Wayne Anderson
Aug 23, 2017 · 1 min read

And, yet, nowhere do you actually detail what “[tolerance] viewed as a peace treaty” actually means.

If I truly believed, with every fiber of my being, that man is inherently tainted by sin, that there is a divine creator whose presence is manifest (not least by a First Cause argument even if we accepted big bang and post-event evolution), that the creator cannot be in the presence of sin, but has provided a way for you to repent of that sin and be without it, allowing for your eternal salvation:

Would my greatest service to you be to accept a peace where I do not bring these facts up in the name of “tolerating” your ideological separation from this recognition, or would it be in love to knowingly share these with you, at the risk that you consider this an assault on your views and right to hold them?

We can both agree that there are people who have dealt with this inappropriately — crusades, most of dark ages catholicism, some of modern catholicism, modern violent religions — but I would be curious about your response to the approach itself by someone of fundamental believe expressed to you because of the love and concern they have for you, that you not be subject to the wrath of the creator.

)