Why did Jesus Leave?

[amariselle]

Actually, I think it is justifiable ridicule, and not too far from the truth.

Interesting, I didn't know that was something decent human beings were to strive for. It sounds as though you may be in agreement with Richard Dawkins on this.

Personally I don't think ridicule is ever justified. Ridicule is a bullying tactic, if you disagree with someone, you don't mock them or insult them. How do such methods get us anywhere?

I can't imagine, for instance, going on an Atheist forum and mocking Atheists. And if I did that, it would say far more about me than it does about them.

Such conduct is absolutely shameful in my opinion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Interesting, I didn't know that was something decent human beings were to strive for. It sounds as though you may be in agreement with Richard Dawkins on this.

Personally I don't think ridicule is ever justified. Ridicule is a bullying tactic, if you disagree with someone, you don't mock them or insult them. How do such methods get us anywhere?

I agree. Ridicule can be used as a bullying tactic, but it is not necessarily one. For instance, one might ridicule the ridiculous because they want to point out its ridiculousness, not because they intend to bully anyone.

I can't imagine, for instance, going on an Atheist forum and mocking Atheists. And if I did that, it would say far more about me than it does about them.

Such conduct is absolutely shameful in my opinion.

You've never ridiculed something you consider to be ridiculous? There's a place for ridicule in civil discourse, IMO.

 

[devolved]

You're dating yourself...and you haven't learned for 2000 years:

"How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!” Romans 10:14-15

How does that answer the question of whether spirituality concept is a valid one?

 

[devolved]

Have I expressed concerns? Absolutely. That does not justify your condescension and mockery.

Can you point out a specific post where YOU specifically where mocked... as opposed to your ideas being criticized?

 

[devolved]

Try that with learning a new language, or getting a degree, or a job. "Burden of proof" - that's a good one!

None of these require burden of proof, because these are not things "from beyond". No proof necessary.

 

[devolved]

Interesting, I didn't know that was something decent human beings were to strive for. It sounds as though you may be in agreement with Richard Dawkins on this.

Personally I don't think ridicule is ever justified. Ridicule is a bullying tactic, if you disagree with someone, you don't mock them or insult them. How do such methods get us anywhere?

I can't imagine, for instance, going on an Atheist forum and mocking Atheists. And if I did that, it would say far more about me than it does about them.

Such conduct is absolutely shameful in my opinion.

I actually do distance myself from Dawkins on this. I do think that we should try to be respectful and stay away from personal attacks on character, or mocking people. But there's a fair balance here when you actually understand what the response is to, even in context of your own belief. For example:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

I can keep going, but I hope you get the point. The book that you find inspired is inherent mocking of unbelief, and equating it with being evil to the point of deserving hell.

So, it's sort of like walking up to a person and saying "You are a dirty, wretched, lawless, ignorant scumbag.... but I love you! So, would you be my friend and let me teach you with this book how to be better?".

So, in a way, I can certainly understand what Dawkins is talking about, and he's not merely addressing Christianity. He is even heavier critic of Islam and get enormous amount of flack for it for being unPC. When you consider what Christians historically did to homosexuals until we as a largely secular society decided to put a stop to it, then on that alone I think Dawkins rhetoric is understandable.

I know we are living in a different era where Christianity has shifted to a position away from shaming people, and into a more reasonable "leaving all of the bad parts out", type of thing, but it's not because of good Christians transforming their faith. It's because of secular movement limiting expression of fundamentalism and pushing it into non-literalism and Christian pragmatism.

So, in case of Dawkins, he obviously has a larger agenda than this forum - he wants to make sure that whatever happened in the Puritan America, or Middle Age Europe, or 2nd century Messopotamia .... doesn't happen in our modern world, in which we have created a much comfortable environment for everyone via allowing them to express ideas without fear of being stoned, killed or burned. The history is a testament of religion doing the very opposite - limiting conflicting views, and shaming and ostracizing people who disagree.

 

[amariselle]

I agree. Ridicule can be used as a bullying tactic, but it is not necessarily one. For instance, one might ridicule the ridiculous because they want to point out its ridiculousness, not because they intend to bully anyone.

So, why can't you just say you believe a certain thing is ridiculous and leave it at that?

Ridiculing a person for their particular beliefs is bullying and mockery of a person, not just an expression that you think their belief is ridiculous.

Look up the definition for "ridicule" and then tell me honestly if you think that is how we should be treating other human beings.

