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?