?!? Evangelical Rick Wiles is very anti Israel and anti Christian Zionist?!?

[bobbieinok]

His show TruNews can be seen on youtube.

He's had many shows attacking John Hagee, leader of US Christian Zionists.

He's had shows against moving US embassy to Jerusalem and against giving the Golan Heights to Israel.

He seems to be operating from a very anti-semitic worldview. Very weird coming from a prominent Evangeical preacher in today's US Evangelical environment.

[Major Nikon]

1. He's a loon that makes other loons like Alex Jones appear sane

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/rick-wiles-satan-using-pokemon-go-to-spawn-demonic-powers-and-murder-christians/

[guillaumeb]

3. Does he call his opponents deceivers? eom

[Major Nikon]

6. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you are trolling

Still it's kinda telling how you're still so upset over one instance of the exact same behavior you direct towards others almost on a daily basis. So much for your promise to drop it, eh?

[guillaumeb]

7. 3 more assssertions:

One, of trolling,

Two, that I exhibit the same behavior,

and Three, that I said anything about dropping it. All I said was that I would take your assertion on faith because I cannot prove it.

Keep asserting.

[Major Nikon]

8. "The other, I will say no more."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=309975

You've said more at least twice now. Kinda funny how you are so upset over the exact same behavior you direct towards others you'd feel the need to drag this into another thread that has nothing to do with the previous one. I'm going to bookmark this and remind you about it the next time you harp on your "choir" garbage.

[guillaumeb]

9. Meaning that I wil not sday exactly what the second choice is.

So you still refuse to provide links to this poster, and to these specific assertions?

I too will bookmark this thread.

[Major Nikon]

10. Nor will you say who makes up this "choir" you speak of often

Or the many other times you speak non-specifically about other posters you denigrate here.

So I suppose if I do this a few more hundred times, that will make us even, eh?

[guillaumeb]

11. MM spoke of the choir.

Are you employing the tu quoque defense?

Would it not be far easier to simply provide the links to this negative poster?

One might think so.

[Major Nikon]

12. As have several others

It's not as if your dehumanizing tactics go unnoticed.

[guillaumeb]

14. As I thought.

Is it dehumanizing to ask someone who made an assertion to provide links to that assertion?

Links that would show what was asserted?

Is that dehumanizing, or basic Debate 101?

[Major Nikon]

32. It's dehumanizing to broad brush people in this forum

You know this because you've been told this many times, yet still continue to do it.

[guillaumeb]

41. Anyone can make an accusation.

And some might do so to intimidate people in this group from posting.

[Major Nikon]

46. Other reasons come to mind

Some people use broad brush attacks just because they are assholes and they feel emboldened to do so anonymously. Or perhaps they are powerless and ineffective in life and doing so makes them feel empowered in ways they can't otherwise. Or maybe they are just expressing their hatred for other types of people.

The reason(s) are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, but regardless there are those here who aren't going to give bad behavior a pass without pointing it out for what it is.

[guillaumeb]

56. Self-awareness is essential.

Many ignore, or are unaware, of their own behavior.

[MineralMan]

63. Yes, many do.

Here:

[guillaumeb]

70. In your room?

A good start.

[Major Nikon]

65. Or they are and don't care

But again the why isn’t a concern of mine. YMMV.

[trotsky]

66. Are you aware of your own behavior, gil?

It doesn't seem like you are.

[guillaumeb]

71. One might ask the same question of many here.

[marylandblue]

74. You are the only one here who seems to lack self awareness.

I have no dog in this fight, but seriously, it's really hard to believe you don't understand how you are being percieved. I know some people like that in real life. They usually get a diagnosis.

[guillaumeb]

75. A meaningless point.

I could say the same about nearly everyone in this group.

[marylandblue]

76. Case in point. Your headline claims the point is meaningless.

Then uses as support the fact that you could say the same thing about others. Which is technically correct, but misses the fact that I was providing MY opinion about YOU. If you gave the same sort of answer in real life in certain clinical settings, you would in fact get diagnosed with something.

[guillaumeb]

77. Diagnosis from a distance is so prone to error.

And I understand that this type of dialogue in a relatively safe setting serves as venting for many non-theists here.

[marylandblue]

78. Good, because I didn't make a diagnosis from a distance.

I just said that people who act that way in real life get a diagnosis. Since it's the internet, no such diagnosis can be made and there are many other explanations for your behavior, but they are mostly less flattering.

[guillaumeb]

83. Use that need to analyze and write on why you feel that there are so few theists who post in

this group.

Might they sense a certain hostility toward theists?

And how do you analyze yourself?

[marylandblue]

89. Why do you need turn comments into "need?"

Yes, I think there is hostility towards religion and a lot of religionists don't want to deal with it. But those religionists who can deal with it are even more hostile. Those people are gone, except you who expresses your hostility with snideness, sarcasm and rhetorical fallacies. Not nice, but within the rules.

