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.