Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

I'll give you a hint. Of how many of those people have I ever claimed that "the slightest wind would uproot" their belief systems?The answer to my question and yours is the same; this is not a coincidence.

Yes, I noticed. And it does not help to disspell the confusion.Our first dog had a dog cage, which was his bed. Well, my wife felt that he needed a cage, but we kept it open most of the time and his bed was in there. Remember "Bill Cosby, Himself"? According to his act, college graduates read books on how they should raise children, etc ("me being a PE major, I'd have the kid run a lap and go to bed"). She had never had a dog growing up, but she read Pinkus Zuckermann's "Super-Puppy". In that book, to punish the dog you'd isolate him from you, so when our dog was punished, we'd tell him to go to his bed (ie, his cage), which he would do. But then it got to the point where something would happen and he'd know that he was in trouble, so entirely on his own he'd slink into his cage, then turn right around as if to say, "OK, I went to my room, so we're all cool now, right?" We started calling him our Catholic dog (neither of us were, though they had tried to raise her as such), going to do his pentence and being absolved of his sins.I've noticed something similar among fundamentalist Christians. Humans, of course. Remember the bumper sticker, "Not Perfect, Just Forgiven"? That was their attitude. But additionally, there was the knowledge that, being human, they would inevitably stumble (their keyword for it), make a moral mistake. Whereupon they would ask God/Jesus for forgiveness and would of course receive it (what invisible friend wouldn't?).So in my mind, I see them sinning away, all for "Jesus' cause" of course, and then asking for and immediately receiving forgiveness.Funny thing, though. In those sins, somebody was wronged. They got forgiven and all that, but what about those who were wronged? Kind of goes against any kind of actual sense of morality, doesn't it?

He did do some "Jewish voices" work for NPR, didn't he?But a sneaky one was "Dagger of the Mind", early first season, ST:TOS. Screenplay by one "Bar David". Made passing reference to the story of the Pharisee Rabbi Hillel who was challenged by a Gentile to recite the entirety of the Law (ie, the Torah, the Pentetuch, the First Five Books of Moses, the first 5 books of the Old Testament) while standing on one foot. In Pharisee fashion, Rabbi Hillel responded, "Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law. The rest is just explanation." The Golden Rule. 20 BCE, a full 50 years before the purported ministry of Jesus.I will need to peruse Memory Alpha. tlhIngan Hol can be fun (albeit messy; Michael Dorn recommends keeping a handkerchief handy), but the Vulcan language was something we would have loved to get our hands on.

perhaps. i understood him, but that doesn't necessarily mean his view makes any sense whatsoever. it is, however, pretty standard christian nonsense, and is based on the idea of a strict and unforgiving god. the problem is, of course, that this god is not a god with any sense -- a sensible god would agree that telling an untruth to protect life is a morally upstanding thing to do. but this is also not the god of the bible, either the OT or the NT. it is not the god jesus spoke about, that would have perfectly accepted helping your neighbour in an emergency on shabbat. on a similar note, my cat just brought me a sacrifice. i wish my pets were catholic. i think there's another level here, though. there's a psychological aspect -- one of the reasons i fell out of the fundamentalist christian church, actually. the "forgiveness" is just one part of a larger cycle of guilt. one feels guilty for even the smallest error (or, in some cases like above, a non-error), and must atone. there's a certain psychological need, here, based what we feel something is worth. when we're told that all sin is death, and christ is bleeding on the cross for our littlest mistakes, we feel the need to make up for it somehow.but then, we are freely granted forgiveness -- pulling us deeper into the church. however, the freely granted forgiveness doesn't quite fill that hole the guilt has made. we haven't done anything to make up for it. or to right the situation. or really, in most cases, to even change. this pulls us deeper, again. eventually, you get the behaviour like your dog's: "lalala, we're cool now right?", and we go into a big relapse or "backslide". then comes the guilt, again. the lack of meaningful punishment is really a control mechanism, and we're like fish on hooks. the church, like a cult, is just trying to wear us out.i'd like to contrast this to something, however. biblical judaism is a system of clear preset laws, with distinct punishments for certain infractions. not all of these punishments are death: most are pretty simple. sacrifices function as a meaningful loss. it means something to a shepherd to give up a sheep -- and when he does, it feels like he has actually done something to make up for his sin. there is no great expectation of perfection, but it is not excluded, either. the law is, for the most part, sensible. there is no cycle of guilt, with an emotionally lacking atonement (except, perhaps, in modern judaism). the ritual affects the psychological, and christian lacks the ritual.but this is also what i mean when i say that the apostle paul clearly has not understood the law. jews are not bound by the law; they are blessed by it. it is the thing that makes them special, and the thing that sets them free. of course, the extreme orthodox restrictions around the laws are another story.

