Keith Sutter is referring to the belief system of a narrow band of Christian conservative.
Seems obvious to me, most Christians are “nominal”; thus they couldn't give a tinkers damn about Jerusalem and its collection of Jewish obsessives.

More likely if Christianity is involved at all, it is coincidentally a demography issue of the rust belt disaster of poverty and ignorance. The demise of the working classes and their abandonment by the Democrats.

If we are in end days? Then conservative of all religious persuasion have created the dehumanizing circumstances that have made it thus so! They project moral superiority, without having morals? And deny the handiwork of the creator because it doesn't fit their highly flawed belief system? And give themselves permission to flout god's rules and Jesus evocations at will? Thus we see bombs dropped on women and children and the economy tied, with their help to the fossil fuels, that are responsible for global warming desertification of vast tracts and enduring drought creating a refugee population of over fifty million. All while studiously avoiding the central tenet of the alleged Christian message. Inasmuch as you do to the least among you, you also do unto me. A black Bishop stood up at the most recent royal wedding and made conservative Christian everywhere squirm with obvious discomfort.
Simply by rubbing their noses in the Christian message of love. And (caring) as allegedly espoused by Jesus! Something embraced by alleged Christian conservatives, always providing there's a dollar or forty pieces of silver in it? Trump has left a trail of broken dreams and ruined families a mile wide in his wake, as he accumulated wealth! And the chosen champion of Christian justice!? Halijulia and pass the rifle! Alan B.

Al, your not an X-Catholic by any chance. My experience has taught me, the most virulently ant-Christians come from there.

AlanB

The EPA is being gutted in the US, and so, corporations can pollute the atmosphere and water systems causing health problems for citizens and damage the environment. It is generally poor people who will suffer; and corporations will be able to maximise their profits. Mammon appears to be what conservative Christians appear to worship.

Trump promised to drain the swamp, yet he is doing the opposite.

Just a thought. What do people who presume the ability to speak with authority on 'conservative Christians” think came first - the conservatism or the Christianity? Do conservatism and Christianity even collate. Anglicans and Uniting Church congregations call themselves Christians, but they and their leaders speak as lefties when trying to interfere with day to day life and politics.

And, I'm surprised to see that most Jews “do not vote for conservative Republicans; ( a spot of tautology there) they are far more liberal.

Are we not being told ad nauseum that conservatism/Republicanism is driven by the Jewish lobby by quite who few posters here who, like Keith Suter, think they know everything

Diver, I'm not anti-Christian by any stretch or a flawed imagination! In fact, I and other like-minded, fair-minded folk, probably represent and or live the evocations of the original Christian message. Which never ever includes your brand of hate speech! Or vile, self-evident, homophobia
My father, who only ever saw the inside of a church when he married mum, used to say if you can't do a man a good turn at least don't do him a bad one. And also if you can't say something good? Say nothing! And complemented by the advice, a still tongue makes a wise head! Or, you're a long time dead!

Ant: Hear hear and well said

Good questions, ttbn.

<<What do people who presume the ability to speak with authority on 'conservative Christians” think came first - the conservatism or the Christianity?>>

I think that’s going to be different for every Christian. I’ve known of Christians to abandon the faith because their churches were far too conservative for their liking, but, then, I’ve also seen leftie atheists become conservatives because they “found god”.

As as an aside, no one needs to presume “the ability to speak with authority on conservative Christians”. They are loud enough, and politically powerful enough in the US, for us to all see what they believe and why.

<<Do conservatism and Christianity even collate.>>

That depends on who you ask. Stepping back into my Christian shoes, I would say ‘no’. Certainly not the more extreme, devil-take-the-hindmost style of economic conservatism we see in the US anyway. Jesus was too much of a hippie for that. The origins of the rationale underpinning the seemingly-unChrist-like politics of the Christian Right in the US can be seen in the works of Thomas Robert Malthus.

<<Anglicans and Uniting Church congregations call themselves Christians, but they and their leaders speak as lefties when trying to interfere with day to day life and politics.>>

You mean interfere like the Christian Right does?

Why can’t Christians be lefties? Aside from abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality, the Jesus I once believed in was a raging lefty.

--

This insistence that the world is going to pot never ceases to amuse me.

The data simply does not support such an assertion. By most measures, we are currently living in what are the best times humanity has ever known.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_is_the_world_getting_better_or_worse_a_look_at_the_numbers

This is something that even a partisan hack like Ben Shapiro acknowledges, but you wouldn't think we were living in very good times going by what we're fed in the mainstream media. Especially not with the 24-hour news cycle we're now exposed to.

This inconvenient fact is devastating to conservative Christians, though, who insist on believing that the end times are fast approaching (and have believed so for nearly two thousand years).

No mention of his stance on abortion here. This is an important issue for many Christians. Most of them see his occasional crude remarks as nothing in comparison to killing the unborn

"By most measures, we are currently living in what are the best times humanity has ever known."

There is no question that materially, mankind has never had it so good. I've mentioned here more times than I'd like to recall.

The problem however is more about the future rather than the present and the fact that the vast majority do not understand how we got here, that it wasn't just 'dumb luck', and that the attributes that allowed us (the west) to create the most successful society of all time, are being frittered away.

Historically when a successful society forgets its past and ignores those things that created the success, it is ultimately doomed.

It is the loss of these attributes, free speech, property rights, individual responsibility, Christian values, rule of law and a host of others that great thinkers like Shapiro, Peterson, Steyn and so many others are warning about.

That so many fail to understand how we got here from there and fail to understand how easily it could all be lost, is the reason some think "the world is going to pot" and seek to warn of the dangers and suggest ways to reverse course.

_______________________________________________________________

As to the actual article, the problem for people like Suter is that they never understand that not everyone sees the world as they do. So if Trump is adopting a new path toward a hoped for peace arrangement in the M-E, a path that Suter doesn't accept or (perhaps) even recognise, they assume his aims are suspect. But the old 'solutions' have been shown to be utter failures. So a new approach seems rather sane.

yes Rhys Jones the defunding of the Planned Parenthood butchers is music to any decent human beings ears. What a callous murderous mob championed by Obama and Hillary.

@ttbn very true and I wonder what RUNNER has to say about Christians having too much voting power in the US?

Methinks Suter underestimated the influence of Jewish interests on Trump.

Suter ignores or has forgotten Trump's son-in-law and Senior Presidential Advisor, Jared Kushner, is Jewish [1].

It just so happens "Trump put Kushner in charge of brokering peace in Israeli–Palestinian conflict...[2]

and

"On [May 14, 2018] Kushner acted as the face of the administration at a ceremony celebrating the U.S. Embassy in Israel being moved to Jerusalem – an action that triggered more unrest in the volatile region." [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Kushner

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Kushner#Senior_Advisor_to_the_President

[3] http://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/14/kushner-hails-new-jerusalem-us-embassy-as-palestinians-are-killed.html

//The problem however is more about the future rather than the present//

So basically: everything is fine but unless everybody gets on board with my ideological viewpoints pretty damn quick-smart, then repent ye sinners, for the end is nigh.

Now, where have I heard that before?

' So basically: everything is fine but unless everybody gets on board with my ideological viewpoints pretty damn quick-smart, then repent ye sinners, for the end is nigh.

Now, where have I heard that before?'

the warmist fantasy/religion Toni

Still a bit pissy about the last thread, are we mhaze?

<<There is no question that materially, mankind has never had it so good. I've mentioned here more times than I'd like to recall.>>

Yes, possibly in more ways than you’ve ever mentioned too, depending on what you mean by ‘materially’.

<<The problem however is more about the future rather than the present and the fact that the vast majority do not understand how we got here, that it wasn't just 'dumb luck' …>>

Who says we got where we are by dumb luck? Pinker certainly didn’t say that in the video I linked to. Sounds like you’re punching at shadows there.

<<… and that the attributes that allowed us (the west) to create the most successful society of all time, are being frittered away.>>

Well, if that’s the case, we’re certainly not seeing the fruits of that yet. You sound paranoid.

<<It is the loss of these attributes, free speech, property rights, individual responsibility, Christian values, rule of law and a host of others …>>>

He says, while exercising his free speech to say so. By all means, don’t hesitate to continue by going into specifics there, will you? While I'm sure you could scrounge to together a couple of legitimate concerns in each category (probably not the Christian values one, though, come to think of it) I fail to see how these are under any significant threat. More paranoia, I suspect.

<<… that great thinkers like Shapiro, Peterson, Steyn and so many others are warning about.>>

(“Great thinkers”. I like that.)

Much of their hysteria is overblown. Like Jordan Peterson's concern over Canada’s Bill C-16, which he has since been corrected on.

<<That so many fail to understand how we got here from there and fail to understand how easily it could all be lost, is the reason some think "the world is going to pot" ...>>

Yeah, there’s also the ‘thoughtless pessimism’, which Pinker mentions in the video I linked to. You sound like you're dangerously close to tipping over into that destructive mode of thinking.

runner

I understand you believe Earth was created around 6 thousand years ago.
If you have that belief:

Why do we not see dinosaurs on Earth today, weren't all creatures taken on board the ark?
There are artefacts of several other smaller creatures not seen, why?
How were oil and coal formed?
Pyrites forms under extreme heat, the heat required doesn't allow for organisms to live, what is your explanation?

You suggest climate change science is a religion, but, where are the god/gods or spirit beings?
There is objective evidence that CO2 and methane can take up and hold warmth

What an excellent example of the irrelevance of religion to behaviour.
The article pitches Christian against Jewish gods without even considering that gods are purely the inventions of man. This article could well have been written with the words Christian" and Jewish" supplanted by Muslim and Hindu and carried just as much credibility.

Ant: The bible says, apparently? Do not cast your pearls (wisdom) before swine. Yet you keep casting them in runner's direction. Who treats absolutely everything not inside his personal bubble, no matter how objective, sound or proven beyond question as this or that fantasy.
His flecked with foam and froth abusive replies. Demonstrate beyond question. A person clinically incapable of following the master's evocations, but makes it up as he, like all antichristian conservatives, goes along. Which is usually another hate-filled rant and against every evocation of the Christ he claims to believe in? You can waste your valuable time? But why bother?
This person has no Christian philosophy as taught by the master! Alan B.

runner's all right.

A minority sticking by his principles.

Meanwhile exit polls for the Irish Abortion referendum being counted right now

predicts Landslide for Yes to legalising abortion in Ireland.

see http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/may/26/irish-abortion-referendum-result-count-begins-live

at 6.17pm May 26, 2018, Sydney time.

A few things to correct from the article.

One is that the only reason suggested for Christians to support Israel and Jerusalem is for end time prophesy. That's just not true. Among other reasons are that God chose Israel as His people and gave them certian blessings and promises with that. One of those blessings was that God would bless those who blessed Israel, and curse those who would curse Israel. A second reason could be by Christian heritage being from Jewish roots, and therefore hold support Israeli people on that account. A third reason fould just be the simple idea that Jewish descents are still God's chosen people and to support Israel for no other needed reason then to support God's chosen people.

I'm sure there are other reasons from political and world politics perspectives to support Israel. For now though, just figured pointing out the obvious of why Christians might actually support Israel instead of it being about God's plans with prophesy and end times stuff.

