And having said that, the day I see anyone hurting one of my children, you can be sure I will do whatever it takes to stop that, pacifism or no pacifism.precisely , because you love them , I would ask just how is it loving to put an ideology before the safety of another especially a child To be honest, watching the news every day I find myself pulled in two directions. Shouldn’t we do something about Syria? But look what happens when we do something… Afghanistan, Iraq,… 
and I find this an understandable thing , even though I lament some of the actions and decisions of those conflicts one must ask the question if not doing anything would naturally increase the suffering of your fellow man then just how is THAT loving ?
Acts 18:26 says “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue”. I don’t see any contradiction between what I said and this. 
the rest of the verse reads ‘’…when Aquila and Priscilla heard him they took him aside and explained to him the way of GOD more accurately .’'goodness could you do that with fellow Christians? I don’t believe so 
I assume by the admonition in Galatians you mean Paul saying “if someone is preaching another gospel, let them be under God’s curse”, and later the bit where he calls the Galatians foolish for accepting such teaching. Well, Paul did have a gift of teaching (and/or prophecy), and he is speaking up against someone else who is in a teaching position. He isn’t cursing the non-teachers in the church, or even anyone, but rather saying let God curse them. So I think that fits fine with what I said. Calling the non-teachers foolish is a bit trickier, but he isn’t calling them white-washed tombs - he’s not raging against them in the way Jesus appears to do with the Pharisees. And he is in a position of authority, which I am not vis-a-vis other Christians. I do tell my kids not to be idiots sometimes, which is probably similar in terms of both tone and relationship.
as I said there are plenty of texts that speak in the strongest of term’s against false teaching and the need to oppose it, so just how does one do this? thus remaining true to the text without determining whether what is being said is true ? still allowing for a degree of freedom,given the ‘‘none of us are in charge’’ scenario ?
I definitely didn’t say anything about an accommodating approach however - my husband will laugh himself silly when he sees that! 
I said I would err on the side of gentleness - which is what Paul himself recommends in Galatians 6: 1 "Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. " Besides, it’s a subset of the Golden Rule - I’d prefer people to tell me I’m wrong about UR gently (and with scriptural evidence and logic) rather than by shouting that I’m a liar who will burn in hell. Therefore I should do the same to them.
once again I agree ! but tell them none the less and there-in lies the heart of the problem ‘‘none of us are in charge’’
but what has always been a tremendous turn of is this- if given a range of possibilities yet one of them fits far better with the evidence and the sound arguments that back that evidence up I still find that even when presenting said argument in the gentlest of ways I have experienced that overwhelmingly the majority of Christians forthrightly and stubbornly refuse to concede even the smallest of points !
Sorry, I didn’t think the discussion was about whether or not to argue at all. I thought it was about whether we were to argue with strong and accusing words and/or whips, like Jesus did with the Pharisees/temple salespeople. partly ,yes you are correct
I think I can argue with you reasonably consistently without the use of either of those things - as demonstrated above. After all, I do believe I am right, even while allowing for the possibility that I might be wrong.this is a good explanation but I still feel it doesn’t quiet address adequately the gist of my point ! ,surely if you believe you are correct then it follows you should be willing to display a degree of dogmatism ! yet how can you do this IF you could be wrong ?
Because I believe I’m right, I can disagree with you. Even boldly, as Apollos did. But because I also know I could be wrong, I prefer to disagree without actually calling you a viper. 
why thank-you , and you may have noticed I didn’t call you nor anyone else a viper but I still believe my point is more than valid ! if we are to be more like Jesus then surely those aspects of his character that are shall we say harsh we should to some degree replicate !
Absolutely. But I think perhaps I didn’t make myself clear - I meant that Jesus only used strong words against teachers, those who were considered to be speaking for God. Not against normal people e.g. the woman caught in adultery. By extension, we should too reserve our stronger words for those claiming positions of authority, such as Mark Driscoll or indeed Rob Bell. In my view, this would be part of being more like Jesus, which I still think we should be. But I could of course be wrong. I once again fully agree however I see a problem with what you are saying and that is when ANYONE says a statement regarding GOD they are to varying degrees postulating an absolute ,and thus by extension claiming a degree of authority !, point taken ?
(ETA: Where can I find your moral dilemma post?)in moral dilemmas
certainly not what you would expect from a supposed pacifist but remember GOD is love !
exactly ,perhaps you should see my moral dilemma post ! Possibly including pacifists (a position I lean towards myself). So I wouldn’t argue in this particular instance that Jesus held a unique position of authority, although presumably he does; freeing the oppressed is clearly something we should all be about as it’s a major theme throughout the Old Testament too. 