For myself, I am completely insane, so I don't give a shit.

[guillaumeb]

92. You cannot be completely insane.

Or can you?

But there are only a handful of theists who post here.

[marylandblue]

94. Well thank you for affirming my sanity. It means a lot to us nuts.

[guillaumeb]

95. Walnuts are my favorite type of nut.

But please do not take my unprofessional and untrained affirmation of your sanity as evidence of anything other than my opinion.

And we all know how terrible and deficient my opinions are.

[trotsky]

80. But I asked you.

Why won't you answer?

Are you unaware of your behavior?

Or are you aware of it, and don't care how rotten it is?

[MineralMan]

33. I did, yes, in an obvious satirical way.

My satirical posts about the DU Religion Group Choir were inspired by your continual references to a non-existent choir. I see you are once again referring to me in your posts, even when I am not the subject of the thread. I find that rather rude, especially when you reduce me to initials. It's even worse when you get the initials wrong, as you have also done with another DUer.

As for those requested links, I supplied them, below, in this thread. Oddly enough, they link to posts of which you were the author. Irony is a funny thing.

[guillaumeb]

43. And my responses that you linked to were also obviously satirical.

And you still made the mistake of misreading MN's actual claim and what I actually wrote.

Careful reading is critical to avoid the error that you made in confusing the word deceived with deceiver.

[MineralMan]

17. Here are your links:

You'll find the "deceiver" reference therein.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280189

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280184

[guillaumeb]

18. You obviously missed the point,

and the actual claim.

Try again.

[MineralMan]

19. I missed nothing.

Good evening, sir.

[guillaumeb]

21. You have much faith in your ability.

But again, you missed the point.

[MineralMan]

24. You are the one who claims to have faith.

Not I.

[guillaumeb]

25. My remark stands.

[MineralMan]

27. So does my Manhasset.

[guillaumeb]

20. MK's claim:

Lots of Christians think non-Christians are tools of the devil.

We have a regular here who calls his detractors “deceiver” which is code-speak for the devil.

The idea is if you aren’t with them, you must be against them and working for the other side. Many of them are indoctrinated with these warped ideas from childhood.

Your links refer to a jest. And MK obviously thought that as well.

Sometimes we must read in context. I recommend it.

[MineralMan]

22. Who is MK?

I see nobody with those initials here. To whom do you refer, sir?

[guillaumeb]

23. In this actual thread.

#s 1,6,8, and 12.

[MineralMan]

28. You mean MN?

I do not read minds. Major Nikon.

[Lordquinton]

29. Imagine going hard on someone to provide links you claim don't exist

When they are to your own posts.

[MineralMan]

31. I know, huh?

I almost never use DU's advanced search tool, but it wasn't hard to find references to "deceiver" in the Religion group. I remembered seeing the word used here, but not who used it.

[Lordquinton]

36. Were there more?

Or did you just stop at 2? I would have stopped there personally, enough to prove a point.

Oh, unless the challenge he is raising is that the word refers to Satan, he does include that in the quote he keeps reposting.

[MineralMan]

37. There were only two, but I only went back to 2018.

That was enough. Now, I don't know if he remembered using that word, but I remembered it appearing in posts, and was in that thread, too.

It's troublesome to me, for reasons I won't elaborate on. There's a pattern here of people attempting to demonize non-believers that has been going on since I joined DU in 2008. I stopped visiting this group for quite some time, but finally decided to return, because the topic of religion is one that interests me.

Oddly enough, this group would probably get no traffic at all if it were not for some people who are interested in religion, but do not believe that deities exist. It would probably be like some of the other groups under the religion topic. So, in some ways, those non-believers are actually part of why the group is the busiest group on DU, by a large margin.

On the other hand, our presence tends to perpetuate some negative aspects of discussions of religion. There always seems to be someone or a few who cannot stand the fact that some people do not and cannot believe in supernatural entities and phenomena. They have to inject an insulting tone into every discussion, which is too bad, I think.

Anyway, the real "deceiver" is not a non-existent supernatural entity, I think. It is, instead, a term that describes those who insist that their beliefs are true because they believe and who are compelled to enter any conversation that argues against that, even if briefly and with single sentence replies.

It's too bad.

[guillaumeb]

44. More claims.

There are so many.

[Lordquinton]

51. Uncontested claims

Interesting that.

[guillaumeb]

59. Unsubstantiated claims.

Interesting indeed.

[MineralMan]

61. ..

[Lordquinton]

52. I experienced the same pattern

I officially joined about two months before you did and completely back up what you say. This place was much different, there were many more like Gil, making it a far more hostile place for non-believers. Over time one side consistently couldn't play nicely and we are left with what we have today.

Pretending that decade didn't happen is in line with theistic thinking, the world started last tuesday so ignore any information that contradicts that.

