Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

why?lots of people are stupid, cruel, and silly, yet they still exist. an evil or inept god is still a god, right?

---

אָרַח

hi again Dawn, as i mentioned in the previous thread, there are actually quite a few perspective on the bible, and a good solid academic understanding of the actual contents of the text can frequently lead to atheism. many of the "recovering christians" i have know cited the bible among their reasons.but, i'd like to shift this away from the bible you know and love, and discuss a book you likely know very little about.

quote:

---

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how a merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. 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. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

​

Moroni 10:3-5

---

this is the famous "test" from the book of mormon. it provides a pretty clear scriptural reason for de-conversion, and encourages a kind of (perhaps false) skepticism about the text. now, i really like talking to the LDS missionaries, and find the LDS people perhaps some of the kindest, most caring followers-of-christ i have ever known. but they always seem to disappear when i quote this verse to them, and tell them that their book has failed the test for me.now, i can get into a lot of the issues that i find suspect about the book of mormon -- but i'd really be more interested to know why you don't accept the other testament of jesus christ.

---

אָרַח

even if the cruel god will punish you for not worshiping him or her?

---

אָרַח

that would be a losing battle, almost by definition.i do, however, appreciate the old testament idea of struggling with god. i think it's a much more realistic and mature religious philosophy.

---

אָרַח

i don't see why that would necessarily follow. yes, if would open the possibility (since a deity can exist, two deities wouldn't be completely unreasonable). but i don't know that one would suggest others. there's a story, probably invented, about a group of missionaries who went and told some african tribesmen about jesus, and god, and the gospels, and in the process, converted the tribesmen to satan worship. their logic was that god will forgive you, but the devil won't.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

yeah, so, good luck with that one.

---

אָרַח

well, i consider the lack of confirmation (a non-working spiritual sense) a pretty clear failure of the test. the question should be, what's a success supposed to be like, exactly? and, more interestingly. does this (like several other passages in the old testament) fundamentally violate deuteronomy 6:16, "you shall not tempt yahweh, your god."i'm going to attempt to hold my tongue on my actual argument until i hear why Dawn does or does not believe the other testament of jesus christ. out of morbid curiosity, were you slightly mormon, or very mormon? i have some experience with the kinds of mormons that go to church every sunday, are generally good people, and don't let it completely occupy their lives. the only exposure i've had to the more fervent, actually from utah type of mormon has been through missionaries.i enjoy inviting them in when they come around on saturdays, and having interesting discussions on the scriptures. JW's too.

---

אָרַח

interesting. did you share a deconversion story over in the other thread? i might have to go look for it... in any case, yeah. i find certain varieties of certain religions quite oppressive. they can really eat up a lot of your time and energy, just in feeling guilty for not being perfect. it's really quite a drain, and strikes me as very cult-ish. this is not every mormon church, or every christian church, of course. but the mormon missionaries that come are girls shipped out from utah. they wear full length skirts, and aren't really allowed to do anything. they send them to florida, and they aren't even allowed to go to the beach, lest they be ogled. they can't enter a house unless a woman is also there. etc.i do not think that religion was meant to be a burden; certainly not christian religions. not big on alcohol myself, but i can't go more than a few days without caffeine before massive withdrawal migraines set in. well, i've heard the second part before, yes, but i'm not sure about the first one. usually they jump right to "sorrow for skepticism" as by that point i've already laid out enough textual issues that would make any sane person go, "okay, this book is completely fictional." there's no converting the missionaries, but it sure is fun to try. yes, well, like i said, it's at this point they generally move on and i don't hear from them again. i know this, so i only bring out when i actually want them to go away. i kind of keep it secret, and we discuss other matters until that point. see, i have been an exceptionally religious person myself. i know those seeds of doubt are there, and there are things that people find just downright silly about their religions, and this whole "we know it to be true" inerrancy nonsense is really just overcompensation.just once i'd like to get the missionaries (of any variety) up to a level where we can actually discuss my doubts without them simply waving them off with platitudes and standardized dogma.

