Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 556 of 566 (599014)
01-04-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 5:00 PM


Re: misrepresentation
my claims of misrepresentation were not baseless. they included context and clarification. yours are pedantry.
Wrong alluding to inspiration and then ignoring it as part of the context, as you dont do with all the other "facts" in the text is not context and clairification
its evasion and not going by your own rules
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 5:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 5:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 557 of 566 (599015)
01-04-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:15 PM


Re: misrepresentation
now, show that matthew the disciple wrote the book traditionally titled matthew.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:15 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 558 of 566 (599016)
01-04-2011 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 5:21 PM


Re: misrepresentation
now, show that matthew the disciple wrote the book traditionally titled matthew.
I like what Kyle Butt said in the Barker/Butt debate about you fellas, Its always, just show me one more piece of evidence, then Ill believe.
Like that sign that says "free beer tommorrow"
God wrote it as matthew indicates, not matthew
dawn bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 5:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 5:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 559 of 566 (599017)
01-04-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:21 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
Wrong alluding to inspiration and then ignoring as you dont do with all the other "facts" in the text is not context and clairification
its evasion and not going by your own rules
again, Message 524, the post that grants the title to this whole sub-thread, i wrote:
quote:
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.
you continue to misrepresent me. the words are right there for anyone to check.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(2)
Message 560 of 566 (599019)
01-04-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 5:25 PM


Re: misrepresentation
my position is that we must pay attention to what is actually written, and not that we must actually believe it.
I never said your words werent there, I said you dont go by your own rules
Are the words there that God actually inspired Isa's words? well of course they are
now should and can see what is actually written about that? Of course I can
Dawn bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 5:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 5:34 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 561 of 566 (599020)
01-04-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:24 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
God wrote it as matthew indicates, not matthew
matthew doesn't indicate that. the verse you quoted says:
quote:
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
now, you need to explain several assumptions you have made. namely,
  1. why "speaking" the testimony in the specific instances of being brought before tribunals (and potential martyrdom) is the same thing as authoring a gospel
  2. why you think matthew the disciple wrote this book
  3. why you think even a direct claim of inspiration that actually says what you want it to would mean the author actually is inspired
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 562 of 566 (599022)
01-04-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:29 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Dawn Bertot writes:
I never said your words werent there, I said you dont go by your own rules
which you have consistently misrepresented, regardless of the fact that i keep restating the clarification between reading the words and believing every claim indiscriminately.
Are the words there that God actually inspired Isa's words? well of course they are
completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not matthew misrepresents isaiah.
now should and can see what is actually written about that? Of course I can
you've got to be kidding me. i've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? my guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. it's just common sense.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:29 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-09-2011 5:11 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 563 of 566 (599024)
01-04-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2011 5:15 PM


Re: misrepresentation
DB writes:
ill do this for you even though you are nothing but a filthy immoral little person, intent on confusion rather than understanding
Let's see if you are judging me by your own standards...
So...the question you were asked was:
arachnophilia writes:
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.
Your answer was 20 lines long.
It is 20 lines long because you can't answer the question.
Yes, your dishonest debating tactics are that obvious.
But, I waste my time reading 20 lines of text and there is no mention of god telling the author what to write.
Which is strange, since that is what the question clearly asked for.
Still, I expected you to not be able to answer arachnophilia's question.
How did I know you couldn't answer it?
Because you avoiding addressing it the first time around.
Yes, your dishonest debating tactics are that obvious.
If you could answer the question then you would have quoted just one or two lines.
Clearly "you are nothing but a filthy immoral little person, intent on confusion rather than understanding" - as I expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2011 5:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 564 of 566 (599034)
01-04-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 4:34 PM


Re: other scriptures
what jar said is true. there is indeed archaeological and historical evidence associated with some of the stories in the bible.
I don't deny that nor do i deny that there are parts of the Illiad or Gone with The Wind that are evidenced. The point I using in response to Dawn was virtually that. Just because there is some evidence that the person, place or thing occurred, it doesn't necessarily make the entire story true, which is the lack of evidence I was speaking of.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 4:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 9:11 PM bluescat48 has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1460 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 565 of 566 (599088)
01-04-2011 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by bluescat48
01-04-2011 6:50 PM


