Again - don’t try to climb up on your shetland and pretend it’s a high-horse with your “Good grief”. You know that your “bless your heart” was a simpering condescension - so don’t pretend it was anything else.
The point is that you make no sense. You justify the hate - or at least you chastise Ted for calling for stopping the hate. But without justification.
There were NO Christians in that room being slaughtered while Ted was speaking. Sure, while I’m getting pummeled is not the time for anybody to lecture me about anything - WHEN I’M GETTING PUMMELED. However, in between beatings, it is totally appropriate to talk to me about someone who is in the same fight, and ask for my support. That was the situation.
Please read what I wrote and you copied: “So - since you didn’t intend to imply that it was Israel’s fault...” Why do you keep arguing that you never indicated that Israel was at fault? Read what I wrote again if you are struggling with that question. My assumption was the most reasonable conclusion for one to take from your original post...all of your other explanations make even less sense.
You use the US aid in your argument - the implication being that it is a justification for their actions...you were, after all, defending their actions to some degree. Now you concede it DOESN’T justify their actions...so WHY did you mention it? If it isn’t a statement to support your defense of their behavior, it is just superfluous blather.
“If they all suddenly had a change of heart, nothing would change.”
Read that quote again and see if you can find the paradox within it. Isn’t Christianity all about changing hearts, starting with our own?
Finally, you justify the behavior of these “Christians” by listing a series of “What’s in it for me?” questions on their behalf. Odd.
If they are the Christians they claim to be, their hatred of Israel is a very pertinent topic at a conference entitled with their Christianity. It is probably a more important topic than any other. Christ did not become the conquering prince the Jews wanted Him to be, He preached salvation and love. He was not unaware or unfeeling of their plight under the Romans, He just chose to address the vitally important topic of salvation, forgiveness and love. I’m not equating Cruz with Christ, but that is exactly what he was doing, he was exemplifying Christ by calling their attention to a critically important flaw in their thinking....and he was reviled, as Christ was, for not telling them what they wanted to hear.
You tried, but you failed. There is simply no justification for those who call themselves Christian to hate Jews, or to boo and hiss at those who call for an end to that hate.
..................
I agree that somebody is on his/her high horse. “Bless your heart” was a way of saying that I think your read on my original post was stupid. “Good grief” is my expression of disbelief that anyone would get that upset with “bless your heart”. I can be more direct if you need it.
“The point is that you make no sense. You justify the hate - or at least you chastise Ted for calling for stopping the hate. But without justification.”
What part doesn’t make sense? You left that out. I never justified the hate. You made that up. I said it wasn’t the time for that lecture. Point out how I justified it. If I intended to justify it, I wouldn’t be arguing with you now. You are looking for nuance where there ain’t none.
“There were NO Christians in that room being slaughtered while Ted was speaking.”
That is pretty weak. I’d say those populations feel like they are being pummeled. I doubt there’s going to be any gay marriages in your church tomorrow, but I’d bet it’s still an issue for you.
“My assumption was the most reasonable conclusion for one to take from your original post...all of your other explanations make even less sense.”
Your assumption does not appear to have been based on reason. You still haven’t explained how you arrived at that conclusion. Is it possible that my original point was that this was not the time, nor the place, for Ted Cruz to give that lecture; and that doing so accomplished nothing? You see that as blaming Israel. That is NOT the most reasonable conclusion. It’s not reasonable at all. You are looking for nuance where there ain’t none.
“You use the US aid in your argument - the implication being that it is a justification for their actions...you were, after all, defending their actions to some degree. Now you concede it DOESN’T justify their actions...so WHY did you mention it? If it isn’t a statement to support your defense of their behavior, it is just superfluous blather.”
It’s THEIR state of mind. They do think they have been left out for slaughter. They do resent the aid the U.S. gives Israel. It’s not justified, but it’s what these people believe. Do you think THAT justifies their slaughter. I don’t think you believe that, but that’s the sort of reasoning you used with me.
“Read that quote again and see if you can find the paradox within it. Isn’t Christianity all about changing hearts, starting with our own?”
So, until such time as these people support Israel, and become better Christians (there’s that high horse again), you are fine with them being slaughtered. Again, I don’t think that about you, but I am making the point that your original reasoning was anything but.
“Finally, you justify the behavior of these “Christians” by listing a series of “What’s in it for me?” questions on their behalf. Odd.”
What’s not odd is that you didn’t address any of them. That was very much expected. If they began supporting Israel, what would happen?
“If they are the Christians they claim to be, their hatred of Israel is a very pertinent topic at a conference entitled with their Christianity. It is probably a more important topic than any other.”
More important than the genocide being committed against them? They are actually being literally killed for their faith. Oh, but the people in that room weren’t being killed right then and there, so no big deal. Right?