(Continued)

(Continued)

The second thing to correct is the reasons to support Trump are shown to be shallow one or two points on having a Christian base of supporters. The divisiveness of the US around Trump still exists as it did when he was first elected. The reasons to support Trump haven't gone away just because they were never acknowledged or they were ignored. And His actions to work on fulfilling his promises is a step of fresh air in my opinion. Most politicians it seems, try to say they support one thing or another but make no real moves to act on that support outside of lip service saying they are for this or against that. On this aspect alone those that supported Trump earlier have stronger support for him, and some that didn't support him in the beginning are turning to like him because his actions are in the people's favor.

Of the reasons to not support Trump those reasons are still there too, but they seem much weaker now that he seems to act on policies to fulfill the promises he gave earlier. Not weak enough to ignore completely, so his presidency is still a divided issue in the US.

Just thought some light shed on the topic would be useful for both the author of the article and the comments that followed as well.

God's chosen people is based on a legend or fantasy of the great exodus. And the thundering evocations of Moses. And believed chapter and verse by alleged Christians everywhere, even as archaeological digs are turning up compelling evidence of a very different story.
One which sees no exodus but rather, a local revolt by Jewish slaves against Jewish masters. And given this is the most probable o literal case. complete exposes the evocations of Moses as a complete fabrication by him or those who followed of putting words in his mouth?
As modern day Christian do and have done, pertaining to the words and teaching of the Rabbi Jesus. Rabbi being Hebrew for the teacher.
So, if the exodus was a fabrication so also was the climb up Mount Sinia by the alleged leader of an alleged exodus along with the alleged 14 commandments (yes 14) carved in stone by the physical hand of God! And for a population who were 99.9% illiterate sheepherders and or artisans!
If this is where the fabrication and fantasy starts or begins in Judao-Christianity? Where does it end? With sword-wielding Popes a the head of murdering hordes trying to impose a completely fabricated fantasy on equally ignorant illiterate populations because they can't be wrong!?
And by definition, a cult in every sense of the word. With an invented belief system that has no foundation in fact or the mighty irrefutable truth! Run with that runner!
Alan B.

@ runner

What did your missionary reckon about ABC News 27 May 2018 reporting http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-27/ireland-what-happens-next-after-abortion-vote/9804806

"With Ireland voting overwhelming to repeal the ban on abortion, the question now turns to what will happen next?

...Despite predictions of a close-run result on the divisive issue, the yes vote managed 66.4 per cent of the vote compared to 33.6 per cent voting no — a majority of 706,349...more than 2-1 in favour.

...[Irish] Health minister Simon Harris, also a yes backer, said he hoped to introduce the legislation in [September-October 2018]

...The proposed legislation that will be introduced by the Government will allow abortions within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy..."

Many of the following countries (like East Timor/Timor Leste) even ban abortion in cases where a woman or young girl suffers rape and incest http://www.pewresearch.org/interactives/global-abortion/

Ant,
There are evangelical Christians who indeed believe dinosaurs were on the ark, were domesticated, vegetarian and were even battled by gladiators in the arena.

To believe that the fully-formed universe popped into existence in an instant means that all the plants and animals suddenly appeared in all stages of life (and death) and that light from distant celestial objects was created in place already billions of miles across space. Furthermore, plant life survived despite being completely underwater for at least 40 days and somehow penguins and kangaroos managed to find their way to the south pole and Australia all the way from Mt Ararat yet left no evidence whatsoever.

You can't argue with people who think like that because it requires they possess an ability for rational and independent thought.

As for the evangelical support of Israel, their real motive is that the returned Jesus will destroy the Jews for them anyway but are happy to use them to bring on their wished-for apocalypse.

To Alan B.

God's chosen people is within the bible. Whether you like it or not, Christians believe in the bible. So it should be no suprise when Christians support their Jewish communities, or support Israel. What should be a suprise (in my opinion), is when Jewish people are not welcomed and supported by Christians. This occurs in history several times, and in my opinion is due to Christianity drawing away from God and the bible and instead gets more influence frin politic or theology based on outside sources then the bible. (It's ok to learn from outside sources, but not for those sources to influence theology and religous understanding).

To Rache.

Out of curiosity. How many evangelical Christians do you know, that your slander would count as anything but the truth? If the answe is that you know no Christians that told you this "truth" then it isn't true. Simple as that.

//If the answe is that you know no Christians that told you this "truth" then it isn't true. Simple as that.//

Now, who to believe: these well researched reports by professional journalists, NNS? Gosh, that's a tough one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo77sTGpngQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUnWNis6oro

This has been said many times before, by many different people, but it bears repeating on this occasion: evangelicals are f%#kin' nuts.

To TL. You said , "Now, who to believe: these well researched reports by professional journalists, NNS? Gosh, that's a tough one."

Let's nip this comment in the bud before it explodes into something that was never meant.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754&page=4

On page 4 on this conversation 5th comment down. Rache said:

"As for the evangelical support of Israel, their real motive is that the returned Jesus will destroy the Jews for them anyway but are happy to use them to bring on their wished-for apocalypse."

The next comment down, my reply went as follows.

"Out of curiosity. How many evangelical Christians do you know, that your slander would count as anything but the truth? If the answe is that you know no Christians that told you this "truth" then it isn't true. Simple as that."

Now onto your comment TL. What part of those you tube videos were on what Evangelical Christians motives? I still stand by what I've said. If no Christian told you this truth (concerning their own motivations), then there's simply no reason to count this as true. Honestly no expert or nor journalist can know my motivation (or anyone else's) unless they've been told it.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’ve known and encountered more Christians than I could ever possibly count (both as a theist and as an atheist) and, in my experience, what rache has said is correct. This is in Australia, too. Such crazy beliefs are bound to be far more prevalent in the US, where 48% of people reject evolution and 74% believe that angels walk amongst them.

If there is any inaccuracy to what rache has said, it’s that some evangelicals don’t pay enough attention to the logical conclusions of their literalist beliefs to get to the point of actually professing to believe such crazy things. I, for example, never got to the point of believing that carnivores were fed vegetarian diets on the ark, because I realised that the story was nonsense long before ever having to rationalise such details. But so-called creation “scientists” do believe this is a valid explanation:

“Many carnivores, including lions and tigers, can readily manage on a vegetarian diet, and this may have happened on the Ark.” (http://creation.com/feeding-carnivores-on-the-ark-and-refuting-an-accusation-of-closet-scientism)

What rache says about evangelical support for Israel is correct, too. They reflect my past Christian beliefs concerning Israel and the Jews, I just never thought of it in those terms. Many evangelicals freely admit that they will see the silver-lining to a mushroom cloud, and although most would never voice such an opinion, the logical conclusion is that Jews are all going to hell anyway because they reject Christ (John 14:6).

<<If the answe is that you know no Christians that told you this "truth" then it isn't true.>>

Whether or not what rache said was true is independent of whether she has had someone tell her this.

It sounds like you need to get out a bit more in the Christian community. Perhaps you belong to a very progressive church? I attended a very moderate and traditional Lutheran church and the beliefs rache cited were fairly standard within my congregation. Attend any megachurch, like Hillsong here in Australia, and you will find even more adherence to such beliefs.

"Still a bit pissy about the last thread, are we mhaze?"

No not at all. I'll admit it gets a bit tedious having to educate some others as to our history but I see it as my small part in raising the level of understanding of those who've failed to recognise the accomplishments of western civilisation.

"Who says we got where we are by dumb luck?"

Oh I'm pretty sure someone used that phraseology at some point in the recent past.

"we’re certainly not seeing the fruits of that yet."

No. You're not seeing it. But its there in plain view for those that don't have an agenda.

"He says, while exercising his free speech to say so. "

Yes because I was clearly saying that free speech was already gone </sarc>. Oh dear.

"thoughtless pessimism"

Pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist.

Just for clarity, western civilisation has been the most economically and materially beneficial civilisation of all time while also providing unsurpassed and unprecedented liberty for those in its embrace. Its passing will be a disaster for humankind with all known replacement candidates being immeasurably worse. That disaster probably won't happen in your or my lifetimes but I fret for my grandkids.

//What part of those you tube videos were on what Evangelical Christians motives?//

For the first one: approx. 00:50-10:ish
For the second: approx. 3:30-9:20

// If no Christian told you this truth (concerning their own motivations), then there's simply no reason to count this as true.//

Are you kidding me? I've linked to direct video evidence of evangelists expressing these beliefs, but because they were talking to an interviewer, a crowd or a camera, rather than talking to rache or I, 'there's simply no reason to count [their beliefs] as true'? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

You've never really got a proper grasp on the whole empiricism thing, have you?

Please feel free to continue claiming that evangelicals don't really hold these beliefs because they haven't personally divulged them to rache or myself, even though we can all see quite clearly that they definitely do. For one thing, it's amusing... actually, that's quite sufficient reason alone.

You haven’t attempted to educated me on anything, mhaze.

<<I'll admit it gets a bit tedious having to educate some others as to our history…>>

All you’ve done to support your right-wing take on history so far, is to fallaciously appeal to ignorance, and assume the extend to which correlation implies causation, without controlling for any other factors.

<<…but I see it as my small part in raising the level of understanding of those who've failed to recognise the accomplishments of western civilisation.>>

Who here has failed to recognise the accomplishments of western civilisation? It certainly wasn’t Stephen Pinker in the video I linked to!

<<Oh I'm pretty sure someone used that phraseology at some point in the recent past.>>

For you to insert a term I’ve recently used into a claim I’ve never made, in order to attached that claim to me, is the height of dishonesty.

<<No. You're not seeing it. But [the fruits of allowing the attributes, which created the most successful society in history, to be frittered away are] there in plain view...>>

And yet you still don’t go into specifics.

I’m aware of the current SJW hysteria at the moment, if that’s what you’re referring to. I subscribe-to/follow your “great thinkers” (and several other conservatives) on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook because they still make some good points occasionally and because it’s too easy in today’s social-media society to lock oneself in an echo chamber. My favourite is Douglas Murray. I agree with him more often than not.

<<Yes because I was clearly saying that free speech was already gone…>>

Lighten up, Mr. Pissy.

<<Pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist.>>

There is a fine line between realism and pessimism.

<<[Western civilisation’s] passing will be a disaster for humankind with all known replacement candidates being immeasurably worse.>>

You’ve got no argument from me there.

<<That disaster probably won't happen in your or my lifetimes but I fret for my grandkids.>>

I remain vigilant, but I’m far from fretting. Sounds like you need to step out of that right-wing echo-chamber of yours from time to time.

//But its there in plain view for those that don't have an agenda.//

Yes, of course. This enlightened prophet can see clearer than us mere mortals because he is unburdened by an agenda. If anybody can't perceive the same problems he does, why, it must be their fault - if only they didn't have an agenda, they'd be able to see it too. Seems awfully convenient.

I can't help but be reminded of the 'tailors' in 'The Emperor's New Clothes' telling everyone that if they couldn't see the 'clothes', it must be their problem. And of course, there was never anything to see in the first place.

//Its passing will be a disaster for humankind//

Where do you imagine it is going to go? Dissapearing in a puff of consumerist decadence? Falling victim to socialist revolution and reverting to agrarian collectivism? Skynet going online and hunting us all down with Terminators?

