Statement of Focus for Biblical Families

[NVIII]

Sorry, I did completely miss your point there and may have been making a false assumption in my responses to you.

I appreciate it. You're always forgiven. There's no hard feelings here.

 

[Mark C]

This isn’t true Mark. This forum was started by non-Torah keepers who have weathered the storms of polygyny for many years very successfully. The Torah keepers were actually late to the party.

Uh...wrong!!!!

I was here since BEFORE the beginning, and can testify otherwise. And there's more, but obviously you don't know anything about it. Ask Nathan sometime, privately.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@Mark C I think they want us to 1.) cross swords in private, not all over their pages in ways that frighten the timid ones, and 2.) stay on topic to the ministry. What I take away from it is this is to be a sanctuary of milktoast and babysteps, which already sounds like I'm being offensive, but those are essentially Paul's words. I've seen the attempts made in the past to cordon off the mature(?) areas, and I guess they are right that it never stays contained.

Maybe some more clarity could be used here @nathan. It's probably obvious again and unimaginable how I might infer that. Some of us need a little more help, is all I can say.

The problem that I see with censoring ourselves in order to be more welcoming (and this may be partly what you were saying, too, Mark) is that the chief topic here is no place for weak faith nor mind. A weak man needs to be studying salvation, not patriarchy or polygyny. The risk of  actual damage to our weaker brothers is in giving an avenue for this graduated theology to sprout in his thin soil only to be destroyed by trials later and this fall cause a fissure that reaches to his faith in Christ and completely destroys him. Much better in that sense for the timid and insincere to either face the music and grow by tough love or turn themselves and walk away from the harsh environment than to be tricked by a false sense of security here. Much like building a house on sand if there is no digging down to the rock. I consider those who left to have been weeded out and spared a greater fall. Paul fed people milk, but it was with the intent to grow them toward meat. What this thread seems to be suggesting (ordering?) is that we never graduate.

The problem I see with staying on topic is that it is probably impossible to discuss this sort of topic without those related and loop-back questions coming up. I get what you're saying, @FollowingHim, but there's so much that is so deeply intertwined. You may think the Sabbath and pork have nothing to do with patriarchy and polygyny, but aren't they all illustrations in earth given us by the same Father to paint parts of a whole image? If you refuse to allow the conversation to go where it needs to go in order to complete the picture, the discerning will smell a rat and turn away; people like @Keith Martin. The shallow and fake won't care and will stay because it is comfortable and easy (and fun...this topic does share space with new-age movements and sexual kinks). Those with rebellion in their hearts will stay because it doesn't prick their conscience. I know some of the people you are lamenting about their walking away and blaming us...and the ones I know of either had rebellion in their hearts or were insincere and faithless. The heat they felt here exposed what was under their surface, and they needed that.

I have another question. This one for @ABlessedMan. If a statement is made publicly, shouldn't it be allowed to face public scrutiny and rebuttal? I understand taking someone to the side when the error was hidden or could be covered up. There's no need to expose what was hidden, but if it's already out there for all to see, and we only keep our contests hidden, won't the public impression be that the erroneous statement or questionable opinion stands without rebuttal? Is this a position of grace or of cowardice? I've been publicly slapped about on this site a few times, and sometimes it was deserved, and other times I hit back. Sometimes when I hit back people seemed to get offended that I would have the gall to speak back to such a revered member. I've lost the popularity contest, but never has my conscience been clearer.

Adding all this up, it seems to me what y'all really want is an approved panel of speakers (ministers?) and everybody else can submit questions to an inbox or keep quiet and learn. It actually occurred to me weeks ago that this would probably solve all the problems. It would match pretty well to what you seem to be striving for here. Might be worth considering. I mean, if you just took away my ability to post publicly, there goes one thorn in your side. Imagine if you did that to several others here as well. There's a little bit of sarcasm in what I'm saying, but not that much. It really might work. Or if you took your moderating team and formed them into a post approval board instead. No more free-for-all. And when they're not approving posts they can be going back and deleting posts from the past that were too harsh or inconvenient.

There's no pursuit of truth in that, is there? No liberty. Only fear. (And cult status.) If this seems to be mocking, I suggest you be willing to call a spade a spade, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if that's really what you mean to create.