---

אָרַח

Bullshit! And nothing you say has anything to do with what you quoted me as saying. Again, bullshit! The ones deconverting are the ones who grew up on your "firm foundation", who cut their teeth on it.Please stop your silly posturing and actually deal with the issue of deconversion!

the analysis is a decent one, of course, but i would be remiss if i didn't say it was overly simplistic. a bit better than "it's god!" ala dawn, but still.

---

אָרַח

As I was a fundamentalist Christian "fellow traveller", I was also a kind of Jewish "Mitfahrer" (Verzeihung da ich das genaue Judische nicht kann); a friend always referred to me as "a good Jewish goy".Though to be honest, I've usually been more attuned to the fundamentalist Christian thing. Like when Pat Robertson was running for President in the 1980's and some reporter asked him whether somebody had to be Christian to get into heaven. He replied that a Jew who had followed all the Law throughout his life also could. But those who have ears, let them listen. I had ears, so I had listened. The fundamentalist teaching was that the Law was set up so that nobody could keep it completely throughout their lives, which necessitated a Redeemer. Pat Roberson's lie was to make it appear that a non-Christian could get into heaven, whereas the actual Christian teaching was that that as impossible.

Got it. Tov Todah!

indeed. whereas anyone who has actually read the law notices two things immediately:

1. it's quite possible to keep its standards (though, perhaps not those in the oral law, or in tradition)
2. the law itself actually exists as a way to provide atonement (ie: it is a form of redemption already)

further, the rest of the bible notes "perfect" people in several places. at least one of them sinned, but had atoned for it. further still, the sacrifices themselves were very apparently not the point, as attested to elsewhere in the bible.this really makes the whole christian idea of the redeeming sacrifice just untenable in relation to judaism. and if there was ever any argument that made me want to "deconvert", that was it right there.

---

אָרַח

Which, of course, is a total misrepresentation of Judaism, or the the first ten days of Tishrei would be unnecessary. The Jew understood that; not sure Paul did.

---

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

Youve presented no argument. Saying why you believe they have left is not an argument. Give me thier argument.As i have tried to explain to you before, to which you do not understand, this thread is about the specific arguments that could be brought forward for deconversion.Not a list of WHO has deconverted and HOW many in droves and the such like that you keep presentingWatch me present the same type of "argument" that has been characteristic of your postsAtheism, skepticism, etc makes up about 5 to 7 percent of the worlds population and the rest of the population share or have some form of belief in God, scripture and the afterlife.IOWs you are like a faulty firecracker finally going off. We all stop and look for a moment then turn back to what is rational, believable and acceptableSo now, according to your reasoning and how you have applied these tiresome posts, we must be right because we are in the majority, correct?Now we can continue to do what you have been doing or we can actually look at specific argumentsDawn Bertot

So...faulty firecrackers are not rational, believable or acceptable.
Good work there, kiddo.

Again and to which you keep paying no attention, if the writer claims inspiration and is not actually miraculously inspired there is no reason to believe a single thing they say.If inspiration is not real and actual as the text states, then it changes the whole reason and perspective of what you are doing and who might have fulfilled this or thatMuchless whether Jesus was some fulfillment of some unreliable, lying, imaginative person, some 1000 years earlerIn contrast, if you are not sure of his inspiration, dont believe it, dont believe he is the author, not sure of its reliability, then logically there is no way you could know he WAS NOT that fulfillment. You would be guessing the same as anyone else Not if we are both looking at the texts, what they say and what they include, (Inspiration from God)in this instance I cannot ASSUME it as a conclusion, because it IS THERE in plain sight like all the details of your "Son" and the Prophecy are there to begin with, to draw a conclusionNo assumption or circular reasoning is required when I have the necessary ingredients provided for meThat is if we are going to go by your own rules. Your the one that set them up, not meDawn Bertot

Sure there real, but like skepticism itself it serves no useful purpose and burns out quicklyYou fellas have no real impact, because after all these years, you still make up a percentage so small its barley worth mentioning, correctif you are so successful shouldnt the numbers be greater after thousands of years.What happened Panda, what went wrong?Dawn Bertot

HUH. As if you actually had a clue what Christianity was all about or had even even read the Bible.Now back towards the topic.As you know valid reasons have been presented. I presented two long, long, long, long ago back in Message 10 and Message 62 and in Message 65 and in ...Now I can add another.It is reasonable to deconvert when you find that the proponents of some religion like the one you seem to market are unable to present any convincing reasons to adopt the religion they market.Sorry but you have presented absolutely no reason that I should consider your faith anything more than a pitiful little joke.So, three good reasons to deconvert.

---

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