I can't see Western civilisation going anywhere fast, unless we fall victim to some massive natural disaster (big meteorite, super-volcanic eruption, gamma-ray burst, unlikely stuff like that) in which case pretty much everybody is f%&ked. But other than something drastic like that, or some retard pressing the big red button, I reckon Western civilisation will probably be all right. It will change and develop, as it has been doing for the last few thousand years (I understand the thought of things changing is deeply concerning to Tories, but I'm not sure there's much you can do to prevent it). But I can't see it disappearing any time soon.

Well, until that meteor hits us, that is.

well the reasons for Christians supporting Israel are somewhat plain. The reasons for such hatred by the god deniers are not quite as simple. The same mob claim they are in favour of homosexuality, freedom of speach, freedom of religion and yet they defend Hamas and other terrorist groups. Their hatred certainly wins the hypocrisy medal. Really it is Truth Personified that they hate so much. And on earth here He was a Jew.

Not_Now.Soon

I actually know several Christians and even lived with a couple of born-again Baptists for a while and they insist that according to the New Testament, only Christians will be raptured and survive the Apocalypse.
Then again all religions have their own versions of eschatology - especially the Christians who disagree on many things.

You can always buy some survival buckets of food from end-times profiteer Pastor Jim Bakker, and he's really raking in the dollars from the gullible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al4Qr9MlDWo

As for the Jews being God's chosen people, it's convenient that that notion plus their real estate claim comes from the book they wrote in the first place and was filled with archaelogical fallacies and proven untruths. Funny that.

Dinosaurs? Here's an overview of a (failing) theme park by an expatriat Australian cashing in on common delusional beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Encounter

To see how crazy and politically influential Evangelicals are you only need to look at Trump's power base at http://www.rightwingwatch.org/ each day - even for just a few laughs.

For an example of their self-professed compassion, here's the result of a survey that shows them to be the least likely to be supportive of refugees and most forgiving of immorality by public officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/24/the-group-least-likely-to-think-the-u-s-has-a-responsibility-to-accept-refugees-evangelicals/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.433b6cd2c00e

So much for their self-righteousness and another example of religious hypocrisy.

"And yet you still don’t go into specifics."

In a previous thread you demanded that I go into specifics which I eventually did in a series of long posts. Thereupon you announced that you really weren't interested in discussing the issue any longer, which I took to mean that you had no way to refute my points. Same here. What you want is a list of details which you will parse in the hope of finding something to misinterpret and fake refute.

No thanks.
___________________________________________________

"This enlightened prophet can see clearer than us mere mortals"

Well no. There are many who can see it and if there are many then they aren't really enlightened, n'est pas?

"'The Emperor's New Clothes"

But the point was that everyone could see there were no clothes but were too scared to say it for fear of being ridiculed. There's a lot of that around today with people muzzled for fear of being called racist, Islamophobic, transphobic etc etc etc. And not just fear of ridicule but fear of the weight of state power descending on their unwelcome views.

"I can't see Western civilisation going anywhere fast"

Hemingway, when asked about how one goes bankrupt, once replied slowly then quickly.
The decline of civilisations is like that. The fall of the Roman Republic took over a century but when it came it came quickly. Athens likewise.

There are two ways western civilisation will pass into history (if it does). A cataclysmic defeat in battle where its ability to defend itself is forever lost. Many civilisations go that way, from Pharaonic Egypt to the Aztecs. Alternatively it can be a slow decline where no one can quite put their finger on when it disappeared.

/cont

/cont

My own guess is that the west, having lost its vitality by losing the core foundation of the civilisation will simply slip into irrelevance. And all those things that the west offered the world will be circumvented by the next hegemon, to the detriment of progress and liberty. Many of the structures of the civilisation will remain but will be merely paid lip service. There will still be an England that professes to respect freedom of speech, but it will be a pale imitatin of the once vital nation. The US also where the efforts of the deep state to circumvent democracy will eventually succeed. Long after the Roman Republic ceased to exist in any meaningful sense, there was still a Senate and still tribunes of the people who still had theoretic power. But it was a mirage. The west's foundations are increasingly becoming a mirage.

AJP mentioned Murray. I've just read his book "The Strange Death of Europe". (Elsewhere he's called it a suicide. He describes a slow and painful passing of a once great civilisation.

The end is not yet set in concrete but all the ingredients are in place.

I have never once demanded anything from anyone on OLO, mhaze.

<<In a previous thread you demanded that I go into specifics …>>

Nice touch there with the dramatic wording, though. It really paints me in a negative light.

This isn’t the first time you’ve pulled this kind of trick though, is it? There was that time (two times, actually) where, just to make me look pathetic, you tried to write off a link I provided you with as a mere advertisement when it was in fact a listing of my source on an online bookstore.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7734#238213
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#243964

Anyway, here was my dreadful “demand”:

“Could you specify to which Christian values you refer, and how exactly they were necessary?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252021)

<<…which I eventually did in a series of long posts.>>

Yeah, all two of them.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252109
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252110

They were mostly just fallacious appeals to ignorance, and dubious assertions that Christianity was necessary. The two good points you had were neither new to me, nor did they tell the whole story, so I moved on. What did you expect from me?

<<Thereupon you announced that you really weren't interested in discussing the issue any longer…>>

(Doesn’t really have the same effect after I’ve shown that no demands were made, does it?)

No, that was long after we’d moved on:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252806

<<…which I took to mean that you had no way to refute my points.>>

And which I have since demonstrated that you were wrong about.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19729#349416
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252806

<<What you want is a list of details which you will parse in the hope of finding something to misinterpret and fake refute.>>

You mean, like all those other times I didn’t do that? You don’t exactly have many examples of such behaviour to go by now, do you mhaze?

In fact, you don’t have any.

Try pointing to one instance of me deliberately misinterpreting you or “fake-refuting” something you've said (whatever that means)?

To TL.

The first video spoke of Christian support of Israel to be summed up by a tour of Israel by a pastor. As part of the tour the pastor definitely placed his interpretation and understanding of the end times. However, also in the video is that the American Christian voting block is the largest voting block with pro support towards Israel. It might be worth mentioning that there's a few different theories concerning the end times, as well as (also in the video) that Christians just believe Israel has the right to exist. It is not the main motivation for Christian support that Armageddon will occur there. Look at my first 2 posts on this topic to see other motivations for Christian support of Israel.

Both videos mention briefly (first video) or extensively (second video) about the two state peace plan, but over and over throughout the years we've seen this peace plan be tried and tried again, and retried with possibly different wording and political pushes for support. The reality is that this peace plan just isn't working. I use to think of the Palestinians as victims of this process until I saw them on the news again with repeated terrorist activities. Now I see that Palestinian leadership in invested not in peace but in wiping out Israel. If people want to look at the prophesied war scenarios said of the bible for Armageddon, you don't have to go far to see it. It's already building in aggression within Israel by the PLO, and outside of Israel by aggressive neighboring nations that have already tried to wipe Israel off the map in the 6 day war in Israel.

(Continued)

Throughout history though Jewish communities around the world have suffered oppression. Why would we not support for them to have a home of their own? In today's current events there have been masses of refugees fleeing Islamic civil wars, that have been welcomed in other countries. Especially from Syria's civil war right now. Why couldn't there be the same response to Palestinians who refuse to be integrated into the state of Israel? Instead, the world watches on in full support of an ongoing civil war skirmishes between Israel and Palestine. No two state peace is working. It's time to start supporting Israel instead of terrorists leading Palestine.

There you have it at least one more motivation to support Israel without it being about Armageddon.

To AJ Philips and Rache.

Armageddon is an event backed by prophesy in the scriptures of the bible. However, there's a huge difference between acknowledging that event to happen in the future (as well as agreeing on the details of that event), verses supporting Israel with the main motivation being that they are trying to bring Israel's demise through prophetic events. AJ Philips, you mentioned Christians trying to look at the silver lining of that event, right? That sound more like trying to come to terms with the event, then to me the main motivation for supporting Israel. However that said you talked to those Christians not me. If the context that you suggest is correct then all I can say is that it's possible that the Christians you've dealt with are very different from the ones I've encountered.

I'd like to think I've been fairly exposed to Christianity in the US, and know several of the points and counter points of many issues within Christian communities. And since this conversation started with regards to conservative Christians I might be in a somewhat knowledgeable position to speak from. Sorry to take away from both of your guys expertise with Christians, but honestly it seems ironic to me that 2 non Christians are trying to educate a Christian on why Christians support Israel. Honestly, just consider what I've said. For a moment don't focus on that I'm correcting you both on Christian motivation. But just look at what I said and consider it. Do you really think the main motivation for supporting Israel is that it fits with a time table for Armageddon? I have serious doubts on that conclusion and think that other motivations I mentioned are the main elements why Christians support Israel. (Or at least Christian from my neck of the woods, outside of Australia.).

Indeed there is, Not_Now.Soon.

<<…there's a huge difference between acknowledging that event to happen in the future … verses supporting Israel with the main motivation being that they are trying to bring Israel's demise through prophetic events.>>

For many Christians, however, the two are inextricably linked.

<<…you mentioned Christians trying to look at the silver lining of that event, right?>>

Not “trying to look”, I just said they’d see it.

<<That sound more like trying to come to terms with the event, then to me the main motivation for supporting Israel.>>

Well, that was my terminology, and if that’s what you draw from it, then perhaps it wasn’t the most ideal. I more meant that a part of them would be excited by it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2Dzt_Tp5VE&feature=youtu.be&t=265

I rarely ever speak of the dangers of Christianity without mentioning the insidiousness of its dangers (as opposed to Islam, where the dangers are much more immediate and obvious), but this is one area in which doing so is not necessary. Hoping for Armageddon one of the areas in which the danger of Christianity is obvious.

<<However that said you talked to those Christians not me.>>

Yes, I don't think I implied that you must therefore necessarily believe the same. I’m aware that there are differing levels of the belief in, and wishing for, Armageddon.

<<…the Christians you've dealt with are very different from the ones I've encountered.>>

If, for the Christians you’ve encountered, the end times do not factor into their support for Israel one iota, then, yes, they’re very different. However, I doubt this is the case for most of them. I didn’t mean to suggest that Armageddon is necessarily the main or only reason driving Christian support for Israel. The fact that it factors in at all for (in my experience) most Christians is bad enough.

<<…it seems ironic to me that 2 non Christians are trying to educate a Christian on why Christians support Israel.>>

Just because someone is no longer a Christian, that doesn’t mean they forget everything they learned and experienced as a Christian.

To AJ Philips.

For many Christians (myself included), the understanding of Armageddon isn't about Israel's demise. It is part of a tragic event or sets of events that the world goes through. Israel in that context is part of the prophesy because in order for Israel to be attacked as described in Revelations (where God will save them), in order for that to happen, Israel first needs to be it's own nation. With this in mind Israel is now a nation. There seems to be a few other parts in that prophesy, but personally I had to look up scripture supporting Israel being slaughtered as Rache described.

The looking forwards to these events is not so much about the tragic events themselves, but about afterwards. Where Jesus will be back, the world renewed, and sin and suffering removed from Earth. Paradise on earth with no more death.

