40 Killed In Hamas Attacks In Israel

[Citizen's Nephew]

Not a lie at all. You made exactly the claim I said in a post last year. (Your response avoids the point).

It left me wondering about your Taliban-style Christianity and your fundamentalist (another thread, I know) Christian Zionism that puts you in lockstep with Israeli fascists and the racist far right of MAGA Republicans.

It was the chicken and egg question. Is your belief system a product of your politics, or do your political positions come from your belief system?

Either way it is indefensible.

It doesn't matter if all you do with what is in your head is shout at traffic lights. But you claim to be very active across a lot of social media peddling these views. Whilst some may be grateful for being battered over the head with biblical quotes, it is the real life consequences of what you preach that counts. At this time the consequences are mass murder (over 70% of the 40,000+ deaths are women and children), displacement, pain, starvation and terror.

Jon, another excellent post with considered argument and demonstrating remarkable patience. I'm beginning to ask a few questions here though. I'd be interested in yours and others take on this. I'm not sure I possess the f*cking resolve patience or will to continue.

In the complex tapestry of global religious and political discussion, the challenge of engaging with individuals holding extreme, fundamentalist views, particularly those who justify violence through religious prophecies, is a futile one. Surely?

For me, this question becomes especially pertinent when discussing extremists who cite prophecies as justifications for genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, and other atrocities in the 21st century. It is essential to acknowledge that these positions starkly contrast with the fundamental teachings of Jesus, who preached love, compassion, and peace. Jesus, a Jew, taught principles that are diametrically opposed to any form of violence or hatred. Additionally, the ideology of Zionism, with its political and territorial ambitions, often rejects the New Testament, creating a further disconnect from the Christian messages of love and reconciliation.

But in the same way, there are, in some people's eyes, real and true Cardiff City supporters. It seems that in truthpaste's world, this applies to Christians too.

The dialogue with individuals holding such extremist beliefs presents a considerable challenge (under-f*cking-statement). On one hand, it is tempting to argue that reason and evidence-based dialogue can bridge divides and soften hardline stances. On the other hand, when beliefs are deeply entrenched and supported by a conviction in divine sanction, the scope for productive dialogue narrows significantly.

Referencing religious prophecy to justify severe human rights violations raises the question: are we witnessing not just a refusal to engage in meaningful discussion but potentially a form of trolling or even geopolitical destabilisation?

The use of such conflicts by extremists to further their narratives, irrespective of the human cost, points to a deep-seated fanaticism.

When engaging in discussions, surely it is crucial to distinguish between faith and the misuse of religious texts to support inhumane agendas. The endgame of dialogues with individuals who adopt fanatical religious beliefs to justify violence poses a significant challenge.

Doesn't this force us to consider whether certain forms of engagement, rather than fostering understanding, might inadvertently legitimise or embolden extremist viewpoints?

In summary. Are we wasting our f*cking time?

[truthpaste]

Jon, another excellent post with considered argument and demonstrating remarkable patience. I'm beginning to ask a few questions here though. I'd be interested in yours and others take on this. I'm not sure I possess the f*cking resolve patience or will to continue.

In the complex tapestry of global religious and political discussion, the challenge of engaging with individuals holding extreme, fundamentalist views, particularly those who justify violence through religious prophecies, is a futile one. Surely?

For me, this question becomes especially pertinent when discussing extremists who cite prophecies as justifications for genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, and other atrocities in the 21st century. It is essential to acknowledge that these positions starkly contrast with the fundamental teachings of Jesus, who preached love, compassion, and peace. Jesus, a Jew, taught principles that are diametrically opposed to any form of violence or hatred. Additionally, the ideology of Zionism, with its political and territorial ambitions, often rejects the New Testament, creating a further disconnect from the Christian messages of love and reconciliation.

But in the same way, there are, in some people's eyes, real and true Cardiff City supporters. It seems that in truthpaste's world, this applies to Christians too.

The dialogue with individuals holding such extremist beliefs presents a considerable challenge (under-f*cking-statement). On one hand, it is tempting to argue that reason and evidence-based dialogue can bridge divides and soften hardline stances. On the other hand, when beliefs are deeply entrenched and supported by a conviction in divine sanction, the scope for productive dialogue narrows significantly.

