Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
38 online now:
Faith, GDR, PaulK, ssope (4 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,980 Year: 19,016/19,786 Month: 1,436/1,705 Week: 242/446 Day: 40/98 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2480 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 511 of 566 (598801)
01-02-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 4:58 PM


Re: highly illogical
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.

So how does one know if the writer is inspired or not? That is the problem. Without some some kind of evidence, then none of it is inspired or it all is since there is no way of knowing if what the storyteller is an actual occurrence or something he dreamed up.

Edited by bluescat48, : sp


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 508 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 4:58 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 9:41 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 512 of 566 (598802)
01-02-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 5:02 PM


Re: other scriptures
Let's have a quick look at your latest reply...

DB writes:

Sure there[sic] real, but like skepticism itself it serves no useful purpose and burns out quickly[sic]


"Real" is not an antonym for "rational, believable or acceptable".
What you have done is not understood my post and therefore had to guess what to put in your reply.
(I also think you were trying to 'look clever' but since you aren't: you don't.)

DB writes:

You fellas have no real impact,[sic] because after all these years,[sic] you still make up a percentage so small its[sic] barley[sic] worth mentioning, correct[sic]


After all these years Jesus is still only one man, who makes up a percentage so small he's barely worth mentioning. Correct?
If you don't agree with with this faulty logic, then I would suggest that you stop using it.

DB writes:

if[sic] you are so successful shouldnt[sic] the numbers be greater after thousands of years.[sic]


Appeal to the masses is a fallacious argument.
But I don't expect you to understand that.
I do expect you to never mention the above comment again.

Dawn Bertot writes:

What happened Panda,[sic] what[sic] went wrong?


Many times I have asked you this, but you either fail to understand the question or fail to answer it.

Why is your English so awful?
What happened to you at school?
What went wrong with your education?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 5:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 269 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 responded

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

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2186 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 514 of 566 (598809)
01-02-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Dawn Bertot
01-01-2011 8:30 PM


dual fulfillment
thanks for that technical correction

My pleasure. Now I'm going to give you some advice, on how to do better in this Matthew / Isaiah thing. You appear to be championing the idea of "dual fulfillment". That is, although Isaiah was talking about a child to be born at that time, and knew it, he was also talking about another child, to be born at a later date, who would be a much bigger deal -- though he may not have known about that part. "Mysterious ways" and all that. Yeah?

If so, then you could greatly improve your plausibility if you could find at least one other instance where dual fulfillment of prophecy takes place; but this one should be entirely in the Old Testament. Assuming this is the sort of thing god likes to do, there should actually be a lot more of it in the hundreds of years covered in the 39 books than there are all of a sudden in the two generations covered by the 27. Yeah?

But just one would be a good start. Somewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, a prophecy that gets fulfilled twice, without having to use additional texts in other languages. That's all it would take to be at least plausible. It ought to be easy, if the doctrine of dual fulfillment is even remotely true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-01-2011 8:30 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 11:18 PM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 515 of 566 (598814)
01-02-2011 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by bluescat48
01-02-2011 5:41 PM


Re: highly illogical
So how does one know if the writer is inspired or not? That is the problem. Without some some kind of evidence, then none of it is inspired or it all is since there is no way of knowing if what the storyteller is an actual occurrence or something he dreamed up.

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

Gods statement to Abraham, "Through thy seed shall ALL the natiions of the earth be blessed"

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.

No need for deconversion, because like Arch, they miss the purpose and meaning of scripture, even though it is staring them right in the face.

They are his rules not mine. I was simply trying to adhere to his rules

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????????????

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by bluescat48, posted 01-02-2011 5:41 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2011 1:15 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 516 of 566 (598815)
01-02-2011 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by arachnophilia
01-02-2011 8:01 PM


Re: highly illogical
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.

Well that is the silliest thing Ive ever heard. How can you misrepresent an unreliable source? How would you know you were misrepresenting it in the first place, if you dont know what the authors meanings or intentions were to begin with

How would you be misrepresenting it if you dont know what the facts are to be in the first place?

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. How would I know i was choosing the wrong explanation, if there are three to choose from and we dont know what the correct one is exacally?

it doesnt matter how reliable the source is??????????