Re: other scriptures
bluescat writes:
Just because there is some evidence that the person, place or thing occurred, it doesn't necessarily make the entire story true, which is the lack of evidence I was speaking of.
of course. i was just attempting to clarify that idea a bit with some added detail. not that this will help dawn. we can't get past "claims" vs "is", nevermind the subtle difference between embellished history, historically set fiction, academic history, and real events.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by bluescat48, posted 01-04-2011 6:50 PM bluescat48 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 566 of 566 (599663)
01-09-2011 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by arachnophilia
01-04-2011 5:34 PM


Re: misrepresentation
you didn't read my post. you didn't read the verse you cited. neither says what you think it says.
Wrong, Ive read the verse a thousand times and it is a claim to inspiration if even indirectly. Does Matthew say at some point God promised them inspiration, Why yes he does. Does John in 16:13, says the Spirit of promise would be sent, why yes he does?
The truth of the matter is that no matter what is presented in this context you would not believe it (or accept it even as a plain reading} anyway. Isa claims inspiration all through the book and even in the context of the prophecy and you still wont tell me if you will accept it as plain reading of the text
again, you have not shown that you have understood my rules, an are thus consistently misrepresenting them.
At its core, all your "rule" consists of is a simple and plain examination of the text. Even in the context of the prophecy Isa claims it to be from God? Your rule is simply an examination of what is says. Now all I need to do is examine what Isa says, even if I dont believe it. yet a simple examination as you suggest allows this premise
there is absolutely no misrepresentation on my part
okay dawn. let's assume that isaiah is 100% inspired by god, literally, and god himself wrote every word of it in his own hand.
why should i think the same of matthew? you have never given me a good reason to make the jump from one to the other, even if you do actually agree that one is inspired. "it says so" isn't a good reason. and it doesn't say so.
"It says so" is the exact type of rule you are employing in your own examination, of the text. Your determination of what Isa's conclusions are, are based upon the context and a plain and simple of, because Isa said so
Thats your approach without even considering Matthew
The first valid reason I have provided to make the jump as you call it, is because the prophecy, if from God, is primarily about God, not Isa, not israel, not Cyrus, nothing but God and Judge and Jury
Prophecies are much like parables, an earthly story with a heavenly meaning
Prophets represent God Arch, not themselves
The people understood it to be coming from God , not the prophet
The second is that the theme never changes from one testament to another, from one week or century to another. Its about God and Gods plans across time as revealed the scriptures
Thirdly, there are no other extensive claims that lay claim as jesus does to these OT prophecies
there is no reason to believe God did not inspire them the same way he did Isa
Fourthly, Christ meets all of the claims to prophecy
Fifthly and more importantly, in this context, you have provided no valid reason to indicate Matthew has misrepresented Isa to begin with, that is if it is inspired by God
Only inspiration could let you know who or what God had in mind through Isa
inspiration is the deal breaker for your and Jars simplistic approach to scripture and the prophecies
remove inspiration and Thus saith the Lord and your approach might make sense. Include it as it is clearly included and your approach falls to the ground
Remember even in the context of the prophecy the prophet claims inspiration about such things that were to follow. Why only examine what the prophecy has to say and NOT, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE SAID IT, if it is in the very same passage?
No inspiration by a simple examination of the text, then none of it matters to a hill of beans, muchless whether JesuS was a Messiah or Matthew misrepresents him
If it is actually inspired, it makes all the difference in the world and to claims by Jesus and his Apostles as to whether they were accurate
The problem is that your and jars approach is neither realistic or rational (logical). Your approach cant be harmonized with reason or revelation. it makes no logical sense from any angle
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by arachnophilia, posted 01-04-2011 5:34 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024