And for sure, as what I expected, he would oppose it and even condemn the left for this kind of incident, and even spoke of anything christian just to counter what the christian left spoke regarding to the martyr; and upon hearing what my father said, I accepted some of his points, but then I told him that the bible has different interpretations and ideas, same as different lines to be said. Especially the words "I came here not to bring peace but a sword" in which different from Christ's healing of a Roman soldier's ear after being wounded by Peter, his desciple. And even spoke of Christ sacrificing himself, of opposing violence, etc.
Fine! But then how come Christ spoke of "to bring a sword?" Of calling for change? Of calling for action alongside faith? How come Christ even attacked the moneymakers and vendors in the temple? For me, Christianity is not a mere faith based institution, but rather more of a mass movement whose objective is faith-based salvation through action, by all means necessary in order to save the people from structural sin.
And as we continue debating, there he spoke too much, too hysterical and event too personal; he even brag to me that he's speaking it too personal and starting to show being a father just to argue, well... I still resist what he's saying despite having a point just because he, a right winger who is even against the reformists, was acting too hysterical, a paranoid especially against the leftists-like me! Even bragging his "democracy" just to counter my "communism."
Since I kept on hearing too much of his words that I even wanted to speak but stopping me off, I started to speak this:
"YOU ARE CRAZY!"
And my father, being onion skinned to be a lawyer, reacted badly and started to speak me badly, really badly for what I have said to him. I spoke it to him for he's speaking too hysterical, too personal that contradicts the way lawyers speak and think, and even trying much to pull me down by showing his actions as a disciplinarian? Of speaking of personal ones in the middle of an intellectual-intended discussion? Perhaps respect for different ideas is not part of his, but rather more of dominating it.