Hubner's credulity

From Hubner’s latest post:

Steve says in a small post, “Jamin Hubner, with his overdeveloped persecution complex, nurses the notion that I must be attacking his pro-“Palestinian” position because I hate him.” Folks, I honestly have no idea what Steve is talking about – especially since he provides no references or links to my material.

Why do I have to remind Hubner of what he’s said in the past?

Steve Hays at Triablogue doesn’t seem to like me. I don’t know why, and I wish that wasn’t the case. But that’s just the way things are.

http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2011/05/19/steve-hays-hubbub-and-hamas/

Continuing:

Steve Hays has produced a number of recent posts, most or many of which flow from an attitude that can nowhere be praised in God’s word. He has essentially been told this by many close to him…

Who are the “many” who’ve “essentially” told me that?

His latest mockery involves selections from my job history…That’s very unfortunate. Continual (and unrepentant) mockery and condescension of other Christians has done very little to further God’s kingdom.

I’m puzzled by Hubner’s incapacity for self-criticism. The offending post was simply a tu quoque argument. Hubner said:

I realize this is largely a waste of time for many people. Talking about the history of the state of Israel with Zionist Dispensationalists is as useful as talking about the history of the Bible with King James Onlyists...In short, no meaningful discussion will take place over the primary issues because one side is simply incapable of putting emotions, tradition, and knee-jerk reactions aside.

What’s that if not mockery and condescension of other Christians? Since he chose to post that invidious comparison, I responded in kind by comparing Huber to Charles Lee Feinberg. Hubner takes umbrage when someone does that to him, but it doesn’t occur to him that he’s guilty of the same thing. Unfortunately, Hubner isn’t receiving the type of mentoring he needs.

I’m even more confused. He says elsewhere, “For some odd reason, Hubner lacks the moral discernment to draw the correct conclusion from that worse-case scenario. He apparently imagines that if Israel and the “Palestinians” are equally culpable, then they are entitled to equal treatment from the US, or Christian Americans.” How Steve is able to enter my imagination is beyond…my imagination. But perhaps Steve himself is lacking discernment since I have never argued or asserted that present day Palestinians and Israel “are entitled to equal treatment from the US, or Christian Americans.” A thick straw man, indeed, as the rest of his post “Geostrategic morality” depends on it.

What his Hubner’s point if he doesn’t think Dispensational Christians or American foreign policymakers are being unfair to the “Palestinians” by giving Israel preferential treatment?

The rest of Steve’s recent material is…well, usually not his material (those of you who are familiar with Triablogue realize that it has unfortunately become more of a blog index than a blog itself, since well over half the material – well, Steve’s material at least – is nothing but links to other websites. An occasional link to other people’s material is something we all do as bloggers because it can be helpful, but in the case of Triablogue, it’s become rather exhausting and an incentive to do just that: read other things.

Well, that’s pretty egotistical on his part. What’s wrong with directing readers to good material by other writers? Moreover, no one is forcing the reader to follow the link.

The more substantive content of Steve’s blog posts are sometimes just hard to follow. His post “The Protocols of Anti-Zionism” has me scratching my head. I honestly have no idea why he quoted from the PLO and its recognition of Israel’s right to exist and then quoted from a website that shows Arafat’s ordering of terrorism against Israel, or why any of that is relevant to me or anything I’ve said. I have never suggested that the state of Israel today simply doesn’t “have the right to exist.” Nor has anything been written from my keyboard that suggests that Christian shouldn’t condemn acts of terrorism by Palestinians, or by anyone else. Nor have I invited anyone to a contest to see which side, Israelies or Palestinians committed more terrorism in history. If none of these things are the point of his post, I don’t know what is.

Why does he find that so hard to follow? Hubner said:

Now, as far as I know, I have yet to hear a single Zionist dispensationalist ever acknowledge that that was truly the opinion of any Arab in the Middle-East at any time. Could have Feisal expressed sympathy and kindness towards the Jewish cause any more?

Notice how Hubner unquestioningly accepts this statement as an expression of Feisal's “true” opinion. I illustrated Hubner’s credulity by quoting two prominent Muslims who talk out of both sides of their mouth on terrorism. You’d have to do more than just quote Feisal’s public statements to know what he truly thought of the Jewish cause. Feisal’s public expression of sympathy and kindness towards the Jewish cause doesn’t tell you what he really felt.

This is the language of diplomatic leverage. Foreign dignitaries often say things for public consumption they don’t sincerely believe. What world is Hubner living in?