Men, how do you feel about the forum?

[Cap]

I have a flair for the dramatic but what I am about to say has been run through the Zec filter. We are pioneers, revolutionaries waging a guerrilla campaign in a hostile culture. The tools of our enemy are all focused on beating us down into that soft “Christ-like” mold they pretend represents Jesus. But Jesus was hardcore. He was combative with the Pharisees. Several of the things the Bible records Him saying were profanity at the time.

Now obviously He knew when to turn it on and turn it off. What we shouldn’t forget is that we have something the entire western church is lacking; we have men who are willing to stand against all opposition . That is a priceless resource. We shouldn’t be treating it like a problem. Proverbs tell us where there is no oxen the manger is clean but that there is great profit from the labor of the ox. Alright, some of us are oxes. I’m fine with that.

I think Samuel’s post prefixes are a good idea. It lets the warriors know when to train, when to relax and when to go to war. Warriors need structure. But the world needs warriors too. Don’t run them down or run them off.

My filter may have clogged somewhere in the second paragraph.

The world is the enemy, not places like this, this should be a refuge. I don't believe this should be a part of 'guerrilla campaign in a hostile culture' towards the inside. If new people coming in and see this place as a warfare amongst ourselves they will respond accordingly, before anyone has a real chance to learn about the other. Case in point here where all the discussions going on in this regard. Sure the non christians that come here, which appear to be few, should be recognized, strongly monitored and confronted when odd ideas are brought up into the fold. But, those who claim to be 'christian' should not be so quickly dismissed just because they don't hold the same christian view as the hive mind. We are all ultimately responsible to God for our individual lives. It's not the individual that produces the most concern, but more the group thought that can be easily controlled by individual/s that does seem to effect any particular set of social norms.

Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor has yourself. Out rules anything else.

 

[Keith Martin]

Now I understand why some of those men were driven off, many were grandiose spurges and we're probably better off without them around. But they were merely annoying. In contrast the woman whose thread (teaching on submission) which prompted all this concern about how women feel, her teachings were actively dangerous.

I do not know what a 'spurge' is, but I also don't know which five men have been driven off, so I wouldn't be able to authoritatively judge whether we're probably better off without them.

I don't particularly want to drive off people who are merely annoying, because I believe 'annoying' is subjective, and I'm certain many people believe they feel annoyed by me (even though being annoyed is an emotional reaction, and is determined internally by the one experiencing it), so it's not a sword I'd want to live by.

Having said that, and even though I might even disagree about whether or not Jennifer's teachings were actively dangerous, I would never lose sleep about her disappearing from Biblical Families, and my main motivation for saying that is that I do not want to be part of any system that rewards people for painting themselves as victims when they were actively instrumental in creating the situation in which they were supposedly victimized.

If one starts a conversation that clearly has as one of its aims to denounce a well-represented point of view within an organization, one is entirely responsible for experiencing the blowback. The blowback may be unpleasant. It may even be inappropriate. But one is not a victim of that inappropriateness, because one was clearly asking for it (a concept we have inappropriately allowed progressivism to drum out of the public square).

 

[Keith Martin]

A lot of chest thumping and grunting. I like mine in moderation.

That you like yours in moderation is likely part of why it is perfect that you're a moderator.

 

[rockfox]

I am in complete agreement with you, here, Rock, on both counts:

Any time something starts to resemble Church sends up all my red flags.

And just because a woman is upset is always insufficient reason to change anything. Women being upset is just part of the landscape of life. As men, we have to recognize that we tend to see the women in our life vacillate among a wide-ranging array of emotions, many of them qualifying as "being upset." If we change in reaction to female upset alone, we can't help but eliminate the most bedrock (no accident that 'rock' is part of that) male contribution we have to make to females. When men allow female upset to dictate their decision-making, they become unmoored and cannot provide any meaningful leadership.

Yes but something they can be upset for good reason. We shouldn't just ignore them. Even if the upset is a result of their misreading of the situation, what that tells us is we need to do more to help the women understand male communication.