[Yes, I don't think I implied that you must therefore necessarily believe the same.]

You might not have meant to imply this, but you agreed with Rache on his argument, saying

"I’ve known and encountered more Christians than I could ever possibly count (both as a theist and as an atheist) and, in my experience, what rache has said is correct."

What Rache said:

"As for the evangelical support of Israel, their real motive is that the returned Jesus will destroy the Jews for them anyway but are happy to use them to bring on their wished-for apocalypse."

AJ Philips, do you really believe this to be the case? If so then it reads as if yes you think I would believe the same. It's the real reason after all. I don't know of any Christians that hate Jews, so this is plainly not the case.

(Continued)

Perhaps not, Not_Now.Soon.

<<For many Christians (myself included), the understanding of Armageddon isn't about Israel's demise.>>

But, as even you go on to say, one part of it does entail the establishing of a Jewish state, and its continuance (hence the evangelical support for Israel). That’s all I was getting at.

<<The looking forwards to these events is not so much about the tragic events themselves, but about afterwards.>>

Yes, but at some point there is no difference. Armageddon still has to happen first.

<<You might not have meant to imply this, but you agreed with Rache…>>

Okay, so I wouldn’t necessarily say EVERY evangelical (although, from memory, and in my experience, it has been), and I wouldn’t say, “…destroy the Jews for [Christians]…”.

While the Jews will be sent to Hell for rejecting Jesus (at least those who are no longer alive on Judgement Day), I've never believed that Jesus sending them there on the behalf of Christians was a part of the theology, and nor do I think that most Christians want this either. On the contrary, the love Christians have for the Jewish (at least after the horrors of WWII were revealed and a change of heart occurred, anyway) borders on downright creepy. It’s quite comical, too, given how unwanted the love is.

I hope that clears things up there. I look forward to your continuation prevented by the posting limits.

//The end is not yet set in concrete but all the ingredients are in place.//

Ah well, mhaze. What can I say but 'cheer up, sadsack, it might never happen'?

Frankly I'd have preferred riskier, more concrete predictions and less of the vague waffly sort made by astrologers and their ilk.

Risky predictions of doom, gloom, and the End Times are more fun because it's clear and obvious when they fail to eventuate... as they always do. When that clock ticks over to 01/01/2000, planes will rain from the sky and we will enter a new dark age. When the Mayan long count calendar marks the beginning of a new cycle, that's it, game over folks. That sort of thing... a good healthy form of amusement that I'm sure both left and right can enjoy together.

Vague and waffly predictions aren't as much fun. When some miserable pessimist claims that the rate at which CO2 concentrations are rising might be a problem, or not, but shouldn't we be cautious just in case? What can you do but point out his pessimism? He hasn't stuck his neck out like some port-blockading feral to claim that burning coal will lead to complete extinction of the three-fingered tree bilby by next Tuesday, just expressed some concern that bad things might happen.

Same deal with pessimists claiming that the rate at which Aussies ticking the 'no religion' or 'other (in this case, other than Christianity)' box are rising might be a problem, or not, but shouldn't we be cautious just in case? Again, they haven't stuck their neck out like some like some bible-bashing evangelist to claim that abandoning Jeebus will lead to the world being overturned and perishing in fire and water - just vaguely hinted that bad things might happen.

Not much you can do in those cases, I reckon. I figure everybody's pessimistic about something, and that it's normal and healthy.

When I'm feeling down, I often find something that cheers me up is a nice cheery Sousa march, followed by a good old-fashioned sing-along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOCxegQupMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrdEMERq8MA

//about the two state peace plan... over and over throughout the years we've seen this peace plan be tried and tried again, and retried with possibly different wording and political pushes for support. The reality is that this peace plan just isn't working...//

Dammnit, I swore to myself that I wasn't going to be drawn in by the politics, because it's not my business, but I just can't let that one go.

I'm of Irish stock. I grew up in Australia, of course, far removed from the 'Troubles'. But I've studied them, because history matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLY0HNds_tE

People said that peace plan would never work. And bear in mind that the IRA weren't none of your little Palestinian pussies, shooting pebbles from their slingshots whilst Our Brave Israeli Heroes snipe at them. The Irish know how to raise hell, whether it be in name of terrorism or just the craic. It's not hard to find information about the Troubles online, so I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

And then they realised there was a better way, and sat down and talked through their differences.

And I think that's quite enough politics for now, don't you?

//Throughout history though Jewish communities around the world have suffered oppression.//

Yes, much of it at the hands of Christians.

And some it at the hands of Americans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo

Maybe they do things differently in Arizona ;)

//Why would we not support for them to have a home of their own? In today's current events there have been masses of refugees fleeing Islamic civil wars, that have been welcomed in other countries. Especially from Syria's civil war right now. Why couldn't there be the same response to Palestinians who refuse to be integrated into the state of Israel?//

Jesus, seriously... are you that ignorant of history?

OK, time for a quick recap:

The hard-working, long-suffering Jews fall victim to the worst pogrom they've ever faced: the Shoah. Appalling. Disgusting.

NEVER. EVER. AGAIN.

Squeezed out of Europe by the horrors of the Shoah, nowhere to go, the League of Nations decide that after all that suffering the poor bastards need somewhere nice to go.

Australia being the obvious choice: nice weather, nice beaches, plenty of room... we could have absorbed most of those Jewish refugees, and I reckon it would have been to our benefit.

Australia always gets overlooked :(

Anyway, the point is that the Jews were made refugees by the Nazis, and you seem to be in favour of the Palestinians being made refugees by the Israelis, and I can't help but wonder whom the Palestinians are meant to displace? I mean, I hate to use the term 'domino effect'... but where is this madness supposed to end?

//Instead, the world watches on in full support of an ongoing civil war skirmishes between Israel and Palestine.//

In full support of further unnecessary bloodshed? Speak for yourself, Joffrey. Many houses do not stand with you, and House Ravenclaw always remember.

You're a spherical bastard, NNS: no matter which angle one views you from, you're still a bastard.

//However, there's a huge difference between acknowledging that event to happen in the future (as well as agreeing on the details of that event)//

Hold on, that sounds like you're suggesting that there are different ways to interpret the prophecies laid down in the Scriptures... I thought that you believed that the Scriptures could only ever be interpreted in one literal, direct manner.

Well, now I am flummoxed.

"This is how the West dies: with a tut-tut, not with a bang. "

http://www.dailywire.com/news/31243/suicide-europe-ben-shapiro

It might seem all very well Toni, to discover a few old 'predictions' that failed to materialise and then assert that all 'predictions' are similarly fated, but that doesn't cut it. I could easily find similar 'predictions' that were spectacularly accurate eg Churchill on Hitler, Hayek on communism. But all that does is give some signposts as to where we are headed. It doesn't tell us the destination.

That the west will decline into irrelevance is more of a when than an if issue. But defending and strengthening the foundations of western civilisation against its external enemies and internal unthinking foes will extend the 'when' into the distance, and that's about all we can try to do for now. It will be up to our descendants to see how far into the future that extension can go just as it was up to the descendants of the west's founders to build on and consolidate their legacy. If fear we are failing in that mission because we've forgotten what that legacy is.

(Continued from before). (Sorry about that dely).

In my experience both my own understanding and my experience with other Christians is that Jesus will come back to ....(not in any order)

1) save Israel, 2) possibly a rapture at some point, 3) or instead of a rapture call people up to Him which would be like a welcome party for when He returns, 4) judge the church throughout the nations/ judge the world as a whole, or judge the world after claiming the Christians that are His followers, and His own. 5) fight the armies collected against God, 6) remove sin and death, and bring in a new world and a new great city to be the new Jerusalem.

The closest accurate point to what you guys are trying to present is that supporting Israel is an excitement that God will finally fix this broken world. But it is not nearly the only reason or even close to being the only reason. Largely from what I've seen, those that support Israel, support it because they are God's chosen people, or something along those lines. Support Israel because God supports them kind of thing.

Honestly on the points of Christian support for Israel, your just wrong. There's no other way around it.

That was written before your reply AJ Philips. It sounds like your stance is softening away from "Christians are waiting for Jesus to return distroy all the Jews," which is largely what I was replying to. If your point still is that armogodden is the reason that Christians support Israel, then I will disagree once again. Except all my reasons are already laid out and still just as valid as before. I see no reason to repete them for the show of this circus.

TL, you realize that you identified yourself and Isrishmen with roundly Palestinians. The issue I have is that the palestinians are ok with sucide bombers. The PLO even pays the families of these kinds of terrorists. If you identify with that kind of terrorist then you lose all kinds of credibility. Sorry that's worthy of kicking out of a country and calling them refugees. If you need to take a side because the 2 state peace isn't working, don't side with the terrorists. It's that simple really.

Not_Now.Soon,

You’re still getting hung up on this idea that I have suggested that Armageddon is the main or only reason for Christian support of Israel.

<<…it is not nearly the only reason or even close to being the only reason.>>

I posted the following clarification even before my further clarification yesterday:

“I didn’t mean to suggest that Armageddon is necessarily the main or only reason driving Christian support for Israel. The fact that it factors in at all for (in my experience) most Christians is bad enough.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754#349747)

<<…those that support Israel, support it because they are God's chosen people, or something along those lines.>>

Sure, but bringing on the end times is still a factor to some degree or another. That was my only point there. The fact that there are other reasons as to why Christians support Israel is immaterial.

<<It sounds like your stance is softening away from "Christians are waiting for Jesus to return distroy all the Jews,"...>>

My position hasn’t softened. I just didn’t scrutinise rache’s every word as thoroughly as you did. I still stand by this, however:

“…and although most would never voice such an opinion, the logical conclusion is that Jews are all going to hell anyway because they reject Christ (John 14:6).”

Hitler will have nothing on Jesus once He has condemned those who do not accept Him, or died before they got the chance to.

That may not sound pleasant, but, technically, and according to Protestant theology, this is the case. Jesus will be sending the Jews (along with every other non-believer) to a place that will make Auschwitz look like summer camp.

But at least in Auschwitz you could die.

That doesn't mean that evangelicals want this, of course. But it is still a consequence of what they're eagerly awaiting.

<<If your point still is that armogodden is the reason that Christians support Israel, then I will disagree once again.>>

It's at least one of the reasons. You’ve effectively acknowledged this.

To AJ. My replies on this topic are not just meant for you. But the idea for why Christians support Israel is probabley something worth noting coming from an actual Christian. And to the respect of false accusations, before they become a new line to throw at Christians, or a new misconception spread to non Christians about Christianity, I thought it was worth nipping it in the bud so to speak and correct this new idea of Christians.

You can defend what Rache has said, but in order to do so you need to weaken the argument to be something else completely. Instead of making Christians some anti Semitic hate group (that for convoluted reasons support the people they hate), you know better then justify that kind of lie. And since it is a lie it was worth pointing it out.

As for me, I really do expect Jesus to save Israel. I expect them to call on God or call on Jesus when they are at the brink of dispair. And then that's when Jesus will save them. I have no reason to think they will be unsaved and unbelieving at that point. So there's no reason to think any Christian is wishing Jewish people to hell because they aren't Christian yet.

