Why did Jesus Leave?

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I understand, which is why we must deal graciously with one another and be sure that the person we are dialoguing with understands our criticisms and objections.

But if that person misconstrues every attack on their ideas as an attack on them, then that would seem to change the way the dialogue works altogether. Not only is ridicule off the table, but all criticism becomes personal: it's never about the ideas we are discussing, but about the persons who hold those ideas. That's not likely to be an edifying discussion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no need to repeat yourself. I did not "ignore" what you said, I responded and said I don't agree with you, and why.

I'm not sure where you elaborated on the "why" exactly, except to say that some ideas are cherished by individuals. I don't see why that would make a difference. That some ideas are cherished does not place those ideas "out of bounds." Someone's fondness for a particular way of thinking doesn't immunise it from criticism.

 

[amariselle]

But if that person misconstrues every attack on their ideas as an attack on them, then that would seem to change the way the dialogue works altogether. Not only is ridicule off the table, but all criticism becomes personal: it's never about the ideas we are discussing, but about the persons who hold those ideas. That's not likely to be an edifying discussing.

If someone is ridiculing me (as has happened) I'm not very inclined to have an honest discussion with them.

However, I do not consider honest criticism an "attack." I can tell the difference between criticism and ridicule.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Stating that certain beliefs are "ridiculous" and why you think so is one thing. Engaging in open and continued ridicule of a person's beliefs or of them personally, is another. Honest criticism is far better. Ridicule is not constructive, it is condescending and mocking by nature.

I agree I don't think there has been any intent to ridicule people in this thread, and compared with other threads here, little worthy of the label from either side (unlike some other threads!). When interpretations can differ, people can take offence where none is intended.

 

[ScottA]

Again, these are merely the claims of other men, like you.

Claims are not evidence. Where is the EVIDENCE that a spiritual world exists?

Not the claims by men that it exists....the EVIDENCE that it does!

Look...if you cannot process the fact that the evidence is not of this world, but exists in those who have given witness to it throughout all of recorded history - then you are not up to receiving it - which is your problem, not ours. We have no need or obligation to "prove" anything. Our only obligation is to give witness - which we have. We are done. Anything else...is on you. To help you with that, we have (many times) explained just how it works - just as I did in my last post to you. It's on you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If someone is ridiculing me (as has happened) I'm not very inclined to have an honest discussion with them.

However, I do not consider honest criticism an "attack." I can tell the difference between criticism and ridicule.

But ridicule is a form of criticism. And if ridicule of your ideas is the same as ridicule of you as a person, then why wouldn't criticism of your ideas also be the same as criticism of you as a person? Why is it that, if I am criticising your ideas you readily accept that I am not criticising you, but if I am ridiculing your ideas you say that I am ridiculing you?

 

[amariselle]

I agree I don't think there has been any intent to ridicule people in this thread, and compared with other threads here, little worthy of the label from either side (unlike some other threads!). When interpretations can differ, people can take offence where none is intended.

Yes. There were a few instances of ridicule on this thread, but that's understandable, it happens. I just hope we can learn to deal kindly with those we disagree with. After all, we are certainly not always going to agree on everything.

 

[amariselle]

But ridicule is a form of criticism. And if ridicule of your ideas is the same as ridicule of you as a person, then why wouldn't criticism of your ideas also be the same as criticism of you as a person? Why is it that, if I am criticising your ideas you readily accept that I am not criticising you, but if I am ridiculing your ideas you say that I am ridiculing you?

Criticism and ridicule are not the same. Again, agree to disagree. Now can we move on?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Criticism and ridicule are not the same. Again, agree to disagree. Now can we move on?

So if I ridicule the KKK's ideology, I am not thereby criticising that ideology?

 

[amariselle]

So if I ridicule the KKK's ideology, I am not thereby criticising that ideology?

Criticize it all you want. Do you think mocking it actually helps? No lasting and positive change is brought about by mockery and contempt. It is far better to do and say something constructive.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Criticize it all you want. Do you think mocking it actually helps? No lasting and positive change is brought about by mockery and contempt. It is far better to do and say something constructive.

That answers a different question though (Is mockery effective in producing lasting and positive change?) That's not the question I asked.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Look...if you cannot process the fact that the evidence is not of this world, but exists in those who have given witness to it throughout all of recorded history - then you are not up to receiving it - which is your problem, not ours. ...

This is triply fallacious; switching the burden of proof via special pleading and elitism - claiming a special kind of evidence that only people who are 'up to it' can receive. 'The Emperor's New Clothes' springs to mind...

This isn't philosophy.

 

[amariselle]

That answers a different question though (Is mockery effective in producing lasting and positive change?) That's not the question I asked.

What would be your purpose in ridiculing the KKK in that case?

 

[ScottA]

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

It doesn't. But it does explain what seekers and critics have not understood for 2000 years, about the process of us witnessing: He that has an ear, let him hear.

 

[ScottA]

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

If you don't have those things...they are indeed "beyond" - until or unless, YOU acquire them. No one proves them or provides evidence, and the option of participation and benefit - is totally up to you.

Yet another great example that you should easily understand, but don't. This is not that difficult.

 

[ScottA]

This is triply fallacious; switching the burden of proof via special pleading and elitism - claiming a special kind of evidence that only people who are 'up to it' can receive. 'The Emperor's New Clothes' springs to mind...

This isn't philosophy.

Apparently it takes "philosophy" for some to understand that there is no burden of proof for things you yourself may want and may have to go after all by yourself, that no one is going to deliver to you because you stomp your feet.

Is maturity philosophy? ...'Cause, those who stomp their feet, just need to grow up.

 

[ScottA]

What has the burden of proof to do with those?
Are you saying you don't agree with the principle? I can see why it's tempting, but without it philosophical argument would be reduced to a series of unsupported assertions.

Exactly. There is no "burden of proof." ...Just something beyond the horizon that we have told you about. Take it or leave it. It's a choice.

 

[devolved]

If you don't have those things...they are indeed "beyond" - until or unless, YOU acquire them. No one proves them or provides evidence, and the option of participation and benefit - is totally up to you.

Yet another great example that you should easily understand, but don't. This is not that difficult.

Scott. You well know that none of these things are even remotely the same.

 

[devolved]

Apparently it takes "philosophy" for some to understand that there is no burden of proof for things you yourself may want and may have to go after all by yourself, that no one is going to deliver to you because you stomp your feet.

You are the one stomping the feet in this case

In short... Scott, I don't believe you. You could be teeling the truth, but if you present bothing better than a story... I don't believe it.

 

[Deidre32]

What if they explicitly tell you that they are doing it for religious reasons? Also, that still leaves the other two posts unaddressed, along with the lingering question of how exactly I have misrepresented you.

People commit crimes and do immoral things for all types of reasons. Are you asking me to explain the thinking behind each and every motive someone might have, if they are claiming religious reasons? lol I'd be God then.

I'm honestly not interested in engaging anymore with you, because your questions are kind of silly, really. You are asking Christians here why religious people do things, in the name of religion? As if we somehow are approving of religious people doing bad deeds in the name of their religion? It's just not worth answering, because it's kind of silly to assume that we would know the motivation behind why people do what they do. Do you know why atheists commit crimes? lol Can you tell us all why? I can ask absurd questions, too and if you refuse to answer with a reply that satisfies me, I can then say...you are refusing to answer the question. Kind of a boring game, but carry on with others if that's what you enjoy.