I do not want to be part of any system that rewards people for painting themselves as victims

I'm starting to get where you're coming from on the victim thing, especially in the 'just an observation' thread context. I just wonder if you're a little quick on the trigger about it in real life support contexts. The victim thing keeps coming up with you. Does this come from your therapy background and seeing how feelings of victimhood only get in the way of real healing and growth or are mainly a ploy for manipulation? You've got me curious now about the background on this.

 

[Keith Martin]

What we shouldn’t forget is that we have something the entire western church is lacking; we have men who are willing to stand against all opposition . That is a priceless resource. We shouldn’t be treating it like a problem.

Whatever your filter is, we would be harmed far more by not having you around to use it than we ever could be by you using it too much or using it too little.

You are spot on, Zec, at least as far as I'm concerned, about the need to recognize that strong male leadership is in short supply -- especially, I would assert, among so-called godly men. One of the significant problems associated with cultural decay is the undeniable fact that atheists currently demonstrate more backbone than do their spiritual counterparts.

I'm convinced that the single women we would want to attract to Biblical Families would be women who have no doubt about the fact that they are seeking for husbands men with backbone, men who are even willing to offend the sensibilities of the fairer sex, so it's irrational and counterproductive to drive down our intellectual testosterone levels.

 

[Keith Martin]

There is another, more germane, explanation...the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Agreed.

 

[Keith Martin]

Case in point here where all the discussions going on in this regard. Sure the non christians that come here, which appear to be few, should be recognized, strongly monitored and confronted when odd ideas are brought up into the fold. But, those who claim to be 'christian' should not be so quickly dismissed just because they don't hold the same christian view as the hive mind. We are all ultimately responsible to God for our individual lives. It's not the individual that produces the most concern, but more the group thought that can be easily controlled by individual/s that does seem to effect any particular set of social norms.

Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor has yourself. Out rules anything else.

I agree, @Cap, that we have nothing to fear from outsiders presenting alternative viewpoints, even religious ones. If we have the strength of our convictions, we should know we also have the capability to calmly present our alternatives to those alternative viewpoints, without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Viewpoints alternative to ours are not a threat to us, but overpolicing ourselves to avoid offending those with alternative viewpoints very well could threaten our viability.

 

[Keith Martin]

Yes but sometimes they can be upset for good reason. We shouldn't just ignore them. Even if the upset is a result of their misreading of the situation, what that tells us is we need to do more to help the women understand male communication.

If you could actually articulate how men can help understand male communication (which I assert is far more effective at navigating the world) without expecting them to demonstrate the use of it, I believe you have a $1 million book deal in your future. I'll be your agent.

I'm not saying to ignore women being upset. What I am saying is that taking responsibility for determining what is upsetting them only enfeebles them, which is in essence one of the largest forms of disrespect one can demonstrate toward women. They are adults. They can handle far more than we give them credit for.

 

[rockfox]

I do not know what a 'spurge' is

Sorry, I misspelled it. Think of those commentators who post 12 paragraphs of text in response to a 1 sentence comment, who go on and on and on, who seem to be tone deaf to decorum or how people feel about them, who don't realize all their posting accomplishes is to get people to ignore them, who come with wacky off the wall ideas, who generally act in off-putting or unattractive ways.

They are annoying and they turn people away from participation. So no one misses them when they are gone. My first impulse is not to care when they leave; things are better without them. And often they are destined to leave regardless what we do when we don't all bow down to their perfect wisdom and join up with their hobby horse ideas.

But they are still people who need our help; probably more so than others. (Whether we as a community should help them or not is above my pay grade.)

And the way we handle them can make it worse...

1. Picking a fight with them in their intro thread because they evidence some wacky idea. An intro thread is a place to get to know someone. Picking a fight just makes them feel unwelcome and us look unwelcoming. Try to find common ground, or just keep your mouth shut other than to say 'hi'. There will be time enough to talk about the other issues. If you really really must register your objection to someones idea, start a new topic about that. This is just basic politeness. You wouldn't do that to someone you first met in person.