You don't need to misrepresent Christianity to further your views against it. For crying out loud you say you were one once so you should be all the more aware when what you say isn't true.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’ve never been interested in defending what rache had said beyond what I initially interpreted her to be saying. She can do that if she feels it necessary. I suspect she was just a little sloppy with her wording, but that’s for her to clarify.

<<You can defend what Rache has said, but in order to do so you need to weaken the argument to be something else completely.>>

My position has remained consistent: firstly, that the establishing of the state of Israel, and her continuance, is a reason that evangelicals support her; and, secondly, that there is an irony to this given that the Jews will be sent to Hell anyway for not accepting Christ (at least those who don’t repent on Judgement Day and those who died before they could).

<<Instead of making Christians some anti Semitic hate group…>>

I’m haven’t done that.

It’s worth pointing out, however, that some Christians are still anti-Semitic (Mel Gibson is a famous example). Are you aware that antisemitism was rife throughout Christianity before WWII?

<<…I really do expect Jesus to save Israel. I expect them to call on God or call on Jesus when they are at the brink of dispair.>>

Considering they didn’t even do that during the Holocaust, I seriously doubt it. Even if they did, that’s still of no use to the unfortunate Jews who will have died before Judgement Day.

<<So there's no reason to think any Christian is wishing Jewish people to hell because they aren't Christian yet.>>

I think it’s safe to say that at least some of the anti-Semitic ones are.

<<You don't need to misrepresent Christianity to further your views against it.>>

I have not yet misrepresented Christianity.

<<For crying out loud you say you were one once so you should be all the more aware when what you say isn't true.>>

What is it that I have I said that isn’t true? Despite my numerous clarifications, it appears you are still confusing me with rache.

A liar, corrupt, materialistic, condescends to women...Trump is a perfect match for the religious.

To AJ Philips.

[I’ve never been interested in defending what rache had said beyond what I initially interpreted her to be saying.]

But you have been and are defending what was said. I've returned again and again to what I am addressing and even told you that on this topic I'm not just talking to you. If you're not going to defend it then stop defending it. It isn't about you. Again in order to defend the topic brought up (by Rache) you need to weaken and change the topic itself to suit a stronger position.

[My position has remained consistent: firstly, that the establishing of the state of Israel, and her continuance, is a reason that evangelicals support her; and, secondly, that there is an irony to this given that the Jews will be sent to Hell anyway for not accepting Christ.]

That's your position now anyways. It has not remained consistent. If you'd like examples to prove this point I can do that. Please don't ask for it because this topic isn't about you and your arguments. Nor do I think you'd react well to having your nose rubbed into it by your own words and changes of position. (At best you can say it was your unwritten but consistent stance. But your written stance has changed multiple times.)

(Continued)

(Continued)

AJ you said:

[I haven’t done that.] (making Christians anti Semitic group).

The original point I'm addressing did, and yes originally you defended that sentiment.

[It’s worth pointing out, however, that some Christians are still anti-Semitic (Mel Gibson is a famous example). Are you aware that antisemitism was rife throughout Christianity before WWII?]

Would you also go so far to say these Christians support Israel? That's the underlying topic of this discussion. Conservative Christian support for Israel and Trump leveraging that support for his purposes. I would be very surprised if any any I Semitic group or individual would support Israel as it's own nation.

[I have not yet misrepresented Christianity. What is it that I have I said that isn’t true? Despite my numerous clarifications, it appears you are still confusing me with rache.]

You have though. Before writing this response I was writing out a response going over your responses in this conversation. But again I don't think it's worth it for you to push this point. It would take at least one full day's worth of 4 comments of my own to detail the conversation so far and how you've both not remained consistent as well as misrepresented Christianity. Possibly multiple day's worth of outlining conversation as quoted directly. I'm willing to do this but am asking you not to ask for it. It is a justified criticism that you should be able to see from your own responses.

You’re still not getting this, Not_Now.Soon.

<<But you have been and are defending what was said.>>

Yes, but not “beyond what I initially interpreted her to be saying.” You even quoted me saying that.

<<...I ... even told you that on this topic I'm not just talking to you.>>

Then save what you have to say to rache for her and deal with what I am saying when communicating to me.

<<If you're not going to defend it then stop defending it.>>

Once again, I have only defended what she said to the extent that I agree with it. That much I will defend.

<<It isn't about you.>>

But I’m the one whose still here. So, how about you start addressing what I’m saying instead?

<<Again in order to defend the topic brought up (by Rache) you need to weaken and change the topic itself to suit a stronger position.>>

This makes no sense.

<<[Your position] has not remained consistent.>>

Yes, it has. Once again, “I’ve never been interested in defending what rache had said beyond what I initially interpreted her to be saying.” I have never supported rache’s every word beyond initially saying, “…what rache has said is correct.” But, again, I have since clarified this.

Start addressing what I am saying and stop pretending that you have gotten me to concede ground. What would you stand to gain from that anyway?

<<If you'd like examples to prove this point I can do that.>>

No, you can't. But you're welcome to try.

<<...this topic isn't about you and your arguments.>>

Yet you devote two posts to precisely that.

But, again, I am the one who is here now, so how about you start addressing what I say instead?

<<Nor do I think you'd react well to having your nose rubbed into it by your own words and changes of position.>>

Well, we'll never know until you try, will we? By all means, give it a crack. Go on. It'll be fun.

<<At best you can say it was your unwritten but consistent stance.>>

Indeed it was.

Continued…

…Continued

I have just demonstrated this above, and have done so again more thoroughly below.

<<The original point I'm addressing did, and yes originally you defended that sentiment.>>

Only to the extent that I thought I agreed with it.

<<I would be very surprised if any any [anti-Semetic] group or individual would support Israel...>>

They might still if they want to bring on the end times.

<<Before writing this response I was writing out a response going over your responses in this conversation.>>

Yeah, until you realised you were wrong.

<<It is a justified criticism that you should be able to see from your own responses.>>

Let’s see then, shall we?

rache: “[The evangelicals’] real motive is that the returned Jesus will destroy the Jews for them anyway but are happy to use them to bring on their wished-for apocalypse.”

Not_Now.Soon: “How many evangelical Christians do you know…”

AJ: “…what rache has said is correct … If there is any inaccuracy to what rache has said, it’s that some evangelicals don’t pay enough attention to the logical conclusions of their literalist beliefs to get to the point of actually professing to believe such crazy things.”

Not_Now.Soon: “…you talked to those Christians not me.”

AJ: “Yes, I don't think I implied that you must therefore necessarily believe the same. I’m aware that there are differing levels of the belief…”

Not_Now.Soon: “You might not have meant to imply this, but you agreed with Rache on his argument, saying… [Quote of my first comment above]”

AJ: “Okay, so I wouldn’t necessarily say EVERY evangelical ... and I wouldn’t say, “…destroy the Jews for [Christians]…”.” (I missed the "for them" bit.)

Not_Now.Soon: “It sounds like your stance is softening away from "Christians are waiting for Jesus to return distroy all the Jews,"”

AJ: “My position hasn’t softened. I just didn’t scrutinise rache’s every word....”

This is the type of dishonest crap mhaze tries to pull: take a moment of carelessness and turn it back on someone as a diversion. I thought you were better than that.

Now, how about addressing what I’ve actually said?

Ok AJ Philips. Regarding misrepresenting Christianity or at least Christian views.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754&page=5

Page 5 of this conversation. Third comment down. Your words:

[I’ve known and encountered more Christians than I could ever possibly count (both as a theist and as an atheist) and, in my experience, what rache has said is correct. This is in Australia, too. Such crazy beliefs are bound to be far more prevalent in the US, where 48% of people reject evolution and 74% believe that angels walk amongst them.]

[What rache says about evangelical support for Israel is correct, too. They reflect my past Christian beliefs concerning Israel and the Jews, I just never thought of it in those terms. Many evangelicals freely admit that they will see the silver-lining to a mushroom cloud, and although most would never voice such an opinion, the logical conclusion is that Jews are all going to hell anyway because they reject Christ (John 14:6).]

[It sounds like you need to get out a bit more in the Christian community. Perhaps you belong to a very progressive church? I attended a very moderate and traditional Lutheran church and the beliefs rache cited were fairly standard within my congregation. Attend any megachurch, like Hillsong here in Australia, and you will find even more adherence to such beliefs.]

Based on this it sound like full support of what Rache said coming from an ex Christian. The question could be asked "what did Rache say." However I would have to assume this is in reply to my reply just before it, where I explain to at only Lavis that exact point. What I was in fact refuting. "As for the evangelical support of Israel, their real motive is that the returned Jesus will destroy the Jews for them anyway but are happy to use them to bring on their wished-for apocalypse."

(Continued)

(Continued)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754&page=7

In my reply I countered these things saying there's a difference between acknowledging a future event and having that event be the main source of motivation to support Israel. I also mentioned the people you talked to could be looking for a silver lining (your term) and their views are not the main motivation for supporting Israel.

Your next reply? Same page 4th comment down.

[For many Christians, however, the two are inextricably linked.] (talking about Supporting Israel and acknowledging Armageddon).

[that was my terminology, and if that’s what you draw from it, then perhaps it wasn’t the most ideal. I more meant that a part of them would be excited by it.] (regarding the term silver lining).

[I rarely ever speak of the dangers of Christianity without mentioning the insidiousness of its dangers .... but this is one area in which doing so is not necessary. Hoping for Armageddon one of the areas in which the danger of Christianity is obvious.]

[I don't think I implied that you must therefore necessarily believe the same. I’m aware that there are differing levels of the belief in, and wishing for, Armageddon.] (This is a change from your previous words that seem to suggest the main point of supporting Israel is because Christians waiting for the Armageddon. You seem to "clarify" your points to lead away from this point more and more. Yet you say you've not changed positions. The next thing you say in this comment makes my point for me.)

[However, I doubt this is the case for most of them. I didn’t mean to suggest that Armageddon is necessarily the main or only reason driving Christian support for Israel. The fact that it factors in at all for (in my experience) most Christians is bad enough.]. (I shouldn't have to point out the change of position here.)

(Continued tomorrow).

That’s correct, Not_Now.Soon.

<<Based on this it sound like full support of what Rache said coming from an ex Christian.>>

And at the time it was, or at least it was full support of what I understood her to be saying.

I later spotted the “for them” bit and distanced myself from that. Nothing you have quoted of me contradicts this or suggests that I am lying.

<<In my reply I countered these things saying there's a difference between acknowledging a future event and having that event be the main source of motivation to support Israel.>>

And I agreed.

<<I also mentioned the people you talked to could be looking for a silver lining (your term)...>>

Yes, that was the term I used, but I explained at the time that the evangelicals I had in mind weren’t "looking for" one. So there was no change of position there either.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754#349747

The rest of your quotes are simply clarifications from me (Aside from the one about the insidiousness of Christianity’s dangers. I stand by that 100%.). A clarification is not a change of position; in order to assert that it is, you need to insert motive into what I’ve said that simply isn’t there, and that’s dishonest. I’ll show you what I mean…

<<(regarding the term silver lining)>>

Yes, going by your interpretation of what I was saying, my wording could have been better. So what?

<<This is a change from your previous words that seem to suggest the main point of supporting Israel is because...>>

Yeah, with the operative words being “seem to”.

