Why did Jesus Leave?

[devolved]

My beliefs don't hurt anyone. If someone is suggesting for you to hurt people, it probably would be wise to steer clear.

I don't advocate for you to change your beliefs. I'm merely seeing if they are viable and if you can answer certain questions, answers or non-answers to which may contribute to my overall understanding of the subject matter.

I'm not here to argue for any given view as much as I'm here to learn where my own arguments fail.

It's funny to me that people who are not believers of Christianity, seem to have a chip on their shoulder in this thread...like why do you care if and why I follow Christianity?

I think perception is not everything in this case. It's difficult to understand the motive of various people, and people who exist faith get through various stages of grief, just like when people who lose someone.

1) Denial
They tend to cling on and adamantly deny they they don't believe

2) Anger
They tend to lash out and find some fault with believers and church

3) Acceptance
They eventually accept the reality, and come to the acceptance of their non-belief and they essentially learn to live without it or ignore things that they have believed for wrong reasons or for no apparent justification.

Obviously, you have your own reasons to believe, and I'm not here to take it away from you... especially if you think it benefits you in some way, or if such belief benefits others through you. It's not always the case though. False beliefs in general are detrimental. For example, we've had our friend died from cancer because she opted out to wait and see if God and prayer will heal her first as a lady in the church adviced her to do, because that lady self-diagnosed herself with breast cancer and claimed that God healed her through prayer and fasting.

So, our friend eventually hit stage 3 and it was a point of no return.

I'm not saying that you belief these things, but many of these false beliefs are derivative to certain approach to reality that's detrimental.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So, our friend eventually hit stage 3 and it was a point of no return.

If you search and check out the clinics around the country successfully treating this, you may be surprised.
(sorry, no endorsements here for any particular one; you'll have to look yourself - just knowing there is a way sometimes is enough to find out, that's why I bring it up)

 

[devolved]

Read Foxes Book of Martyrs(free online, devastating embarrassing truth) . If it is true you want to see if true Christianity can be validated, that is one way to see.
Oh, you don't have to read it, of course.... but then , who is being dishonest - if you say you want to see, then don't even choose to try, to seek, to find ?

I'm a seminary graduate. I've read much more than you can reference and quote in here . I've dedicated a greater part of my life to pursuit of what you claim to believe, so that's what I find disingenuous and dishonest - certain stereotypical assumptions that I don't know what you are talking about . I do. I've been there. I've made the same rationalizations. I've read the same books. I've memorized and dissected the same passages in their original languages.

The fact that someone is willing to die for a belief doesn't make it to be true. Again, check with 9-11 attackers or any other Muslim terrorist bombers. That's not an indicator of veracity of any given belief. There are plenty of people who believed false things and were willing to die for them.

For example, there was a story of a girl who drowned carrying a portrait of a Chinese communist leader. Her false belief killed her. The same goes for my friend who died of cancer, thinking that she has better chances praying and fasting than resorting to modern medicine. She had a contained and treatable stage one, but she went into denial of reality and it killed her, and she could have been alive. She was willing to risk her life believing that God would heal her, and she was wrong.

 

[devolved]

If you search and check out the clinics around the country successfully treating this, you may be surprised.
(sorry, no endorsements here for any particular one; you'll have to look yourself - just knowing there is a way sometimes is enough to find out, that's why I bring it up)

The point being is that she waited for too long as she relied on a false belief. I think everything else is a secondary to this discussion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm a seminary graduate.

As you have said, so it is .
As Jesus said, so it is:
Luke 10:21
KJ21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in Spirit and said, “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The point being is that she waited for too long as she relied on a false belief. I think everything else is a secondary to this discussion.

That was clear - you or she thought she had waited too long. That is "modus operandi" in today's society. It's just not true. (not always anyway)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Absolutely, when that phrase is used as a complete and total dismissal, as it usually is.

Well it is dismissal - “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens), and dismissal is always 'complete and total' - you can't have partial or incomplete dismissal, so that's redundant hyperbole. But dismissal isn't ridicule or mockery.

But, rather than protest about dismissal, why not present your argument for why dismissal is inappropriate - in philosophy, a good argument passes as evidence.

Just because you don't agree with people, doesn't mean it's correct go label them "deluded" or to suggest that what they believe is a "delusion."

But, if you don't understand how such labels can be used as mockery or ridicule, I doubt I'm going to convince you of such.

It's a question of context and usage, as Wittgenstein showed. If you dislike 'delusion', take it as 'a false and irrational belief' instead.

I guess it depends what you consider rational or irrational. Apparently plenty of people (most of the world's population in fact) thinks that belief in a god or gods is completely rational, and that there IS evidence for their beliefs. Why do Atheists get to make the ultimate decision about what is rational and what isn't?

Atheists don't make the 'ultimate' decision (why all the hyperbole and melodrama?), general usage does. Rational means, 'having logic, reason, or understanding', 'amenable to reason', etc. If the belief is rational, explain the rationale; if it's amenable to understanding, explain how it is to be understood. But when I hear it's a matter of faith, and that faith is unreasonable, or the common evasion that, 'it's 'beyond human understanding', then it gives every appearance of not being rational or reasonable. By all means make your case that it is.