2. You don't have to jump down their throat every time they say something crazy. Challenging them on every little thing only makes them act out worse. Just because they say something you find objectionable doesn't mean you have to pick a fight. We're not conformists, no one expects everyone to think alike. The impulse to eject 'bad think' and make sure no one will think we're guilty by association and enforce conformance is a feminine, not masculine one.

Trust me, they can outlast you in any contest to see who can most beat a dead horse.

3. You know that phenomena where the pretty girl in school decides to put in their place or even destroy some unattractive guy or girl who 'stepped out of line' and tried to hit on her or act as an her equal? That same sinful impulse may be at work in how people sometimes respond to these types.

I've also seen #3 at work with other's who've been driven away that aren't so much classic sperges but rather just unattractive or socially autistic in some way.

 

[Keith Martin]

I'm starting to get where you're coming from on the victim thing, especially in the 'just an observation' thread context. I just wonder if you're a little quick on the trigger about it in real life support contexts. The victim thing keeps coming up with you. Does this come from your therapy background and seeing how feelings of victimhood only get in the way of real healing and growth or are mainly a ploy for manipulation? You've got me curious now about the background on this.

You are right on the money when you recognize that my being quick on the trigger about it is related to the psychotherapy background, for a number of reasons:

• Keep in mind something I'll elaborate on when I discuss the Myers-Briggs [My N was 97% the last time I took the test], but both my success as a psychotherapist and why I knew to get as far away from it as possible have almost nothing to do with any training I received. We all have gifts from God, but my primary gift from God, to simplify it, is that I recognize things about people, often almost immediately, much if not most of the time even when they don't realize it about themselves, and that gives me the ability of insight to not only know things immediately but to know without even having to think about it what needs to be said or suggested (and that it is often immediately rejected or denounced by others who hear about it doesn't come close to being evidence that it still wasn't the perfect thing to say, because too often even in those situations I will learn down the road that it was a necessary seed in a long-term harvest -- and, you don't have to tell me; I already know: I'm arrogant as all get-out). So, yes, I'm quick on the trigger, but it's not what it might seem to be: it's not that I'm impulsive and just jump on people about things.
• The victim posture that is so prevalent in our culture is just about the most insidious characteristic of what progressivism has sowed. Over time, I've learned that people learn almost nothing when they grasp victimhood with a tight fist.
• Therefore, when someone is posturing themselves as a victim (and one manifestation of victimhood is to expect others to guess what one's problems are), offering assistance is pretty much a complete waste of time. It engages the helper instinct in others, but what I learned from being a psychotherapist is that almost no one who is in therapy actually has any intention to get anything out of it other than to make themselves feel like they're doing something productive or to make it look like they're trying to change themselves. They do not want to change. They do not want their lives to be transformed. The corollary to this is that almost all therapists are completely worthless and, in fact, would be more likely to harm their clients than help them if anything substantive were really going on, so it's all a net wash, except that lots of time and money has been wasted. (It does, though, keep a lot of virtue signallers off the street.)
• This next one is harder for the average person to swallow: the same thing is true when it comes to lay people doing counseling. The main advantage to getting counseling from friends is that less time is usually expended and far less money is thrown down the toilet. However, if your friend (or, say, someone who shows up out the blue on a forum thread) identifies as a victim, then everything I said in the previous bullet point applies just as significantly. You can feel like you're being helpful, but all evidence points to that nothing of any substance will be accomplished.
• Therefore, the only truly productive use of one's time (unless one counts looking like a sensitive soul) is to start off right away assertively promoting the learning of how to take a radically different approach to communicate one's needs, because until the victim-identified person develops a non-victim approach, the world will only continue to be a ridiculously-difficult place to navigate. All one gets as a victim is at-best-mediocre results amidst being enfeebled by people who dance around the bullshit.

When I recognized that all of the above characterizes 95% of what goes on in psychotherapy and social services in general, I could not in good conscience stick around.

Instead, I require that I use this gift God by giving it away for free to people who demonstrate that they truly want it and are going to do something with it. My conscience, therefore, remains clear, and I get the wonderful gift of observing people actually blossoming.


