In Reply to: Alan posted by juni on September 23, 2003 at 15:04:55:
Juni,
If you had said, "Alan, I feel your message titled, 'Time will tell, Juni' was nasty, then I would most certainly say that I am sorry that it offended you. Non_Christian's ugly message to me was triggered by that message.
I honestly do not feel that my response to Non_Christian was nasty. I do feel, however, that his post was very hateful and intolerant. Here are just a few quotes from him:
"I won't sit quietly while Christians wave their sickening banners
and shove things down my throat to do me some kind of favor."
Is "Sickening banners" a tolerant characterization Juni? Wouldn't you consider this a nasty tone?
"...this one got me so mad I just had to check the guideliens for myself."
Hmm...sounds angry and hostile to me. Kind of reminds me of the reactions of the saducees and pharisees, when they would hear the Gospel, and would gnash their teeth and pick up stones to throw.
"Your full of it Mr Chip. Non-Christians can say whatever they want as long as they relate what they say to themselves and only themselves."
Now he's saying I'm "full of it." Wow! What a nice sentiment! I guess I'm supposed to feel flattered?
"I saw postings by someone who challenged the arrogance of typical Christian sweeping and pointedly biased statements."
Now he's calling me (and Christians in general) arrogant and biased. Look whose talking!
Now if you truly feel that my response to him was nasty, then to be completely fair, you would have to characterize his messages as equally nasty, if not more so.
His tirade against me was triggered by my analysis of Christianity versus other religions. I am a Christian, therefore I often write from the Christian perspective. I offered statements made by Jesus Christ, which do not allow any wiggle-room or middle ground. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." In another verse, he said, "He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him."
The above words eventually got Jesus crucified. Millions of Christians have also died for trying to share those same uncompromising words. Some hurl physical stones, while others use literary stones. (I prefer to be hit with the literary stones. ;))
Now I think most people can look at the above verses and understand their meaning. Only someone who has been indoctrinated at a theologically liberal cemetery (Oopps! I mean seminary) would twist it into something neutral.
The objective and unbiased reader would conclude that this Jesus claimed to be the only way to God, and that without him, we are in trouble.
Now it's up to each of us to decide which side of the fence we will take. Is Christ who he claimed to be, or is he a liar? If he is true, then we should follow him. If he is not, then we won't. Hey, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger boy!
I resent the double standard that such people have created. They preach tolerance, but it is a counterfeit form of tolerance. It demands tolerance for any kind of bigoted, slanted, or false statement made by themselves, but if a Christian tries to defend his or her faith against their attacks, they are verbally stoned. I don't expect you to be anybody's doormat, Juni, so please don't expect me to be that guy's doormat.
Alan