Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

Silly Millie, you eternally clueless bitch (regardless of your actual gender, but since you perpetually present yourself with a female name. And for which I perpetually curse you, you male falsely presenting yourself as female).Gee, Silly Millie, should we look at what you chose to leave out?

quote:

---

Message 390

Silly Millie writes:

​

And if neither were inspired, who cares anyway correct

Just what the frak is that supposed to mean? Is there an English translation pending? I would think not, since Silly Millie's goal is to generate confusion. That has always been the goal of creationists and IDists alike, to generate as much confusion as possible, so that the truth might never be able to come to light.

---

OK, you Silly Millie, just what the frak was your un-English supposed to mean? Does it represent your blazingly obvious inability to express anything in a logical manner? Of course it does!

we're pretty certain that joseph smith was a real person. granted, the bible has about a half-dozen more people that are independently verified from sources that don't just cite the bible. but that's not particularly a significant difference. in any case, the book of mormon contains a great many characters from the bible -- it's very fond of quoting isaiah. don't be silly, dawn. i am. right now. this very instant. and you could be too, if you'd read some of it. i've actually been involved in several discussion on the topic, and would be interested in participating in a few more. but the fact is that this is a "creation v. evolution" board, and the most vocal and persistent creationists are all evangelical christians. we hear little from the other two of the big three, judaism and islam. indeed, instinctive knowledge is most definitively not the test for truth in inspiration. most of the OT prophets taught the truths that people didn't want to acknowledge, and little of it was touchy-feely stuff that we "know" in our hearts to be true. rather, it is the truth, cold and hard, and the word of god. however, if feeling is enough for, i challenge you to read the book of mormon, and take the test:

quote:

---

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Moroni 10:4)

---

i promise you that every person that calls themselves a latter day saint thinks they have received this inspiration and confirmation from god. it's certainly enough for them. again, ask a mormon. they will give you the exact same speeches you have given me. that it's independently confirmed, that it expands the message of the bible and reveals the larger picture. that it's a question of faith, and whether you believe joseph smith was inspired. that you need a certain degree of inspiration yourself to read and understand it... everything you have claimed, i have heard from mormon missionaries. verbatim. agreed!on to the next question. why would god give a divinely inspired matthew a 200 BC greek septuagint, complete with a copyist error and a translation fail?

---

אָרַח

I understand your point, but you are missing the point of inspiration guided writers. Matthew cannot misrepresent what you have clearly missed in both the Old and New testaments, regaurding Gods overall plans.when you quit riding the fence about whether the scriptures are really and actually inspired and you include it as a clear part of any context, the scales will fall from your eyes Could you give me an example of a yet future messianic prophecyDawn Bertot

well there's your problem! you seem to think that even false prophets speak the truth! that the things that bible calls lies and statements made by idiots and fools are also true.to which i refer you to my context post above. surely this logic would mean that the bible genuinely claims that there is no god. the bible said it, so it must be true! who cares if it's a fool speaking, he's actually right! if so, then he is also a false prophet that isaiah is condemning.

---

אָרַח

on the contrary. because he does, we know he is not inspired. i continue to marvel at why you think inspiration of one scripture must apply to all scriptures. it is not a clear part of any context. perhaps some, but that has never been the point. off the top of my head, daniel 7 and perhaps zechariah 9, which reflect much more the kind of thing that is described in revelation, as opposed to in the gospels.certainly, zechariah 9 fits some specific historic context, but remains largely unfulfilled thanks to the everlasting world peace that never happened.

