>>843479
I remember listening to a lecture about how the Church is being complicit with the NWO or something and one point I remember was a talk about something called "Situational Ethics". It's the idea that the right thing to do in any situation is dependent upon the situation. This sort of reasoning is flawed however in that it disregards compliance with the 10 Commandments in favour of what would be good with respect to the immediate situation. This kind of Subjectivism eventually leads to a complete rejection of the 10 Commandments on the grounds that there can be no such thing as an absolute right or wrong that is applicable to all situations. I believe a big proponent for Situational Ethics in the Church, some Priest, ended up agreeing, off-camera, that the 10 Commandments were not absolute. In the end, he actually died an atheist.
I found the video. It's embedded into my post.
The problem I think you encountered OP is that those "Christians" have embraced Situational Ethics. They do not believe that the 10 Commandments are absolute. Your assertion that the details of the circumstances don't matter and the implication of your assertion, the implication that there is an absolute right and wrong, in their eyes, is probably a primitive view of Christianity.
Also, just because they were offended by your criticism, that doesn't mean that they're incapable of forgiveness. Forgiveness doesn't mean never being offended by someone. If nobody was ever hurt by anyone, there would be no need for forgiveness to begin with! The true determination of their willingness to forgive would come from whether or not they accepted your apology for upsetting them. Your apology, to be forgiven, may require that you go even further and express a willingness to join them. If they were unwilling to accept you, after you had "repented" and "seen the light", then I believe you would have grounds to argue that they don't know anything about forgiving an enemy.