New Forum: Baptist Men's Private Forum

Now that it's up and running we can probably start moving threads into the forum, you know, like that omnious one in the general discussion forum

Brother Adam

 

Why not also copy it to the women's forum?
Just curious...
Gina

 

BTW! It's ominous enough that there's a moderators forum in which I don't know what's going on, now there's ANOTHER one! *sigh*
I can't barely refrain from pushing the button with the big red triangle that looks like a panic button just to know what it's all about, I hope y'all know this is gonna kill me!
Gina

 

Gina, to makes things worse, you couldn't even PAY the men to look into the private women's forum...

 

OK...now I'm curious. The topic was closed (and I personally am glad) because of the subject matter.

But the argument to keep the taboo subject open was thus:

So if the purpose of discussing such topics is to keep a life-line to teens out there...blah, blah, blah, then can someone explain how teens/children are going to get into the Men's Private Forum to learn about such taboo subjects (since it has been argued they don't have pastors, etc., to talk to about these matters).

I'm not against the Men's Private Forum, & not trying to be argumentative, but just raising a question...

If the taboo subject is to help teens, then how can they be helped in a locked forum?

And what about teen girls?

Does anybody see the point I am trying to make?

 

Seems like a giant step backwards for me, but as we've already established I travel in different circles from IFB folks. My whole ministerial career has been about eliminating sex-based distinctions. There's nothing I'd say in a room full of men that I wouldn't say in mixed company.

Joshua

P.S. And the idea that masturbation is a men's-only topic strikes me as ludicrous.

 

Thank you.

We didn't say it was a mens only topic Joshuea, just I (IMO) don't find it to be a mixed company subject. There have to be things we are not going to talk about with those of the oppsite sex, if they are not our spouses, sex tops the list.

 

Thank you, Joseph.

Katie, Amen, Sister, Amen!

And my only other comment is, if there is such a big need out "there" for Christian leaders in churches to address problems/issues of teenagers/youth, then why aren't churches doing their jobs to help guide the youth?

I agree something needs done. God knows the public school systems are trashing out morals and Christian values.

So, wouldn't an alternative solution be to have a private Teenage Girl's Forum or private Teenage Boy's Forum?

OK, my rant is completed. I now step down from my soap box.

 

Katie,

Two questions:

Why do you not find it to be a mixed company subject when a large mix of people deal with it in so many different ways?

Why do you think sex tops the list of things that we should not talk about with the opposite sex? If done maturely and decently, discussing such things would allow each sex to understand the other more empircally, could it not?

God Be With You

 

I have a question about the private forums:

Is the private members one for Baptists only or am I permitted to read and/or post in it? If so, how do I get a password for it?

Otherwise, well, if men will talk about things that are somewhat personal and that they struggle with, in a private men's forum, and they won't talk about those things otherwise I say, fine, so let them have a place where they can talk to each other. Don't stop them talking by saying they have to do it in a way that is not acceptable to them!

I don't see how that would be Christlike;
I don't think it achieves anything to argue with people about where their personal boundaries lie and what their own sensibilities are.

Hence my post on All Other Discussions - which was not intended to be rude or mocking - where I said to someone "I wouldn't talk about it if you were there because it would offend you".

I meant that seriously.

I think the clear message of Romans 14 is that if you think something is ok and someone else doesn't, you're not supposed to try to change their mind but to respect where their own boundaries lie.

But - I could be wrong

 

I need to keep posting just so I can hit that magic 50 post mark so I can talk in the men's forum.........

 

I don't think there does have to be things that we don't talk about with members of the opposite sex. I was not raised to take people's sex into account when talking to them. This is probably a cultural and generational difference, and not the first of many surprises I've had on this board.

Joshua

 

I agree, Joshua. But the Bible says to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and I take that seriously and see part of it as not feeling I am called to push everyone else's boundaries just because they aren't where mine are.

I am surprised how many people don't understand that I am not you, you are not me, and so there are some things we'll never agree on. So therefore - shall we argue over them without end or shall we realize we'll never agree and then get on with making the world a better place, as best we can? Shall we look for ways we can work together?

It's so easy for people who think they are more tolerant than others to end up being intolerant of those they think are intolerant. Then the supposedly tolerant people aren't' being tolerant any more.

Respect for one another is key, imo. I believe that is part of what Jesus called us to, in saying "Love one another".

