Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

sure. the problem is that you think that "biblical perspective" means that everything in the bible must be true. i know a great many biblical scholars who would have a bone to pick with you about that. the problem is, as i keep stating, comparing two texts is not a matter of belief. it's a matter of comparing two texts. my beliefs are not relevant to my critical analysis: rather, they are formed by my critical analysis. you are putting the cart before the horse.no argument can ever convince you, because any argument against your faith does not also assume your faith. my brain is getting tired of trying to decipher your nonsense, dawn. would you care to try that one again, in english? fair enough. i'll start it where i started it the first time. on what basis do you assume the accuracy and inspiration of the bible, compared to other similar texts?

---

אָרַח

to be fair, this is partly my fault.i directed him to the prophecy thread in Message 129, Message 134, Message 162, Message 204, Message 233, Message 236, Message 237, Message 259, Message 272, Message 294, Message 295, and Message 350. (and sort of in Message 397)in Message 259, i specifically stated:

quote:

---

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.

---

in Message 385, i finally gave up and posted the sure-fire thread derailment device. i figured that a derailed thread was perhaps better than his constant blathering about how we had presented any examples -- simply because he refused to participate in the thread where those examples were actually the topic. i know for a fact that this particular prophecy is sure to derail threads, as i've seen it derail threads devoted to prophecy in the past, notably this one.i think in the long run his antics are better here, messing up his own thread, rather than ruining a thread for intelligent conversation.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

אָרַח

i think that contributes to the humor, don't you?of course, i suspect that's because, after nimoy was no longer a regular, there weren't any good jewish boys around to teach them mystical hebrew stuff. memory alpha. now that i look more, i kind of wish i'd have used "tviokh" instead.

---

אָרַח

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

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

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

well, it's a good thing that the author of isaiah didn't. isaiah did, according to the author. but the author himself did not.i'll rephrase, and repeat this point again. isaiah did not write the book of isaiah. someone else did. the same way that jesus did not write matthew. students record the words of the teacher.similarly, matthew does not claim inspiration either. perhaps other authors claim it for him, but he, himself, did not. no. it doesn't. it is as simple as comparing two texts. unreliable, lying, imaginative, or whatever else, the stuff that isaiah talked about happened 700 years before christ was born. but it doesn't matter how unreliable that source is -- it only matters how well the other source represents it.i could be quoting a pack of creationist lies from AiG. if i quotemine them, it's still dishonest. it's a simple matter of comparing two sources, not the accuracy of the primary source. i suggest you look up "logic" sometime. so, you might want to re-read what you're replying to.

quote:

---

why if the text quotes someone as saying they're inspired is inspiration still an assumption? simple. two reasons:

1. it assumes the accuracy of the that person being quoted, which remains to be demonstrated by comparing it against factual claims, and
2. it assumes that the accuracy of the text in reporting what that person said

we've been over this. i know you don't understand it, and i know that you won't understand it anytime soon. but your logic is circular. you assume your conclusion. the text is inspired because it says so. and we know what it says is true because it's inspired. keep chasing your tail.

---

---

אָרַח

and the quran, and the book of mormon, and david koresh, and marshall applewhite. and anybody who claims inspiration. this is clearly not my position; you are misrepresenting me.my position is that we must pay attention to what is actually written, and not that we must actually believe it. they two do not go hand in hand, as i keep trying to explain to you. i do not know why you cannot grasp this concept. the accuracy of the source is irrelevant to concerns about how someone represents it. that includes me, my points do not have to be correct for your misrepresentation of them to be incorrect. at this point, i am forced to believe that you are doing this on purpose; that you are intentionally intellectually dishonest. please cite me the chapter and verse in matthew in which the author of that text claims that god told him specifically what to write. because faithfully representing what a text says and assuming the accuracy thereof are two entirely different matters.

---

אָרַח

Dr. Jones just said the sky was orange. faithfully representing a source has nothing to do with the facts that source is discussing. only on whether what you write matches what they wrote. engage the brain, dawn. think about it a bit. only if you stated that this is, for certain, who isaiah meant. and especially so if that option is categorically eliminated by the text. lets try this again. is isaiah told in first person, or third person?

---

אָרַח

because it's right there. that's the great thing about writing stuff down. we can go and read it later. it would be one thing if DrJones had communicated in a transient way, like vocally, that "the sky is green", but he did not. he wrote it down. and i know you (could have easily) read it, because you quoted it.all i have to do then is compare what you wrote to what he wrote.

---

אָרַח

it's not too late for you to start now, ICANT.

---

אָרַח

sure. but that actually is not what happened here. rather, we have a written source, quoted in another written source. we actually have both sources easily at hand. all we have to do is read and compare. there is no allegedly here -- we have the exact source that matthew quoted.dawn has somehow confused reading and believing every word.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : teh grammorz.

---

אָרַח

alright. show of hands. who thinks this actually describes dawn?

---

אָרַח

again, this is irrelevant. the source we're quoting could be an absolute pack of lies. or pure unadulterated fiction. it really doesn't matter how reliable the source is -- misquoting it, or quoting it out of context, is still intellectually dishonest. in all instances. why should holy texts be an exception? no, it does not. you are misrepresenting my position. my position is not that we must read and believe the text, but simply that we must read it. the truth of any quoted claim is irrelevant. we are simply comparing sources.

---

אָרַח

you're looking at a form of confirmation bias, here, wise one. those that fall out of the church must not have been firmly grounded, because they fell out. this is sort of like the logic job's friends use on him. he must not have been a very good believer for god to curse him.

---

אָרַח