Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

And, of course, Isaiah 50 is NOT talking about Jesus but is just another example of taking things out of context.Here is the passage in context.

quote:

---

Israel’s Sin and the Servant’s Obedience

​

1 This is what the LORD says:

​

Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce
with which I sent her away?
Or to which of my creditors
did I sell you?
Because of your sins you were sold;
because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
2 When I came, why was there no one?
When I called, why was there no one to answer?
Was my arm too short to deliver you?
Do I lack the strength to rescue you?
By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea,
I turn rivers into a desert;
their fish rot for lack of water
and die of thirst.
3 I clothe the heavens with darkness
and make sackcloth its covering.

​

4 The Sovereign LORD has given me a well-instructed tongue,
to know the word that sustains the weary.
He wakens me morning by morning,
wakens my ear to listen like one being instructed.
5 The Sovereign LORD has opened my ears;
I have not been rebellious,
I have not turned away.
6 I offered my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard;
I did not hide my face
from mocking and spitting.
7 Because the Sovereign LORD helps me,
I will not be disgraced.
Therefore have I set my face like flint,
and I know I will not be put to shame.
8 He who vindicates me is near.
Who then will bring charges against me?
Let us face each other!
Who is my accuser?
Let him confront me!
9 It is the Sovereign LORD who helps me.
Who will condemn me?
They will all wear out like a garment;
the moths will eat them up.

​

10 Who among you fears the LORD
and obeys the word of his servant?
Let the one who walks in the dark,
who has no light,
trust in the name of the LORD
and rely on their God.
11 But now, all you who light fires
and provide yourselves with flaming torches,
go, walk in the light of your fires
and of the torches you have set ablaze.
This is what you shall receive from my hand:
You will lie down in torment.

---

As in other such examples of quote mined misrepresentation, this passage from Isaiah is NOT talking about Jesus but rather the then current state of Israel and the fact that God allowed Israel to be conquered.Take your allegations and assertions over to the thread where they might actually be on topic, here they simply show that you really don't have a clue what is in the Bible or even what prophecy is about.But if it was prophecy about Jesus, then the evidence is that it is a failed prophecy since there is no evidence that such an event even happened.Edited by jar, : left the t offn event

---

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

IOW, making shit up. SOP for your religion.Dan Barker, former fundamentalist preacher, noticed the same thing. Preachers who didn't know what they were talking about would get up before a congregation and make shit up and the congregation would just eat it all up because "the Spirit was talking through him."Which would include what the Gospel writers did. Knowing some Scripture (meaning OT), they picked out what could serve as prophesies and then make up the fulfillment of those prophesies. And you eat it all up because "the Spirit was talking through them."

Which church?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It would be the catholic (as in universal) church.

---

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

Please state the line that claims this. Also, what about other religious tracts that claim this and are not in the Canon? Why are the ones in your bible true and others not?Do you understand the process that resulted in your bible?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So does this catholic(universal) church exist?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Certainly. The term simply means universal and for the most part, describes any and all of the recognized Christian sects.But of course, Dawn's assertion that that was what was being referenced is total nonsense.

---

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

yes. that information can be found in the old testament, generally in the verse surrounding the prophecy the NT authors are misrepresenting. my beliefs are not the topic of debate. the question is why should (you or) anyone "deconvert". the fact that the NT claims of "fulfilled prophecy" do not match the actual OT prophecies is a fairly good reason. no. really. there's a whole thread devoted to this. there have been whole threads in the past. we once spent over 300 posts discussing one particular prophecy alone. my arguments and explanations can be found in the appropriate thread. in detail. you simply refuse to go look. it's not about believing me. it's about understanding the old testament.

---

אָרַח

fun fact: i can do that too. and so can you. and so can anyone. which is why the torah provides a way to determine inspiration. i think you had better look up what "apologist" means. and "liberal".

---

אָרַח

The process of deconversion begins when you ask why you should accept them to begin with.How did you determine that the NT authors were inspired? Just because they say so? If it is that simple:Taq is inspired by the Holy Ghost because Taq says so.There, I am now an inspired author. With that said, Jesus was not the Messiah.Your deconversion can now commence.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

very well, actually. sure. there is a whole thread devoted to that subject right now. perhaps you would prefer?

quote:

---

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

"bird in the hand explanation" is not the word you're looking for, here. that word would be "proverb". no, but they could read. something you evidently cannot do. and if we would have to be inspired by the holy spirit to even read the bible and understand its message, well -- what's the point of the bible, exactly? iraq and afghanistan disagree with you. as does israel. remember israel? so you think the authors of the OT were not inspired, when they described the earthly rule of the messiah? don't believe me. believe zechariah. his words are plainly there for you to see on paper. why you can't comprehend them in plain, literal english i do not know.

---

אָרַח

there are several passages in the appropriate thread. you may respond there. incorrect. prophecy was meant as a message to the common folk, given by god through the mouths of the prophets. if your position were correct, everyone would have needed "inspiration" to understand the prophet -- and thus there would be no need for a prophet. sure. several have been provided in the prophecy thread. and any person can claim such a thing. the proof is in the pudding.

---

אָרַח

since dawn likely doesn't know this particular bit of history, it's worth spelling out here.after solomon died, there was a dispute over the unified kingdom of israel. his son rehoboam ruled the southern kingdom of judah from jerusalem, and his other son jeroboam ruled the northern kingdom of israel. pretty much everything in the bible was written in judah. when the prophets refer to "israel" they are frequently refering to the northern kingdom, which was conquered by assyria around the time of the prophets. this is often in contrast to judah, as here in isaiah 50 (israel =bad, judah = good).sometimes they also refer to israel, meaning all 12 tribes, or the sons jacob -- all the hebrew peoples. but this is not one of those times.i find that people of the fundamentalist persuasion -- and those that have not read the books of kings -- frequently conflate israel and judah in prophecy, because they simply do not understand the difference. this difference would have been huge to the authors at the time, as israel was occasionally waging brutal war against them, and they were generally viewed as an evil and idolatrous nation.

---

אָרַח

It's important to understand that they are two separate nations and very often at war with one another and that even during the brief life of the United Kingdom it was far more like England and Scotland under James I and VI, two nations with a common monarch.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

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

This seems like a ridiculous statement, not quite as ridiculous as Dawns but still it seems rather ridiculous.Just because a sect, any sect, makes some sort of whatever vague reference to Jesus Christ, it is part of some universal church? Catholic or universal signifies some sort of commonality. I do not see how the term catholic can be used to encompass all of the christian sects.I think Dawn believes that "church" is the sect he follows and that other christian sects that disagree with his sect are not part of the "church". That is what I am trying to find out from Dawn.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts