Request for staff consideration

[tall73]

It appears the statement of purpose for the married section may need revision. The current statement still references a trial thread on submission topics, but this thread no longer exists. If the intention is to prohibit the topic it might need to be spelled out without reference to the old thread.

Submission will only be discussed in the separate forums for married men's/women's personal topics. UPDATE: Trial Thread found HERE. Please only discuss submission in that thread or in the married men's/women's personal topics.

I know this issue has been looked at a number of times, but I thought I would also take a moment to again note that the term submission in relation to marriage is used in multiple texts, and it is hard to discuss the various texts on marriage without some reference to it, whatever one's view of the particulars.

Also, the addition to the statement of purpose could be rolled into the main one so everything could be found in one place.

 

[Paidiske]

I'll tag the staff who look after these things; @Sojourner1 @Lulav

 

[tall73]

I'll tag the staff who look after these things; @Sojourner1 @Lulav

Thank you, it is coming up a lot and it would be good to have the rules clear on the subject.

 

[tall73]

I realize the issue was contentious in the past, and resulted in a lot of flaming reports.

I understand the same could happen again. I would just urge the staff to please deal with flaming through corrective action, rather than shut down this particular conversation.

This topic is nearly impossible to avoid if you wish to deal with what the Biblical text indicates in a number of passages regarding marriage.

No matter which view you take both sides feel it is important to discuss, whether to urge people to follow God's plan, or to emphasize that we have misunderstood it.

When new people come to the forum ideally they will read the rules. But the reality is people post threads here all the time dealing with submission or headship or authority in the marriage dynamic, because they may not read the rules. And when they are in crisis, and they need guidance on what to do, they are not really focused on the rules in any case.

While it may be disconcerting for them to realize there are two very different views on this, if someone is trying to work through what to do, this conversation may be necessary.

I would ask that the staff consider allowing discussion of the topic. I discussed in General Theology for years, and there was, unfortunately, a lot of flaming there at times as well. But the staff would not usually say that you cannot discuss a particular point of doctrine because it resulted in flaming.

Ultimately a section in a Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of marriage has to deal with this issue. And the flaming doesn't go away because you limit the discussion. It just happens in more passive-aggressive ways, or people try to bait others into saying their view so they can be reported.

In the meantime, it is is important to have discussions on what the Bible text actually means.

 

[mkgal1]

I agree with Tall's whole post, but wanted to re-quote this especially for emphasis. The trouble isn't the topic.....it's the flaming that occurs (and should not be tolerated...nor should that prohibit the topic from being discussed). It's a critical topic.

I understand the same could happen again. I would just urge the staff to please deal with flaming through corrective action, rather than shut down this particular conversation.

 

[tall73]

I agree with Tall's whole post, but wanted to re-quote this especially for emphasis. The trouble isn't the topic.....it's the flaming that occurs (and should not be tolerated...nor should that prohibit the topic from being discussed). It's a critical topic.

And just to illustrate the point, mkgal1 and I hold different views on this subject. However, we are able to discuss with each other without flaming.

 

[mkgal1]

It seems that a lot of people don't really know where that line is as to when harsh words become a flame. That was a clarification I'd asked for years ago, but it was never really addressed.

IMO....some phrases that should never be used to bolster arguments are things like:

"The Biblical view is....." (there are many biblical interpretations)

"Those that wish to ignore biblical commands....."

"People that pick and choose what parts of the Bible they wish to follow....."

"That's absurd!"

"That's ridiculous!"


....and generalities about the genders ("men do this/are wired like this"....."women always"..."men should"......"women should"....."women are like/are wired like").

 

[Paidiske]

Well (speaking as a mod) if some topics lead to nothing but endless flaming, we might want to avoid them just so that we're not constantly dealing with a stream of reports.

But I'll leave that to the admins to consider; well above my level!

 

[mkgal1]

But as Tall is demonstrating now (and here).....it's not so much the topic, but the trouble is posters that don't have restraint (or understanding?) withholding flames and insults in their posting. That's not something that should be occurring....especially on a Christian site.

Tall and I don't agree on a lot of issues......but I can't think of one time that he's ever tossed out an insult towards me (or any one else, for that matter).

 

[tall73]

Well (speaking as a mod) if some topics lead to nothing but endless flaming, we might want to avoid them just so that we're not constantly dealing with a stream of reports.

But I'll leave that to the admins to consider; well above my level!

I can relate to the hassle of working lots of reports. However, with issues such as this the flamers are often from a select few, and many of the reports can be lumped together (if they still handle it that way, not up on the current protocol.)

And from a business perspective (not that it is my favorite way of looking at such things), it could lead to lots of page views and ad sales!

 

[tall73]

I don't think I see any more flames from these conversations than from the sabbath and law threads, or Calvinist vs. Arminian, KJV only, and especially not as many as the politics section.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, now, I couldn't comment on that.