Quote Originally Posted by jon1959 View Post
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?