Quote Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew View Post
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.