My biggest problem with all of this is that it censors people like @Mark C, @JudahYAHites, @StudentofHim, and so on. Even @PeteR, although I guess he has done a good enough job of behaving. Now @The Revolting Man might even become domesticated, and that's a tragedy of immeasurable proportions. Even though I find myself in disagreement with them a lot of the time, I don't want them silenced. These new rules aren't really designed to affect me, but they would affect them a great deal. Possibly to the point that they leave. So what have you really gained? I say let them speak freely and even boldly. Iron sharpens iron, and those who study the Torah religiously have so much to offer here that will aid your understanding, no matter how sharp you think you already are. I'm not afraid to argue with anyone, not pagans, not Muslims, and not even Jews. Are you? Is an echo chamber what you want? Are you not salt and light? Was this change caused by people leaving or by the particular type of people who left? Is it an honest answer or an emotional one?

Who said anything about not debating and crossing swords? You’re blowing this thing out of proportion. We’re putting a moratorium (a semi-permanent one) on debating one topic. There’s one thing we’re not going to tear each other apart over.

And we’re not even saying don’t talk about it. Certainly where Torah touches patriarchy we have to talk about it. Hell this policy privileges Torah keepers since we have to validate so much of the Law to show the truth of polygyny but it doesn’t allow any criticism of keeping the Law. The Torah types, of who I am among remember, should be applauding this move.

 

[Mark C]

Many people who believe polygamy is acceptable come to this understanding from a position of standard historically Christian theology.

Wrong.

Define 'christian theology'. And remember that - if you got it wrong, for TOO much of history - you burned at the stake.

And any 'good Catholic' will tell you (well, perhaps PRIOR to Pope Satan!) that since the Pope, speaking as the "Vicar of Christ" MAKES LAW, then Scripture doesn't matter. You "laity" can't rightly interpret it anyway without a 'priest'.

Oh, yeah - and they re-defined 'marriage'. So "standard xtian theology" is a thigh-slapper. Absent Scripture-as-Written, it's whatever 'The Church' says it is. QED.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Uh...wrong!!!!

I was here since BEFORE the beginning, and can testify otherwise. And there's more, but obviously you don't know anything about it. Ask Nathan sometime, privately.

Check my profile, I’ve been here since 2011 with direct access to the people behind the scenes for much of that time. I’m sorry but the non-Torah keepers have been the longest serving and most consistent practitioners of polygyny in this group. You brought up @nathan and we can add @andrew to that list without naming anyone without their permission.

On top of that we haven’t seen any reduction in the rate of train wrecks among Torah keepers as compared to non-Torah keepers. So your statement simply isn’t factual in its details. Keeping Torah does not offer any empirically identifiable advantage as far as marriage success is concerned.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wrong.

Define 'christian theology'. And remember that - if you got it wrong, for TOO much of history - you burned at the stake.

And any 'good Catholic' will tell you (well, perhaps PRIOR to Pope Satan!) that since the Pope, speaking as the "Vicar of Christ" MAKES LAW, then Scripture doesn't matter. You "laity" can't rightly interpret it anyway without a 'priest'.

Oh, yeah - and they re-defined 'marriage'. So "standard xtian theology" is a thigh-slapper. Absent Scripture-as-Written, it's whatever 'The Church' says it is. QED.

So don’t be like the pope, don’t burn people at the stake for disagreeing with you. That’s not too big of an ask.

 

[steve]

The point that I’d like to make here is that this site is not the same as your local assembly.
It is not a replacement for your local assembly.

It is a ministry that has a stated purpose. It is intended to be a safe place for the milk drinkers, with the hope that they go on from milk to meat.
We are a waypoint on the underground railroad of polygyny, we are NOT intending to be the destination.

In the local assembly, these battles will be fought until one side rules the roost, and rightly so.

 

[Mark C]

Check my profile, I’ve been here since 2011 with direct access to the people behind the scenes for much of that time.

Mine's bigger.


Good grief. I was involved in the 'community' over a decade before that, and had been on-the-board, off-the-board, kicked out, banned, and left repeatedly before that. So, please...

And, yes, even well before there WAS a BF, some of us were discussing His Instruction with our brothers, and coming to understandings.

 

[Mark C]

In the local assembly, these battles will be fought until one side rules the roost, and rightly so.

Correct, Steve. Which is why some of us are so committed to the "come out of her, My people" admonition.

