quote:

---

Ephesians 4:11-16
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 13:1-7
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

---

One area in particular that I feel we have fallen short is the area of giving people the benefit of the doubt when talking to them. "Love hopes all things" -- I could be wrong, but I see that as hoping for the best in people. If they say a statement that could be taken one of two ways, and when it's not clear as to what they mean, let's not automatically assume that they're "crazy" and respond accordingly. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and try to speak graciously, lovingly, and truthfully.

It's a hard line to follow, and I don't claim to have mastered it. One of the most empathetic authors I've ever read is Francis Schaeffer. I haven't yet read much of him, but the love with which he speaks to people of opposing viewpoints is absolutely mind-blowing. When I first started reading his book The God Who Is There earlier this year, I was extremely convicted by how derogatory I have habitually been in my confrontations with people.

It's something that I'm working through, and I have by no means fully worked this aspect of sin out of my life. I am an imperfect example, and I hope that noone uses my sin as an excuse for their own behavior.

I have endeavored to speak in truth and love according to the scriptures, but in so far as I have failed in doing that, I apologize for my share of the trouble to all involved (such as TallBill, Kirk, and others).

I just felt that we could all do with a reminder of what's essential in order to have good ecumenical fellowship, and I wanted to give us a thread to talk about it.

Do you think I am right in my assessment of giving the "benefit of the doubt"? What are your thoughts on it? I think it's a pretty hard thing to do. Do you think that it's necessary? When do we draw the line (as in Acts 5) and "shake the dust off our feet" and cast hard rebuke on them?

In Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited August 01, 2007).]

quote:

---

Do you think I am right in my assessment of giving the "benefit of the doubt"?

---

Yes, I think your assessment is very well thought out and accurate. I think we sometimes think the worst first rather than giving the person a chance. I think we also (me especially) forget to evaluate why the person may be talking in a certain way, that even though I think we should not let our frustrations out on people, we all do it at times.

quote:

---

What are your thoughts on it? I think it's a pretty hard thing to do. Do you think that it's necessary? When do we draw the line (as in Acts 5) and "shake the dust off our feet" and cast hard rebuke on them?

---

I think without a doubt it's something we need to do. I think what helps is envisioning Jesus in the same position. Most of the time he responded respectfully, understanding, and very non-aggressive. This got him the best results most of the time. On the other hand there were times he expressed righteous anger and was very blunt (to say the least). I think observing each instance he was either and then relating those instances to ours we will find that very rarely are we in a situation that warrants such righteous anger. Especially with brothers and sisters in Christ. I think Jesus' lesson with "turn the other cheek", of preserving our dignity while standing up to what we disagree with in a very non-passive though non-aggressive way is a good example. A great person that illustrates some of the best ways to deliver this, in my opinion, is Ghandi. I absolutely love the biographical movie about him and is extremely rewarding to see him take the principles of Jesus and apply them to a further extreme we will probably never get the chance to do. He accomplishes so much while not succumbing to violence and aggression... though he is far from passive.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

I think I express myself more logically and cold here that I do in a face to face confrontation. Perhaps the term "forum" has always made me think more of an academic debate; structured and logical.

As for giving the benefit of the doubt. I think a better practice is to ask for clarification of the doubt. Maybe that's what you meant. But either way, don't assume.

But, even we coders need grace. We are stereotypically cold, logical, and antisocial, you know.

God Bless!

------------------
Sam Washburn

[This message has been edited by samw3 (edited August 01, 2007).]

Brothers, as wonderful as the passage from 1st Corinthians 13 is, it was not meant to pacify us! Love is not a false niceness and a facade of pacifism that it is so commonly interpreted to be and "edification" is not baseless encouragement and the "feel good" tickling of ears. We should admonish and reprove each other and seek the betterment of one another. Not the betterment of which is a feign and only results in a temporary escalation of emotions which amounts to nothing, but a betterment that results in the putting to death the deeds of the flesh! Brothers, we should *exhort* one another, and spur one another on to love and good deeds as scripture commands us! These exhortations are not always "nice" or "polite" , but true love does not politely lie but speaks the truth. Again, we do all of this not in a degrading manner but with a gracious reverence. We do not speak slanderous words against one another but truly *edify* one another.

Iron sharpens iron, so a man the countenance of his friend.

We can do all this with the best of intentions and we should not always expect the best response, especially when we call someone out on a sin. We will often be accused falsely and reject what we say altogether. But this is no different from any persecution we may face and we should not shy away from it.

