Evangelical Feminists Ban Scripture Posting

To post scripture that is offensive to evangelical feminists is verboten

http://www.christianforums.com/t7666584/

Unbelievable…..well, not really

Advertisements

77 thoughts on “Evangelical Feminists Ban Scripture Posting

  1. I understand your problem, but I do believe that the issue is meant to be left in gender specific forums because it evokes defensiveness it seems.

  2. You forgot that female feminists think their ways are better than all males’ ways. Obviously they are not making exceptions. But they are not even evangelical. They are frequently Scripturally illiterate. That is one reason why I go to themarriagebed.com rather than CF. It is absolutely appaling. What is more, if you sayu anything publicly abut the mods, you get a warning or banned. If you ask them a question quietly, they ignore you. It is quite some time, as in weeks, since I asked for a breakdown by gender of the mods for the married men’s forum. I still haven’t had an answer.

    The reason that threads like this get closed is simple. Human wisdom is no match for Scripture.

  3. It evokes defensiveness only by one side of the debate though. You’ll not see anywhere there where men have the least bit of defensiveness over what the Bible calls them to. The only issue comes from women and feminist thinking men getting defensive over what the Bible calls women to.

  4. But rather than banning/regulating discussing parts of the Bible, wouldn’t it make more sense to ban/regulate the defensive behavior?

  5. The breakdown by gender of mods is at least 9 to 1 female to male and the few males are quite obviously very feministic in their thinking.

  6. I beleive there is a list of the mods assigned to the area though, right on the entry page and you can click on their names and go to their profile and check the gender.

  7. Which should be taken more seriously? The Scriptures or the evocation of defensiveness in feminists? CF has chosen a side, now all they can do is obfuscate and hide that choice since it as odds with their moniker.

  8. Then there is the rest of scriptures that utterly gut Evo/feminism…..trying to point that out was what kept me in conflict with them.

  9. I wonder, should Biblical things that evoke defensiveness be banned? Divorce cant be discussed, submission cant be discussed….what about the only way to the father is through The Son? Maybe some defensiveness evoked…so, should they offer an atheist area?

  10. I had been on TMB since the first posting tonight, and it was a much more constructive place. Maybe a majority of the posters are older, or maybe they are just more Christian than any other ist that they are, but I came away feeling almost like I had spent some time with Christian friends and had been refreshed by it.

  11. The Bible is not an instruction book. Sheesh, they are on a roll. Its a bumper sticker claim…..like that one that says “Feminists are those who believe women are human beings”
    or
    COEXIST (THAT ONE RAISES MY BLOOD PRESSURE)
    or the old Visualize Whirled Peas
    or PETA People Eating tasty Animals

    Cliche for fun, Cliche…..for LIFE

  12. I think the problem arises in that the posts don’t accomplish much anymore. I do think it would have been useful to merely impose stricter regulations on those who got extremely defensive, but I don’t think they wanted to ban many active posters. Overall, I think it is ridiculous that the topic can’t be discussed without the guy coming in talking about how women should practically crawl behind the guy (although, these guys do seem more rare around TMB) or a few women come in angry because they’ve seen the most extreme uses of submission in relationships around them.

  13. They don’t appear to like any type of scrutiny. They are really worthy of the full mockery that can be brought to bear upon them. I wonder why they won’t put up a sticky stating that Scripture isn’t scriptural.

  14. I never saw a true misogynist at CF, many (including myself) were accused of it but they really are exceedingly rare. I’ve known some in my life but to listen to a feminist their is one behind every bush.

  15. Yea me too, because no men have done that, you are here doing exactly what they do there, making stuff up, straw man, then rebuking it.
    You are equating men’s view on submission with “crawling around behind him”…..that is where the junk about abuse and all the rest of the bilge they spew comes from, hyperbole and exaggeration that is just not whats been said or inferred.
    The problem is they, the women would read what you just wrote here and all fall in behind you and start ranting about those men who want women to crawl behind them and that would be that…that would be the topic….and there is goes. THEN the mods would shut down as the debate became men trying to say thats not what they had stated….

    You can take this template and apply it to every single debate thread.
    The men didnt do it….sorry

  16. I’m going to have to call you on something here. Where is the guy on CF who comes in and talks about how women should practically crawl around behind the guy? Such a position only exists on that site in the imaginations of some.

  17. Although they have been rare and sometimes short lived, there have been a few I promise. That isn’t to say they weren’t outnumbered by loud feminists though.

  18. They have not said that, literally, nor in any way by inference. Obviously she chose her words for effect, and didnt mean LITERALLY a guy had said “crawl around”….BUT, she did mean that that degree of submission was being advocated by men, and thats simply not true, and it is a testimony to the power of hyperbole among women that it even has ever been mentioned

  19. And so then the fem’s use those guys to undermine the validity of scripture? That is completely reactionary.

  20. Nope. Sorry. You are confusing the debate that ensues AFTER the feminist creates the straw man. These things were never advocated there.
    It would go on for some many pages that a woman who came in late would see women blathering about that bad man who wanted that kind of thing then the new arrival jumps on the bandwagon as if it had been said, and that would grow and grow and thats that. They actually thrived in that tactic of discrediting men, simply react AS IF something was said, and the sista hood closed ranks

  21. Just FYI, no I’m not making it up. I think it was last year (or maybe two years, I can’t properly recall) there was a guy who told me that because I wouldn’t do everything my husband wanted in every aspect of our marriage that I was doing it wrong and didn’t care about the Bible. I don’t really know if he was a troll or what, but he did appear and then subsequently I believe was banned shortly after.

    “The guy” was representing the stray that comes in every once in a while, like… annually maybe.

    “The few women” however have managed to stick around the boards without being banned, which I can agree is pretty ridiculous, but it tends to the be the same, few, louder women who stick around.

  22. Maybe I could point at Athene’s position using the same broad brush and reactionary extra-Biblical nonsense and suggest wife-beating as a means of dealing with rebellious wives. I mean it seems like it might work to me, and humans after all are the final arbiters of morality, right?

  23. So it happened, once. And I’ll bet that any other men involved in the conversation disagreed with him pretty strongly. Even if they didn’t, the existence of a single extreme fringe position shouldn’t shape the entire discussion, should it?
    You yourself just mentioned the possibilty that the person was a troll so why are you now raising the position as if it’s some sort of legitimate problem or a widely held view?

    That’s exactly the problem caused by “the gals” when they take the one guy who was advocating sex on demand, same guy who was saying that refusal of oral sex was in effect adultery, and making it out as if that’s a common position that guys there take.

  24. She is talking about the idiot who was fixated on oral sex, I’m sure. That one man gave them fodder to say men were sex pigs, men were abusive, you name it, that one idiot gave them credence. He did say that women were commanded to give any and all sex in any and all forms, any and all times the husband demanded it and if not it was unfaithful and he could divorce…..that guy was roundly criticized, but we were all painted with his words.
    It is like using Mary Winkler as the example to compare wives to…and relentlessly saying “well there really IS one women who did that”

    Oh, sorry chaz…..yes, and I assert thats the same guy she is referring to here, he was useful to them on many subjects, submission and sex

  25. All I’m saying is that is the problem with discussing submission, the thread is easily smeared by a troll and the overly aggressive feminist voices.

  26. empathologicalism, yeah, that creep! I’m sure he was a troll (for all I know he could have been a mean female poster just stirring trouble) but because he responded so poorly, it really created an escalation in the problems around TMB.

  27. Troll didnt cause it. Evangelical feminists on a go girl power trip, head wagging, finger shaking in your face bluster caused it, denial of the painfully obvious and acceptance of The Personal Jesus (TM) as the arbiter of what is good caused it. Men allowing this to get this far and stay this way is what caused it. Men SUPPORTING them because they are afriad of women and want to pander to them, thinking it ingratiates them is what causes it.
    Not a troll

  28. Thought so. See, that one moron ….but do not mistake one thing, the women at CF were GLAD that man came and posted there, they milked that dude for two years.

  29. See, they are wrong about something. Even new people are asking WHY? The answer is that “the topic causes too much bickering”
    But the topic doesnt cause it….the feminists do

  30. That’s where I think you are mistaken. The problem is not the troll, it’s with how the feminists take what the troll said and make it seem like his position is held by the typical male poster. Even though, like Empath said, most of us pretty strongly disagreed with him. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying that the troll isn’t a problem, it’s just that as relates to the larger discord, he’s not really causing it. Like Empath says, they LIKE that he posted what he did because it gives them something distasteful to paint all men with.

    Here’s the thing, if they want to disagree with me on submission or sex or whatever, I’ve got no problem at all, I just ask that what is disagreed with is what I’ve actually said, not something said by someone else that they imagine me to have agreed with or some bizzre charicature of what I did say.

  31. Right, but where does the chaos originate? Did you ever see any man objecting to what Scripture clearly calls men to do? Did you see men trying to say that Scripture doesn’t really say what it says to men?

  32. Their approach is very much like the leftist “guns cause crime and need to be banned” position. It’s not the gun it’s the person using it. In this case it’s not the topic, it’s the people reacting in a, to be blunt, insane manner to it.

  33. Besides, its a minor point, but I want to make it. The term Troll is badly over used and used wrong. That guy was not a troll. He was a regular poster who has massively screwed up views. People have taken to calling that troll, but thats not what troll is intended to mean. I know its a technicality, but the guy did stay around and post every day….a lot. he came back with at least 3 ID’s and could take a discussion about space exploration and bend it to oral sex.
    Remember he went shopping for a like minded wife online and says he found one….so made me wonder where he found time to post between work and all the sex…..unless he is a helluva multitasker!

  34. Just out of curiosity, is there something in writing as to how exactly the procedure is for getting banned, or is it arbitrary? I was wondering if I will know if I get too close to the line.

  35. Jacquie,

    There are written guidelines but they are routinely ignored. It is pretty arbitrary but in most cases you will receive a series of warnings progressing in severity before you are actually banned. Sometimes a post will be deleted with no warning and no punative action taken. But, if they connect your user id there with the fact that you post here, all bets are off. They’ll likely toss you without warning and without anything that you did that actually breaks the rules. They are VERY sensitive to having staff actions discussed where they can’t tightly control the environment.

  36. But as a new poster with no history with any of the other posters, you would probably know you are getting into hot water long before they simply tossed you.

  37. Elizabeth,
    In re-reading over this discussion, I regret that maybe I’ve been a bit hard on you. I appologize. It’s just that what you were saying about the occasional guy who does espouse some pretty problematic views looked a LOT like what they do over at CF where they take one extreme thing said one time and make it out to be the norm. Yes such men with such views exist, and yes they sometimes post on CF. But they are very rare and are in fact quite strongly criticized by the rest of us. But even though we clearly and strongly disagree with the position, it’s still brought up as if it’s something nearly all men believe.

  38. Yep, this is pretty much it. With the feminist, she is goddess and unquestioned ruler of her world and all will bow down to her, even the real God. When they see Scripture against their purposes, they will lash out every time. Especially since the only approved use of Scripture in their world is to affirm their lives in the place and way that they defined it.

  39. They really need a bigger light shined on this heresy. It could be called EvangelicalFeministForums, that would at least have integrity.
    Anyway, it is pretty much over, nuthin to see, and move along

  40. All I have to say is that they are getting their way. This is what they wanted which I don’t think I’m going to stick around much longer.

  41. Actually I think they are disappointed. What they wanted was to leave the feminists intact, and rid themselves of all but white knights as men. The circular love fests that result are to them the pinnacle of Christian gender decorum. But think about it, they tried banning each and every man multiple times for a month, then permanently, over a period of a couple years, and the problems stayed. They had no choice but to reluctantly see there were at least 2 sides to the story…..

