Why did Jesus Leave?

[amariselle]

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.

Honest criticism will accomplish the same thing, but in a constructive way what allows for positive change.

Insults and mockery don't lead to lasting change.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Honest criticism will accomplish the same thing, but in a constructive way what allows for positive change.

Insults and mockery don't lead to lasting change.

You're again answering a question I did not ask. The question I did ask was: If I ridicule the KKK's ideology, am I not thereby criticising that ideology?

 

[amariselle]

You're again answering a question I did not ask. The question I did ask was: If I ridicule the KKK's ideology, am I not thereby criticising that ideology?

No, in my opinion you are not honestly criticizing it. You are mocking it, sure, but where do you go from there?

See, unlike ridicule, honest criticism has a long term purpose and the hope of bringing about lasting change.

Mockery does not accomplish this, at the most it will only make those you are mocking defensive. Why should people listen to someone who mocks their beliefs? No reason for change has been given, only insults. So what? Ridicule and mockery doesn't help anyone. People just tend to either tune that out or become angry.

Ridicule solves nothing and only makes the one doing the ridiculing look foolish. (Like that example I gave of Richard Dawkins) Tell me, what do you honestly think his approach will accomplish?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, in my opinion you are not honestly criticizing it. You are mocking it, sure, but where do you go from there?

See, unlike ridicule, honest criticism has a long term purpose and the hope of bringing about lasting change.

Mockery does not accomplish this, at the most it will only make those you are mocking defensive. Why should people listen to someone who mocks their beliefs? No reason for change has been given, only insults. So what? Ridicule and mockery doesn't help anyone. People just tend to either tune that out or become angry.

Ridicule solves nothing and only makes the one doing the ridiculing look foolish. (Like that example I gave of Richard Dawkins) Tell me, what do you honestly think his approach will accomplish?

You again completely ignoring the question at hand, which is not whether ridicule is effective, but whether it implies criticism. And I suspect you are ignoring that question because you know the answer: yes, of course it does. No one would mistake my ridicule for the KKK's ideology as anything other than criticism of that ideology. They certainly wouldn't mistake it as an expression of support or advocacy. Consider the people in the picture below. Does their ridicule imply criticism?

 

[amariselle]

You again completely ignoring the question at hand, which is not whether ridicule is effective, but whether it implies criticism. And I suspect you are ignoring that question because you know the answer: yes, of course it does. No one would mistake my ridicule for the KKK's ideology as anything other than criticism of that ideology. They certainly wouldn't mistake it as an expression of support or advocacy. Consider the people in the picture below. Does their ridicule imply criticism?

Is their brand of "criticism" helpful? Should people take them seriously?

It's criticism alright, but it's convoluted, and damaging and it is not honest criticism. Honest criticism seeks to dialogue with those we disagree with, not insult and mock them. Who truly listens to angry people yelling and holding signs?

 

[ScottA]

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.

1. You perceiving things as conjecture doesn't make them conjecture.
2. I am not offering anything for your "use" according to what you are accustom, but giving you my witness of what you are not accustom, but is a truth beyond what you have known. If you were to "use" it, it would not be to stay where you are accustom, but to expand your horizon. There is no other point to our discussion.
3. My witness is not a story, but news. So, a smart guy...will see the consistency down through all of recorded history and eventually see the counterfeits stories for what they are, and see the light.
4. If you are not impressed, then light does not interest you. Like I said: "Fine,"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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. No

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.

Silly? You said that "many people follow false gods." Is it "silly" of me to ask you how you know this? I also asked whether Jesus was the same God as the God of the Old Testament. But this "silly" question received no response. To be fair, you have responded to my question about people's religious motivations (above), but that isn't all I asked, and though you've accused me of misrepresenting you (even going so far as to allude to "flat out lying"), that claim remains unfounded.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is their brand of "criticism" helpful? Should people take them seriously?

Yes, I do think it's helpful. It points out the ridiculous and dispels whatever political legitimacy that group may think it has.

It's criticism alright,

Thank you for conceding that ridicule is indeed a form of criticism. Now there's the matter of the ridicule in the Bible...

but it's convoluted, and damaging and it is not honest criticism. Honest criticism seeks to dialogue with those we disagree with, not insult and mock them. Who truly listens to angry people yelling and holding signs?