Heres an idea, maybe inspiration that is mentioned in the text could help me since you clearly cant

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.

Not according to a simple reading of the text. Isa or WHOEVER says Isa saw a vision and God revealed it to them.

Arch is the book of Isa from God or man?

If some parts are from God and some are not, tell me which is and which is not

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2011 8:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2011 11:21 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 525 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2011 1:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 517 of 566 (598820)
01-02-2011 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Iblis
01-02-2011 8:16 PM


Re: dual fulfillment
But just one would be a good start. Somewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, a prophecy that gets fulfilled twice, without having to use additional texts in other languages. That's all it would take to be at least plausible. It ought to be easy, if the doctrine of dual fulfillment is even remotely true.

It is so interesting and cool that you asked this question, almost if you were prompted to do so

Now you are starting to SEE the forest for because of the trees.

Every prophecy Old or New has a dual prophecy, without regard to time or language.

It has its physical application, then it has its truest meaning in God himself, as, God the Lord, God the deliever, etc, etc, etc

this is why when we get to the New Testament in Jesus christ, the theme and the dual meaning has not changed, its still about God, this time in the form of Jesus Christ

But still just God

If the Son in Isa represented a present physical son, then so be it. but the overall intent of the prophecy had a dual meaning in its fulfillment in God as the punisher and deliverer, even at that time

This is why it has the same application in Jesus Christ and is how inspiration wanted it to be used.

It was and is still about God

Here are two physical examples.

remember when Joshua was getting ready to do battle and he saw a man standing on the hill with his sword outstreched

he says are you for us or agin us

The man says, the Captain of the army of the Lord goes before you

Joshua knew immediately who it was and fell prostrate

The Lords intent was to let him know that God was in charge, this is not about you Joshua or Israel

remember when God had Joshua reduce his troops to 300 men against thousands

it was to let him know God was in charge. This about meJoshua, not you

Prophecy, illustration and life in the Old testment were all the same

It was always about God in its truest meaning, prophecy or otherwise

across time, written page, language, it has never changed. God

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 514 by Iblis, posted 01-02-2011 8:16 PM Iblis has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1958
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 518 of 566 (598822)
01-02-2011 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 10:08 PM


Re: highly illogical
How can you misrepresent an unreliable source? How would you know you were misrepresenting it in the first place, if you dont know what the authors meanings or intentions were to begin with

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.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 10:08 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-02-2011 11:25 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 519 of 566 (598824)
01-02-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by DrJones*
01-02-2011 11:21 PM


Re: highly illogical
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.

How do I know you said that in the first place. thats the nature of unreliable, correct?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2011 11:21 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Panda, posted 01-02-2011 11:29 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 521 by DrJones*, posted 01-02-2011 11:38 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 526 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2011 1:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 520 of 566 (598825)
01-02-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 11:25 PM


Re: highly illogical
Dawn writes:

How do I know you said that in the first place. thats the nature of unreliable, correct?


No. Not correct.

What went wrong with your education, Dawn?

{abe}
Message 512

Panda writes:

I do expect you to never mention the above comment again.


I consider you to have met my very low expectations.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


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

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1958
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 521 of 566 (598826)
01-02-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Dawn Bertot
01-02-2011 11:25 PM


Re: highly illogical
How do I know you said that in the first place.

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".


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2011 1:41 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 522 of 566 (598830)
01-03-2011 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by dwise1
01-02-2011 2:29 AM


Re: What does Christian Doctrine say ... ?
Hi dwise1

I will take this post and start a thread where we can discuss it properly.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 2:29 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6259
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 523 of 566 (598833)
01-03-2011 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by dwise1
01-02-2011 2:20 AM


Re: other scriptures
Hi dwise1,

dwise1 writes:

Yes, but just how is that debate to be conducted? Honestly and truthfully? Or deceptively and with guile?

Any debate should be conducted honestly with evidence presented by the affirmer and then refutation by the opposition.

I been here over 3 years and have seen no such debate.

All I have seen is a bunch of posters preaching their message.

I tried in one thread but with over 400 posts no one presented any refutation to the OP. In fact no one even tried.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2011 2:20 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2011 1:26 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 530 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2011 11:56 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 269 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 responded

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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 269 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 yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019