Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You perceiving things as conjecture doesn't make them conjecture...
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.[/b]
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.
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"?
And that is why the better term (the correct term) is "news." Which begs the question - if it's just news that we have to offer, are you interested, or not?Of course not, but conjecture is a third party perception... hence why more evidence than "personal witness" is required. Otherwise we can claim just about anything.
Just look up David Icke. He too claims to have received information from "beyond" which one of you two do I believe and why?
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.
And that is why the better term (the correct term) is "news." Which begs the question - if it's just news that we have to offer, are you interested, or not?
What do you care so much about what I think? lolSilly? 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.
This is the Discussion and Debate section, is it not? Why post here if you don't intend to engage in discussion? Is this the "true dialogue" you mentioned earlier?What do you care so much about what I think? lol
I'm the using "civil discourse" broadly to refer to conversations in which individuals are trying to further understanding about a particular matter or to argue a case. The opinion section of your newspaper is a good example. It's not free of ridicule either.Ridicule, which is mockery, contempt, taunts, etc. is NOT "civil".
Civil: "Courteous and polite."
Synonyms: "well mannered, polite, courteous, genial, pleasant
I disagree. Those who ridicule may want to offend, but that need not be the only goal, or even the main goal. Pointing out the ridiculousness of someone's position through ridicule can also be instructive, as the tweet I linked to earlier shows.Of course people may possibly be offended. Even constructive criticism does not rule out this possibility. The issue here is with intent. Those who ridicule intend to offend, or, at the very least, they don't care if they do offend. Constructive criticism on the other hand, is used by those in the hope that lasting and positive change will come about as a result. Those who use constructive criticism are trying to help and instruct others.
I disagree. Ridicule can be beneficial in ways that merely saying "that's ridiculous" isn't. You alluded to intent, which I agree is important. But you seem to think that the only intent of ridicule is to offend, rather than to make a larger point.As I said, in my opinion, ridicule is not helpful, nor is it "civil." You may be criticizing people or their beliefs, but you're not benefitting anyone.
This is an obvious double-standard. You said that ridicule is "despicable," implying that one should never engage in such behaviour. Yet when shown that Jesus used ridicule, you insist that the subjects of his ridicule were deserving of it. Is the KKK not deserving of ridicule in your view?Jesus is God, as such His judgement is entirely righteous. As God, He knows all things and as such He knows when such things are merited. People do not.
Also, Jesus didn't just go out and call the religious leaders names, He explained why what they were doing merited such judgement.
I'm the using "civil discourse" broadly to refer to conversations in which individuals are trying to further understanding about a particular matter or to argue a case. The opinion section of your newspaper is a good example. It's not free of ridicule either.
I disagree. Those who ridicule may want to offend, but that need not be the only goal, or even the main goal. Pointing out the ridiculousness of someone's position through ridicule can also be instructive, as the tweet I linked to earlier shows.
I disagree. Ridicule can be beneficial in ways that merely saying "that's ridiculous" isn't. You alluded to intent, which I agree is important. But you seem to think that the only intent of ridicule is to offend, rather than to make a larger point.
This is an obvious double-standard. You said that ridicule is "despicable," implying that one should never engage in such behaviour. Yet when shown that Jesus used ridicule, you insist that the subjects of his ridicule were deserving of it. Is the KKK not deserving of ridicule in your view?
He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule. Whether it was justified or not is not germane to the question of whether he was in fact ridiculing them. Indeed he was.There is no "double standard."
Jesus wasn't ridiculing anyone, He was not mocking, making fun of or taunting anyone. As I said He explained why His righteous judgement was merited in the case of the religious leaders, He did not just go out to insult them and call them names.
He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule. Whether it was justified or not is not germane to the question of whether he was in fact ridiculing them. Indeed he was.
Interestingly, you seem to be suggesting that ridicule is permissible if the subjects of the ridicule are deserving of it. In your view, is the KKK a deserving recipient?
Fact is...it's news to you.Scott. News imply new and it implies facts.
You don't disclose any facts, neither your claims are new.
So, what is "news" about it?
As I said, this is a double-standard. When Jesus ridicules, it's not ridicule anymore, according to you. To say that it is would be to admit that Jesus did something you consider "despicable." Yet when others use ridicule, even against those clearly deserving of it, you immediately accuse them of doing something despicable. If it wasn't despicable for Jesus to use ridicule against those who merited it, then why would it be despicable for anyone else?No, I am saying Jesus is God and His judgement is just. His righteous judgement is NOT ridicule or mockery.
I've already addressed your questions regarding the KKK, and I don't need to repeat myself.
As I said, this is a double-standard. When Jesus ridicules, it's not ridicule anymore, according to you. To say that it is would be to admit that Jesus did something you consider "despicable." Yet when others use ridicule, even against those clearly deserving of it, you immediately accuse them of doing something despicable. If it wasn't despicable for Jesus to use ridicule against those who merited it, then why would it be despicable for anyone else?
The people in the photo above didn't just go out and call the KKK names either. Yet their behaviour is "despicable" and Jesus' isn't? This is manifestly a double-standard. I've shown you that Jesus used ridicule. He could have just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees without likening them to vipers or whitewashed tombs, which is what you would have everyone else do. But he didn't. He opted for a metaphor that, in addition to making his point, would actually offend the subjects he was talking about. He used ridicule. Whether his judgment was "righteous and just" is irrelevant. But if you think that it does matter, then I'll submit to you that the judgment of those in the photo was likewise righteous and just. In that case, if we follow your reasoning, it ceases to be ridicule; it ceases to be despicable.Once again, and this is the last time I'll say it, Jesus DID NOT ridicule anyone. He is God, and His judgement is righteous and just. He did NOT just go out and call the religious leaders names.
Now, we can agree to disagree on this also. I am done arguing in circles.
The people in the photo above didn't just go out and call the KKK names either. Yet their behaviour is "despicable" and Jesus' isn't? This is manifestly a double-standard. I've shown you that Jesus used ridicule. He could have just pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees without likening them to vipers or whitewashed tombs, which is what you would have everyone else do. But he didn't. He opted for a metaphor that, in addition to making his point, would actually offend the subjects he was talking about. He used ridicule. Whether his judgment was "righteous and just" is irrelevant. But if you think that it does matter, then I'll submit to you that the judgment of those in the photo was likewise righteous and just. In that case, if we follow your reasoning, it ceases to be ridicule; it ceases to be despicable.
If someone calls you what you are, is that ridicule ?He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule. Whether it was justified or not is not germane to the question of whether he was in fact ridiculing them. Indeed he was.
Interestingly, you seem to be suggesting that ridicule is permissible if the subjects of the ridicule are deserving of it. In your view, is the KKK a deserving recipient?
So the only way for someone to make a judgment that is righteous and just is for them to be a god? That's ridiculous! And it undermines everything you've said thus far. You are not a god either, so how can you judge the behaviour of those engaging in ridicule as "despicable"? How can you say that it is wrong to ridicule, no matter what the circumstances?Those people, and the rest of us as well, are not God. Jesus is God.
Agreeing to disagree on all of this. And now I am truly moving on.
Before you die and are buried,He called them "vipers," and likened them to whitewashed tombs. That is indeed ridicule.
So the only way for someone to make a judgment that is righteous and just is for them to be a god? That's ridiculous! And it undermines everything you've said thus far. You are not a god either, so how can you judge the behaviour of those engaging in ridicule as "despicable"? How can you say that it is wrong to ridicule, no matter what the circumstances?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?