational discussion with you is an impossibility. Frankly, all you've been able to stimulate with your perpetual bullshit have been angry outbursts, admittedly most of them fuelled in part by alcohol. I am not proud of those outbursts, but totally rational responses to your bullshit would have garnered exactly the same responses, as we continually see demonstrated by the efforts of other forum members.Though I am also reminded of a statement by Robert Heinlein who likened a particular endeavor to trying to teach a pig to sing: not only is it doomed to failure, but it also irritates the pig. Well, perhaps that pig (AKA "swine"; see immediately below) does need to be irritated. Perhaps that will make that swine start to think. I know that I have explained it before, but then we're dealing with Silly Millie here. OK, here I go casting pearls before swine yet again. My minister has taken me to task for that, but here I go again.As I have explained before, while "creation science" is a pack of lies, that does not make all who regurgitate those lies liars. In order to be a liar, one must be aware that the falsehoods that one is disseminating are indeed false. Most creationists are followers who regurgitate the lies that they have been fed and who in most cases actually believe those lies to be true. The reason why those creationists really hate to discuss and support their claims is because they do not understand the bullshit that they've just regurgitated; they literally cannot discuss any of it. They do not know any better.There are those who do know better, or should. Those are the actual creationist liars. Though it admittedly does become difficult at times to distinguish between lying and gross incompetence.Oh, wow. Given your inability to understand English, you obviously could not understand any of what I have just written. Since it has literally been 54 years since I have thought at a 5-year-old's level, I honestly do not know how to bring it down to your level. I'm going to have to take a chance and bring it down not quite as far: liars need to know that they are lying; people who repeat lies are not actually lying, but rather are themselves victims of the liars.And the effect of repeating a lie while not knowing that it is a lie has the same effect as actually lying. Sorry, I have no idea how to dumb that down to your level. As if that were even possible.

So let me get this straight, your supposed argument for deconversion is that creation science is not true? In three posts all I can see is this, in your intimations.The others are :I dont understand anything
People are leaving the church
Creation scientist are liars
AND YOUR AN ALCOHOLICDid I miss something?Sorry son, creation is demonstratable in reality and in argument form from designEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Thats funny.You werent looking straight into the camera and waving your finger, were you? You sound like Bill Clinton. "Listen to my words, I did not have sex with that women"Like Bill you only partially interpreted it correct, which is as we all know is not Interpretation, correct?Its going to take a little while to get back to this post its pretty extensive. Got some RW and New Years stuff going, but I will get to it as soon as possibleThanksDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

stick around a bit, dawn. that's more or less the topic of the rest of this board. what dwise1 says is true: when kids raised as creationists go off to college and are confronted with real science, the lies their parents told them are extremely damaging do their christian faith.as i mentioned very early in either this thread or your other thread, this principle is not limited to biology or geology. it also applies to theology. there's a fairly high drop out rate from seminary, too.

---

אָרַח