Those people don't seem angry to me. Far from it, they appear to be having fun at the expense of a hateful ideology deserving of ridicule.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is their brand of "criticism" helpful? Should people take them seriously?

no.

 

[amariselle]

Yes, I do think it's helpful. It points out the ridiculous and dispels whatever political legitimacy that group may think it has.

I don't think it does at all. Ridicule only makes those who are ridiculed angry and defensive. If you really feel change is necessary, you dialogue respectfully with people, you don't ridicule or mock them.

Thank you for conceding that ridicule is indeed a form of criticism. Now there's the matter of the ridicule in the Bible...

Here's what I was getting at:

Criticism:

"the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes."

"the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding."

" the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something."

"a remark or comment that expresses disapproval of someone."

"the activity of making careful judgments about the good and bad qualities of books, movies, etc."

As you can see, "Criticism has a very broad definition, whereas "ridicule" is very specific. You can "criticize" something without ridiculing it. Criticism does not need to involve mockery, taunts or derision.

However, I was speaking about helpful, honest criticism in particular, (as I repeatedly stated) the kind of criticism that seeks to bring about lasting and positive change, also known as "constructive criticism."

Constructive Criticism:

"Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. The purpose of 'constructive criticism is to improve the outcome."

"criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions."

So, while ridicule can potentially fit somewhere in the very broad definition of "criticism", it is NOT helpful or "constructive" criticism, it is mockery and derision, not intended to help, but rather intended to shame or embarrass.

Those people don't seem angry to me. Far from it, they appear to be having fun at the expense of a hateful ideology deserving of ridicule.

If they ARE having "fun", it is at the expense of people, NOT an ideology. Just as Richard Dawkins advocated for and just as the Westboro Baptist church does.

In my opinion, such behaviour is despicable.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't think it does at all. Ridicule only makes those who are ridiculed angry and defensive. If you really feel change is necessary, you dialogue respectfully with people, you don't ridicule or mock them.

Re-read Jesus life, what Jesus did.
He didn't get defensive, ever.
He didn't (and doesn't) respect people (He is no respecter of persons).
He didn't (and doesn't) "dialogue" (in the modern common usage of the word, as if both sides had something to say) with anyone(except perhaps His Father in heaven).
He DID get angry at the religious proud leaders,
He DID pronounce woes(judgments) upon the religious proud leaders, lawyers, and the rich,
He DID mock/ridicule the scribes and pharisees with their own hypocritical beliefs and their own stories.

 

[amariselle]

Re-read Jesus life, what Jesus did.
He didn't get defensive, ever.
He didn't (and doesn't) respect people (He is no respecter of persons).
He didn't (and doesn't) "dialogue" (in the modern common usage of the word, as if both sides had something to say) with anyone(except perhaps His Father in heaven).
He DID get angry at the religious proud leaders,
He DID pronounce woes(judgments) upon the religious proud leaders, lawyers, and the rich,
He DID mock/ridicule the scribes and pharisees with their own hypocritical beliefs and their own stories.

Yes, and Jesus' judgements are the righteous judgements of God. I recognize that I am not God however, I am only a mortal human being, a sinner, saved by His grace and mercy.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus tells us "Judge with Righteous judgment (not by things seen)"
and in Him, "we have the mind of Christ" (instead of carnal, worldly, defiled).

As in Foxes Book of Martyrs (many pure, set apart examples of young and old, men and women) granted discernment of right and wrong, of good and evil,
accomplished through Jesus in us, by the Father's Perfect Plan and Purpose (not our own).

Literally with the goal : "every thought and imagination brought subject to Jesus"
because we are not our own.

 

[amariselle]

Jesus tells us "Judge with Righteous judgment (not by things seen)"
and in Him, "we have the mind of Christ" (instead of carnal, worldly, defiled).

As in Foxes Book of Martyrs (many pure, set apart examples of young and old, men and women) granted discernment of right and wrong, of good and evil,
accomplished through Jesus in us, by the Father's Perfect Plan and Purpose (not our own).