Oh, no -- I've really come out of the closet this time!

 

[rockfox]

I do know, Rock, that you are implicating me in particular here, based on our recent interchanges in the Patriarchal Catfish Wannabees thread. I'm not thinking you're singling me out altogether, but I know you believe this is what I'm doing

I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote that point. I don't think that is what is behind your list; I've already said I think it just has to do with what you personally find particularly triggering but seem to me to not even be there. Nor do I recall you saying something like that to me or others in debating those topics (no such debate on masculinity = many kids has even been had to my recollection).

Of course, I could be wrong, but then you'd pretty much have to present scriptural evidence for where it states [x] are salvation issues.

That's moving the goal post again. Not all scriptural truths are necessarily salvation issues. Just because someone can find an argument doesn't mean its true nor does the issue being less than an issue of gospel importance mean there isn't a problem if men embrace falsehood in order to access more women while pushing back against those who dare scare them way by preaching the truth.

I believe it has to be done strategically, and I particularly believe that we not only shouldn't care if women who don't really believe in male headship and/or are actively antagonistic toward either male headship or biblical polygamy leave, I think if anything we should perhaps purposefully drive them away. Antagonistic activists always have insidious effects on organizations.

Activists, yes, they must be driven out. They'll present like trolls and gadflies. But it can be hard at first to tell if they are just a struggling woman or someone more insidious. Because lets be honest, 99% of Christian women don't really believe in male headship and are antagonistic towards male headship and biblical polygamy either. Sure they may say otherwise, but the details of what they call headship is really just female rule in sheeps clothing and when presented with the truth their first instinct will be to give all the usual talking points about love and 'real headship' and 'not being a doormat' etc.

 

[Nikud]

Don't shoot the messanger, my observations and conversations with men who I pointed at BF for awhile when I was trying to use it as a ministry tool since it supose to be a Marriage Ministry.

Over the last 2 years I've known 12 men I pointed here that decided not to post because of the way some come across as monogamy is wrong and Polygyny is the only legit marriage, 6 men decide to look for different sources because because they said that too many men here are too concerned about making themselves look good and as white knight's to women reading, 8 decide to move on because men were making excuses for other men doing what they want with no repercussions (absolute authority, no accountability) , 11 because for all the talk about being biblical men when it comes to there's alot of secular reasoning and justification, 9 poly friendly Torah Keeping men who didn't want to post because if they did the message of what they posted would be lost in the shuffle to them having to defend their beliefs, 4 Torah keepers were pushed away by the acceptance of tradition, 2 Grace guys who were turned away by some of the Torah guys legalism (fun thing is 1 of the legalistic Torah guys they pointed to was a grace only guy), 5 GRace only guys who decided not to post because the "Grace only Guys" here were some of the most condemning legalistic people they have ever came across, 3 guys because men on the forum were constantly contractidicting themselves, I guy I actually got to post stopped because he was asking questions about how to feel out a girl he met through the internet, if he should invite her to stay the weekend or just pick her up every day, he was derided for an Internet revalationship and told he should never bring people he met from the internet home, people didn't listen to what was being said and just started speaking their own beleifs, just in case anyone is interested that internet girl became his second wife and they've been a happy family for over a year now, 8 guys were turned off by the stated beleif that scripture was altered and couldn't be truely trusted.

In other words people will justify being offended no matter what. It's easier that way.

There's a difference between being offended by bad doctrine of different beleifs and trying to find or fight for the truth and the world from being offended because it allows self justification of personal feelings.

Matthew 24:10-14

10And then many will be offended and will betray one another and hate one other.
11Many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
12Because lawlessness will multiply, the love of many will grow cold.
13But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
14This Good News of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Edit: There's been times I was fed up and wanted to leave the forum, actually I wanted all traces of me being here eradicated. I've stopped trying to use it as ministry tool. Now to be honestbIm not sure why I log on anymore?