I like how R.C. Sproul said it... "Jesus took away my sins, not my backbone"

This facade of morality of being a "good American" and being "polite" has crept so deeply into Christianity today that we confuse it for scripture.

Now this may be all an overreaction to what was originally said as I have not seen much of the "heated debates" and perhaps in these slanderous words are spoken to one another. But from what I've seen, many people think that there is disagreement and condemnation of behavior or heretical ideas that it's somehow not loving. I think we aught to be careful not to misinterpret love as a fake pacified politeness.

------------------
"I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world!"
-C. S. Lewis

quote:

---

Oh come on...off-topic posts are the best! This forum needs some tension release :P

---

That well expresses the culture that has been allowed to develop here. Coders seek a release after work. Some play games, some play on forums. Your point in posting is doing something to take your mind off work, perhaps including releasing some anger that you dare not express to your boss, not to do more work needed to seek truth.

Now I've exposed that in two locked threads there is a call for expressing the truth in love, just after much libel against me in which God's Truth and mine are called lies or insignificant.

The real need here is for people to work at seeking God's Truth more than their pastors do, which expresses love for God, which is the great commandment and then second to love your neighbor as yourself in sharing new discoveries. Pastors fear people knowing more than they since they might lose their pay -- but as Christians do you think it's worth knowing more about how to grow closer to Jesus than your preacher has taught?

Instead some want to not work to discover greater truth than they now know and simply defend the measure of truth they have, defeating their own growth and hindering others like Jesus spoke of the lawyers hindering people from entering the kingdom.

So what will it be? Will your motivation be play with no purpose, defense without growth, or pursuing God's absolute truth? Only the latter interests me.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

When asked the question "Why do you read the Bible" the answer is typically "to grow spiritually" or "to know God's truth" or "to encourage me" or "to turn me away from sins"

And those are all good things. But as 1st Corinthians 13 says, without love, they are nothing!

Growing spiritually and turning away from sin becomes self-righteousness.
Learning God's truth becomes mere intellectual knowledge which breeds arrogance
Encouragement becomes hope in idolatrous things.

We must not forget that the Bible is a grand and glorious tale that exemplifies God's glory and his love for us.

We should seek after the word of God as a lover after the one he has placed his affections on.

Now, if we get a love letter from our girlfriend/fiance/wife, we smell it and we smell the perfume, our response is not going to be "oh that's nice, put it on the coffee table and read it sometime tomorrow." We will barely have the patience to open the envelope properly! longing to read the words from our lover.

Likewise aught to be our motivation to read scripture. Now I am not saying we shouldn't read scripture if our motivations don't line up, for indeed we are like prostitutes in our unfaithfulness! And even if we are reading the scripture out of love, our love is flawed and imperfect.

------------------
"I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world!"
-C. S. Lewis

To address what you said -- yes, there will always be the "peanut gallery". I will agree with Lava in so far as to admit that some measure of that adds some light-heartedness to break up the monotony of a serious discussion. Some times it is helpful, many times it is distracting. I'll admit, I am generally more annoyed with "spam" posts such as Lava's, but then again, I'm the kind that can be comfortable in a serious debate. Many other people aren't able to handle the stress. The guideline that we've settled on here is that as long "spam posts" are kept down and don't get too out of hand, we let it slide.

That said, there is still a difference between a light-hearted comment that is off the beaten path, and a serious post that is trying to fork the thread off topic. Lava's post was the former, yours here was the latter.

Despite my frustrations, I am not being malicious. This is not yet your second warning. I'm just trying to play the part of a good moderator and keep the discussion civil and on topic.

In Christ,
clint

quote:

---

Clint wrote:
Kirk, was your post really on topic here?

---

Perhaps my question will answer yours: Your initial post uses the word love 13 times including loving while mine only uses the word 3 times -- how is it that mine expresses more love than yours? If you don't see it right away, study the two posts from time to time until you do.

quote:

---

It's frustrating to me that I already said in the other thread that if you want to continue discussing this, you are free to start a new thread. You barely addressed the point of this thread, and used it as a platform to try to take the discussion in a whole new direction. This is generally called "hijacking" a thread.

---

Your frustration comes from forgetting your place as administrator / moderator in the USA where we have a Free Speech amendment to the Constitution. You can play dictator all you like and I am free to ignore such behavior, until of course you cut me off aka excommunicate me. Also you've forgotten that it was you who indoctrinated and trained me by your first example to me of hijacking my first post and thread on this website. You never have another chance to make a first impression.