 

[Mark C]

It is a ministry that has a stated purpose. It is intended to be a safe place for the milk drinkers, with the hope that they go on from milk to meat.

With that excellent summation in mind, I offer the following:

Over the years, BF has tried all kinds of variations of the FBI-sanctioned, Twitter and TwoFaceBook-approved censorship options, from 'pre-moderation' to outright banning to relegation of "unapproved mis- or dis-info" posts to the Ghetto. How about another option instead?

Executive Summary:

Let folks who certify they are wearing their "Big Boy (or Big Girl, prolly no Big Trannies to worry about - yet) Pants" that they may find something that may offend their sun-god-day snowflake sensitivities behind a certain curtain. (We already have a "MEAT" indication. Should people be queried FIRST before opening any thread with such a warning?)

All it takes is a flag/switch/profile setting that affirms "I might like to read something that might offend my Official Dogma."

Most are probably here because they may have already SENSED that the Whore Church is Lying to them - about marriage, at the very least.



Supporting Information:

I do 20+ hours a week of radio and podcasts. NOT a minute of it censored by the Thought Police - at least on OUR network. I know Big Brother does, obviously. But I figure if people go to the trouble of FINDING me/us and listening - they deserve the Truth. And if they "can't handle the Truth" - there are LOTS of pablum-ized options. How many get angry and leave? I don't know. Honestly don't care; Yahushua already warned about different kinds of seed...


Who knows? Some may even hear from Him and come back. But, at least the shofar is blown, and "their blood is on their own head," and so on...

As I have said since before the year 2000 on forums LIKE this: There are hard teachings in Scripture, but polygyny ain't one of 'em. Still, it's not for milk drinkers.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Mine's bigger.


Good grief. I was involved in the 'community' over a decade before that, and had been on-the-board, off-the-board, kicked out, banned, and left repeatedly before that. So, please...

And, yes, even well before there WAS a BF, some of us were discussing His Instruction with our brothers, and coming to understandings.

Fine, yours is bigger and since you’re so invested I know you’ll want to protect and promote the ministry. That means no flame wars around Torah.

 

[The Revolting Man]

With that excellent summation in mind, I offer the following:

Over the years, BF has tried all kinds of variations of the FBI-sanctioned, Twitter and TwoFaceBook-approved censorship options, from 'pre-moderation' to outright banning to relegation of "unapproved mis- or dis-info" posts to the Ghetto. How about another option instead?

Executive Summary:

Let folks who certify they are wearing their "Big Boy (or Big Girl, prolly no Big Trannies to worry about - yet) Pants" that they may find something that may offend their sun-god-day snowflake sensitivities behind a certain curtain. (We already have a "MEAT" indication. Should people be queried FIRST before opening any thread with such a warning?)

All it takes is a flag/switch/profile setting that affirms "I might like to read something that might offend my Official Dogma."

Most are probably here because they may have already SENSED that the Whore Church is Lying to them - about marriage, at the very least.



Supporting Information:

I do 20+ hours a week of radio and podcasts. NOT a minute of it censored by the Thought Police - at least on OUR network. I know Big Brother does, obviously. But I figure if people go to the trouble of FINDING me/us and listening - they deserve the Truth. And if they "can't handle the Truth" - there are LOTS of pablum-ized options. How many get angry and leave? I don't know. Honestly don't care; Yahushua already warned about different kinds of seed...


Who knows? Some may even hear from Him and come back. But, at least the shofar is blown, and "their blood is on their own head," and so on...

As I have said since before the year 2000 on forums LIKE this: There are hard teachings in Scripture, but polygyny ain't one of 'em. Still, it's not for milk drinkers.

Fantastic! Your 20 hours a week of blowing the trumpet means that that particular message is available for any who want to hear it. There’s no need to recreate it here.

Here at BibFam the message we want to trumpet is patriarchy and support for plural families. May we do as well here as you do there.

 

[PeteR]

My biggest problem with all of this is that it censors people like @Mark C, @JudahYAHites, @StudentofHim, and so on. Even @PeteR, although I guess he has done a good enough job of behaving.

I appreciate your concern and I would remind all that there is a forum section specifically for Torah discussion. We should have the ability for healthy respectful debate, though often this place gets way to invested in winning, vs honest discovery or discussion.

