Do we have to be nice?

[public hermit]

These recent years, people have begun redefining "nice" as "unauthentic," even though "unauthentic" is already a perfectly good word for what it means. "Kind" is reserved for being authentically nice.

That makes sense. I can see that. I don't know if that difference matters when disagreeing, though. Do I care if my interlocutor's kindness is inauthentic? I think discussions would go much smoother, either way. But, maybe not. I have to think about that.

 

[Aaron112]

it is superficial

That's kind of the point - 'superficial'. Many webpages disclose the problems with trying to be "nice" , which is not according to Instructions of Scripture, vs BE KIND, which is very important in Scripture. They are darkness and light, not at all the same, kindness being Godly, niceness being superficial/ carnal.

 

[Aaron112]

Do I care if my interlocutor's kindness is inauthentic?

? what... kindness is something good, something from above, from God, in line with His instructions - and part of good character.
i.e. kindness is authentic, good, right, helpful.

Niceness is often pressured on people even little children - but is not authentic, not helpful.

 

[Aaron112]

Isn't it a quibble to make a sharp distinction between nice and kind?

In a dark room, is it a quibble to ask for a working flashlight instead of a broken one ?

 

[public hermit]

but is not authentic, not helpful.

Sure, that is probably true for children. But does it matter if my kindness is inauthentic when we are disagreeing?

If you don't know whether it is authentic or not, it doesn't matter just so that the discussion goes forward productively. What would you rather have, inauthentic kindness during a discussion (of course, you don't know if it is) or brutal and mean spirited discussion?

 

[Aaron112]

Sure, that is probably true for children. But does it matter if my kindness is inauthentic when we are disagreeing?

I believe kindness is a gift of God, part of a man's character, not changing day to day, and as far as I know cannot be inauthentic.
Pretending to be Kind is simply not kindness at all, but acting in the flesh for carnal reasons.

 

[public hermit]

I believe kindness is a gift of God, part of a man's character, not changing day to day, and as far as I know cannot be inauthentic.
Pretending to be Kind is simply not kindness at all, but acting in the flesh for carnal reasons.

I don't see how that relates. Should theological discussions be kind? I think so. Can you tell when a discussion is kind but in-authentically so? Let's say you can. Does that mean those should not act kindly who are in-authentically kind? I don't think so. If all you can do is pretend, that is okay. Who knows? Maybe acting kind can actually lead to real kindness. What is the alternative? Should one act unkind until they can be authentically kind? Nonsense.

 

[Aaron112]

Acting/ trying to be / kind might be very good and might lead to simply being kind , God Willing.

All of Jesus' discussions all of His Life with anyone and everyone were KIND.

Very few discussions , if any, by men living in the world are kind.

If someone is kind, their discussions are usually kind, might be rare exceptions.

No one is in-authentically kind - they are either kind, or not kind.
It may be meant they are "nice" when you say in-authentically kind, as "nice" is a put on.

 

[Minister Monardo]

You have no idea what I am thinking. It's foolish to suggest otherwise.

Whose fault is that? You have made several comments, was I NOT supposed to understand your take on the subject?

Now, in pointing that out, am I being nice or am I being kind? Maybe stating the fact is too blunt. If I were being nice, maybe I would ask how you knew what I was thinking. Is that what you mean? Was I being kind in just stating the fact that you have no earthly idea what I am thinking or in what terms I am thinking? I don't think it was unkind, but it doesn't seem necessarily kind, either. If I were being kind, I might gently tell you how you couldn't possibly know what I am thinking. I don't think I was being kind or nice. And to be honest, I don't think that was the best way to navigate this disagreement.

You're rambling.

 

[ozso]

The Body of Christ is a family. Family members who love each other very much, sometimes also get into squabbles.

 

[RDKirk]

Acting/ trying to be / kind might be very good and might lead to simply being kind , God Willing.

All of Jesus' discussions all of His Life with anyone and everyone were KIND.

Very few discussions , if any, by men living in the world are kind.

If someone is kind, their discussions are usually kind, might be rare exceptions.

No one is in-authentically kind - they are either kind, or not kind.
It may be meant they are "nice" when you say in-authentically kind, as "nice" is a put on.

It's only by recent re-definition that "nice" has become inauthentic. Kind of like what has happened to "racist" and "white privilege."

 

[RDKirk]

Niceness is often pressured on people even little children - but is not authentic, not helpful.

Now you're talking about "courtesy," which is yet another term (often mistake for "respect").

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

nice

"Nice" is an adjective often used to describe something that is pleasant, agreeable, or enjoyable. When referring to a person, it typically means kind, friendly, and considerate.​

​

kind

"Kind" is an adjective that describes someone who is generous, friendly, and considerate towards others. A kind person typically shows concern and care, often helping others without expecting anything in return.​

​

There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the words.

 

[Strong in Him]

In the presence of significant theological differences, is it necessary to remain cordial to each other? Is it acceptable to be courteous while expressing one's grounds for disagreement? And ultimately, after articulating our objections and hearing the expected corrections and clarifications, must we continue to be kind?

Is there a theological principle that informs your response?

Treat others as you wish to be treated, Matthew 7:12.

 

[Jerry N.]

Being courteous and not raising your voice or being snarky or aggressive is very useful. If you overcome your adversary with power and aggression, they will concede the field of battle but probably not forgive or forget. A courteous demeanor, without groveling, will often get respect and a similar response from the adversary. If not, he might just punch you in the nose, but you have a better chance than with aggression or rudeness.

 

[ARBITER01]

In the presence of significant theological differences, is it necessary to remain cordial to each other? Is it acceptable to be courteous while expressing one's grounds for disagreement? And ultimately, after articulating our objections and hearing the expected corrections and clarifications, must we continue to be kind?

Is there a theological principle that informs your response?

Not really.

I'm very introverted so I can't stand stupid people. I'd rather not be around others if I can help it. My conversations can certainly be seasoned with salt.

But,..... I do like conversations with people I like, there's just not a lot of people I like.