Now getting back to your point for this thread. Should coders who have urges motivating to hijack, spam, and flame give others the benefit of the doubt and be more loving when responding to Biblical material they disagree with? Well in my case I'd say yes unless they are completely certian without any doubt that the material isn't of God, not just something their pastor would disagree with. And a person like me who is presenting some new ideas is sometimes easily led astray into using poor defense verses for the new idea. Should one keep harrassing another on a past error like the proverbial fishwife? I think after the error has been acknowledged, it's usually safe to move on unless it recurrs. Jesus did speak of forgiving one who repents 70 times 7.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

With the topic of this thread---I agree too hehe (how could one not?). Unfortunately, many people get into Christianity to get an ego boost (I am holy now mentality) and the result is they go nuts when confronted with an opinion different than theirs and that causes overboard hate statements. A general good idea I have heard before is that, when engaging in a debate, try to summerize what the other side said then list the reasons why you disagree--admitidly I should do it more too--but it helps the other side realize you are considering their arguement then it shows why you disagree and that enables all sides to consider all points--doesn't always work but is generally more effective.

------------------

Han, you made a good point, one I need to work on myself, especially over the web, and I'd hate to see it get hijacked this way.

Kirk, if you wish to bring up a point, start a new thread.

------------------
"The generation of random numbers is too important to leave to chance."
Soterion Studios

James 3:3-8

"When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison."

------------------
"I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world!"
-C. S. Lewis

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArchAngel:
Can we split this topic?

Han, you made a good point, one I need to work on myself, especially over the web, and I'd hate to see it get hijacked this way.

Kirk, if you wish to bring up a point, start a new thread.

---

Yeah, it's turn into a whole separate discussion.

------------------
"I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world!"
-C. S. Lewis

The scripture:
(1Co 13:5) Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

(1Co 13:6) Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

(1Co 13:7) Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

And this perfect love comes only from Jesus, so pray for Him.

And regarding speaking the word:
(Pro 12:18) There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health.

Because the wise speaks from God's word, in truth. But other thing is to throw words around without caring other persons feelings.

And about "shake the dust off our feet":

titus 3:8-11 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (10) A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

May God bless and grow us in the knowledge and understanding of His grace.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] (Contact) - Truedisciple (mp3)

[This message has been edited by jari (edited August 01, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArchAngel:
Can we split this topic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArchAngel:
Han, you made a good point, one I need to work on myself, especially over the web

---

Something I've been working on since reading Schaeffer is to really try to understand more of where people are coming from, and to understand them.

Whenever I talk about this, it reminds me of Ender's Game. Ender is so amazing at understanding how his enemy thinks. The incredibly hard thing for Ender is that he is so good at understanding them, that in his deepest moment of knowing a person (generally right before destroying them), he loves them. There is a very strong link between understanding a person, and that leading to loving them. Understanding people and where they are coming from is a large topic of the 2nd book, Speaker for the Dead.

Not that I want to destroy anybody physically -- but if I know they are wrong, I want to be able to help them come to a better understanding. I want to understand where people are coming from, and see the world from their perspective. I want to deal with them graciously, and I want to be able to join together with them in a common pursuit of truth. Where they are faulty, I want to help them understand. Where I am faulty, I want their new perspective to correct and sharpen me.

It's an incredibly hard thing to do though, and I've not been trying this very long. Traditionally, I've wanted to dismiss other people out of hand, as if for anyone to believe (Islam/Buddhism/Atheism/AnythingOtherThanMyViewpointism) must be CRAZY. When I think that, my true feelings about the person comes out subtly. So if in words I'm sharing the gospel with them, but in my heart I'm mocking them, it shines through. Jesus said that "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

If I want to speak love, it seems that the best way to do that is by loving people from the heart.

Not that I've come anywhere close to doing this completely, but it's something that God's been teaching me about recently.

--clint

Edit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zookey:
A general good idea I have heard before is that, when engaging in a debate, try to summerize what the other side said then list the reasons why you disagree--admitidly I should do it more too--but it helps the other side realize you are considering their arguement then it shows why you disagree and that enables all sides to consider all points--doesn't always work but is generally more effective.

---

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited August 01, 2007).]

but, what you say is true. gotta love them with your heart before with your voice.
and a reference to Ender's Game, always cool.

