Did I write the article?
I marvel that people can be so morally insensitive! You didn't have to write the doggone article. You only needed to pass it on here to support your contention against Ashcroft.
I ask you, who sounds hostile here?
Well, not all hostility is wrong, certainly not hostility against what is clearly wrong. The issue here concerns alleged believers who rely upon and then employ heathen hostility to falsely assault the doctrines of other believers. The writer upon which you relied was clearly hostile to Ashcroft's church and used slander to express his heathen hostility-- slander which you have promoted here. It is quite valid to attack false doctrines. But you ought to first understand what you are attacking and attack that, rather than attack the man via slander.
Do your friends like it when you call them "heathens?"
Of course when I tell my heathen friends they will go to hell if they should persist in evil, they do not like to hear it. Yet it is the truth, along with the fact that they are heathens. I am persuaded there is no way to sugarcoat so awful a truth. Indeed, I think the matter ought not be sugarcoated in the least, lest the heathen think it is not as serious a matter as it really is. And if by my sharing the ungarnished truth a heathen should come to dismiss it, then he condemns himself. It is neither my job to have him like this truth, since no rational person can actually like such a thing, nor is it my job to avoid it.
I post one article you don't like, and you attack my faith.
I cannot attack what I do not see. You have here made a heathen assault on Ashcroft via a another heathen's assault on Ashcroft's church. Heathen's are always misrepresenting Christians, laughing at and ridiculing them. Indeed, I don't think I have ever read a piece by a heathen about believers that was not filled with error, ridicule and other anti-Christian hostility. But I expect the condemned to do this. What concerns me here is when alleged believers employ the tactics of heathens to attack other believers.
Ashcroft, though I reject him as a leader, has not done anything like this that I can see. The man's faith seems genuine. He appears to be struggling to live as honorably as he can, and this pattern seems to have existed for very many years. Now you, an alleged believer, are here attacking the man as a hypocrite, right along with the heathen horde, failing precisely as they do, to support your view with truth.
It is wrong. If you wish to attack Ashcroft, then fine. If you wish to attack his church, then fine. But you ought to attack with the truth, or with as much of the truth as you know. You ought not act like one heathen here who began an assault on Ashcroft's integrity, presenting no proof, and then when challenged to present proof, switched the issue to instead whine about his "taking responsibility" for things someone else did a world away. Do not employ the slander of the condemned.
If you are trying to find a way to be more insulting, the search is over.
Of course searching for this is not my concern in the least, daytrader. You were wrong to act as you did. You ought now to repent of your evil against Ashcroft and his church.
Consider the other cheek turned.
Very well. Let's hope I need not slap that one also. |
