Is it impossible to be to nice?

[Cactus]

I think that we should welcome equally all people regardless of who they are. If you surprise people who didn't expect it they might be interested in learning more about Christ. However that is no reason to not throw out mockers!

So who thinks we should do our best to be a welcoming and expansive community!? Just a question. I don't want any trouble.

Thank you everyone for your pleasantry! But srsly, read Matthew 5 if you have the time! I think it is brilliant.

[cslewislover]

I like 5:14: You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.

Jesus is the light of men, and he lives in all who will be saved; His light needs to shine through.

Verses 21-27 are significant. We always talk about forgiveness, and we are supposed to be forgiving. But these verses from Jesus tell the offender to go and make it right with the person they offended. You too often hear Christians say "just forgive them," as if the other party has no responibility and that you have the strength to just forgive without remorse or concern from the other party, or justice in any way. RBC has a good booklet on this. The person who hurt someone is supposed to be proactive in making things better, or that person "may be handed over to the judge and put into prison."

So, if I've ever offended anyone here, here's a double vanilla latte: ; and a .

~ Vicki

[zoegirl]

I think that we should welcome equally all people regardless of who they are. If you surprise people who didn't expect it they might be interested in learning more about Christ. However that is no reason to not throw out mockers!

So who thinks we should do our best to be a welcoming and expansive community!? Just a question. I don't want any trouble.

Thank you everyone for your pleasantry! But srsly, read Matthew 5 if you have the time! I think it is brilliant.

This is silly. I was attacking his arguments and I would explain about problems with YEC attitudes but other than getting mad at his continued attack on our lack of faith in God's ability ("you guys say that God couldn't do it that way"....and then the below the belt *you're not really a Christian*) I was simply attacking the arguments. And it was a debate to begin with, which immediately means that we will disagree. Essentially he said "your arguments are shoddy, you are presumptious, and you lack faith, and you go beyond the plain reading" I returned "your arguments are shoddy here and here, there you are being presumptious yourself, and you yourself go beyond the plain reading".

If someone starts with "I am open" but then uses phrases as "shoddy arguments", presumptions; "they haven't convinced me", plain reading, etc why is it inappropriate for me to point out where I think the shoddy arguments and presumptions have occurred? Or why he was going beyind the plain reading? Nobody *was* called stupid...we both attacked each other's reasoning (he claimed Archer as well as other OEC used shoddy logic, hasty conclusions, and lack of faith and I returned the favor) and logic and conclusions, but that is part of the debate.

I never accused him of stupidity. I said I have scorn for the YEC leaders like Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind and have problems with the arguments used commonly by YEC proponetnt, such as the lack of faith and ruining the church....

Which by the way...

How nice was it of him to say that it made sense for YEC to think that we lack faith and are the causes of problems within the church? How nice was it to say that our interpretation is the beginnning of ruining the scripture. How nice was it of him to claim that we use shoddy logic?

LOok nice is great, but debate ineveitably leads to both parties saying the other's conclusion are wrong, that we are agreeing with something they are saying. If we didn't, then we wouldn't disagree now, would we.

[Cactus]

Please do not get defensive. This is not specifically targeted at any particular individual. I just feel that the world needs more love! I only wish that we can all get along, not a terrible thing to ask for is it?

For instance remember the story of the good Samaritan, now replace Samaritan with atheist, it still means the same thing. If a atheist feels love, cares for others then he is the neighbour and not so called 'Christians', we really must take this story (good Samaritan) to heart, it means that race(or anything!) has no bearing. If they are good, then it is the law inscribed into their heart and they will be judged based on what they know.

I honestly say that it is not for any person to say who can or cannot be saved, with god anything is possible. So let's just put our faith firmly in god that things will turn out all right instead of bickering pointlessly among ourselves.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
If it wasn't for the "bickering"...this forum would be simply people posting smilie faces or thumbs up in agreement with every topic posted...that would be boring.
.
.

[cslewislover]

Lol, can we all have a group hug now? Hee hee, I could use one. I think cactus is referring to the tone only, not the debating itself.

[Cactus]

Yes it would be boring, but we could still disagree with each other! But should we fight among ourselves or band together against the crazies!

He who lives by the...flame war. dies by the flame war. Anyway this question is a good thing to ask...Why should we just scare people who potentially could be useful contributors away? (I ain't pointing no fingers people! I've done worse!)

[Cross.eyed]

Maybe sometimes (at least ) we concentrate on what the message should convey rather than what our tone may seem to others, even though it is unintended. Typed words are sometimes difficult to read for tone whether it's meant or not.
Proof reading is usually for spelling, content, punctuation, etc. but an unintended expressed mood can easily be overlooked.

Just my .02

[Cactus]

but you can alter the tone with a few words...to make it seem more welcoming? I do not swear that it can be done, but yes I think you can put tone into text. Perhaps humility helps to set a good tone?

[zoegirl]

Yes it would be boring, but we could still disagree with each other! But should we fight among ourselves or band together against the crazies!

He who lives by the...flame war. dies by the flame war. Anyway this question is a good thing to ask...Why should we just scare people who potentially could be useful contributors away? (I ain't pointing no fingers people! I've done worse!)

Oh, I dunno....we fight about a lot of worthwhile things on this forum....such as which DOctor Who is more handsome or whether he even is handsome, right, CSLewis lover?

[cslewislover]

Now a pillow fight would be fun . . . especially if the Doctors were involved . . .

[zoegirl]

(And somehow I could envision DAvid Tennant's Doctor being involved!)

[Cactus]

Well I suppose some things are worth defending, but as long as you don't tread on other peoples belief's while you do it, then i'm fine with that.

[zoegirl]

I dunno, CSLewislover doesn't think he's handsome, not sure I can handle that

[Cross.eyed]

but you can alter the tone with a few words...to make it seem more welcoming? I do not swear that it can be done, but yes I think you can put tone into text. Perhaps humility helps to set a good tone?

I agree, it can be altered to be more friendly.
And, certainly our taste/distaste can be made very clear!!

Cheers, no duel here.