Actually I haven't mocked or ridiculed anyone.

I didn't say you had; I said you were making accusations of mockery & ridicule.

Also, if Scripture isn't good enough for you, what is?

Start with a reasoned argument.

And why do you get to decide that Scripture ISN'T an "argument" against the idea that belief in God is nothing more than a "delusion"? Obviously many disagree with that view, so why should we accept that Scripture must be completely dismissed?

I haven't said Scripture 'must be completely dismissed', that's a straw man. I've said it isn't an argument, because it isn't a set of reasons and explanations for belief - it explicitly relies on faith and decries reliance on evidence. The number of people that agree or disagree, believe or disbelieve, has no bearing on how rational or reasonable it is - that would be the ad-populum fallacy.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The point being is that she waited for too long as she relied on a false belief.

That may be true, yes.
You do realize, or not?, that the whole world relies on false beliefs ?(not just for salvation, but in every catergory, practically if not actually)

 

[devolved]

That may be true, yes.
You do realize, or not?, that the whole world relies on false beliefs ?(not just for salvation, but in every catergory, practically if not actually)

i'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me a couple examples of false beliefs that the whole world relies on?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

i'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me a couple examples of false beliefs that the whole world relies on?

Yes, a little later (probably today).
In the meantime, just browse through most of the forums on the internet, and most of the topics/ threads/ posts.
There you can find a lot of them.
Oh, yes - as already noted - "scholarship / education/ man's wisdom and man's knowledge"
are very good examples to start with.....

 

[devolved]

As you have said, so it is .
As Jesus said, so it is:
Luke 10:21
KJ21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in Spirit and said, “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.

It also could be said that the above verse is constructed for ignorant people to pretend to be smart and wise . Have you heard of Emperor's Clothe's story? It seems to be an opposite of that. Intelligent people can't seem to see God based on what you quote

 

[devolved]

Yes, a little later (probably today).
In the meantime, just browse through most of the forums on the internet, and most of the topics/ threads/ posts.
There you can find a lot of them.
Oh, yes - as already noted - "scholarship / education/ man's wisdom and man's knowledge"
are very good examples to start with.....

Just give me one concrete example of false belief that all of us rely on . It shouldn't be very difficult. Scholarship isn't false belief, it's a concept. Neither man's wisdom or knowledge is a false belief.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Except God says clearly He curses anyone who trusts in man's wisdom or man's knowledge.
Sorry,
there's nothing I nor anyone can say to heal you.

 

[amariselle]

You don't see how it's an ad-hoc rationalization?

Again, I keep telling you as to various methods that we get to know things, and that merely believing a story is the least reliable of them all.

And you keep saying, BUT IN THE STORY Jesus says that if he demonstrated everything again then you wouldn't believe because IN THE STORY people wouldn't believe

It's an extremely dishonest ploy, because you presume to judge my character prior to actually understanding what I'm after. I'm not here to invalidate Christianity. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to see if it can be validated in some shape or form.

Actually, I have "presumed" no such thing. I never once called out anyone or named any names.

 

[devolved]

Actually, I have "presumed" no such thing. I never once called out anyone or named any names.

You didn't have to .

You make a claim that people like myself wouldn't believe given observed miraculous occurences... because you've read a story about people 2000 years ago seeing and still not believing.

Thus you turn this into rationalizayion based in unsubstatiated assumption .

 

[amariselle]

You didn't have to .

You make a claim that people like myself wouldn't believe given observed miraculous occurences... because you've read a story about people 2000 years ago seeing and still not believing.

Thus you turn this into rationalizayion based in unsubstatiated assumption .

Interesting logic, actually...I was referring to human nature, and how people are generally skeptical. That hasn't changed at all.

 

[devolved]

Interesting logic, actually...I was referring to human nature, and how people are generally skeptical. That hasn't changed at all.

Am I wrong then? Do you think I wouldn't believe reguardless, based on your observation of "human nature" ?

I don't see any reason as to why you'd use "people saw in the Bible and still didn't believe" type of apologetics.

 

[amariselle]

Am I wrong then? Do you think I wouldn't believe reguardless, based on your observation of "human nature" ?

I don't see any reason as to why you'd use "people saw in the Bible and still didn't believe" type of apologetics.

Some might believe, many would demand miraculous signs, just like they did then. I have no idea whether you would or wouldn't believe, but my point remains, dependance on signs and wonders is not real faith in Jesus.

 

[devolved]

Some might believe, many would demand miraculous signs, just like they did then. I have no idea whether you would or wouldn't believe, but my point remains, dependance on signs and wonders is not real faith in Jesus.

I think you misunderstand what it's about when you make an appeal to "real faith" again as some superior virtue. It's not. We can have faith in wrong thing.

A simple question to demonstrate it...

Can it be possible that you are wrong?

 

[amariselle]

I think you misunderstand what it's about when you make an appeal to "real faith" again as some superior virtue. It's not. We can have faith in wrong thing.

A simple question to demonstrate it...

Can it be possible that you are wrong?

You think I haven't asked myself that?