Referencing religious prophecy to justify severe human rights violations raises the question: are we witnessing not just a refusal to engage in meaningful discussion but potentially a form of trolling or even geopolitical destabilisation?

The use of such conflicts by extremists to further their narratives, irrespective of the human cost, points to a deep-seated fanaticism.

When engaging in discussions, surely it is crucial to distinguish between faith and the misuse of religious texts to support inhumane agendas. The endgame of dialogues with individuals who adopt fanatical religious beliefs to justify violence poses a significant challenge.

Doesn't this force us to consider whether certain forms of engagement, rather than fostering understanding, might inadvertently legitimise or embolden extremist viewpoints?

In summary. Are we wasting our f*cking time?

The main disconnection is you can (Jon-like) spout the bile re the texts, but you are not willing to examine any evidence for their validity or otherwise, so all we are left with is a drive-thru look at an issue and jumping to a quickest convenient and popular majority viewpoint whilst trashing anyone who thinks differently.
If you can't ask *questions to understand (which some actually now have) where other people are coming from, then you are not really engaging the discussion.

* For example I asked Jon to support his world-view and he's typed loads of words since I asked but is unable to address why he believes what he believes; so all he is left with is bile.

[Citizen's Nephew]

The main disconnection is you can (Jon-like) spout the bile re the texts, but you are not willing to examine any evidence for their validity or otherwise, so all we are left with is a drive-thru look at an issue and jumping to a quickest convenient and popular majority viewpoint whilst trashing anyone who thinks differently.
If you can't ask *questions to understand (which some actually now have) where other people are coming from, then you are not really engaging the discussion.

* For example I asked Jon to support his world-view and he's typed loads of words since I asked but is unable to address why he believes what he believes; so all he is left with is bile.

Bile?! Only in your head. Thanks for confirming just how fanatical and extremist dangerous troll you are. This will be the last time I feed you.

[truthpaste]

Bile?! Only in your head. Thanks for confirming just how fanatical and extremist dangerous troll you are. This will be the last time I feed you.

I don't eat fast food. So nothing lost.

Well done on setting up the God thread and being honest enough look for answers.
Most people start by spitting blood so no worries.

[jon1959]

The main disconnection is you can (Jon-like) spout the bile re the texts, but you are not willing to examine any evidence for their validity or otherwise, so all we are left with is a drive-thru look at an issue and jumping to a quickest convenient and popular majority viewpoint whilst trashing anyone who thinks differently.
If you can't ask *questions to understand (which some actually now have) where other people are coming from, then you are not really engaging the discussion.

* For example I asked Jon to support his world-view and he's typed loads of words since I asked but is unable to address why he believes what he believes; so all he is left with is bile.

You have confused 'bile' with disgust - again.

As to 'supporting' my world view, I have no intention of getting involved in your circular arguments and general trolling. My world view - my view of the physical world, and the social and political systems and ideas that have emerged from human consciousness against that natural backdrop - have formed over a lifetime of observation, study and argument. I assume that is true for most of us.

[jeepster]

You have confused 'bile' with disgust - again.

As to 'supporting' my world view, I have no intention of getting involved in your circular arguments and general trolling. My world view - my view of the physical world, and the social and political systems and ideas that have emerged from human consciousness against that natural backdrop - have formed over a lifetime of observation, study and argument. I assume that is true for most of us.

What i have noticed with him,he does try to belittle or put any one down who does not beleive his faith.

[truthpaste]

What i have noticed with him,he does try to belittle or put any one down who does not beleive his faith.

What I do ask are questions of those who hold different views. After all they pepper me with questions as you would expect.
If those people don't know why they beieve what they believe then they may feel belittled, but that has nothing to do with me?

[jeepster]

What I do ask are questions of those who hold different views. After all they pepper me with questions as you would expect.
If those people don't know why they beieve what they believe then they may feel belittled, but that has nothing to do with me?

Does not make sense.
How can you believe in something but dont know why.

[truthpaste]

Does not make sense.
How can you believe in something but dont know why.

Have you heard of 'herd mentality'?
People claim that they hold an opinion but have only selected it because it keeps them in the majority and/ or they didn't want to do the research to form an opinion of their own. Either way they fail to understand how that opinion was formed and how it stands up to being honestly tested.

[truthpaste]

What i have noticed with him,he does try to belittle or put any one down who does not beleive his faith.

