[George W. Bush]

Here is why, contrary to the opinion of some, Jesus' and Paul's words would be accepted on the forum: While they hold firm and unwavering convictions, they did not insult or belittle their readers.

I think you should read what Jesus and Paul said again.

Some pretty offensive stuff, given the cultural and religious context of those times.

Tell me, what do you think Christ meant when He told us the world would hate and curse us for His name's sake? It means that if we preach His full gospel, the majority of listeners just isn't going to like it. Say it nice, say it mean, doesn't matter. Christianity, the mildest and least aggressive of spiritual teachings, will offend the world.

Look at Paul's writing and really think about it and the circumstances under which he wrote it. Can you honestly say that he reminds you of some soft-spoken offend-none kind of speaker? I don't. I can't imagine him as anything more than a firebrand in most of his writings. Peter too, for that matter.

They were not timid and didn't mince words.

tenor != strength_of_convictions

I think a lot of thin-skinned people like to hit Abuse, both here and in the main forum. I think some nominal Christians and some atheists/agnostics/X-tians would genuinely like to see any significant Christian discussion squelched altogether.

And I think they have succeeded. For the time being.

[Lexinom]

I see what you are saying. It appears the central pinion of this discussion is the distinction between attacking people ("flaming") and debating ideas.

Regarding the Scriptural comparisons, let me just say this: to elevate one's self in this day of decadance and moral decay to the level of Peter or Paul seems an arrogation of astonishing proportion. Jesus never abused anyone, neither did Paul, neither did Peter. They told it like it is and called evil, evil. Paul never poked fun at the "immoral brother" referenced in 2Co.; he condemned his behavior and had him put out of the church so he might repent (humanly speaking). The OT is replete with condemnatory language in the prophets, yet whatever words you might user to describe them, "tacky" would not likely be one. They made no sport of it.

When Jesus called a certain group a "brood of Vipers", He spoke as the Lord. If we speak as He did, condemning people whom we have not met, whom we have no idea how they live thier lives, and lacking His divine omniscience, we do so as hippocrites overlooking our own sin ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"). Speaking as a Calvinist, we are part of that very same "brood of Vipers" that nailed him to the cross.

The foregoing is about attacking people - different from debating theological ideas and systems. With God's provision, I will defend to the death the sacred truths of the Faith as the Lord has opened them to me against all who would seek my denial thereof or my life. They are my beliefs, imparted by God from His Word through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, summarized in the Ecumenical Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity. But I hope never to leverage personal assaults against others who do not believe that way (though their belief systems I believe are erroneous), because as a Calvinist, I know that God has His people as well as His times. If He makes orderly discussion possible, so be it: may it be undergired by a spirit of honesty, discretion, and charity (1Co.13).

Finally, it's hard to sound "meek" in print. Some things may be interpreted as attacks which were not meant as such, but that base was covered a few hundred posts ago.