  42. That is the problem as I see it. If you owned a pizza joint and cooked “Chicago-style” deep dish meat lovers pizzas and then advertised yourself as a Vegan Salad bar you have a flawed business model. If you then recruit/hire/attract an aggressive clientele who actually likes pizza and dislikes vegans and hates the thought of their favorite restaurant being turned Vegan, then you could either blame the vegans or you could blame the marketing. “Christian” Forums is blaming the clientele that their false advertising is luring in, and blaming them for the resulting conflicts. Gee, I wonder when that is going to start working?

    The only problem I have with that analogy is that I cast myself as the vegan….for some reason I have restaurant analogies on the brain.

  43. It’s not silly, it’s downright offensive and I just told A.N.D. exactly that.

  44. I think what he’s getting at is that the disrespect loop started with those who insist on twisting the words of others.

  45. Well, maybe. I didnt have any problem with what he said, I just didnt understand it.
    I will say that if there ever could have been a straight up thread where abuse was not the rally cry for the anti-submission crowd, where the actual words written were what was discussed, its POSSIBLE even the two sides could have agreed to disagree….respectfully. In that way the forum could stay nice AND the topics be discussed.
    They , again, are making a recipe and diet forum, or at most threads like the one now about the picnic….I mean no disrespect to those in that thread, just sayin, well, for me, thats just not an interesting draw for a forum, and doesnt really fit whats implied as the subject matter

  46. There is going to be disagreement on virtually all sections of CF, but it’s when those disagreements turn into endless debates that get hashed and rehashed over and over again, then things get nasty and things are said that needn’t be. CF means Christian Forums and oftentimes the discussions turn into something that doesnt sound very ‘Christ-like’.
    ———————————————————————————
    She is well intended but even she misses the mark big time. The mark is the underwear skid mark of misrepresentations. There has NEVER ONCE been a debate about the so called contentious issues. Submission has not been discussed for more than 3 posts, divorce, same….until someone says ABUSE/SEX ON TAP whatever….and THAT is what the debate is about. Eliminate that, eliminate the endless angry debates, simple really. But mods line A new dawn are heavily invested in that crap (hence the skid mark reference) so why would we expect the mods to even SEE what really occurs?

    BTW, what happened to MK?

  47. CF in general would become no better than the sites that a lot of folks tell others to steer clear of.
    I came here from a site where the vitriol was almost caustic..Atheists belittling those of faith, and visa-versa.
    Almost no moderation was being done, and it turned out to be a hate fest.
    For those who want an environment like that, they can leave here and find somewhere else to call home.
    To All of the mods,and the powers that be, KUDOS!
    ———————————————————-
    well freezerman…..”no better than the sites lots of folks tell others to steer clear of”…..what does that even MEAN?
    Speaking of atheists, tell us now, whats better, being able to post scripture and tolerate atheists poking at it, or being forbidden to post it when it offends people? This is baby and bathwater silly man.

  48. Oy….lets watch now as its the white knights who rah rah the actions…..
    Some of them Ive never even seen before, I wonder why….
    Yep, it’ll be peaceful a’ight

  49. The really sad part is that if all the nonsensical abuse stuff were stripped away, and the misrepresentations and twistings stopped, at the end of the day I think that there would be far more agreement than disagreement. In terms of the real stuff, the things we actually mean, and the things they really believe, there’s not all that much difference. It’s just that what they have been trained to say they beleive is a crock of BS.

  50. She probably ran off to wherever Jane and Dallas were banished to. She really can’t stand on her own, she needs a cheerleading section.

  51. Yeah, they have been posting over at The White Knight, Hamster and the Wheel (Egalitarian Alliance) for a few weeks, they are over there licking their wounds now. I don’t know how long that “love fest” can sustain itself but I have my suspicions. CF has managed to get all of the forum users to unite, apparently we can all agree that we hate their rules. The irony is that I think that Athene, Jane and Tamarra are going to miss people of a more masculine nature: “cantankerous” as Athene said.

    For the record, I never called or suggested that Apostolic was a “prophet of Baal”, he just didn’t like the analogy I drew out of Biblical typology and decided to take offense. Nice to misrepresent someone in a venue where they cannot repond dude. (I did point out that I thought Evangelical Feminism was well represented by many of the modern Ahabs and Jezebels, he self identified.)