Point 1: There is nobody here that has NO faith, not even the atheists. (if you doubt that then raise it on the 'God' discussion).
Point 2: I don't expect the majority of british people in the 21st Century to have a faith that's based the key teachings of the Bible.
Point 3: People come into this discussion (and all others worldwide) with a view (hopefuily their own) and so I have just as much right to question their faith position as they do my own.

Generally speaking, the person who implodes/ explodes or walks away, is the person who has never really thought about why they actually hold the position they do on life, death, morality and purpose. So they choose to keep their blindfold on and move to a safe distance or occasionally throw insults without getting into a discusion that may expose the thin ice they have chosen to stand on.

[truthpaste]

[QUOTE=jon1959;5500388]You have confused 'bile' with disgust - again.

As to 'supporting' my world view, I have no intention of getting involved in your circular arguments and general trolling. My world view - my view of the physical world, and the social and political systems and ideas that have emerged from human consciousness against that natural backdrop - have formed over a lifetime of observation, study and argument. I assume that is true for most of us.[/QUOTE

I guess it would be more appropriate to discuss what a world view is on the new 'God' thread.

We both obviously have a very different view of life, death and purpose, however that doesn't mean we have to constantly communicate in acidic tones and there's no reason why we can't learn things from each other even when on many things we will be polar opposites.

So apart from me having tried and tested views (as you do) that I hold very firmly, what do you find to be digusting re what I have said on this or any other subject?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Jon, another excellent post with considered argument and demonstrating remarkable patience. I'm beginning to ask a few questions here though. I'd be interested in yours and others take on this. I'm not sure I possess the f*cking resolve patience or will to continue.

In the complex tapestry of global religious and political discussion, the challenge of engaging with individuals holding extreme, fundamentalist views, particularly those who justify violence through religious prophecies, is a futile one. Surely?

For me, this question becomes especially pertinent when discussing extremists who cite prophecies as justifications for genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, and other atrocities in the 21st century. It is essential to acknowledge that these positions starkly contrast with the fundamental teachings of Jesus, who preached love, compassion, and peace. Jesus, a Jew, taught principles that are diametrically opposed to any form of violence or hatred. Additionally, the ideology of Zionism, with its political and territorial ambitions, often rejects the New Testament, creating a further disconnect from the Christian messages of love and reconciliation.

But in the same way, there are, in some people's eyes, real and true Cardiff City supporters. It seems that in truthpaste's world, this applies to Christians too.

The dialogue with individuals holding such extremist beliefs presents a considerable challenge (under-f*cking-statement). On one hand, it is tempting to argue that reason and evidence-based dialogue can bridge divides and soften hardline stances. On the other hand, when beliefs are deeply entrenched and supported by a conviction in divine sanction, the scope for productive dialogue narrows significantly.

Referencing religious prophecy to justify severe human rights violations raises the question: are we witnessing not just a refusal to engage in meaningful discussion but potentially a form of trolling or even geopolitical destabilisation?

The use of such conflicts by extremists to further their narratives, irrespective of the human cost, points to a deep-seated fanaticism.

When engaging in discussions, surely it is crucial to distinguish between faith and the misuse of religious texts to support inhumane agendas. The endgame of dialogues with individuals who adopt fanatical religious beliefs to justify violence poses a significant challenge.

Doesn't this force us to consider whether certain forms of engagement, rather than fostering understanding, might inadvertently legitimise or embolden extremist viewpoints?

In summary. Are we wasting our f*cking time?

Yep. Hence my ceasing to contribute regarding this subject matter on here. Trying to communicate with a dogmatic extremist that misrepresents one's statements and who comes over as nasty and patronising* is a complete waste of time.

*I don't think this zealot's attempts at being patronising actually have an effect as he is far less less intelligent, less worldly and far more indocrinated than several of his major detractors on here.

Just give up. You'll feel better for it, old fruit.

[jeepster]

Yep. Hence my ceasing to contribute regarding this subject matter on here. Trying to communicate with a dogmatic extremist that misrepresents one's statements and who comes over as nasty and patronising* is a complete waste of time.

*I don't think this zealot's attempts at being patronising actually have an effect as he is far less less intelligent, less worldly and far more indocrinated than several of his major detractors on here.

Just give up. You'll feel better for it, old fruit.

Same as me,just gave up.