---

אָרַח

This was very much a part of my own "fellow-traveller" fundamentalist education. As taught by the original Chuck-Smith "Jesus-Freak" movement. One of the best tests of a true prophet was his popularity. The more popular a prophet was, the more likely he was false. Because a true prophet would tell the people what they didn't want to know.What do the televangelists tell the people? What they want to know. Because they need to please as many people as they can to garner as much monetary income as they can.So Silly Millie has aligned herself/himself with those who have told her/him what she/he wanted to "know". So that she/he would never need to have to actually think.

hi dwise1, okay, so i have a confession to make. and i'm surprised that people haven't picked up on this before.sometimes, on throw-away points like that one, i'll come back with a one liner that isn't quite accurate, intentionally. i typically do this to give the other person an easy out, and see if they're paying attention. discussion's more interesting that way, and i like to read other points of view and challenge my own. i can't say i expected dawn to call me on it, because "word of god" is a pretty common phrase in modern christianity (and the gospel of john).but since dawn seems to lack any logical debate mechanisms (even the ability to read), i found it somewhat peculiar that he was arguing for logic. i was also genuinely surprised that he use (and spelled) "exegesis" correctly in a sentence. speaking of which, and i don't mean to be rude here, you've misspelled mine. so far, there's been exactly one instance where dawn posted something that i genuinely had no idea what he meant. i happen to be fluent in fool, have a lot of experience with fundamentalist churches (and rhetoric), and am prone to making many typing errors myself. i type in all lowercase here, so i try not to fault other peoples' poor posting habits. i frequently leave out negations (boy how a missing "not" can change a meaning), passive verbs, and endings on words, and this could mean that my posts sometimes become nonsense. personally, i think it's just that they wouldn't know what sense was if it bit them on ass. they're not just creating confusion, so much, they're also victims. see that dawn claims to agree with my exegesis of isaiah 7, yet can't grasp how that precludes it from having been about jesus in the way that matthew claims? you can't actually do both. we're really at a p=~p kind of logical point. if we assume that p=~p, all logic inherently breaks down.dawn is making that kind of assumption. and that is his problem. he can't tell claims from their own inverses. see the bit about "line upon line", a view that isaiah condemns, where he states that the false prophets were actually revealing a truth in their mockery. this is a claim i frequently run into when discussing job. those friends that god says were wrong? well, they were actually right. you know, in a broader sense.Edited by arachnophilia, : see, left out a passive verb again.

---

אָרַח

i'm not normally one to confirm the jesus-freaks. i've been there, and i've done that. but this statement happens to be accurate. jar phrased it earlier as "a godly dope-slap".the thing is, the jesus-freaks were talking about stuff like "you're a sinner and you're going to hell!" not "your priests are liars and frauds" -- which is what isaiah 28, discussed above, is about. they were using it just as much as a control mechanism as the televangelists. they just more emphasis on the "breakdown of self" portion of the cult indoctrination. it's certainly easier. but it's not really what the bible is talking about.

---

אָרַח

And you once again misrepresent what is actually in the Bible.When you say: you are just taking Galatians out of context.

quote:

---

Galatians 4

​

1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father. 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

---

---

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

Here is the most interesting point of all. You claim he is misrepresenting the passage and the interpretation you give the prophet concerning the Child and its meaning, comes from whereIs there another explanation in the context that clearly and absolutely sets out thae interpretation you are giving it? Or is this simply what you have been taught its meaning isYou havent even got started demonstrating from a inspiration standpoint that God does and did not have an expanded and greater meaning in these passagesTo set aside the inspiration that is clearly a part of the ENTIRE context and isolate a single prophecy and its interpretation. Then decide, there can be no other by God is simply ignoring most of what the Bible teaches about how God operates You dont make this statement because you dont see that point repleat in the scriptures. You make it because you walk the fence on inspirationIf you dont believe me pull up post 78 from that other thread and listen to your words concerning the composition of the scripturesSo your point here is that God May have inspired Isa but not another prophet?Inspiration is either a part of the prophets or it is not

