Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 491 of 566 (598756)
01-02-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 3:55 AM


Re: highly illogical
Dawn Bertot writes:
Really. Arch, this is what I have been arguing the whole time. I assumed we were speaking strickly from a biblical perspective
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.
When I saw what you actually believed i manuvered it to the challenging you as to what you believed actually
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 reasoning is not circular if the argument is based against another argument Biblically based.
my brain is getting tired of trying to decipher your nonsense, dawn. would you care to try that one again, in english?
That is where I thought we were at. if it is not then we start the discussion somewhere else
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 3:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 494 of 566 (598759)
01-02-2011 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by dwise1
01-02-2011 2:39 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
dwise1 writes:
Instead of sticking to the topic of the reasons for deconversion, you keep pulling it off into arguments over Isaiha and other arguments over prophecies and inspiration, etc. None of which has anything to do with deconversion.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 2:39 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 495 of 566 (598760)
01-02-2011 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by dwise1
01-02-2011 4:11 AM


Re: liars, or lied to?
Wait a minute here. Okrand be thanked, there is a canonical Klingon language. But then in the production of Enterprise, they made a decision to use gibberish instead of creating any actual languages. Outside of the first Star Trek movie (where Vulcan had an Old English sound to me), the most screen Vulcan has been on Enterprise, but that was mainly gibberish, not an actual language.
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.
There was a Vulcan language site, but it was not canonical. May I ask what your source is? Messaging is permissible.
memory alpha. now that i look more, i kind of wish i'd have used "tviokh" instead.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 4:11 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 4:46 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 503 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 5:26 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 499 of 566 (598764)
01-02-2011 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by dwise1
01-02-2011 4:33 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
dwise1 writes:
Yes, I noticed. And it does not help to disspell the confusion.
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.
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.
on a similar note, my cat just brought me a sacrifice. i wish my pets were catholic.
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?).
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 4:33 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 5:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 501 of 566 (598766)
01-02-2011 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by dwise1
01-02-2011 4:46 AM


Re: liars, or lied to?
dwise1 writes:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 4:46 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 504 of 566 (598772)
01-02-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by dwise1
01-02-2011 5:17 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
dwise1 writes:
The fundamentalist teaching was that the Law was set up so that nobody could keep it completely throughout their lives, which necessitated a Redeemer.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 5:17 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 513 of 566 (598808)
01-02-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 4:58 PM


Re: highly illogical
Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
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.
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 that
no. it doesn't. it is as simple as comparing two texts.
Muchless whether Jesus was some fulfillment of some unreliable, lying, imaginative person, some 1000 years earler
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.
In 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
i suggest you look up "logic" sometime.
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 conclusion
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 4:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 10:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 524 of 566 (598834)
01-03-2011 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 9:41 PM


misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
Correct. If however we are simply looking at what is "written in the text" as Arch suggests then we will see that it contains inspiration and intervention, actually one will easily see that God is in charge of it all, if it is taken in its context
Im not saying inspiration can be proved, Im saying if we go by his simple rules then it is very possible God not only inspired Isa, as he intimates, but Matthew as well and that the passages can have a fuller meaning across time, since God is actually in charge of it
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.
I am also saying that there is no need to conclude matthew misrepresents Isa, because God has inspired thier words, ATLEAST ACCORDING TO THE TEXT and in simple reading of the text.
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.
Since the scriptures and specifically Isa are more than repleat with inspiration and claims from God, why not include them if all we are doing is looking at the text????????????
because faithfully representing what a text says and assuming the accuracy thereof are two entirely different matters.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 9:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-03-2011 8:06 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 525 of 566 (598836)
01-03-2011 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 516 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 10:08 PM


Re: highly illogical
Dawn Bertot writes:
Well that is the silliest thing Ive ever heard. How can you misrepresent an unreliable source?
Dr. Jones just said the sky was orange.
How would you be misrepresenting it if you dont know what the facts are to be in the first place?
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.
By picking one of your several interpretations of who or what the child represents, would I be misrepresenting Isa if I accidently chose the wrong explanation for who or what the child represents.
only if you stated that this is, for certain, who isaiah meant. and especially so if that option is categorically eliminated by the text.
Not according to a simple reading of the text.
lets try this again. is isaiah told in first person, or third person?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 10:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 526 of 566 (598837)
01-03-2011 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 11:25 PM


Re: highly illogical
DrJones* writes:
If I said "The sky is green" and you then told someone else "DrJones said the sky was purple", you would be misrepresenting me, even though what I said was not true.
Dawn Bertot writes:
How do I know you said that in the first place. thats the nature of unreliable, correct?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 11:25 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 527 of 566 (598838)
01-03-2011 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by ICANT
01-03-2011 1:12 AM


Re: other scriptures
dwise1 writes:
Yes, but just how is that debate to be conducted? Honestly and truthfully? Or deceptively and with guile?
ICANT writes:
I been here over 3 years and have seen no such debate.
it's not too late for you to start now, ICANT.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2011 1:12 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 528 of 566 (598840)
01-03-2011 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by DrJones*
01-02-2011 11:38 PM


Re: highly illogical
DrJones* writes:
What does that matter? Even if you heard fifth hand that I said "the sky is green" you'd still be misrepresenting what I allegedly said if you then in turn claimed "DrJones said the sky was purple".
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2011 11:38 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 536 of 566 (598923)
01-03-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by Dawn Bertot
01-03-2011 7:39 PM


Re: other scriptures
Dawn Bertot writes:
learning and knowing the evidence behind the scriptures, knowing what the scriptures actually teach and the ability to defend those truths
alright. show of hands. who thinks this actually describes dawn?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-03-2011 7:39 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 544 of 566 (598993)
01-04-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by Dawn Bertot
01-03-2011 8:06 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
this of course would work in any other situation, excluding claims of inspiration and the miraculous. When someone claims this then attaches it to thier claims and prophecies, it immediately calls into question most of anything else they have to say
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.
i know you honestly belief that and in some instances it may be true
in all instances. why should holy texts be an exception?
On the other hand looking straight at the text. When the author claims inspiration from God, and the prophecy is said to have COME from God. it immediatley bolsters the fact that since God is involved in the prophecy it can and does have an expanded meaning
no, it does not.
I am relatively sure you made these comments, but you have made no prophecies or claims to inspiration from God about your arguments.
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 Bible and Isa makes these claims and they are either true or false
the truth of any quoted claim is irrelevant. we are simply comparing sources.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-03-2011 8:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 4:52 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 545 of 566 (598995)
01-04-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by dwise1
01-03-2011 8:24 PM


Re: other scriptures
dwise1 writes:
Dawn, please open your eyes. We're talking about the children raised in fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christian churches. Attending Christian schools throughout their childhoods. Or home-schooled. Going to "Jesus Camps" every summer. Getting thoroughly indoctrinated every day of their lives. That is no mere "association" with Chrisitian. That's drowning in it! And the painful process of deconversion that they describe proves it!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by dwise1, posted 01-03-2011 8:24 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 4:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024