[armydoc]

To me, those who try to keep Christ as a role model, would not engage in such behavior...civil discussions, disageements, points of contention, yes...just being plain rude and nasty, no...But thats just me...

Christ was not concerned about appearing "rude" or "nasty". He was concerned about proclaiming the truth. He said things like "You belong to your father, the devil" in John 8:44, referring to the Pharisees. He also told them they would "die in their sins". Being civil in a discussion does not mean witholding such truths. In our PC environment, being civil has come to mean "all paths lead to God", "it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are a good person", etc. These are doctrines of the antichrist.

[andysandmikesmom]

Christ may not have been concerned with being 'rude' or 'nasty'...but he was Christ, none of us here can ever make such a claim...Christ knew the absolute truth, because of who He was...I dont think anyone else here can make that same claim...

And quite frankly, calling someone a 'snake handler', or a 'cannibal', is rude and nasty...that is not a matter of being PC...it just shows that one cannot argue their point, and instead stoops to name calling...

As has been demonstrated by many posters, disagreement can be done civilly, without acting like a little kid, who cannot get his way, and ultimately goes on to name-calling...

I have read many religious threads, where there was an abundance of disgreement on doctrine and such...the discussions were vigorous, backed up by Scripture or their own church writings...people disagreed and disagreed quite vehemently, but they did not downward spiral into a cesspool...Those civil discussions are the discussions which may lead others who are seeking the truth to discover that very truth...

When someone calls someone else they disagree with a 'snake handler', or a 'cannibal', they have already lost the discussion...