tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post8921322749371755047..comments2023-03-05T09:03:32.659-05:00Comments on Failing The Insider Test: The Role of Evolution in my DeconversionJeffrey Amoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-63704287574581740352009-05-28T06:10:51.528-04:002009-05-28T06:10:51.528-04:00And there's something else, also well-known, that ...And there's something else, also well-known, that I forgot to mention: people have many names (I guess the funniest example is ``Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus``, who had three names, and who didn't even make it into the "Top Twelve"). Other examples abound, throughout both Testaments, but they only have two names.Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-62776369741888117702009-05-28T05:58:13.897-04:002009-05-28T05:58:13.897-04:00Matthew's genealogy is picky for the sake of conve...Matthew's genealogy is picky for the sake of conveying a deeper, more mystic meaning. (7 was the number of perfection; 14 was its double: "at the fulness of time"). I don't see why Luke's can't be that way. I also don't know how in a society which practiced large-scale polygamy and divorce, plus levirate marriage, and so on, anyone can find some sort of liniage that somehow is "more correct" than other possible ones. That's all.Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-3563021112649770402009-05-26T16:12:19.788-04:002009-05-26T16:12:19.788-04:00Perhaps the clearest way to see the discrepancy is...Perhaps the clearest way to see the discrepancy is to try to figure out who Joseph's father is. In Matthew 1:16, it's Jacob, while in Luke 3:23, it's Heli. I don't see how you are getting around either of these claims.<br /><br />Also, I'm still not seeing a connection between the numbers in Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, there are 3 sets of 14, for a total of 41 or 42. In Luke, there are 77 names. I don't see how 77 explains an insistence on 14. You're going to have to spell it out instead of just hoping I'll see what you see.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-17329624347725593762009-05-23T17:42:46.525-04:002009-05-23T17:42:46.525-04:00Fourteen is the double of seven. (And You don't ne...Fourteen is the double of seven. (And You don't need <A HREF="http://mystificator.blogspot.com/2008/09/numerhology.html" REL="nofollow">numerology</A> to know this). <br /><br />Yes, I'm the same Lucian that bugged You at de-conversion, because I found out about Your blog's existence at debunking-christianity. <br /><br />I don't agree with Your take on Luke 1:3-4. [And I also don't agree with the Protestant take on the meaning of the words "as it was supposed" in Luke 3:23 either (those words mean that Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph [Mark 6:3] and that the way in which Joseph was Jesus' father [Luke 2:48] is not meant in a biological sense)].Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-76625589217718208692009-05-13T21:17:00.000-04:002009-05-13T21:17:00.000-04:00Are you the same Lucian that I've talked to at de-...Are you the same Lucian that I've talked to at de-conversion?<br /><br />What is the alternative to Mary's/Joseph's genealogy? Numerology? I can see it with Matthew a lot more than I can see it with Luke, especially due to Luke 1:3-4.<br /><br />There are 77 names in Luke. Where is the connection? I know seven is important, but I don't know enough about numerology to understand (or deny) a connection with 14.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-39155021487000609752009-05-13T15:41:00.000-04:002009-05-13T15:41:00.000-04:00The interpretation of the two genealogies belongin...The interpretation of the two genealogies belonging to different persons (Mary and Joseph) is a Protestant innovation. The Pre-Reformation Christians didn't believe in this. <br /><br />I would also like to ask You something: count the names in Luke (exact number) and then compare it to Matthew's insistance on the number fourteen. [Not so as to see the difference of which You're already aware, but the connection].Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-42279139449089749012009-04-22T14:10:00.000-04:002009-04-22T14:10:00.000-04:00Christians have a specific list of ways that peopl...<I>Christians have a specific list of ways that people lose their faith, and many or most decons don't fit into any of those categories.</I>Totally. I got really annoyed with people asking me what horrible thing had happened that had hurt me so much. I had a crisis of faith, yes, but it was only the culminating event in a long series of doubts and questions. And the crisis didn't even kill my faith. It only made it impossible to ignore the questions I'd been avoiding.<br /><br />In fact, just last week I posted an entry about how evangelists just don't get that I probably know more about the Bible and apologetics than they do and invent a story for me that isn't mine. Right on cue <A HREF="http://accidental-historian.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-talk-to-evangelical.html" REL="nofollow">I got an annoying evangelist in my comments</A>. He did more to confirm my point than I ever could.<br /><br />I don't know that they're in denial, though. I think they're just limited in imagination. I mean, a switchover probably has to occur at some point when they hear over and over again that, "No, it didn't happen like that," but I at least give the sheltered, novice evangelist the benefit of the doubt and say they simply can't imagine anything other than those few approved stories of eviscerated faith.Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-24420065898679766042009-04-21T08:35:00.000-04:002009-04-21T08:35:00.000-04:00Jeffrey, you make a good point about decons not fi...Jeffrey, you make a good point about decons not fitting into the "normal" Christian categories. Conservative Christianity, which is what we're talking about here if we are referencing young earth vs. old earth, has a certain, limited, group of bible verses to fall back on in an attempt to define deconversion. And since they believe the bible is the source of all wisdom, they are restricted to those categories. In my experience that puts you into a couple of categories, first, disbelief explained because you are not using "biblical wisdom" but are rather depending on the foolishness of the wisdom of the world, or, heaven forbid, your own wisdom (aka thoughts). And second, willful rebellion against God. Really both boil down to moral failure, as seen from the conservative Christian perspective. Where else can you go with that but to be in denial?atimetorendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563649474540441597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-76644929749462370812009-04-21T00:25:00.000-04:002009-04-21T00:25:00.000-04:00I would be interested in knowing how often evoluti...I would be interested in knowing how often evolution influences deconversions as it affected us compared to the straight forward way. At one time, I would have thought I was unusual for evolution affecting me this way, but I'm not at all.<br /><br />Christians have a specific list of ways that people lose their faith, and many or most decons don't fit into any of those categories. When this happens, the decon is convinced they are an exception. Nope. Christians are just in denial about deconversions that happen for reasons that aren't PC (pastorally correct.)<br /><br />Thanks for telling me about the links - they are fixed now.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-38176231095221944442009-04-20T15:12:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:12:00.000-04:00Wow. It's almost like you cribbed your story from...Wow. It's almost like you cribbed your story from my life. Or I from yours...<br /><br />I remember being in a car with a girlfriend once. She had been poorly served by a private Christian education and believed Ken Ham had some smart things to say. She tried to pull the old, "Maybe god just made the universe <I>look</I> old," routine on me. I figured that was a possibility. Then I thought about it for a moment and realized it was incredibly, massively stupid.<br /><br />But I was more interested in keeping the already failed relationship going at the time...<br /><br />Also, most of your links are broken. They have the generic Blogger link, then the link you want.Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-16244071942698027692009-04-17T08:23:00.000-04:002009-04-17T08:23:00.000-04:00"For me, the primary effect was sociological – it ...<I>"For me, the primary effect was sociological – it changed my social standing within [evangelical] Christianity and this caused me to see how Christians think about the rest of their faith as well."</I>Your post is interesting to me in that though I never as a Christian subscribed to YEC, but it was exactly the kind of thinking you described that eventually led me away from faith in the rest of the bible. It just took me a lot of time to apply the same reasoning I used to dismiss YEC to biblical history as well. And then on to biblical theology.<br /><br />It can only take one stone to be removed from the wall of faith for the whole wall to tumble down. Biblical literalists are foolish in that regard to stake their claims on YEC. But I'm glad, because it made it that much clearer to me what was going on with "biblical reasoning."atimetorendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563649474540441597noreply@blogger.com