Hardly,, Judism is regulary represented here. I wonder why we hear little from the others. There is a reason It may be valid a method for them, but it isnot what Paul taught. "Prove all things, test all things" The difference is that the NT has things that can actually be tested and confirmed. The book of mormon does not God did not reveal the contents of the Septuagint to Matthew, he gave it to an Old Testament prpophet, long before the compilation by the seventy eldersThe dead sea scrolls confirm the accuracy and attention that was given to the transmission.Nothing Matthew has to say misrepresents God wishes or plansActually we are not even to that point in the discussion.If as you have stated at times the writer of Isa was not Isa, that makes the composer a liar or a at best imaginativeIf the writer of Isa says Isa saw visions and was inspired of God and he was not actually, then he was a liar or at best unreliable about the claims to begin withAt any rate it would make the probablity that those thing that were predicted actually written after the factHere is where a belief in inspiration based on the available evidence is critical and here is whyIf you think there is not enough, (on either side) then trying to argue the validity of an claimed OT prophet, to refute the New testament is the height of silliness and absurdityTrying to argue for context without actually taking all of the context is the worst form of contradictionPicking and choosing out of them what you like and dislike, believe to be valid or invalid, to demonstrate another source as invalid is also the height of sillinessThis leaves you misunderstanding Gods overall intentions and plans, not to mention that that approach makes no logical senseYour always at square one and cant even get out of the starting gate to pass judgement on Matthew, muchless anyone elseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No I agreed with your possible interpretation and meaning by God. Isa 7 is not all of Isa, now is it Arch? Your approach to scripture, God, inspiration and Gods intervention, is the height of absurdity in establish things claimed in the Old and NT, from a logical propositionIn other words, youve made no commitment to the scriptures or critical thinking. You dont know whether you are coming or going, yet you want to tell Matthew he is wrongPost 78 from that other thread I hope you dont mind me including this from the other thread. Now does this sound like a man that trusts the OT prophets as actual and accurate, muchless thier meaningsWhat you are attempting in this thread is the height of absurity and stupidityI guarentee you I would never reference the Koran or the BOM to try and discredit the NT. To do so would be ignorant beyond beliefYet you are doing that very thingWoWDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Kinda like Jesus?Do you know how to spell? Ever heard of a spellchecker?

---

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

Still afraid to actually participate in the current topic I see, Dewise. thats ok, your inability to offer anything of topic related subjects reinforces my belief that while you learned some grammar along the way, you had no foundation in the scriptures to begin withA slight wind could have blown and you would have deconverted. You know, no root system to your "knowledge"Thats ok, stick around and you might learn somethingperhaps you would like to make an attempt at explaining some of the contradictions I have made known to Arch, that he has involved himself inmy guess is that you wont because you dont really know how and that you will stick around to be just an irritant. My guess is that this is also the way you conduct yourself in life, not just this boardyou really should make an attempt at an argument or responding to an existing one. Its starting to look like you actually have no talents in this area and that you have no knowledge of the topic/sIt seems you are limited to bad mouthing creationists, calling them liars and generally doing nothing elseas far as the topic and the subject at hand, do I need to put a mirror under your nose to see if you are actually alive?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

it's called "reading", dawn. i suggest you try it. go back, and read isaiah 7 again. read my post again. there is no "interpretation" going on. it's basic reading comprehension. isaiah says one thing, pretty clearly, and i'm just explaining what he said. even you said you agreed with that explanation. inspiration is irrelevant. "it was inspired by gawd!" is not the magic argument that makes everything go away. inspiration does not mean that there is a larger message (and, by "larger" i mean a small portion ripped out of context), or that that larger message is about jesus. neither of those arguments follow, like you seem to think that they do. says the man who quotes drunken false prophets condemned by the bible, as an example of how god operates. like those drunkards and fools that isaiah rails against, you make a mockery of god.no, the argument is not that there can be no other. it's that it clearly is not referring to jesus. perhaps i have a different, expanded view of inspiration that you haven't considered? in any case, it's not that i'm on the fence about it, its that it's irrelevant to this discussion. first of all, matthew is not a prophet. you may or may not have noticed that i've been using the term author for matthew. this is because he is simply a student, a follower of christ, who wrote down a hagiography of christ. he is not, and never claims "inspiration" in the way that prophets actively speak for god. there is precisely one prophetic book in the NT, and that's revelation. all of the other prophecy is told about by authors such as matthew.second, you are making the fatal mistake of assuming that all scripture is "precept after precept, line upon line, here a little there a little." the bible a large collection of books that happens to quite beautiful in its diversity. most is religious, but some is secular. some is poetry/song, some is history, some is prophetic, some is traditional, some is law.there is no particularly good reason why inspiration in one place should mean inspiration in all places.

---

אָרַח