ALL READ: Please Vote in this Poll

[LilLamb219]

The current Statement of Purpose has a section that reads:
Submission will only be discussed in the separate forums for married men's/women's personal topics.

Staff is curious how you all feel about this? Please vote using one of the Poll choices and if you would like to give a comment as to why you voted or how you feel concerning this do so in this thread. Do NOT address any other members or respond to their posts. Only address the staff members!!!

 

[seeingeyes]

We are all adults here. Old enough to be married, at least. There should be no restriction on topics at all.

Individuals who get out of line on any particular topic should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

[Angeldove97]

Subscribing- I'm interested to see what members think

 

[mkgal1]

I agree with Seeing Eyes. I don't believe there should be restrictions like that, instead---there should be clear rules as to what's respectful and what's out of line.

For instance.....a clear definition of what counts as "discussion" and what is "attacking the poster", would be helpful.

I think most of us come here in order to hear the views of others (even if they are opposed to our views) instead of being in a club where everyone echos the same thoughts and opinions.

 

[DZoolander]

Personally, I think it's a subject that just turns into nonsense. But - if that's what people want to do, let 'em at it (I figure.)

 

[Verve]

Personally, I think it leads to too much trolling...

 

[sdmsanjose]

Submission is in the Bible, submission is a very important part of marriage, and if the Word of God brings it up for married couples to read then it is an important subject.

If someone gets out of hand on the submission discussion ( like violating the other CR rules) then the Mods can step in. To me that is one very important reason why you have Mods.

To censor submission on a married couple’s forum is censoring a very important part of marriage that is going to happen even if Christian Forums censors the subject. For me it also means that the people that have put the censor into affect think that they have superior views about subjects in the Bible than we have and they have to censor adult Christians.

I would rather discuss submission on a Christian forum than on a secular forum. I would have a much better chance of getting helpful biblical based views on submission on a Christian Forum than a secular one.

 

[Avniel]

I would like to change my vote truthfully I don't know. I don't think that submission can be talked about in this section. I think the reality is this is a sensitive subject and a lot of people have views that line up with their spiritual beliefs. My belief is that it's scriptural, it's supported by the bible and to deny it is hand picking what is comfortable for you to be a christian with. That view isn't going to go over to well people will be offended, they will take it personal but that is just my belief on the subject. I would love to have a conversation using scriptures, definitions and translations however that is unlikely to happen here.

Someone like me is going to make the statement "In order to be a christian wife dedicating one's life to the following of Christ one has to submissive firstly to God secondly to that wife's husband" which to me no one can tell me that's not facts. Someone that doesn't believe in submission will be offended by this and state how "it is all about control" "you just want to control your spouse." Due to my belief's hurting their feelings or pointing out that I think that aspect is flawed causes people to lash out and be disrespectful.

This is typically where the cycle starts and majority of the bad blood here comes from this type of topic and sex. I think particularly with me if I feel that rejection of submission within marriage is a rejection of God's order I am going to say that, people will get offended and become disrespectful and I will disrespect them back because I have never back down from anyone.

I think these conversations typically have a bullying affect. One person states an opinion there are people that agree and disagree. Then there is going to be one snide comment followed by at least 4 others, and after that the PM will start with some of the older brothers and sisters telling each other to leave the conversation alone. Then it's that one disrespectful comment that makes you care about someone's thoughts and feelings a little less.............now the entire married section is either chaotic or people are showing each other fake respect and they really don't like each other.

With posters like niffer and valley yeah the conversation could be a beautiful way two theological opposites could get to understand the other's point at the very least......but the overall stimuli is going to be very negative.

I've moved away from posting scriptures in the marriage section all together it's sad.

 

[ValleyGal]

I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing it because other topics can be just as triggering for some people that are actually allowed - such as gender roles, gender differences/similarities, and other topics like that (pretty much any "feminist" discussion).

Imo, this particular board needs a lot more moderation if the submission topic is allowed. If the admin is hesitant to allow the submission topic, maybe they would consider allowing it on special request, such as if the topic comes up, perhaps a moderator could be informed and then stick around while the conversation is happening, and then lock it when the conversation has run its course. This happened on a recent thread, where admin (or mods, or whatever their role was) participated in a conversation about the rule. Due to their presence, it did not become a free-for-all where people became lazy in sticking to the RoC; instead, it was a mutually respectful, well-paced discussion.

 

[Avniel]

I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing it because other topics can be just as triggering for some people that are actually allowed - such as gender roles, gender differences/similarities, and other topics like that (pretty much any "feminist" discussion).