You've never ridiculed something you consider to be ridiculous? There's a place for ridicule in civil discourse, IMO.

I've never ridiculed a person for believing differently than I do.

Here's the definition for you, since you think there is "a place for ridicule in civil discourse."

Ridicule

"the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior."

"the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way : harsh comments made by people who are laughing at someone or something."

"speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision."

"language or behavior intended to mock or humiliate"

"the act of deriding or treating with contempt."

Synonyms: derision, mockery, sport, scorn, contempt, scoffing, jeer, sneer, taunt

So, tell me how you honestly think that doing such things to another person has any place in "civil discourse."

The truth is, there is nothing civilized about ridiculing another person.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So, why can't you just say you believe a certain thing is ridiculous and leave it at that?

Ridiculing a person for their particular beliefs is bullying and mockery of a person, not just an expression that you think their belief is ridiculous.

Look up the definition for "ridicule" and then tell me honestly if you think that is how we should be treating other human beings.

But I'm not talking about ridiculing a person, but ridiculing the ridiculous things they say.

I've never ridiculed a person for believing differently than I do.

Here's the definition for you, since you think there is "a place for ridicule in civil discourse."

Ridicule

"the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior."

"the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way : harsh comments made by people who are laughing at someone or something."

"speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision."

"language or behavior intended to mock or humiliate"

"the act of deriding or treating with contempt."

Synonyms: derision, mockery, sport, scorn, contempt, scoffing, jeer, sneer, taunt

So, tell me how you honestly think that doing such things to another person has any place in "civil discourse."

The truth is, there is nothing civilized about ridiculing another person.

Where did I advocate ridiculing another person? Again, you have an awful penchant for not responding to what I've actually written. It's getting ridiculous.

So, tell me how you honestly think that doing such things to another person has any place in "civil discourse."

The truth is, there is nothing civilized about ridiculing another person.

So you agree then that Psalm 14:1 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 have no place in civil discourse? Matthew 7:6 is also often used derisively.

 

[devolved]

So, why can't you just say you believe a certain thing is ridiculous and leave it at that?

Ridiculing a person for their particular beliefs is bullying and mockery of a person, not just an expression that you think their belief is ridiculous.

Can you provide examples in this thread where you are personally being ridiculed?

I think it would be a helpful illustration to make sure other people take that into account, especially if it's an unintended thing to do.

 

[amariselle]

But I'm not talking about ridiculing a person, but ridiculing the ridiculous things they say.

Where did I advocate ridiculing another person? Again, you have an awful penchant for not responding to what I've actually written. It's getting ridiculous.

So you agree then that Psalm 14:1 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 have no place in civil discourse? Matthew 7:6 is also often used derisively.

Ridiculing what a person says they believe is ridiculing that person's beliefs.

In my opinion, ridicule is lazy. It allows the person doing the ridiculing to brush aside valid points someone else might be making, to instead mock and deride those points and the person themselves.

But, ridicule goes further than that, it is targeting a person or their beliefs in order to get other people to likewise mock and scorn that person.

So, as I said, I do not agree that such things have any place in "civil discourse."

And yes, that includes using Bible verses for the purpose of ridicule.

 

[amariselle]

Can you provide examples in this thread where you are personally being ridiculed?

I think it would be a helpful illustration to make sure other people take that into account, especially if it's an unintended thing to do.

Post #773

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ridiculing what a person says they believe is ridiculing that person's beliefs.

Is it not possible for someone to believe something ridiculous?

In my opinion, ridicule is lazy. It allows the person doing the ridiculing to brush aside valid points someone else might be making, to instead mock and deride those points and the person themselves.

But, ridicule goes further than that, it is targeting a person or their beliefs in order to get other people to likewise mock and scorn that person.

So, as I said, I do not agree that such things have any place in "civil discourse."

But what if their points are just as ridiculous and deserving of ridicule? And once again, I never said that one should "scorn that person."

And yes, that includes using Bible verses for the purpose of ridicule.

That's interesting. Earlier, you said that the Bible was the "word of God." Are you condemning Yahweh or the authors he inspired for using ridicule?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In my opinion, ridicule is lazy.

On the contrary, ridicule done well can reinforce a point or expose the flaws in another person's ideas. For example:

 

[amariselle]

Is it not possible for someone to believe something ridiculous?

Sure it is, but that does not mean that a person or their beliefs need to be ridiculed. The truly "civil" thing to do is move on and say nothing, if all you can think to do is ridicule, scorn, mock or deride someone.

