T
Teflon93
Guest
It didn’t come across that way to me; I simply think that Koukl ought to be called on his lack of charity and courtesy as well. It is a road that we are all called upon to take, and you certainly cannot be faulted for taking it in this situation. Koukl, however, has the same obligation all Christians do, and we have an obligation to correct his error so that more do not feel what he did was somehow justified.To clarify: I did not intend to offer a DEFENSE of Koukl’s actions, rather I was responding to Beckwith’s example of charity in this matter by trying to find a charitable EXPLANATION.
Personally, I am totally at a loss as to why some Protestants equate Catholicism with idolatry but the fact is they do. Given the choice between responding in anger and responding with charity, I see Beckwith taking the “high road” and I choose to give Koukl the benefit of the doubt just as Beckwith has.
Sure, my first thought would be to agree with your assessment of Koukl and his program. Beckwith’s reaction, however, lead me to second thought. I’m sorry if that came across as excusing rudeness, incivility, or anti-Catholicism.
Ed