Imo, this particular board needs a lot more moderation if the submission topic is allowed. If the admin is hesitant to allow the submission topic, maybe they would consider allowing it on special request, such as if the topic comes up, perhaps a moderator could be informed and then stick around while the conversation is happening, and then lock it when the conversation has run its course. This happened on a recent thread, where admin (or mods, or whatever their role was) participated in a conversation about the rule. Due to their presence, it did not become a free-for-all where people became lazy in sticking to the RoC; instead, it was a mutually respectful, well-paced discussion.

I would like to see a rule where if we do talk about submission I would like to see no personal comments, no my husband and I or my wife and I, no well you do and you are......Let's just deal with the situation if I believe in submission and you don't lets talk about it.

I think it should look like this
Person A: I believe in submission
Person B: I don't
Person A: What about scripture... it says.....
Person B: well let's look at the hebrew breakdown of the word....and it is used in scripture....the same way.
Person A: Well what about here the hebrew breakdown is different and theologian xyz says.....

But if anything is said about how I treat my wife, how and what I believe is submission anything negative addressed to me about me I am certainly going to go into jerk mode.

 

[tall73]

It is nearly impossible to avoid the topic as many of the passages that directly reference the marriage relationship speak about submission. It should be allowed. I see no reason to have any special moderation surrounding it. Other topics can be delicate as well.

 

[LilLamb219]

Just popping back in to say Staff is reading these comments. Thank you for making this a pleasant thread and not a fight. We appreciate it.

I do want to address one thing though. There aren't a lot of staff members so it's difficult trying to moderate all the forums and well, you know how quickly a thread can escalate anyway!

If anyone is up for applying to staff, please visit this link and read the guidelines to see if you're qualified. We ask that staff regularly put in about 5 hours each week of their time. We could use many more staffers to help us

Back to lurking for now...

 

[Inkachu]

YES, we are already over-moderated as it is! Give us some freedom here! Thanks for asking for our thoughts.

 

[Hetta]

From what I have noted in other sub-forums in CF (such as denominational sub-forums or the ethics section), the topic often turns into those who do have submissive marriages telling those who are in an egalitarian marriage that:

1. They are 'wrong' and that their marriage is not pleasing to God.

2. That they are not Christians, and/or

3. Harassing them on the topic of why they are not following scripture and how they should not 'cherry pick.'

This is why I was glad to see on this forum at least, that the topic was barred because from what I have seen, it almost always turns into an attack on those who have egalitarian marriages.

 

[LilLamb219]

Hetta, if we did bring back submission into discussion but laid out ground rules (in the Statement of Purpose) that could avoid the 3 FLAMING statements that could possibly be brought up, would that work?

 

[Hetta]

Perhaps it would make a difference. I might probably just have to stay out of it because even if people don't say those things directly, they tend to infer them, and because I'm not good at inferring, I tend to bluntly say what I think, and then get into trouble.

 

[ValleyGal]

This is why I think extra moderation should be considered for those topics. People are very subtle about how they say it, so they don't actually break any rules, but they sure do walk the fence, and it's this constant button-pushing that causes others a lot of angst. Imo, it is a tactic used very often here, and it can make the whole board "unsafe" for certain posters - as I was alluding to in my earlier post on this thread.

 

[mkgal1]

From what I have noted in other sub-forums in CF (such as denominational sub-forums or the ethics section), the topic often turns into those who do have submissive marriages telling those who are in an egalitarian marriage that:

1. They are 'wrong' and that their marriage is not pleasing to God.

2. That they are not Christians, and/or

3. Harassing them on the topic of why they are not following scripture and how they should not 'cherry pick.'

This is why I was glad to see on this forum at least, that the topic was barred because from what I have seen, it almost always turns into an attack on those who have egalitarian marriages.

This is an excellent point. The other phrase that was often used was a comparison between camps as "biblical submission" and "non-biblical"....and "those who believe in following Scripture" and "not".

that could avoid the 3 FLAMING statements that could possibly be brought up

Instead of banning specific statements.... (because I'd imagine people would come up with other ways to express the same thought) there needs to be some understanding that it's not a matter of choosing to disobey God.....it's a matter of differing interpretations.

It should be considered a flame (any where on this forum) to imply that another person is deliberately dismissing Scripture and "going their own way" or "following the ways of the world".

 

[Hetta]

This is an excellent point. The other phrase that was often used was a comparison between camps as "biblical submission" and "non-biblical"....and "those who believe in following Scripture" and "not".

You see, I would have a knee jerk reaction to that for sure.

 

[mkgal1]

You see, I would have a knee jerk reaction to that for sure.

You aren't alone. I think that's what sparked so much of the hostility in those discussions--- those types of implications--not the disagreement of topic on its own. There's disagreement.....and then there's that need to conquer the other person.