------------------
"The generation of random numbers is too important to leave to chance."
Soterion Studios

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArchAngel:
I think most here would agree you keep a level head.
(and I think Kirk's criticisms are entirely unfounded)

---

While I think that Kirk went a little far in his accusations, I don't know that I could say they have no basis at all. I certainly took his first topic in a whole new direction than he originally intended. Granted, I felt I had good reason for doing so (I was trying to keep it from turning into a flame-fest), but I can understand why he would be frustrated with me pulling an apparent pot-kettle-black scenario. Still, further discussion on this point might want to wait for that other thread.

--clint

quote:

---

Originally posted by HanClinto:
I totally missed this in my first skim of all of the replies, sorry Zookey! It sounds like you and I made similar points, but I liked the practical way that you phrased it. Seeking to rephrase their viewpoint in your own words, and then deal with it from there so as to ensure no misunderstandings. I guess you wouldn't necessarily have to do it out loud all of the time, but I can really see the value of this, especially in the early part of a discussion.

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited August 01, 2007).][/B]

---

LOL that is ok! I used to be an Opinion Editor on the school paper when I was in High School---and they (teachers as well as professional scholastic journalism groups) hammer that style down all the time---if you are in a competition and you don't give fair credence to both sides of an argument you will lose no matter what---which is sad, High School journalists are held to a much higher standard than 'professional' journalists!

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by InsanePoet:
I like how R.C. Sproul said it... "Jesus took away my sins, not my backbone"

This facade of morality of being a "good American" and being "polite" has crept so deeply into Christianity today that we confuse it for scripture.

---

In that sense, I feel that it takes more true "backbone" to be appropriately meek and humble.

My pastor once preached a sermon on meekness. Basically, he said "Meekness != Weakness. Weakness is a lack of power. Meekness is power under control." So in that sense, Christ was meek, but he wasn't weak. That's backbone if I ever saw it.

Interestingly enough, Coding Horror had an article about disagreement just last week. It was called Whatever Happened to Civility on the Internet, and I think it's a very good read. He doesn't quote scripture, but he does reference a nice quote that I think is a good summation of general human character.

quote:

---

But if you behave in a way that offends the people you're trying to deal with, they will stop dealing with you .

---

But before you jump on me, InsanePoet -- I will prematurely agree with you. In modern day America, people are stereotypically hasty to be "offended", to proclaim themselves victims, etc. I am in no way advocating the political correctness movement. Still, there is a measure of tact that can be good, and Paul demonstrates this well in his sermon on Mars Hill.

It's still a bit fuzzy as to when we should be forgiving (turn the other cheek), and when we draw the line (o' you brood of vipers).

On the other hand, Jari, I agree that the Titus passage gives a nice progression from one state to the other. I think it's a beautiful passage, and I've been thinking lately that I would like to see us adopt Titus 3:1-11 sortof as our mission statement / code of conduct here on CCN.

Thanks for the discussion, all!

In Christ,
clint

So, I encourage all to not back down from the plate when it comes to standing for truth.

And yes, it's always a balance of tact, but we cannot water down our message. And often, the truth itself is innately offensive to people.

We must be bold, but not arrogant.
Tactful but also zealous.

------------------
"I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world!"
-C. S. Lewis

quote:

---

Clint wrote:
It's still a bit fuzzy as to when we should be forgiving (turn the other cheek), and when we draw the line (o' you brood of vipers).

---

Obviously (to me) you turn the other cheek to unbelievers and disciples so they can see the superiority of Christ through your actions. You draw the line against modern legalist self-righteous Pharisees like most of y'all.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Carry on.

[This message has been edited by Lava (edited August 02, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HanClinto:
It's still a bit fuzzy as to when we should be forgiving (turn the other cheek), and when we draw the line (o' you brood of vipers).
[/B]

---

When I read this in concept from Matthew it doesnt say that we should think about between the two. Because people maybe brood of vipers but when Jesus said this He said it regarding what the pharisees were and what they practiced (their doctrine). But in Matthew He speaks about those who "hate you" , "despitefully use you" and "persecute you". Pharisees did not have to do any of these in order to be called "brood of vipers" , they did hate Jesus and and persecute but even they would have been passive they would have still been what they were.

This seems important to note because in the same verses (39 and 40) says "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek" and "sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also"
So the verses speak about rather giving up from your own and not fighting over it.
It makes sense and I understand it in the sense that if some one comes at me and demands my cell phone I give it and my pride as well (turn the other cheek).
So this does not relate to defending truth, we dont have to backup from what we say if we know it's the truth. Unless we are wrong and it's just our pride that we want to be right. Or show our knowledge regarding some unimportant argument.

So if some one disagrees and it would turn into pointless arguing then some one should just turn the other cheek.