Not only inject an insulting tone, but complain at any mention of non-belief, while shoving their belief awkwardly into every conversation.

Non-existent entity is right. And if it did exist they would be the ones worshiping it, because their god created it and they give it power.

[MineralMan]

60. We're not the only ones to notice that, I'm sure.

Many of those who were here then are no longer here. They were not able to maintain a reasonable attitude and were shown the door eventually. I won't name any names, but those who were here remember them.

[guillaumeb]

67. Some decline to post here, due in part to the toxic responses

directed at theists who do post here.

[Mariana]

99. You aren't the only ones to notice.

I joined DU about the same time as you and Lordquinton. I remember it as well.

[guillaumeb]

39. They are based on a misreading of the posts.

And that misreading can lead to errors.

[Lordquinton]

50. Please explain how it's a misreading.

After so many years of your posts being constantly misread you think you'd learn to be more clear.

[guillaumeb]

58. Do you know the difference between the words "deceived' and "deceiver"?

MM and MN seem to have misread the "proof" that MM cites.

[MineralMan]

62. Here are the links again. They are someone calling someone the "deceiver"

The claim by Major Nikon was that someone here used the word "deceiver" to refer to Satan or the devil or some evil entity. You claimed that was not true. So, I found the posts with a simple search using DU's Advances search tool. And here are those links again. There was no confusion between "decieved" and deceiver." Nope. Go look again:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280189

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280184

Now, that's the last time I will discuss this.

[guillaumeb]

68. I hate to point out what should be obvious, but...

Here is the original claim:

Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:22 PM
Major Nikon (31,803 posts)
4. They think the same about atheists

It’s not a new idea, it’s just they have newer targets for their hate.

Lots of Christians think non-Christians are tools of the devil.

We have a regular here who calls his detractors “deceiver” which is code-speak for the devil.

The idea is if you aren’t with them, you must be against them and working for the other side. Many of them are indoctrinated with these warped ideas from childhood.

From this thread:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=309908

The claim by MN, an obvious one, is that this unspecified "regular" calls his detractors deceiver.

Your first link leads to this response to MN, by me,

The deceiver might have put that thought into your mind.

It is obvious from a reading that the deceiver does not refer to MN, but to an unnamed entity which might be deceiving MN.

So MN's claim is incorrect, and unsupported.

So that should end the matter.

[trotsky]

53. And they respond with "it's only a joke, bro."

Christians being Christian I guess.

[Major Nikon]

34. He knows

He also knows exactly what he meant. I'm sure he got a particular satisfaction thinking those dirty atheists wouldn't pick up on his code speak and understand the dehumanizing insult, while other Christians might. The problem is he's not original as usual. He's far from the only Christian who does this, so it's not as if I haven't seen it before.

[MineralMan]

35. Yes, I know he knows.

"Glad to meet you; hope you guessed my name..."

The deliberate misspelling of your initials constitutes further insult. Some former group members were more direct with their insults, but can no longer post here, usually. Obvious attempts at subtlety are obvious.

So, I thought I'd provide the links to the "deceiver" posts, pour encourager les autres.

I hope I didn't misquote Voltaire. Je sais que j'écris mal en français.

[guillaumeb]

40. More hyperbole.

And more claims.

[MineralMan]

42. And more cryptic one sentence replies.

[guillaumeb]

45. True. eom

[Major Nikon]

48. Looks more subliterate than cryptic

"Hyperbole" seems to be one of Gil's favorite words as he likes to throw that one around at other people baselessly. You'd think he would have spent some time trying to figure out what it means first.

[MineralMan]

49. Hypobole...

From
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypobole

(rhetoric) A rhetorical figure in which several things are mentioned that seem to make against the argument, or in favour of the opposing side, and then they are refuted one by one.

Or at https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hypobole

Hypobole - A drastic understatement. The opposite of hyperbole.

[guillaumeb]

57. I still remember your rather interesting definition of the word "apologia". eom

[Major Nikon]

64. I didn't define it, so you remembered someone else

[guillaumeb]

69. You misused it a few times.

So no, my memory is correct.

[Major Nikon]

72. You are full of shit

It was someone else who provided the definition. Is it really so hard to admit when you're wrong that you have to lie about it?

[trotsky]

82. That's dishonest, g.

Don't make false claims.

[guillaumeb]

85. Laughable.

He misused, or misunderstood, the term child rape apologia a number of times.

[trotsky]

86. No, he didn't.

You are misunderstanding the term.

But continue to mock and insult others if it makes you feel better. I understand you have a need to put others down in order to raise yourself up.

[guillaumeb]

88. In that case, you share in the misunderstanding.

And that is not an insult, simply an observation.

[trotsky]

91. I understand your need to believe that. n/t

[marylandblue]

96. No he accused you of doing something indefensible.

And rather than try to defend yourself on the merits, you argued about the definition of words.

