Why did Jesus Leave?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

There is a burden of proof on those who make claims. It simply means that if you make a claim, e.g. that you have evidence for something, then you're expected to be able to support that claim.

 

[Deidre32]

I don't think anyone is explicitly telling you not to believe in God, though that seems to be what you're gleaning from the conversation. They are asking you about your experiences and claims, which is not unusual for a philosophy forum. As I said to stevenfrancis earlier:

And that is fair to ask, and I've shared it here last year when it happened. But, to share it again, and then have it be mocked, ridiculed, picked apart...it doesn't interest me really. When I was an atheist, I never ridiculed people's beliefs, but did debate them, but in a way that didn't degrade them. I guess it's important to respect the person, even if you don't respect their beliefs. But, these types of conversations end up with non-believers painting believers into a corner, expecting them to give answers that they can't provide. Not that they won't provide, but that they can't provide. Faith is a very moving experience and a personal one for many people. It's not something that I can share, and you suddenly say...alas! I will believe!

I wish for you to believe someday, and maybe you will...and then, maybe you will see what I'm saying here. But, until then, we will keep talking past one another.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is no "burden of proof." ...Just something beyond the horizon that we have told you about.

That there is 'something beyond the horizon' is a claim. Claimants have the burden of proof. This is a philosophy forum - you're expected to make arguments to support your assertions & claims.

 

[Deidre32]

There is a burden of proof on those who make claims. It simply means that if you make a claim, e.g. that you have evidence for something, then you're expected to be able to support that claim.

Only if the person making the claim cares to prove something to the skeptic. If the skeptic just expects believers to always be proving something about their faith to them, then that is the skeptic's problem. Just because someone believes in a deity, doesn't mean they have a burden placed upon them to prove their beliefs to others, unless the believer is trying to get non-believers to convert.

 

[ScottA]

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

If you cannot rationalize their small example, then you are not ready to move forward to the larger more complex topic of the spiritual world. If on the other hand, you do see the noted similarity, and your objection is that they are not the actual topic - tell me that you see the similarities and that you are ready to apply them to the greater topic.

 

[ScottA]

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.

That's cool. But then that makes you no authority on the topic, incapable of contributing anything but useless conjecture.

And your unbelief does not offer you the same claim about my position. Double negatives don't count.

 

[amariselle]

And that is fair to ask, and I've shared it here last year when it happened. But, to share it again, and then have it be mocked, ridiculed, picked apart...it doesn't interest me really. When I was an atheist, I never ridiculed people's beliefs, but did debate them, but in a way that didn't degrade them. I guess it's important to respect the person, even if you don't respect their beliefs. But, these types of conversations end up with non-believers painting believers into a corner, expecting them to give answers that they can't provide. Not that they won't provide, but that they can't provide. Faith is a very moving experience and a personal one for many people. It's not something that I can share, and you suddenly say...alas! I will believe!

I wish for you to believe someday, and maybe you will...and then, maybe you will see what I'm saying here. But, until then, we will keep talking past one another.

Well said Deidre.

 

[ScottA]

That there is 'something beyond the horizon' is a claim. Claimants have the burden of proof. This is a philosophy forum - you're expected to make arguments to support your assertions & claims.

No, it's not a claim of assertion. A claim of assertion is forceful. I am not forcing you to except my claim - it is with out such a burden.

No, what I have stated, is "news." Look it up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, it's not a claim of assertion. A claim of assertion is forceful.

A claim is an assertion and vice-versa. No force is implied.

I am not forcing you to except my claim - it is with out such a burden.

OK. You appear to misunderstand t he meaning of both assertion and burden of proof in philosophical discussion <shrug>.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Only if the person making the claim cares to prove something to the skeptic. If the skeptic just expects believers to always be proving something about their faith to them, then that is the skeptic's problem. Just because someone believes in a deity, doesn't mean they have a burden placed upon them to prove their beliefs to others, unless the believer is trying to get non-believers to convert.

That's fair enough, but if you make claims in a philosophy forum you should expect to have them challenged and to have to argue your corner. Else why bother?

 

[Deidre32]

That's fair enough, but if you make claims in a philosophy forum you should expect to have them challenged and to have to argue your corner. Else why bother?

'tis true.

 

[ScottA]

A claim is an assertion and vice-versa. No force is implied.
OK. You appear to misunderstand t he meaning of both assertion and burden of proof in philosophical discussion <shrug>.

Now, see, I told you to look it up, and obviously you didn't do it. How are we ever going to have a philosophical discussion, if you don't stick to some basic rules?

If you were up to it, our discussion might actually venture into the philosophical differences regarding evidence from two different worlds. We might start by recognizing the fact that that is the topic. Or not...in which case, perhaps the philosophical advantages or disadvantages to the banging of heads against a wall, could be discussed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... our discussion might actually venture into the philosophical differences regarding evidence from two different worlds.

I suggest you first demonstrate that there are 'two different worlds'.

 

[ScottA]

I suggest you first demonstrate that there are 'two different worlds'.

Now, see, the problem there is "demonstrate." That is a one-world term. Now...if you would like an angelstration...that, can be arranged.

Meanwhile, try to be less one-sided.

 

[devolved]

That's cool. But then that makes you no authority on the topic, incapable of contributing anything but useless conjecture.

And your unbelief does not offer you the same claim about my position. Double negatives don't count.

Again, you are presenting a conjecture. You are not contributing anything useful for me to believe other than "I've been to the beyond". Great. I hope you brought back something more than a story . If not... it's a conjecture, and It's no different than any other story about people visiting the "beyond" and claiming to have a special knowledge. It doesn't impress people like me. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with doing more of exactly the same.