 

[Keith Martin]

Sorry, I misspelled it. Think of those commentators who post 12 paragraphs of text in response to a 1 sentence comment, who go on and on and on, who seem to be tone deaf to decorum or how people feel about them, who don't realize all their posting accomplishes is to get people to ignore them, who come with wacky off the wall ideas, who generally act in off-putting or unattractive ways.

They are annoying and they turn people away from participation. So no one misses them when they are gone. My first impulse is not to care when they leave; things are better without them. And often they are destined to leave regardless what we do when we don't all bow down to their perfect wisdom and join up with their hobby horse ideas.

Oh, 'sperg.' I have a 25-year-old son who has Asperger's, which, in my way of thinking is much more appropriately placed, as is the case in DSM-6, in the autism spectrum (attempts to create boutique diagnoses generally represent some heavy dose of denial). My first college-degree-related job out of college was working with people who were profoundly autistic. So I'm familiar with the term, etc.

It did come across to me, though, as ironic and funny that, while you spoke of "commentators who post 12 paragraphs of text in response to a 1 sentence comment, who go on and on and on, who seem to be tone deaf to decorum or how people feel about them," I would place large bets on the likelihood that significant numbers of people here on BF would consider that characterization as applying to both you and me!

But they are still people who need our help; probably more so than others. (Whether we as a community should help them or not is above my pay grade.)

Here's my arrogance again: it's not above my pay grade.

And here's my assessment:

• People with autism need help, but while they require a different approach, they are not immune to what I described in my previous message about desire to change.
• People with autism (a) want to refuse to believe they have autism, and (b) they tend to dislike others with autism more than anyone else dislikes them.
• People with autism are generally even less interested in getting help than the average person. They want magical fixes (don't we all!), but at least, once you engage them in such a conversation, autistic folks are much more likely to just acknowledge, "Oh, if it takes all that, then forget it!"
• So we're back to, if we're grounded in reality, having to recognize that helping is a waste of time if it's not being actively sought out.

And the way we handle them can make it worse...

1. Picking a fight with them in their intro thread because they evidence some wacky idea. An intro thread is a place to get to know someone. Picking a fight just makes them feel unwelcome and us look unwelcoming. Try to find common ground, or just keep your mouth shut other than to say 'hi'. There will be time enough to talk about the other issues. If you really really must register your objection to someones idea, start a new topic about that. This is just basic politeness. You wouldn't do that to someone you first met in person.

2. You don't have to jump down their throat every time they say something crazy. Challenging them on every little thing only makes them act out worse. Just because they say something you find objectionable doesn't mean you have to pick a fight. We're not conformists, no one expects everyone to think alike. The impulse to eject 'bad think' and make sure no one will think we're guilty by association and enforce conformance is a feminine, not masculine one.

3. You know that phenomena where the pretty girl in school decides to put in their place or even destroy some unattractive guy or girl who 'stepped out of line' and tried to hit on her or act as an her equal? That same sinful impulse may be at work in how people sometimes respond to these types.

I've also seen #3 at work with other's who've been driven away that aren't so much classic sperges but rather just unattractive or socially autistic in some way.

I'm going to assume for the sake of this discussion that you're at least partially talking about the situation with James. Publicly, he was probably a bit overreacted to, but, without beating a dead horse, he behaved in ways that probably very properly inspired a better-safe-than-sorry approach.

I can also assure you that, in private messages between James and me, I offered my high-pay-grade and very appropriate help -- because just bantering with him to dissuade him from publicly going out on the limbs he was going out on wasn't dissuading him. In our private conversations, his words said he wanted to participate in getting constructive feedback, but his actions (and most especially his dramatic exit from Biblical Families) spoke more eloquently. My heart goes out to him in a big way, but, again, if someone is unwilling to accept help from someone capable of providing it and instead shifts over into inspiring others to sympathize and interpret that he's been victimized, then the result shouldn't be surprising.