[Major Nikon]

47. That word doesn't mean what you think it means

Learn how to think.

[guillaumeb]

73. Okay MM.

But, you might want to research the term.

Apologia means defense, not apology.

[Major Nikon]

79. You might want to follow your own advice, Gullible

Apology can mean defense, so as usual you are going on about subjects you don't understand. Meanwhile I have always used the word "apologia" to mean exactly that. If you inferred something else, then you fucked up.

I get that English may not be your first language, Gullible. However, if you are going to try and correct the grammar of someone else, you might want to make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about first. It might save yourself some future embarrassment. Then again, embarrassing yourself seems to be the one thing in which you are exceptional. Keep up the good work!

[guillaumeb]

84. Very interesting.

Your repeated misuse of the term child rape apologia is still relatively current.

So there is that.

As is your constant use of ad hominem.

Resort to ad hominem is a sure sign that there is no actual argument.

[Major Nikon]

90. If you replace "apologia" with the synonym "defense" the meaning doesn't change, Gullible

When you repeatedly try to convince others that down is up, your credibility suffers. Meanwhile you conveniently ignored that "apology" also means "defense" which was your other fuckup.

As far as ad hominem goes, when you intentionally fuck up my nym repeatedly even after being called out for it, you can expect the same in return. So again, you could benefit from following your own self rightousness sermon, Gullible, provided you don't want to look like a hypocrite.

[MineralMan]

81. Now "MM" is Major Nikon?

Your use of initials is faulty, guillaumeb. Since you cannot seem to keep them straight, I suggest you forgo using them at all. Spell out the names of those you are calling out, and you will avoid such errors. That is my suggestion.

[trotsky]

87. I'm pretty sure you aren't worried about it either way...

but calling gil out on his typos is completely fair game, since he has done that to other DUers on multiple occasions.

[Major Nikon]

93. No worries

Sometimes I make a mistake and type Gullible.

[guillaumeb]

97. I agree with 2/3rds of your statement.

I would suggest replacing "a mistake" with a more appropriate term.

[Major Nikon]

98. OK, Gullible

What do you call this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310029

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310243

When you do it twice in the same thread even after being called out for it repeatedly, "mistake" doesn't seem to apply anymore. So whatever you call it, I'll go with that. Fair enough, Gullible?

[guillaumeb]

101. I call it refuting your claim.

So yes, you continue to make the same mistake.

[guillaumeb]

104. True.

You would be wrong even if I did not point out the error.

[MineralMan]

100. Well, they could just be typos. Or not. They could also

be confusion about identification, too. Perhaps he is confusing one person with another in his mind. I don't know. However, spelling out the names, rather than using initials would solve both problems.

[guillaumeb]

2. Do you have specific links?

My opinion, from your description, is that he does not hold with the view that end days require all of the Jews to return to Israel.

[bobbieinok]

4. I just search trunews on youtube and find many shows with this slant

[guillaumeb]

5. Not all Christians accept the "end days" scenario. eom

[True Blue American]

13. The fact is

No one knows when the end time will come.people have been predicting it and being wrong forever.

Not all Christians are adimrers of Trump,either.

[guillaumeb]

15. There is that as well. eom

[safeinOhio]

16. I'm not a Christian but,

didn’t Christ say, about 2 thousand years ago, “there are some here today that will live to see my return.” So, there rapture came and went and we were left behind.

[MineralMan]

38. Yes, he was supposed to have said that.

It's one of the contradictions between scripture and what is believed by some Christians. There's quite a large group of believers who think the end times is still to come and has requirements that must take place beforehand.

Those beliefs are supported by a hodgepodge of scriptural references, most of them from the book, "Revelation."

Bottom line is that none of it is based on any contemporaneous writings by actual witnesses, so who can say what is accurate, if anything, or who wrote it down.

Besides, those scriptures date back to times that were very much unlike today's times. The words have passed through many edits and translations, so it's likely that they bear only passing relationships with the originals, assuming those existed in the first place.

[Mariana]

30. That is true.

With so many varieties of Christianity to pick from, one can believe or disbelieve just about anything, and still be one flavor of Christian or another.

[trotsky]

55. Absolutely.

Some Christians don't even think they need to follow the Golden Rule or refrain from judging others, as Jesus supposedly taught.

I mean if you can ignore direct orders from the dude that allegedly started your religion, and yet still consider yourself a follower of his, I'd say all bets are off.

[trotsky]

54. And not all reject it, either.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/christ-second-coming-survey_n_2993218.html

[MineralMan]

103. That's amazing.

2000 years, and 47% of people in current generations think it will happen in their lifetimes. Now, that's weird egotism. Freaking amazing!

[Turbineguy]

26. He must be one of those

Democrats that trump is on about.