As to me being domesticated? I just take my heaviest artillery elsewhere.. (see my YiuTube channel ). This is a haven with the common objective of patriarchy and support of polygyny. I'm of the personal, largely unspoken opinion, that polygyny of necessity leads to increasing wrestling with the whole of Yah's Word... Torah.

I'm willing to trust that Yah leads each heart in His time and we may place a stone in someone's shoe, but we won't forcibly move anyone into keeping Torah. ..

ALL of us need to be doing OUTreach and building internal strength as a unique body that embraces truths cast aside by both Judaism and Christianity.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm of the personal, largely unspoken opinion, that polygyny of necessity leads to increasing wrestling with the whole of Yah's Word... Torah.

Yes!

 

[FollowingHim]

Let folks who certify they are wearing their "Big Boy (or Big Girl, prolly no Big Trannies to worry about - yet) Pants" that they may find something that may offend their sun-god-day snowflake sensitivities behind a certain curtain.

We do that. Every single person who wants to discuss anything deeper can start a private conversation with whatever group of people they like to thrash it out.

However, I wonder whether there is much profit in a few people here having the same argument over and over again but now in private. I really think that if people want to debate Torah it's probably a good discussion to have in public, but in a different setting where it doesn't clash with a ministry with other goals.

 

[Mark C]

Fantastic! Your 20 hours a week of blowing the trumpet means that that particular message is available for any who want to hear it. There’s no need to recreate it here.

That kind of 'logic' would fit right in with the Biden Regime and the Speech Police. And "Free Speech Zones," too - which some of us remember well before BF as well.

 

[Mark C]

Every single person who wants to discuss anything deeper can start a private conversation with whatever group of people they like to thrash it out.

Which ignores the issue, and the problem.

"Private discussion" with "whatever group of people" won't hear anyway is pointless. Thus the problem.

The ONLY reason I have participated at all in such is the realization that, BECAUSE they are public, there are likely people who read, but don't respond at all, and may find something of value. Maybe even days, or months, or more, later.

"Private discussions" of that ilk are - well - is there a polite term for 'mental masturbation'? Worthless.

 

[FollowingHim]

"Private discussion" with "whatever group of people" won't hear anyway is pointless. Thus the problem.

The ONLY reason I have participated at all in such is the realization that, BECAUSE they are public, there are likely people who read, but don't respond at all, and may find something of value. Maybe even days, or months, or more, later.

"Private discussions" of that ilk are - well - is there a polite term for 'mental masturbation'? Worthless.

I actually agree they're worthless (the option's just there for those who enjoy that sort of mental masturbation...). And by the same logic this would be equally pointless, as it would also hide things behind a curtain few would look behind:

Let folks who certify they are wearing their "Big Boy (or Big Girl, prolly no Big Trannies to worry about - yet) Pants" that they may find something that may offend their sun-god-day snowflake sensitivities behind a certain curtain.

I am well aware that you see Torah-keeping as an absolutely crucial aspect of faith, and you see your life's mission as being to promote this to the world. That is fine and I admire your dedication. There's just a time and a place for everything.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I appreciate everybody's contribution to maintain this forum over the years. I just wisht that I would have discovered you guys earlier, perhaps I would have switched over to eating meat by now instead of consuming milk. I appreciate your decisions regarding this forum because as a consumer of milk, it is hard to hear someone calling the Church a whore. It is people within the Church who introduced me to my Savior and taught me inerrancy of the Scripture. If possible in your zealousness for truth exert fruit of love. When I hear that love hopes all things what comes to mind is to give the benefit of doubt that the Church, or a person with opposing view genuinely and benevolently hold a certain view (not that I am an expert in practicing it). Being winsome in your cause is always great first step. (wow, I just preached to myself). Shalom.

 

[Michael Moon]

I appreciate this ministry, and more so the people who have interacted here to share their wisdom and experiences. This forum is not a local church and - as part of its intended purpose - is too committed to neutrality. This forum, while prioritizing things other than the whole truth, is still profitable - for now. Primarily as a way to meet fellow brothers in the faith, which I hope to do in person as soon as I can attend a retreat.

I would recommend that if the forum is to begin shutting down conversations outside of the specific topic of marriage, that it NOT shut down conversations about aspects of said topic that some members find unpalatable.

But begin to censor what you will. And if that includes some of my posts, I will not be the one to worry. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.