The problem with autism is that it always represents a voluntary and purposeful disconnectedness from normal social norms, and the degree of this is what predominantly places a person on the particular point on the autism scale that they inhabit. The problem that compounds the first problem is that the parents of autistic children generally have no idea what to do, and this is further compounded by the fact that, even if they seek help, they are most likely to get it from the public school system, which also has no clue what to do to actually help autistic kids but instead uses them as cash cows, because the feds provide 2:1 student:teacher ratio for autistic children, so school systems everywhere are reclassifying developmentally-delayed students from their 4:1 ratio into supposedly being autistic. This results in all social and academic expectations being dropped into the basement for autistic children.

Then they become adults, uninterested in personal insight but incapable of creating lives for themselves the way their parents did.

I wish James would come back, sooner rather than later. But giving him some feedback about how inappropriately he's behaving is far more kind than being gentle about it.

 

[Keith Martin]

no such debate on masculinity = many kids has even been had to my recollection

Ah, maybe that's the source of this failure to communicate on our part: I never said it was a debate on that particular topic. I only wish there had been a debate. It was just a matter of comments being made, some of which were made in jest, along the lines of pumping certain men up for being 'studs' and high-level offspring-producers. The jest part is just fine, in my humble opinion, but amongst it developed a significant pattern among just some men (which, coincidence or not, has greatly diminished since I pointed it out) of reserving their biggest attaboys for prolific men, combined with a couple of the same men making offhand vile remarks about the women in their lives being doomed to deserved mistreatment, up to and including somehow being biblically subject to being under their husband's thumb even if they have the audacity to divorce and marry another man.

Please don't do it. Don't say this never happened. Because if you never observed it, then you just weren't there. Period.

 

[rockfox]

You are right on the money when you recognize that my being quick on the trigger about it is related to the psychotherapy background, for a number of reasons:

• Keep in mind something I'll elaborate on when I discuss the Myers-Briggs [My N was 97% the last time I took the test], but both my success as a psychotherapist and why I knew to get as far away from it as possible have almost nothing to do with any training I received. We all have gifts from God, but my primary gift from God, to simplify it, is that I recognize things about people, often almost immediately, much if not most of the time even when they don't realize it about themselves, and that gives me the ability of insight to not only know things immediately but to know without even having to think about it what needs to be said or suggested (and that it is often immediately rejected or denounced by others who hear about it doesn't come close to being evidence that it still wasn't the perfect thing to say, because too often even in those situations I will learn down the road that it was a necessary seed in a long-term harvest -- and, you don't have to tell me; I already know: I'm arrogant as all get-out). So, yes, I'm quick on the trigger, but it's not what it might seem to be: it's not that I'm impulsive and just jump on people about things.
• The victim posture that is so prevalent in our culture is just about the most insidious characteristic of what progressivism has sowed. Over time, I've learned that people learn almost nothing when they grasp victimhood with a tight fist.
• Therefore, when someone is posturing themselves as a victim (and one manifestation of victimhood is to expect others to guess what one's problems are), offering assistance is pretty much a complete waste of time. It engages the helper instinct in others, but what I learned from being a psychotherapist is that almost no one who is in therapy actually has any intention to get anything out of it other than to make themselves feel like they're doing something productive or to make it look like they're trying to change themselves. They do not want to change. They do not want their lives to be transformed. The corollary to this is that almost all therapists are completely worthless and, in fact, would be more likely to harm their clients than help them if anything substantive were really going on, so it's all a net wash, except that lots of time and money has been wasted. (It does, though, keep a lot of virtue signallers off the street.)
• This next one is harder for the average person to swallow: the same thing is true when it comes to lay people doing counseling. The main advantage to getting counseling from friends is that less time is usually expended and far less money is thrown down the toilet. However, if your friend (or, say, someone who shows up out the blue on a forum thread) identifies as a victim, then everything I said in the previous bullet point applies just as significantly. You can feel like you're being helpful, but all evidence points to that nothing of any substance will be accomplished.
• Therefore, the only truly productive use of one's time (unless one counts looking like a sensitive soul) is to start off right away assertively promoting the learning of how to take a radically different approach to communicate one's needs, because until the victim-identified person develops a non-victim approach, the world will only continue to be a ridiculously-difficult place to navigate. All one gets as a victim is at-best-mediocre results amidst being enfeebled by people who dance around the bullshit.