  52. I knew he had misrepresented you, and I also see the complete lack of understanding of the problem among the white knights. Athene misunderstands it too, but to her credit she is often more rational (aside from the abuse infatuation) and has a high tolerance for debate

  53. I was thinking about this last night. I don’t think you can have Christian fellowship when the community is being run by outsiders, especially secretive outsiders. Think about this model a moment, a church where nobody can question the pastor, youth group leader, sunday school teacher, usher? I can approach New Dawn on the MSC, then what? What if she tells me to take my Bible and stuff it? Appeal denied!?

    Matthew 18 suggests a remedy to a situation between two believers, this is not implemented at CF, in fact it is flouted. Instead of actually discussing and working through grievances they are shunted into the “memory hole”. This is not a Godly model and it defeats fellowship. It also creates a breeding ground for egoists and dictators.

    Hebrews 8:4-6 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

    CF: FAIL.

  54. I didnt see much being discussed at equality central, and I have zero interest in posting there to be sure. Its painful to read the men there. That main guy who writes nonsensical sentences like “wives mutually submitting to their husbands”…..what does that even MEAN? It makes no sense in the English language.
    Perhaps that’s why they have made idiom hopping an art

  55. The best book I have ever seen on female submission is ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, a minister’s wife. Long out of print, it may be hard to get. It is written for women and it is strictly based on the Bible itself. Mrs. Handford explains what submission really means, and what happens when a women submits.

  56. I told the MSC that what they had done was an extra-Biblical high tech shunning. They need to come out of the darkness and be seen.

    Makes me wonder whatever happened to Autumnleaf.

  57. So, again, its HOW things are said, not THAT they are said. And the perception people have seems to be rather wide spread. That’s disappointing. What it means is that people who are capable of actually reading and replying to what someone writes are badly in the minority in today’s cyber world. Here is a generalization, its mostly women saying that.
    Notice that on the sites like Dalrock and CMD this nearly never happens. Know why? Because the vast majority of the posters, men and women, are bright enough to know that silliness when they see it and they shut it down en masse, and it goes away immediately. There at CF its the main stream to be rhetorically challenged. So many comments saying simply whaaaa every thread was bickering whaaa tells me that those folks had no idea what was really being said or happening either.
    I wrote a post about that awhile back, it I think is the majority of people….not just cyber folks……FOLKS…..who seem to be unable to follow conversation on topic without resorting to the cheap pat extreme understandings of what was said instead of whats really said. Its fast and shallow thinking, hear X…..bam…..the proper response is to realize they really mean Y, and EVERYONE hates Y, so get after tearing down Y.
    Its a modern human problem, at least its an English speaking problem, I do not know about how common that is in other languages. It explains a lot of the ways of the populace in the English speaking countries, it explains our politics and our religion and our gender relations and to an extent class and race issues.

  58. Elizabeth wrote: “there was a guy who told me that because I wouldn’t do everything my husband wanted in every aspect of our marriage that I was doing it wrong and didn’t care about the Bible.”

    Wait, we don’t have to obey our husbands any more?! *nice*
    I didn’t get that memo somehow.

  59. I really liked this book when I first read it almost two decades ago not long after becoming a Christian. It was so different than anything I’d been taught growing up. Through the years I’ve often thought back on the information and examples given by the author. Thank you for the reminder of it, I think I may want to give it a read again. It’ll be interesting to see if my perception has changed any and by how much after all I have learned over the past yearl or so.

  60. Well, a little in her defense, the guy she is referring to was OTT. He was speaking exclusively about specific sex acts, pretty much any and every sex act, whenever he wanted it, even if it was in between her hurling over the toilet w/ stomach flu…I mean the dude was seriously obsessed with the wife being REALLY sex on tap… the way they accuse of of when we try and talk about how important sex is, he gave these ladies the ammunition to attack us very normal and reasonable guys.

  61. I was banned within 12 posts. No warnings, nothing. I didn’t even use swearwords, nothing that should not first have been a warning. Then they proceeded to delete all my posts. They’re a bunch of godless whiners.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s