But what if their points are just as ridiculous and deserving of ridicule?

Then say that their points are ridiculous and why you believe that, and leave it at that. Engaging in actual and ongoing ridicule is bullying and mockery and has no place in civil discourse.

And once again, I never said that one should "scorn that person."

But that's what ridicule is, it's scorn.

That's interesting. Earlier, you said that the Bible was the "word of God." Are you condemning Yahweh or the authors he inspired for using ridicule?

I'm not "condemning" anyone. I am however admitting that Scripture can be used inappropriately and in hurtful ways. (And completely out of context)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure it is, but that does not mean that a person or their beliefs need to be ridiculed. The truly "civil" thing to do is move on and say nothing, if all you can think to do is ridicule, scorn, mock or deride someone.

You keep saying "someone," which is misleading because I've already indicated that I don't advocate heaping scorn on "someone," but rather ideas deserving of ridicule. If you continue to pretend that I'm talking about the former rather than the latter, then you are misrepresenting what I've said.

Then say that their points are ridiculous and why you believe that, and leave it at that.

But ridicule is a way of pointing out that their points are ridiculous.

Engaging in actual and ongoing ridicule is bullying and mockery and has no place in civil discourse.

As I already noted, it can be used to bully a person, or it can be used to criticise their ideas.

I'm not "condemning" anyone. I am however admitting that Scripture can be used inappropriately and in hurtful ways. (And completely out of context)

So the Biblical authors are then guilty of ridicule?

 

[amariselle]

On the contrary, ridicule done well can reinforce a point or expose the flaws in another person's ideas. For example:

If you really do believe that there are "flaws" in someone else's ideas, the answer is not treating them with contempt. What do you think you're proving by doing so?

Ridicule is what someone like Richard Dawkins called for in that link I included earlier. If you've watched and listened to what he's said, you will understand that such behaviour is anything BUT civil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you really do believe that there are "flaws" in someone else's ideas, the answer is not treating them with contempt. What do you think you're proving by doing so?

But I didn't advocate treating them with contempt, but their ideas. People can be bullied, but ideas are not people and cannot be bullied.

 

[amariselle]

You keep saying "someone," which is misleading because I've already indicated that I don't advocate heaping scorn on "someone," but rather ideas deserving of ridicule. If you continue to pretend that I'm talking about the former rather than the latter, then you are misrepresenting what I've said.

As I said, ridiculing a person's beliefs is ridiculing the person who holds those beliefs.

But ridicule is a way of pointing out that their points are ridiculous.

Sure, in my opinion it's a very lazy way of doing so, much more likely to result in the person doing the ridiculing looking ridiculous themselves. It's not honest, nor is it civil.

As I already noted, it can be used to bully a person, or it can be used to criticise their ideas.

No, honest criticism is entirely different than ridicule.

So the Biblical authors are then guilty of ridicule?

I said no such thing, and you know it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As I said, ridiculing a person's beliefs is ridiculing the person who holds those beliefs.

No it's not.

Sure, in my opinion it's a very lazy way of doing so, much more likely to result in the person doing the ridiculing looking ridiculous themselves. It's not honest, nor is it civil.

It can be done lazily, yes. But it can also be done cleverly, as the example I provided earlier illustrates. Does the person who ridiculed Trump's immigration policy look ridiculous? I don't think he does. But he has certainly made a point about that policy - it's ridiculous.

No, honest criticism is entirely different than ridicule.

Ridicule can be a form of honest criticism. When exposing ridiculous ideas, it can be one of the most effective forms of criticism.

I said no such thing, and you know it.

So those passages I cited are not examples of ridicule and, more specifically, examples of ridiculing a person or group?

 

[amariselle]

But I didn't advocate treating them with contempt, but their ideas. People can be bullied, but ideas are not people and cannot be bullied.

So, when you ridicule someone's ideas or beliefs, you don't think that is ridiculing them?

I disagree. For many their beliefs (their faith) is everything to them, it's their identity. So, when you ridicule those beliefs you are ridiculing them as a person.

Beliefs and ideas can be very precious to people, and making a mockery of such things can do untold hurt and damage. This is why we need to be very careful with how we treat one another.

As I said, ridicule is not civil and it isn't honest criticism either. Ridicule is not something that allows for dialogue or change, ridicule is mockery and contempt, benefits no one. (Including the person doing the ridiculing)