 

[Dan Bert]

Hi All. Jesus left for many reasons one of them if you recalled Jesus prayed His for the Glory He had at the beginning (Of this whole thing) with the Father. Here is the prayer...
John 17:5 - And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was

The fallen earth would melt if Jesus were to come to it with his former Glory. Jesus had to divest himself of enough Glory to able to deal with man in this fallen world. The mount that Moses was on even though it was purified until it was Holy and on shook and almost melted When Jesus came down on it in His Glory. You guys can imagine what would have happened to this world if Jesus had attempted to come to it in the fullness of his glory. That is why when Jesus was chosen at the begining to be our Savior at the beginning let go of a major part of His glory. Does not prophecy say the elements would melt with fervent heat when Jesus comes in His Glory?

2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up


How much Heat to melt the elements?

Isaiah 30:26 - Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their
wound. 7 x7 = 49 The heat of the day. for example 49 X 100 = 4900 degrees.


The renewed world for the Millennium will be able to bear the glory of God without destroying it.....
That is one of the reasons. Until then each time Christ comes to visit He has to put off the greater portion of His Glory. P/s in Vision Jesus and the Father can come without they having to set aside their glory.

dan

I think it's a valid question from a position of any given skeptic.

I really don't buy the oversimplified answers like "If he didn't leave then Holy Spirit wouldn't come", Or "He left because the mission to spread the Gospel had to be fulfilled", or to "Prepare a place", again neither make a lot of sense in a scope what Christianity is and what it expects.

The question is whether this world is better if Jesus is there for all to be able to experience apart from some "feeling" or a book narrative? It wouldn't make Christianity to be so doubtable. Every Thomas out there could visit a 2000 year old dude with holes in his hands and believe.

Why leave without a trace, and except leave the world with a story and a promise of hope.

It seems like a good excuse to mask the reason as to why Jesus is not here. "Well, he was here, but you've missed him by about 2000 years, BUT he's coming back soon... so just wait and read this book about him".

Perhaps there are other reasonable explanations, but what would these be? What do you think?

 

[Dan Bert]

Hi All. Jesus left for many reasons one of them if you recalled Jesus prayed His for the Glory He had at the beginning (Of this whole thing) with the Father. Here is the prayer...
John 17:5 - And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was

The fallen earth would melt if Jesus were to come to it with his former Glory. Jesus had to divest himself of enough Glory to able to deal with man in this fallen world. The mount that Moses was on even though it was purified until it was Holy and on shook and almost melted When Jesus came down on it in His Glory. You guys can imagine what would have happened to this world if Jesus had attempted to come to it in the fullness of his glory. That is why when Jesus was chosen at the begining to be our Savior at the beginning let go of a major part of His glory. Does not prophecy say the elements would melt with fervent heat when Jesus comes in His Glory?

2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up


How much Heat to melt the elements?

Isaiah 30:26 - Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their
wound. 7 x7 = 49 The heat of the day. for example 49 X 100 = 4900 degrees.


The renewed world for the Millennium will be able to bear the glory of God without destroying it.....
That is one of the reasons. Until then each time Christ comes to visit He has to put off the greater portion of His Glory. P/s in Vision Jesus and the Father can come without they having to set aside their glory.

without a trace is for faith...faith is believing without seeing. It was good for Thomas to get proof but Jesus said blessed are those who believe and have not seen. Jesus did not come to destroy free will and faith. As those who have seen walk by knowledge and not of faith.

dan

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

To point out the ridiculousness of their fundamental principles. Are their ideas not deserving of ridicule? And what is your answer to my question? If I ridicule the KKK's ideology, am I not thereby criticising that ideology? My ridicule couldn't be mistaken as an expression of support or sympathy for it. Ridicule implies criticism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And that is fair to ask, and I've shared it here last year when it happened. But, to share it again, and then have it be mocked, ridiculed, picked apart...it doesn't interest me really. When I was an atheist, I never ridiculed people's beliefs, but did debate them, but in a way that didn't degrade them. I guess it's important to respect the person, even if you don't respect their beliefs. But, these types of conversations end up with non-believers painting believers into a corner, expecting them to give answers that they can't provide. Not that they won't provide, but that they can't provide. Faith is a very moving experience and a personal one for many people. It's not something that I can share, and you suddenly say...alas! I will believe!

Who here has mocked your experience? In what way has your experience been subjected to ridicule?

I wish for you to believe someday, and maybe you will...and then, maybe you will see what I'm saying here. But, until then, we will keep talking past one another.

As I said earlier, I was a Christian when I first joined CF. So I believed. Obviously I cannot comment on your personal religious experience in any great depth, except to say that I don't doubt your sincerity. I don't know whether your experience was in any way similar to my own. Speaking personally, as a Christian, I believed that I had a relationship with Christ, and my experiences at the time were interpreted in light of that belief. When the doctrines of Christianity ceased to be believable, those experiences were no longer imbued with theological significance. The feeling of awe, which I would previously have attributed to the workings of the divine, lost all supernatural connotations.

 

[devolved]

That is why when Jesus was chosen at the begining to be our Savior at the beginning let go of a major part of His glory. Does not prophecy say the elements would melt with fervent heat when Jesus comes in His Glory?

Ok. This is a new one, and certainly appreciated as a contribution.

The question remains though about why he left. He didn't leave immediately. He appeared to disciples and their faces didn't melt off.

I get all of the coming back to rebuild the world after destroying part.

What I don't get is physically leaving in the first place without leaving better evidence than what Christian a have.