---

אָרַח

oh, yes. my ex-girlfriend was part of a trial family. they would play the hopeful converts, to the missionaries in training. of course, it never really goes down like they role-play, so when i was there a number of years ago, i decided i would give them something they wouldn't expect.of course, that was my initial exposure to LDS, so i wasn't quite as critical of the text at that point.

---

אָרַח

hi Dawn, from what i understand, and i've only begun reading the quran, there's little question that it was written by a single person. this alone, if true, would grant it far more unity in thought and message than the bible, which had approximately 100 authors, living over the course of close to a 1000 years.i understand scriptural unity is probably a sticking point for you, but the idea that someone can actually read and understand the bible and come away with such an idea is just sort of silly. surely you've noticed there is a new testament and old testament, and they are decidedly different in tone? surely you've noticed that paul advises against covenants that were previously mandatory? let's set contradictions and such aside for now -- surely you noticed that the theology changed at some point, right? as i mentioned earlier, the surest path to atheism is in truly studying the bible. and notions like this are exactly the reason why. once you actually commit to studying it, in depth, openly and honestly, you will find that this unity of doctrine and theme stuff is nonsense. for a lot of believers, this is absolutely faith-shattering.for me, i think the collection of different human voices, different messages and meanings, is the very thing that makes the bible beautiful, and that trying to fit it all through this unity filter gets rid of the truly interesting parts. it's a bit like a gourmet seven course meal -- you want to enjoy the distinct flavours of each part of the meal. you wouldn't want to throw it all in a blender and hit "puree" so that you can drink it through a straw.when i was younger, that's part of why i found the bible daunting and uninteresting. 1500 pages of sameness? i'll pass. surely god could get his message out in a shorter and more clear way. turns out that i was just rejecting the slop that this unity doctrine had turned it into.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

i think that's a little harsh. surely, the contents of the bible weren't entirely meant for children. i mean, there's rape and genocide, incest, all kinds of things you shouldn't expose children to.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

also being fair, "attempted to justify" is probably not accurate either. while some of the evils are examples of evils, sure, others, like genocide, are specifically advocated. the bible does portray genocide as justifiable, and even commands the ancient israelites to commit it against certain enemies.

---

אָרַח

your other examples aside, i do not think this one is a contradiction. we are dealing with a single author, in this case, and part of the same source text. the author simply believed that the sun was not the source of light, at least for the first three days.stupid, but not contradictory.

---

אָרַח

okay, granted, i'm only a few pages in, but what i've read so far is most certainly not "just the Old Test[ament] copied with some additions". rather, it is some extended commentary, much more akin to the epistles of paul.however, it's interesting to see you state that the old testament lacks historical support, archaeological backing, and prophecy. perhaps you should phrase your sentences more carefully, as this is almost certainly not what you meant. however, as many people have pointed out, history and archaeology do not favourably back the bible. that's still nonsense. a good portion of the bible is simply not messianic, and a fair portion of the bits that are have nothing to do with the messiah you're likely thinking of. for instance, there was the messiah who lead the israelites into the promised land. the messiah who unified the tribes and ruled as the first king. the messiah who led the people back from exile... err, yes. i think you fill find that i was specifically referring to galations. but how you can go from this, to this: makes me wonder. you've acknowledged that there was a major shift in theology, but then go on to claim unity in the very next sentence? peculiar.no, only those not paying attention at all, or deliberately trying to obscure the text, can miss the fact the fact there really isn't much in the way of scriptural unity.but lets test that, shall we? i think this will be fun. i'll post two random verses, and you explain the unity.

quote:

---

Thy two breasts are like two fawns that are twins of a gazelle.

---

quote:

---

And Hadad died.

---

unity. go.

---

אָרַח

i was never debating that point. wouldn't it be cool if the bible explained string theory? stuff that no human being at the time could possibly understand? surely, if it were literally dictated by god, such things would be routine. yet, it starts out with stuff like genesis 1, which gets so many things factually wrong...

---

אָרַח