I hope that makes sense?

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] (Contact) - Truedisciple (mp3)

[This message has been edited by jari (edited August 02, 2007).]

quote:

---

So if some one disagrees and it would turn into pointless arguing then some one should just turn the other cheek.

---

It sounds like a good theory but:
1) If you check my two closed threads, I think even if I had done that others would still post pointless arguing. And even if you would stop, others would continue.
2) Although Clint denied it by private email with the first closing, it now seems evident that he has been expressing hatred against me from the start, most especially in his last closing and some comments here. My second thread can be considered as my second cheek.
3) I have no desire to present a third cheek. In modern slang we have 4 cheeks. In English I think Jesus was referring to the face only, right? Or do you think he meant us to continue until all body parts are beaten?

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

In addition, in some disagreements, one person would strike the other on their cheek. If they struck them with the open palm, that meant that they considered the other person their equal; if they struck them with the back of their hand, that meant that they considered the other person to be beneath them.

So, if someone struck you on your right cheek, they would be doing so with their right hand. Think about that (and even—carefully—act it out with a friend). The only way they could use their right hand to strike you on your right cheek is to back-hand you. So, if they strike you on your right cheek, they are claiming that you are beneath them. By presenting to them your other cheek also, you are essentially saying to them, “OK. Now strike me with your open hand, so you can get it right: I am not beneath you. I am your equal.” So, in essence, by presenting to them your other cheek, you are, possibly publicly, rebuking their arrogance.

On the other matter, when defending yourself: give up your “rights” (because you really don’t have any anyway, since each of us is a slave either to righteousness or to sin, and slaves have no rights). However, if you are defending someone else in a righteous manner, do not back down; don’t give up “rights” that are not yours to give up. When you are defending accurate theology, you are defending God (who actually is the only One who has any rights), but if you are only defending your own interpretation of things, you are defending yourself. Therefore, give up your “rights” (because you really don’t have any anyway, since each of us is a slave either to righteousness or to sin, and slaves have no rights).

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

"...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer---pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart---all broken and cast down---is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, "Effective Prayer"

[This message has been edited by Tallbill (edited August 02, 2007).]

However, when defending doctrine, especially secondary doctrine that may be surrounded in a bit of controversy. We obviously feel that our own interpretation is the right one and will defend it. But if it's not correct, we are not standing on the truth.

Standing up for truth and not backing down is the right thing to do, when what's right is obvious. But what do we do when it's not so clear?

That's an interested interpretation of "turn the other cheek" passage. I can't say that I agree or disagree with it.

I'm just looking at it with a bit of context.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Does rebuking one for his/her arrogance really fit in with the context? I'm not trying to disagree here, just question so that we may know the truth.

------------------
"I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world!"
-C. S. Lewis

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirk:
It sounds like a good theory but:
1) If you check my two closed threads, I think even if I had done that others would still post pointless arguing. And even if you would stop, others would continue.

---

Kirk: I think you're making a somewhat unfair asessment of the people here. I've never found them to be anything but kind, calm mannered and considerate in a vast majority of cases. You haven't given them a chance to actually be themselves yet. The only place you've seen them is in the middle of (rather intense) verbal firefights where anyone can lose their head and fly off the handle. I think you should give the people here a little more grace and that you try them in an arena outside of debate.

------------------

The time for speaking comes rarely, the time for being never departs.
George Macdonald

I have posted a note from John Piper, whose offices are about 1 mile from the tragedy.

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

"...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer---pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart---all broken and cast down---is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, "Effective Prayer"

Mat 18:21-22 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? (22) Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

But as we can see this is personal and if we defend truth it's not personal (in the same sense).
So the question is who is our brother? Those who believe in Jesus, basically and do His will. So we are brothers, we may argue but walk in the same way.

Php 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

------------------
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

[VoHW] (Help needed) [Blog] (Contact) - Truedisciple (mp3)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ereon:
Kirk: I think you're making a somewhat unfair asessment of the people here. I've never found them to be anything but kind, calm mannered and considerate in a vast majority of cases. You haven't given them a chance to actually be themselves yet. The only place you've seen them is in the middle of (rather intense) verbal firefights where anyone can lose their head and fly off the handle. I think you should give the people here a little more grace and that you try them in an arena outside of debate.

---

I agree completely. Also keep in mind Kirk that from many of our perspectives you are acting the way you describe us. So if we are all going to get along we have to push beyond impressions that may or may not be accurate. I'm willing to re-evaluate my opinion of you.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames