Last week I began to discuss how people from different points of view engage each other. In this case I am speaking of Christians of course but it is irrelevant, as all people seem to adopt the same strategies. My first recommendation was to never respond to anonymous comments. This is the height of cowardice since anonymous means you don’t have to back your ideas with facts or reason.

But this brings up a more important point at this time. The whole concept we are exploring here really boils down to this; as “Christians” we are essentially “little christ’s”. We are followers of Jesus as God on earth. We are instructed in scripture to emulate and conform ourselves to be “like Christ”. Consequently there can be no more important discipline than to observe how Jesus actually was.

It is this very discipline that seems most misinterpreted when it comes to two believers reaching different conclusions about the same issue. For example when I recommended not honoring an anonymous comment with a response, some believers would interpret that to be un-Christian since we are supposed to love our enemies and anyways, doesn’t this give them a chance to be witnessed too?

First let me state that just as the disciples were unique personalities so are we believers. If you feel led to respond to anonymous insults then by all means engage away, but is that what Jesus would do? Most of the liberal persuasion would say yes because it fits the Jesus they’ re comfortable with. Yet we have in the scripture Matt: 10:14 among others that those who refuse to hear the truth we are to “shake the dust off our feet” as we LEAVE TOWN!

This is Jesus speaking folks. He makes it very clear you are under no obligation to engage those who refuse to see the truth. Matt; 10:22 promises we will be “hated by all men for my names sake” yet we must endure till the end. Having just watched the tea parties this past April 15 we heard once again liberals using the word hate to define ideas they disagree with.

It’s important to realize that this use of the word hate as a weapon of censorship is a liberal trademark. Janeane Garofalo said on Keith Olbermann that the entire protests were about” hating a black man”, what an incredibly insensitive and erroneous insult by the loving left.

The left placed Obama in office in order to force the socialist agenda onto Americans and use his race as a way to deflect descent by miscalling it hate. I bring this up as a real time incident to prove my point.
Returning to the original comments from my article one of the anonymous liberal intellectuals they said,

“It's a shame that when right-wing fundamentalists don't agree with another one of God's children they start calling them names. Imbeciles? What a nice, Christian thing to say. Liberals do have good hearts, and thank goodness, because it takes that to tolerate the hatefulness that's dished out from the conservative, God-fearing Christians. If it wasn't so sad, it would actually be funny.”

They took my use of the word “Imbecile” used by the way towards my OWN FRIEND as an insult. Those incapable of seeing the good natured teasing that happens amongst true friends when they disagree is a documented testament to ideology that sacrifices common sense when confronted with obvious facetiousness to try to malign and denigrate. All in the name of good old fashioned open-mindedness and respect.

Did anyone else laugh at the irony of the comment that would, if consistent, have to be defined as “hateful” by applying the term to me? There was NO tolerance there and liberals have proven to be incapable of such grace because it doesn’t fit their ideology of fascism. Fascist crush dissent by attacking it all the while being self deluded enough to believe they are loving us.

Most liberals like many conservatives are numb to their inability to discern hypocrisy in their midst. I was referred to as a “right wing fundamentalist” which in the liberal pantheon is an insult. Now you know why they remain anonymous. Next week we continue…