Literally with the goal : "every thought and imagination brought subject to Jesus"
because we are not our own.

I agree. And yet, Jesus did dialogue with people, He met them where they were, He ate with them and spent time with them in their homes. In short, Jesus formed relationships with people, and He desires relationship with us as well.

 

[Dan Bert]

I said there would be many reasons...I just gave one of the many reasons why Jesus had to leave.
dan

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

 

[Dan Bert]

I gave one of the reasons, I will give another....Until Judgment day men are to live by faith not by evidence which would be by knowledge. Thomas after He saw the living Christ walked by knowledge. Though Jesus said it was good that he saw Him resurrected...yet Jesus said blessed are they who believe and have not seen. As for Jesus personally ruling in the flesh do not count on it. He will rule by prophets for it is written the law shall come out from Zion and counsels from Jerusalem. And men will still need faith or they won't see Him. But His Coming at judgment day will be with 10,000 angels and the curtain will be drawn and men will see directly into heaven. At this point Agency or free will does not matter any more. The Prophets say He will suddenly appear in His temple. People have confused some prophecies which were to happen with the end of the millennium to to the second coming.
bert10

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.

 

[devolved]

Until Judgment day men are to live by faith not by evidence which would be by knowledge. Thomas after He saw the living Christ walked by knowledge. Though Jesus said it was good that he saw Him resurrected...yet Jesus said blessed are they who believe and have not seen.

Why would faith be better than knowledge?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't think it does at all. Ridicule only makes those who are ridiculed angry and defensive. If you really feel change is necessary, you dialogue respectfully with people, you don't ridicule or mock them.

I never suggested that ridicule is the only mode of interaction one should pursue with those one disagrees with. I didn't even say that it should be the dominant mode. My position is much simpler: ridicule is a form of criticism that can, under certain conditions, be effective in civil discourse. Ridicule can be offensive, but any form of criticism might be seen as offensive by some. In conversations about religion in particular, I've found that some people are very easily offended, no matter how polite you try to be.

Here's what I was getting at:

Criticism:

"the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes."

"the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding."

" the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something."

"a remark or comment that expresses disapproval of someone."

"the activity of making careful judgments about the good and bad qualities of books, movies, etc."

As you can see, "Criticism has a very broad definition, whereas "ridicule" is very specific. You can "criticize" something without ridiculing it. Criticism does not need to involve mockery, taunts or derision.

I never disagreed on this point. Criticism can take on many forms, and ridicule is one of them. You can criticise without ridiculing, but you cannot ridicule without criticising.

If they ARE having "fun", it is at the expense of people, NOT an ideology. Just as Richard Dawkins advocated for and just as the Westboro Baptist church does.

In my opinion, such behaviour is despicable.

There are instances of ridicule in the Bible, as I've shown you. Jesus derided the Pharisees, calling them "vipers" (Matthew 23:33) and likening them to whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23:27). Was such behaviour "despicable"?

 

[Dan Bert]

Faith is a power not a set of beliefs. A set of belief is a religion. By walking in believing without seeing we increase our faith and trust in God...those are some the reasons why we are born in this fallen world. Again Blessed are they who have believed and have not seen. Faith is powerful and can limit even kill us. Why did the patriarchs died...Hebrews chapter 11 say they were full of faith. Yet the answer is given in one small verse.
Chapter 11 of Hebrews extols the faith of men and women...yet

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, (why?) not having received the promises, (They put a time stamp on their faith) but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
The embraced the promises, even confessed them, and declared that the earth was not their home...Yet the saw the promises afar off....not being immediate. So it is written it will done to everyone according to their faith.
Dan

Why would faith be better than knowledge?

 

[devolved]

Faith is a power not a set of beliefs. A set of belief is a religion.

So... if faith is believing without seeing, how is that any powerful?

It seems like a Jedy mind trick of sorts "you don't beed to see anything and you will believe what I say"

Why would faith be better or more reliable? It simply doesn't seem like it is. For example, you don't just believe any religoius claim out the, right? You haven't really answered this question as to why you make exceptions to everything else if faith is clearly better way to go.