This wasn't meant to be a lecture...sorry if it sounded like one

 

I didn't take it as one, but then I didn't realize it was directed at me until you made that comment.

Frequently when I am perceived as pushing people's boundaries here it's because I'm completely unaware that those boundaries exist. I grew up in an urban, liberal setting and serve on staff in an urban, liberal church populated heavily with Ph.D.'s.

The IFB world is totally foreign to me, and I am constantly stunned by the things people say.

Joshua

P.S. On a somewhat related note, "tolerance" for intolerance is not "tolerance" at all, it is enabling. It is appropriate tolerance to say, "if you choose to believe that, it is your perogative and I will not force you to think the way I do." On the other hand, if someone expresses an intolerant belief (particularly in a discussion forum), failing to confront them on that is not tolerance. We're not a church, we're a discussion forum. People don't post things here to feel good, they post them to get feedback.

[ June 20, 2002, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]

 

I think creepy might be a better word.

 

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:

I didn't take it as one, but then I didn't realize it was directed at me until you made that comment.

Oh, no, it really wasn't. Oops, sorry.

Frequently when I am perceived as pushing people's boundaries here it's because I'm completely unaware that those boundaries exist.

Fair enough, but I truly didn't mean to be saying that you in particular were. It was intended to be a general comment about boundaries.

That's an excellent point that any of us can inadvertently push people to where they are uncomfortable, without knowing we're doing so, because we're unaware of certain differences.

I grew up in an urban, liberal setting and serve on staff in an urban, liberal church populated heavily with Ph.D.'s.

I took at course at the UU temple one block from my church (which is very conservative - probably close to IFB, although I wouldn't really know). It's pretty amazing how much difference one block can make, 'subculturally'

The IFB world is totally foreign to me, and I am constantly stunned by the things people say.

Hopefully you are stunned less and less in the sense of not being aware that what's what people believe; even though I'm not saying you would necessarily agree with what they believe any more than you ever did.

P.S. On a somewhat related note, "tolerance" for intolerance is not "tolerance" at all, it is enabling. It is appropriate tolerance to say, "if you choose to believe that, it is your perogative and I will not force you to think the way I do." On the other hand, if someone expresses an intolerant belief (particularly in a discussion forum), failing to confront them on that is not tolerance.

Yeah, but...every time God doesn't strike us dead for sinning again then do we say He enables us? Or do we be appreciated that He leads the way in grace, forgiveness, acceptance of us as saved but nowhere near perfect...

I think there's a time and place for everything. If you're married and things are going well (I hope so) then I don't expect you feel that you always must correct your wife or point out all her imperfections...do you?

We're not a church, we're a discussion forum.

Ummm...huh? Please elaborate on what the difference is - are you saying that people go to church only to feel good and not to get feedback? I hope not!

People don't post things here to feel good, they post them to get feedback.

Actually I doubt there are many, if any, people here who can post without being a little pleased when they get affirming responses and a little upset when they have people argue against what they say.

We're all human and we don't like to have cherished beliefs shot down.

So, realistically, I think a lot of things are going on here when people post.

Hopefully some of them are good!

[ June 20, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: AITB ]

 

AITB, I think you and I are generally in agreement here. The difference between a church and a discussion forum is (in our church at least) we recognize that there is plurality on non-essentials. Here, whether something is essential or not, if it is posted it is going to be challenged or discussed (I seem to remember being advised of just that when I joined).

Joshua

 

Yes, we probably do agree.

Is this what you are saying: here there is not that one-ness that a church has and must maintain, where intense debate must be subordinated to the shared visions and goals, although it certainly would not be forbidden, I hope.

Whereas here people can debate intensely without having to figure out how they can do that one day and - say - prepare a worship service together, the next. Which might place some kind of restraints on the way people interact. Which might be good, actually.

Am I close or totally missing the point?

Anyway, if it were up to me I'd love to see how far we can go in making churches more honest places, where people can talk about what really matters to them and what they do struggle with day to day.

I think there is room for improvement on that in most groups of humans, including the ones formed on the basis of shared beliefs in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But, realistically, there is only so far you can push people and if people don't want to be pushed, I don't see I really have warrant from God to make them all miserable for the sake of some goal of mine that we - say - all ought to share personally enough that just the thought of it induces great anxiety in most of them!