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)