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?
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.