<<You seem to "clarify" your points to lead away from this point more and more.>>

(Again, "seem to".)

Yeah, a point of mine that you presumed. That doesn’t render it a change in position, though. Again, you need to demonstrate intent.

<<Yet you say you've not changed positions.>>

Correct. A clarification is not a change in position. For your convenience: http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/clarification

<<(Continued tomorrow)>>

Unless you can learn what a clarification is, or provide evidence demonstrating that I had indeed changed my position, don’t bother.

(Continued from previous day)

In my reply I explained something that as an ex -Christian you should have been aware of. That the looking towards the events in Armageddon isn't about those events themselves but about the events after it. Where Jesus will be back, the world renewed, and sin and suffering removed from Earth. Paradise on earth with no more death. I even quoted the point from Rache that I am trying to address that you had agreed to, and asked if you really believe this to be the case.

Your reply shows a change in view.

[But, as even you go on to say, one part of it does entail the establishing of a Jewish state, and its continuance (hence the evangelical support for Israel). That’s all I was getting at.]

[at some point there is no difference. Armageddon still has to happen first.] (Regarding the point that supporting Israel isn't about Armageddon but events after it).

[Okay, so I wouldn’t necessarily say EVERY evangelical (although, from memory, and in my experience, it has been), and I wouldn’t say, “…destroy the Jews for [Christians]…”.]

(Continued)

The change? When pointed out that Christian understanding on Armageddon not being about Israel's demise, your tone turns to a different direction. One part of the prophesy tells of Israel being an nation is reason to support Israel. (No argument there. That does not mean that Christian understanding of Armageddon is about Israel being harmed).

[While the Jews will be sent to Hell for rejecting Jesus (at least those who are no longer alive on Judgement Day), I've never believed that Jesus sending them there on the behalf of Christians was a part of the theology, and nor do I think that most Christians want this either.]

This is possibly the first real sign of representing Christians more honestly. Before this point, that most Christians don't want this, you make it sound like Christians are looking forward to Israel being harmed and Jews being killed. (As you revised your comment earlier about Christians you knew excited about a mushroom cloud in Israel). This revision of clarification shows a misrepresentation of Christianity earlier. Only to say differently now because it was pointed out to be wrong.

As for Jews being sent to Hell for rejecting Jesus, there's a few different perspectives regarding this, but they aren't focused on the Jews. Their focused on the world as a whole who reject Jesus. Hell is unfortunately a very possible reality for those that reject Jesus, at least from bible scriptures. It's for this reason that many Christians strive to teach non Christians, instead of teach fellow Christians. But that said consider what I said on page 9 second reply.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754&page=9

To explain this further, I think that once Jesus returns and saves Israel, no one in Israel will doubt Him. At that point regardless of their belief before I'd wager that they would be saved. Jesus wouldn't save them from destruction just to commit them to hell for not believing till then. No the chance to be saved from hell also would likely be something Jesus would offer.

So, in other words, Not_Now.Soon, you learned absolutely nothing from what I said yesterday.

<<The change? When pointed out that Christian understanding on Armageddon not being about Israel's demise, your tone turns to a different direction.>>

So, we graduated from 'this seems and that seems' to 'a change in tone'. In both cases, you’re assuming to be able to ready my mind.

There are two possibilities here:

1. I didn’t scrutinise rache’s post closely enough and have, consequently, spent a lot of time clarifying my position, or;
2. I’ve soften my position, and, in order to save face, lied about doing so.

You believe it’s 2, but to demonstrate this, you’ve had to assume much and engage in a whole lot of mind reading.

<<That does not mean that Christian understanding of Armageddon is about Israel being harmed.>>

I never said anything about Israel being harmed, just that her establishment and continuance was necessary. Once again, you confuse me with rache.

<<This is possibly the first real sign of representing Christians more honestly.>>

Either that, or it’s a clarification. You are yet to demonstrate that it was a change in position.

<<Before this point, that most Christians don't want this, you make it sound like Christians are looking forward to Israel being harmed and Jews being killed. (As you revised your comment earlier about Christians you knew excited about a mushroom cloud in Israel).>>

Nope, I neither said nor implied that the mushroom hypothetical mushroom cloud was specifically in Israel. You’re making that up.

<<This revision of clarification shows a misrepresentation of Christianity earlier.>>

No, it doesn’t. To argue that it does, you’ve had to place my hypothetical mushroom cloud in Israel.

<<Only to say differently now because it was pointed out to be wrong.>>

No, the hypothetical mushroom cloud was never necessarily in Israel.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754#349682

<<…I think that once Jesus returns and saves Israel, no one in Israel will doubt Him.>>

Hardly much of a consolation. This won't be of much use to the poor Jews who died before the second coming.

Not_Now.Soon,

I've conceded ground a few times in the past on OLO. One example can be found at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226793

(Although, I may have actually still been right there.)

I’m never ashamed to do so because people can be wrong. That's just life. It’s not embarrassing to concede ground, or even to admit that one is completely wrong. We are only human, after all.

But I cannot admit to a softening of my position that simply did not occur.

I have explained why my position appeared to soften. In response, you could have simply said something like, “Okay, that’s not what it looked like to me,” and then we’d all move on. Instead, you dug your heels in and made a complete ass of yourself in the process. And for what? What do you stand to gain from me changing my position?

In four posts you still could not demonstrate that a change in position had occurred without inserting meaning into my words that was not there. For the most part, you achieved this by engaging in mind reading to assert that my clarifications were in fact concessions. In addition to that, you:

1. ran with an already-corrected false assumption of what I meant regarding the silver-lining of a mushroom cloud:

Not_Now.Soon: “…you mentioned Christians trying to look at the silver lining of that event, right?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754#349746)

AJ: “Not “trying to look”, I just said they’d see it.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754#349747)

2. assumed that my hypothetical mushroom cloud was necessarily in Israel when nothing I said suggested this. Indeed, I later provided a link to a video in which the anticipation the featuring Christian expressed did not require such an event to be in Israel either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2Dzt_Tp5VE&feature=youtu.be&t=265

Here’s a something I said early in the piece that you never quoted, funnily enough:

“On the contrary, the love Christians have for the Jewish … borders on downright creepy.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754#349780)

Now, why would I suddenly forget that when I was one such Christian? That's an assumption your highly-speculative case relies on.

Diversions aside, we appear to once again be in complete agreement about Christian theology.

AJ Philips.

[in other words, you learned absolutely nothing from what I said yesterday.]

There was nothing to learn. I moved on finishing my point because I didn't believe or didn't agree with what you wrote.

[There are two possibilities here:

1. I didn’t scrutinise rache’s post closely enough and have, consequently, spent a lot of time clarifying my position, or;
2. I’ve soften my position, and, in order to save face, lied about doing so.

You believe it’s 2, but to demonstrate this, you’ve had to assume much and engage in a whole lot of mind reading.]

It's the clarifying aspect that your missing the point about. Yes I've taken option 2 because in any conversation you base people on what they say and write. It's not mind reading if what a person says changes. Nor is it clarifying.

[Hardly much of a consolation. This won't be of much use to the poor Jews who died before the second coming.]

Or to any other nationality that died before accepting Jesus. There is one other hope though. In Mathew 25:31-46, Jesus tells His disciples that when He returns Jesus will seperate the nation's into two groups. Essentially those who showed kindness to those hungry, needing clothing, in prison, or otherwise showed kindness and hospitality to a stranger or those in need; and the second group is those who don't show this kind of kindness. In this lesson it teaches one aspect disciples of Jesus should act on, but it also is theologically discussed about who are the nations that are gathered. Christians, nonchristians, or everyone. According to one perspective if Christians are saved by their belief, then this gathering is for everyone else. And therefore is one point where people have a chance to avoid hell like punishments.

One other note. In Revelations 20:11-15 the judgement of the dead will come to pass. If the judgements in Mathew 25 hold merit here too, then there is a chance for the Jews and those of other nations who lived before Jesus, or just did not believe in Him.

(Continued)

(Continued)

[I've conceded ground a few times in the past on OLO. One example can be found at...]

I don't remember ever seeing you concede ground or admit when you were wrong. When I went to the link you provided I still didn't see it in the comment that pulled up. Perhaps you meant a different link? Honestly I hope you do come to terms when your wrong about something.

[On the contrary, the love Christians have for the Jewish … borders on downright creepy.]

If you say so. I haven't seen that aspect myself. But I do support the idea of supporting Israel. As you've pointed out not all Christians are on good terms with Jewish people (either in heritage or faith). In my opinion to be a Christian and follow Jesus's teachings the love of a Christian should be strong and given to everyone. For one reason or another. (And no that doesn't mean the same form of love, but love none the less).

[Now, why would I suddenly forget that when I was one such Christian?]

I don't know what kind of Christian you were like. But as to forgetting, I think a change in opinion and perspective changes how we look at things. Even things in our past can be reexamined according to the new paradigm shift. It might not be about accurate memories or inaccurate memories at that point, but on current judgments and biases.

[Diversions aside, we appear to once again be in complete agreement about Christian theology.]

If you say so.

What am I missing about it, Not_Now.Soon?

<<It's the clarifying aspect that your missing the point about.>>

A clarification is not a change in position. That definition again:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/clarification

<<Yes I've taken option 2…>>

So, you think I’m lying then? That’s a pretty serious accusation.

<<…because in any conversation you base people on what they say and write. It's not mind reading if what a person says changes. Nor is it clarifying.>>

Indeed.

However, in order to demonstrate that I have changed my position, you need to point to where I have said that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians beyond “…what rache has said is correct”. You have not yet done this, and, until you do, you are merely engaging in mind reading.

<<Or to any other nationality that died before accepting Jesus.>>

Yes, which is why (as I have noted before) your god is an evil monster.

<<If the judgements in Mathew 25 hold merit here too, then there is a chance...>>

How very Catholic of you. Evangelical Protestants tend to believe that the belief part is essential.

<<I don't remember ever seeing you concede ground or admit when you were wrong.>>

You have not yet seen me wrong about something in our communications. Was this in my communications with someone else? Please, don’t hold out on me like this, let’s have the details.

<<When I went to the link you provided I still didn't see it in the comment that pulled up.>>

Perhaps you need to read what I was responding to then? The link linked to the correct comment. The concession was there.

<<Honestly I hope you do come to terms when your wrong about something.>>

Please, call me out on it the moment you see otherwise, won't you?

It’s a pity our communications have turned so sour. I had always enjoyed the civility of our debates. It’s as though you decided that you needed to finally get one up on me on something and will stoop to any level now to achieve that. Because, again, what do you stand to gain from this?

Not_Now.Soon,

One other point, before you accuse me of a change in position again. Although I said:

“Evangelical Protestants tend to believe that the belief part is essential.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19754#350052)

I'm fully aware that Christians believe that those who had no access to God’s Word are exempt from Hell (indeed, atheists sometimes enjoy pointing out the irony here in that, by teaching people about Christianity, parents/missionaries/etc are actually endangering the souls of those who may have been better off just not learning about any of it to begin with).

As I’ve said to a certain other on OLO many times before regarding this type of dishonesty: it’s sad when things get to a point where we have to be so darn careful with every word we speak because the person with whom we are conversing can no longer be trusted to communicate honestly enough not to turn a moment of carelessness back on to their opponent.