When I recognized that all of the above characterizes 95% of what goes on in psychotherapy and social services in general, I could not in good conscience stick around.

Instead, I require that I use this gift God by giving it away for free to people who demonstrate that they truly want it and are going to do something with it. My conscience, therefore, remains clear, and I get the wonderful gift of observing people actually blossoming.


Oh, no -- I've really come out of the closet this time!

That's really good. An important insight and it lends new, more productive, avenues for interacting with the typical struggling women who shows up. I'd love to explore this more but I'm going to put that in a different thread to stay on topic. Although I will note that people being offended by how they or others were treated and choosing to not participate has some element of victim mentality involved. That's not to dismiss their feelings, but to point out the dynamics at play in order to help us better educate people who take the wrong message from discussions here.

 

[Keith Martin]

Just because someone can find an argument doesn't mean its true nor does the issue being less than an issue of gospel importance mean there isn't a problem if men embrace falsehood in order to access more women while pushing back against those who dare scare them away by preaching the truth.

Even setting aside the salvation issue, though, who is it that set any of us up to supposedly preach the truth in such a way that justifies definitively denouncing another human being as flat out wrong about non-salvation issues in Scripture? Certainly not Him. We are all working from translations of translations filtered through language changes and a number of very significant and purposeful mistranslations, the majority of which at this point trace back through the Roman Church and some questionable rabbinical interpretations. We have every right to believe for ourselves that we have been wise enough to glean what God might have been attempting to get across to us, but to come off as being so certain that we can denounce another human being for having the opposite point of view about a particular dogma is pure hubris.

So, yes, I'm going to say every time that doing that is significantly less justifiable than being worried about what will scare the women away.

Being authoritative we should not step away from. Being condemnatory, though, that's another matter, and we condemn any time we assert that someone is ridiculous or evil or working on behalf of the Adversary if they have a point of view to which we don't ascribe.

Not one of us has a corner on truth.

 

[Keith Martin]

But it can be hard at first to tell if they are just a struggling woman or someone more insidious. Because lets be honest, 99% of Christian women don't really believe in male headship and are antagonistic towards male headship and biblical polygamy either. Sure they may say otherwise, but the details of what they call headship is really just female rule in sheeps clothing and when presented with the truth their first instinct will be to give all the usual talking points about love and 'real headship' and 'not being a doormat' etc.

But that's why we shouldn't be worried about whether such women leave. They don't want headship, they denounce polygamy or have some warped take on it, and they don't even really want help anyway, so let them go.

I really want you to recognize that you and I are basically saying the same thing, for the most part.

 

[rockfox]

Just to be clear, I'm using sperg and socially autistic in a colloquial manner to describe a common behavioral set / type of commentator; not in a medical way (even though it may also be medically true in some cases). Whether or not they could be diagnosed as being on the spectrum or not, they often evidence a lack of understanding about social cues or how to act in social situations to one degree or another.

And the irony was not lost on me.

And I'm trying to not make this about individual persons but rather common scenarios because it is the generic scenario that matters. Individual situations may be more complex than at first glance (and bring in other emotions unhelpful to seeing the situation). I did find some of the treatment of James_A to go too far, but I'm trying not to open that can of worms here. His was not the only example.

I only wish there had been a debate. It was just a matter of comments being made, some of which were made in jest, along the lines of pumping certain men up for being 'studs' and high-level offspring-producers. The jest part is just fine, in my humble opinion, but amongst it developed a significant pattern among just some men (which, coincidence or not, has greatly diminished since I pointed it out) of reserving their biggest attaboys for prolific men

Which is why I say it seems imagined, you're reading it into it. What you see could also just be certain people who don't have much to say but also think that our 2 child society is a bad idea and we should encourage people to have more kids in order to offset the push back many Christians get from other Christians when they have more than 2.

By all means start a thread for the debate.

But that's why we shouldn't be worried about whether such women leave. They don't want headship, they denounce polygamy or have some warped take on it, and they don't even really want help anyway, so let them go.

