|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1591 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
now, show that matthew the disciple wrote the book traditionally titled matthew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1591 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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: you continue to misrepresent me. the words are right there for anyone to check.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1591 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: God wrote it as matthew indicates, not matthew matthew doesn't indicate that. the verse you quoted says:
quote: now, you need to explain several assumptions you have made. namely,
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1591 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3960 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
DB writes:
Let's see if you are judging me by your own standards... ill do this for you even though you are nothing but a filthy immoral little person, intent on confusion rather than understanding So...the question you were asked was:
arachnophilia writes:
Your answer was 20 lines long. 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.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4437 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1591 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 331 days) Posts: 3571 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024