I guess that is what is so different and strange about this occasion. That’s not who I thought you were. You are barely even recognisable to me now. It’s like a switch has been flipped, which is why I suspect you are now just trying to finally pin me on something. Anything!

Someone who once appeared to be gracious enough to understand the notion of giving the benefit of the doubt, and the goodwill displayed by such a gesture... Wow. This is some real Jekyll and Hyde sh!t. Is this account shared by multiple people or something?

“…it is rather disappointing to see your tone deteriorate since we first discussed religion five months ago. I have made a conscious effort to remain polite in my communications with you because I know from experience that no matter how nice a person a theist may be, that can change very quickly if their beliefs are challenged, and if that happens, I want to ensure that I played as little a role in that as possible.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252156)

It’s a shame that the longer a debate with a Christian continues, the probability that they will become nasty approaches 1.

I think I should let you go AJ Philips. I'm sorry for distressing you.

I'm not distressed, Not_Now.Soon. Just surprised and disappointed.

While I'm here, though, I will point out that I go to great pains to address everything you say with line-by-line quotes, while you, on the other hand, will simply ignore a point and move on if it becomes too hard to address or if you are just out and out wrong.

I think that speaks volumes with regards to who here is incapable of admitting when they are wrong. I take it you cannot point to an instance of myself failing to concede that I was wrong about something?

Why am I not surprised?

AJ Philips, would you like me to continue? From what you wrote before it sounded like it would be better to leave you be. I came into this discussion for two reasons. The first was a reply to the OP, which I discussed other reasons for supporting Israel, and the nature of support and division that sourounds Trump's presidancy in America, for Americans. The second issue was to correct a perspective regarding Christian support of Israel.

Somewhere in that mix this conversation became about your points, which by your last few replies leads me to believe that my comments to you are taken as rude. This is the one conversation where the conversation had not spanned across too many pages and gets lost with other posters comments in between yours and my replies. With that I descided to do as you asked earlier. To quote you directly, for at least one point. I don't have our conversations bookmarked, so I tried to do this or this conversation when you pushed for me to "prove it."

The point is not even a major one. Only that in order to substantially defend the points addressed you had to step away from the original points made by Rache. What you say is clarification I noted as stepping away from a bad position, and as written does show a change of position.

(Continued) (please read the whole thing before replying)

You know, Not_Now.Soon, I’ve been giving your sudden switch in attitude some thought, and, now that I think about it, I don’t think it’s actually all that surprising.

Although you will undoubtedly deny this too - and probably with some limp, I-can’t-be-bothered-trying-to-convert-you-anymore line like, ‘If you say so’ - I know from experience that many Christians put on a very polite (and sometimes even jovial) façade in order to draw people to their god.

Mormons, for example, will do this consciously. That’s right. Mormons will consciously portray themselves and their families as the frigging Brady Bunch as a means of drawing others into their religion; as if to give off the impression that if we were to find Mormonism, then we too could have an abundance of sickeningly sweet happiness. I recently learned that it’s actually a requirement of their theology that they do this.

This is what I think you have been doing with your very polite communication that has suddenly evaporated. I think you have come to realise that every argument you put forth is simply going to be met by a torrent of rational arguments from me as to why it should not be accepted, and, because of that, you now realise that no amount of polite discourse is going to lure me in; so, you think to yourself: f#ck it, you’re just going to let what you really think of me show now.

You Christians are so fake. We used to have an evangelical Open Brethren regular here on OLO who was exactly the same (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6302&show=history). Only he managed to hold the jovial act for far longer than you did.

(Continued) (please read both parts before replying)

What do I get for these efforts? Instead of something along the lines of, "oh I see where your coming from, it does read like a change of position," and moving on to the other points; instead of that the conversation goes back to steer back to that one small issue as if it was an accusation. In the reply before my last one I tried to step away from the points that steer back to proving the point of changing position, and move on to other points. Something I thought you had asked for earlier about why am I still focused on that point.

In your reply you've told me that I am rude and our conversations have turn sour. Based on this I'm wondering if I should continue our conversations with each other at all. Our conversations seem to be a detrimental element to you, (you don't need to clarify that, nor defend it. It's not an accusation, but an observation); and as for me as you've asked, what do I have to gain from this? There's nothing to gain from these conversations if even the small things are fought over and turned sour when I stand by my points. What point would there be to move on to larger points?

So yes based on all of this, I think it would be better for me to leave you be within the conversations of these forums. Please accept my apology for how your taking my side of the conversation. I don't mean to defend it or explain it. Your surprise and disappointment is enough to apologize and move on). Good luck in your life, and I hope God shows Himself to you the way He showed Himself to me when I needed it. By His love and a means you can identify it to be from Him.

I was not trying to be rude AJ. I was trying to address several points as you gave them.

Good bye AJ Philips. I wish I could say I was here with a noble goal of turning you to Jesus. Instead throughout all of my posts here it has been largely to try defend Christian Faith as I know it, and to educate some on the principles in the bible. (That topic thread went sideways quick.). If you or anyone else finds God, I can't take credit for it. And I'm sorry if I am a new reason to not look for Him.

No, it doesn’t, Not _Now.Soon.

<<What you say is clarification I noted as stepping away from a bad position, and as written does show a change of position.>>

Once again, in order to show this, you need to point to where I have said that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians beyond “…what rache has said is correct”. You have not yet done this, and, until you do, you are merely engaging in mind reading.

You cannot show where I have said this and so, instead, you spend your time ducking and weaving.

As for your last post, I'm not surprised you would prefer not to communicate with me anymore. I've been shunned by a few here on OLO now. It tends to happen when people become fed up with having their arguments debunked and would rather retain them than simply change them.

You should see the last time Yuyutsu communicated with me years ago now - he actually demanded that I pay him back the thousands of dollars he'd lost in his time spent communicating with me. It is fortunate for me that he no longer disrupts me with his sophistry, and I take his silence as a compliment since it demonstrates that he realises that I will not fall for his sophistry (If he communicates with you, then you should be offended. It means he thinks you're stupid enough to fall for his crap).

Ok AJ Philips. For the sake of clarification.

[You cannot show where I have said this and so, instead, you spend your time ducking and weaving.]

Please show where I've done this, because I know I've been replying to your comments. I even outlined your responses to note the changes based on the words you've used. This should not even be an issue.

[I'm not surprised you would prefer not to communicate with me anymore. I've been shunned by a few here on OLO now.]

Now isn't one of your criticisms that I am trying to read your mind? That I'm not just reading what you've written and taking it as you write your points? Yet here you show a double standard of reading my mind instead of taking the reasons I've given.

On that note though regarding being shunned ...

[It tends to happen when people become fed up with having their arguments debunked and would rather retain them than simply change them.]

Voicing your opinions, is not the same as debunking anyone else's. So far I've held my ground against your arguments.

That said, there's a different issue I think should also be a concern. Your comments of being shunned, along with your rationale that the other people got fed up on losing their arguments shows an issue. It is something that I've seen in other forums when people who are belligerent to others parade at their successes of "winning" because the other person backed down. I haven't put you in the same position I view them because I haven't seen your perspectives as a troll like behavior, even though I don't agree with many of your positions.

It's true that when a person leaves a discussion it can be due to one of three things.
1). They lose the arguments and avoid the person afterwards.
2). They are fed up with the discussion (or the person) and leave regardless of the ability to stand up to the points, or the discussion.
3). The lack the time and focus it elsewhere.

(Continued)

(Continued)

If it's just one person, you can conclude that their leaving is based on reason #1 or #3 based on how they left or how they handled themselves in the discussions. Or even by their own words when they leave. However if it's an increasing number of people who shun you, that's less likely that they are all weak in rationale and more likely that it's an issue with you instead of them. Presenting a larger chance of option #2.

Therefore don't take it as a merit of success when someone leaves a discussion and removes them self from you in future discussions. Be aware that this is likely a failure on your side in being able to talk to others without them turning away.

As for Yuyutsu. He and I have shown disagreements in our discussions, but one thing I've noticed is that he wants to be peaceful to those he engages in conversation. He even recommended to me to stop my discussion and topic because of the reaction that was coming from it. I would bet regardless of him being able to handle or not handle the conversations he's had with you, that he left for the reasons he said (whatever they were). My guess is the debate that ensured is not his cup of tea. Don't take it as a success that people don't want to talk to you though. That is the marred logic of a belittling troll who runs everyone away from them.

(There's more but it's a seperate topic.)

AJ Philips. Since you were in the first topic I commented on, and afterwards we've spoke several times in other discussions, I thought I could share with you the things I've learned or contemplated since coming to this site. You've earned that much from our discussions. If things change and I see good reason to talk with you again, I hope it will be on better grounds.

When I first started I came on with the defense of Christianity in mind on the topic of removing Christian expression from students and staff in schools. Since then many of my positions can be viewed in a similar sense of a defense for Christianity. But I've contemplated the merit of these debates in light of some bible principles.

1st Peter 3:15-16 for instance encourages Christians to be prepared to make a defense of their faith. But to do so with gentleness and respect. I can say I've done the first part but lost patience too often to follow through on the second part. Titus 3:9, Romans 14:1, and Acts 19:9 (as well at at least one more verse in proverbs I'm sure), all convey to not get into quarrels and useless fights or debates. In the defense of Christianity the merit of engaging in these debates instead of trying to teach it's principles, correct misunderstandings, and offer the understanding based on the study of the bible and lessons of experience; all became an issue as I continued on.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second lesson that paralleled when facing the merits of debate or not debate, was to love your neighbor. It's easy to say to love one another, but much harder to practice when right off the bat there are those who wish to trip you up, mock you, and trample over you if they can. This definitely adds to the element to avoid quarrels and debates unless they are worth it, because it can harm your strength in being kind and loving in face of that ugliness.

This has also shown the merit of waiting for a period of time before responding, so that your thoughts have the chance to settle down, and you don't voice everything you can to the detriment of the conversation. My working schedule gave me this insight out of the lack of being able to reply, instead of the discipline to hold my tongue. But it is a lesson worth knowing none the less.

And lastly, one reminder I got early on in these discussions is that God loves the unbeliever. So with that respect I should have the responses to instead of winning a debate, I should be kind, and if I am able try to lead them to God. Regardless of ability to lead or teach I should be kind, and this hopefully is a greater motivation for me in the future.

Are you sure it’s a clarification, Not_Now.Soon?

<<For the sake of clarification.>>

How about I pretend to read your mind instead and claim that you are in fact conceding ground?

<<Please show where I've [ducked and weaved], because I know I've been replying to your comments.>>

Well, for starters, you still haven’t shown where I have said that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians beyond “…what rache has said is correct”. It’s still possible to duck and weave while responding to another’s comments. All you need to do is to be selective about what it is that you respond to.

<<Now isn't one of your criticisms that I am trying to read your mind?>>

Indeed it is.

<<Yet here you show a double standard of reading my mind instead of taking the reasons I've given.>>

How has what I have said conflicted with your reason for not wanting to continue, or read more in to it than what was there? You’ll need to be more specific here. But if I have engaged in a bit of mind reading, then all I can do is apologise and say: doesn't it suck to be on the receiving end of it?