I really want you to recognize that you and I are basically saying the same thing, for the most part.

I'm perplexed how I ended up on the lenient side of this debate. I'm supposed to be the hard assed anti-feminist and you're supposed to be the kind sympathetic one.

 

[FollowingHim]

Don't shoot the messanger, my observations and conversations with men who I pointed at BF for awhile when I was trying to use it as a ministry tool since it supose to be a Marriage Ministry.

Over the last 2 years I've known 12 men I pointed here that decided not to post because of the way some come across as monogamy is wrong and Polygyny is the only legit marriage, 6 men decide to look for different sources because because they said that too many men here are too concerned about making themselves look good and as white knight's to women reading, 8 decide to move on because men were making excuses for other men doing what they want with no repercussions (absolute authority, no accountability) , 11 because for all the talk about being biblical men when it comes to there's alot of secular reasoning and justification, 9 poly friendly Torah Keeping men who didn't want to post because if they did the message of what they posted would be lost in the shuffle to them having to defend their beliefs, 4 Torah keepers were pushed away by the acceptance of tradition, 2 Grace guys who were turned away by some of the Torah guys legalism (fun thing is 1 of the legalistic Torah guys they pointed to was a grace only guy), 5 GRace only guys who decided not to post because the "Grace only Guys" here were some of the most condemning legalistic people they have ever came across, 3 guys because men on the forum were constantly contractidicting themselves, I guy I actually got to post stopped because he was asking questions about how to feel out a girl he met through the internet, if he should invite her to stay the weekend or just pick her up every day, he was derided for an Internet revalationship and told he should never bring people he met from the internet home, people didn't listen to what was being said and just started speaking their own beleifs, just in case anyone is interested that internet girl became his second wife and they've been a happy family for over a year now, 8 guys were turned off by the stated beleif that scripture was altered and couldn't be truely trusted.

In other words people will justify being offended no matter what. It's easier that way.

There's a difference between being offended by bad doctrine of different beleifs and trying to find or fight for the truth and the world from being offended because it allows self justification of personal feelings.

Matthew 24:10-14

10And then many will be offended and will betray one another and hate one other.
11Many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
12Because lawlessness will multiply, the love of many will grow cold.
13But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
14This Good News of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Edit: There's been times I was fed up and wanted to leave the forum, actually I wanted all traces of me being here eradicated. I've stopped trying to use it as ministry tool. Now to be honestbIm not sure why I log on anymore?

There are some good points in other posts here, but this is the one that is most serious. I was aware of the issues you'd had recommending others to the forum, I didn't realise it was quite this serious. Thankyou for telling us the problems. They are serious. What are the solutions?

@Kevin: What would need to change in order for this forum to become a useful ministry tool?

 

[Nikud]

There are some good points in other posts here, but this is the one that is most serious. I was aware of the issues you'd had recommending others to the forum, I didn't realise it was quite this serious. Thankyou for telling us the problems. They are serious. What are the solutions?

@Kevin: What would need to change in order for this forum to become a useful ministry tool?

Oy, a loaded question. The subdivision of Meat and General discussion if it is enforced is a good start. Looking at Biblical Family as first a Ministry for marriage. First I would say restructuring so that new comers and lurkers only have acess to The general subdivision of certain topics. What a biblical family, whether mono or poly, looks like, what in general does a biblical man look like and his role and duty in a family, what in general does a biblical woman look like and her role and duty in a family. Testimonies of success of biblical minded (beleivers in Yeshua) families and of failures to be avoided.

One problem arises immediately is not everyone one the forum hold the same beleif of theses topics so in discussing them it's already a meat topic.

Also threads about courtship/dating, structuring life to accommodate a Biblical poly family. These should be what lurkers and new commers should first have acess to. I know some folks come with a better understanding than others and could hold there own in the meat but the meat tends to be about non biblical or nonapplical matters that evoke passion.

With tenure and trust access to The meat threads. Maybe going back to the old threads and archiving I am more of a Calvinist Shiite type post to avoid confusion.