<<Voicing your opinions, is not the same as debunking anyone else's.>>

At no point did I assume that it was. It is, however, easy to distinguish between the two. One example of the latter in our debates has been your assertion that your god is a loving god - a claim I have shown unequivocally to be false.

P.S. Sorry about the delay in reply and the brevity of this response. I was both considering what I should say and indeed whether I should say something at all to someone who doubts my honesty. I had a longer response in mind, but I don’t see the point in providing a lengthy and considered response to someone who will simply pick and choose willy-nilly which of my words they will believe to be honest.

Oh, I will just add, Not-Now.Soon, that while raising my point about Yuyutsu and others like him was a big mistake on my part, I think your suspicions are wrong. Yuyutsu et al. are quite happy to converse with some pretty gosh darned vile people. Therefore, I do not buy the excuse that my style of debate is just not their “cup of tea”.

No, Like I said before, I think it’s about wanting to communicate only with those whom one thinks one can pull the wool over the eyes of.

<<Don't take it as a success that people don't want to talk to you though. That is the marred logic of a belittling troll who runs everyone away from them.>>

Indeed.

In fact, I myself have made the same point a few times over the years. No, what demonstrated the fact that I discredited Yuyutsu’s arguments was the debate itself:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0

Feel free to point out how I am wrong about that, won’t you?

I said this earlier and think the words still have merit in their intent. From an earlier post.
________________________________________________________________________
You've told me that I am rude and our conversations have turn sour. Based on this I'm wondering if I should continue our conversations with each other at all. Our conversations seem to be a detrimental element to you, (you don't need to clarify that, nor defend it. It's not an accusation); and as for me as you've asked, what do I have to gain from this? There's nothing to gain from these conversations if even the small things are fought over and turned sour when I stand by my points. What point would there be to move on to larger points?

I think it would be better for me to leave you be within the conversations of these forums. Please accept my apology for how your taking my side of the conversation. I don't mean to defend it or explain it. Your surprise and disappointment is enough to apologize and move on). Good luck in your life, and I hope God shows Himself to you the way He showed Himself to me when I needed it. By His love and a means you can identify it to be from Him.
_________________________________________________________________________

For my part in the debates with you AJ Philips I am sorry for how I've changed your tone, and caused the ire of this much anger to grow inside of you. (Not an accusation, just an apology). On a separate matter, I agree with your points made in a different thread regarding left politics and staying silent. The hierarchy point is a good observation worth it's consideration for explaining the silence in world affairs and events.

For the time being please just accept my apology and enjoy the silence from me on my end. I think for now I should give you space. Please just take the space I'm trying to give you as I mean it. As a gift. Probabley won't last forever but for now, hope it'll help heal the wounds of our debates.

No, actually, Not_Now.Soon, I did not say that you were rude.

<<You've told me that I am rude and our conversations have turn sour.>>

But, yes, I did say that our conversation had turned sour, which was the reason for my tone so suddenly and uncharacteristically turning south.

<<Based on this I'm wondering if I should continue our conversations with each other at all.>>

As soon as you can point to where I have said that you have been rude, then I will accept this. Until then, I can only take this as mere butthurt.

<<Our conversations seem to be a detrimental element to you…>>

I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I’m sure the answer to it is ‘no’. On the contrary, I had always enjoyed our discussions immensely. Until, that is, this recent and unfortunate turn of events.

<<…what do I have to gain from this? There's nothing to gain from these conversations if even the small things are fought over and turned sour when I stand by my points.>>

Indeed.

However, that was not my question. My question was what you have to gain from proving that I am trying to save face.

By the way, you can stand by your points all you like. But they remain wrong, and for the reasons I have already outlined. There is no indignity in admitting that your suspicions were wrong, by the way.

<<What point would there be to move on to larger points? >>

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, sorry.

<<I think it would be better for me to leave you be within the conversations of these forums.>>

If you must. To be honest, I expected that this day would come. You’re joining quite a large club there too, Not_Now.Soon. Just remember, though, that if you say something that requires rebutting, I will still rebut it. Your vow, however, will simply render you unable to respond. This is a frustrating irony which I presume all those who vow to shun me experience.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Please accept my apology for how your taking my side of the conversation.>>

Oh, I do. Believe me. You are a good person.

As I have said before, you remind me of myself when I was a Christian. Your beliefs are identical to how mine were and that’s rare now here in Australia.

<<Good luck in your life…>>

Thank you. And I thank you also for your well wishes. This certainly won’t be the last time I respond to something you say, but it appears as though it will be the last time you respond to me. That, of course, is sad, and you will be joining a large OLO club of non-responsive people who are obviously experiencing a serious case of butthurt. But this is not surprising as I had expected that you would join this unofficial group at some point. Every Christian for whom I highlight the evils of the Christian god does eventually. It’s how they avoid responding to my challenges.

<<For my part in the debates with you AJ Philips I am sorry for how I've changed your tone, and caused the ire of this much anger to grow inside of you.>>

Nah, don’t worry about it. Only I am responsible for me. In fact, I am sorry for reacting in the immature way I did last week. I promise this will not happen again.

<<On a separate matter, I agree with your points made in a different thread regarding left politics and staying silent.>>

Thanks for that. I thought you’d agree with me there.

<<For the time being please just accept my apology and enjoy the silence from me on my end. I think for now I should give you space.>>

There’s no need to apologise, Not_Now.Soon. I've taken far worse beatings than this on OLO over the last 11 years.

Just a small correction. I'm not giving a vow of silence. Reread the past few posts if there's confusion. Either way enjoy your space. For however long it lasts.

I do hope it lasts for a very long time, Not_Now.Soon.

<<I'm not giving a vow of silence. Reread the past few posts if there's confusion. Either way enjoy your space. For however long it lasts.>>

By racking up more and more posters on OLO who refuse to respond to me, I save myself more an more time. For I get to debunk the rubbish of my opponents without having to become entangled in a pointless and lengthy debate whereby my opponent was wrong from the very beginning anyway.

So, from the bottom of my heart, Not_Now.Soon, I thank you for your silence. It never achieves the desired silencing effect it's so designed to have (which is based on the assumption that the other is merely after a reaction), but it does, however, tie the hands of the person who makes such a vow.

I look forward to never hearing from you again. As I have said to others here on OLO who now refuse to refuse to respond to me, silence is the greatest compliment they can pay me. It screams: Your arguments counter mine successfully, but I'm going to pretend that they don't by making my vow of silence appear as thought it's the real reason for my response complete lack or response.

If I were one of those who actually managed to achieve a response from the likes of those who have blacklisted me, I would be seriously questioning the veracity of my arguments.

Are you sure that's what you want from me AJ Philips? Silence?

It recently occured to me that my not responding to you could be taken as a frustration for you instead of a gift. This from considering how my lack of replies were reacted to by Toni Lavis and Opinionated2 had become something of a frustration to not recoginize them when they were talking to me. (For Toni that was temporary also, for O2, we'll see I suppose). Still, based on your quick changes of tone, I think more time and more space is needed.

For the change in tone I mean here is an example.
<That, of course, is sad,>
<I look forward to never hearing from you again. >

Live with your successes of not having a counter point given back to you. But do try to heal while your doing that too. A Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde approach does make me want to respond, (either because of a kind tone promising a fresh start, or a sharp criticism inviting a similar reply) but it also makes me think there's still a turmoil of emotions going on underneath, so more space is still needed.

Unfortunately, I do, Not_Now.Soon.

<<Are you sure that's what you want from me AJ Philips? Silence?>>

As much as it pains me to say so, yes, this is what I want from you. In this discussion, you have demonstrated yourself to be utterly dishonest, and I have no intention of continuing communication with such a person beyond debunking what they say.

I will, therefore, continue to debunk the dishonest religious claims you make, as we continue to politely ignore each other.

I'm sorry it had to come to this.

Through our conversations I've lost trust in you too, AJ Philips. But I have been honest throughout it all, and still am.

That's unfortunate, Not_Now.Soon.

<<Through our conversations I've lost trust in you too, AJ Philips.>>

For I have given you absolutely no reason to justify such a position. In fact, I think you are simply adopting this position to avoid addressing the fact that I have pointed out that your god is evil?

Remember what I had once saidn about how disappointing it was that Christians inevitably and eventually have to resort to abuse and/or character assassination.

Yeah, well, there you go...

<<But I have been honest throughout it all, and still am.>>

The fact that you cannot haven’t show where I have said that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians beyond “…what rache has said is correct” suggests otherwise.

You have been dishonest and you need to own that. Remember the ninth commandment, Not_Now.Soon, remember it. You appear to have forgotten about it.

AJ Philips.

<The fact that you cannot haven’t show where I have said that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians beyond “…what rache has said is correct” suggests otherwise.>

Among all of the lists of fallacies I've seen you quote to try and negate another poster, I think one of them was "moving the goal posts." Which is what you've done here on this topic. Twice actually. Origionally I said you had to change your position away from what Rasha's origional points because they were unfounded. You've denied such a change even though it isn't a big deal to admit. I supplied the actual text of conversation from changing the "I agree with everything" moment, to the several other changes to get further and further away from that point.

At first your claim is that I was just reading your mind, and that your actual words hold no merit to see such a change unless I claim to know your thoughts. Now you claim that unless you are quoted as directly saying that Jesus will destroy the Jews for the Christians, then you woun't conceded a change in position. Which as far as I can tell is a second measure of moving the goal posts.

(Continued)

<For I have given you absolutely no reason to justify such a position. In fact, I think you are simply adopting this position to avoid addressing the fact that I have pointed out that your god is evil?>

You've given me plenty of reason to lose trust in you. In this conversation alone you've done that, but it's been slowly building from other conversations as well. If you hold to the standards you critize others of and don't commit the same fallacies you try to pin on others, then there would be a maturity to your perspectives and are more trust worthy.

But the nail in the coffin was in these conversations where you've turned your hissy fits and drama drenched comments as if they are counter points, to turning to a complete 180 trying to sound civil and well meaning. Not surprised I would say I'll end my contact with you and your sad by it. To another 180 turn in your next comment after I correct you telling you I've made no vow of silence, that you never want to hear from me again.

The Jekel and Hyde approach removes so much trust I could have in you, and your positions. That could be counted as just being emotional though, except for the fact that you tried to change what I said from a temporary silence to give you space to a vow of silence that you can hold to being convient of not countering your points. If it wasn't for that small element, I could pass it all off as you having a hard time with the conversation and getting overly emotional. Something that giving space should help. But the minipulative way you tried to change my words and their meanings for an oppurtunity to have another Christian refuse to counter you. That's enough dishonest minipulation that can't go under the rationell of "saving face," or "being emotional." All I can count that behavior as is being minipulative and descidedly dishonest.

(Continued)

(Continued)

<I think you are simply adopting this position to avoid addressing the fact that I have pointed out that your god is evil?>

Mind reading? If this wasn't a critism you tried to pin on me this kind of comment wouldn't matter. But for future reference do me a favor. Stand by the the same standards you critize others of, and hold yourself to those same standards. Otherwise yes, when and if I reply to you in other topics, there's a good chance I will point out your faults in your arguments, even by your own double standard measures, until, you stop holding yourself by different standards then you try to silence others by.