Conservative forum

[barnhart]

I find this thread to be one of the most discouraging on the forum.

I have charted my life around the pursuit of faithful Anabaptism that does not fall back on an authoritarian defensive posture when challenged. I don't think Blaurock, Sattler, Hubmier or other early Anabaptists would hide behind a document and anoint gatekeepers to fence out ideas they disagree with. I think those lit souls did the opposite, seeking out forums to engage the unconvinced.

I get gloomy at the prospect Anabaptism dissolving into strategic, defensive, bitter retreat rather than taking the opportunities to sharpen rhetoric, learn the emerging landscape of ideas, and learning to be winsome and convincing.

[Josh]

I find this thread to be one of the most discouraging on the forum.

I have charted my life around the pursuit of faithful Anabaptism that does not fall back on an authoritarian defensive posture when challenged. I don't think Blaurock, Sattler, Hubmier or other early Anabaptists would hide behind a document and anoint gatekeepers to fence out ideas they disagree with. I think those lit souls did the opposite, seeking out forums to engage the unconvinced.

I get gloomy at the prospect Anabaptism dissolving into strategic, defensive, bitter retreat rather than taking the opportunities to sharpen rhetoric, learn the emerging landscape of ideas, and learning to be winsome and convincing.

Some people don’t want to be convinced that, for example, fornication is wrong.

[Soloist]

I find this thread to be one of the most discouraging on the forum.

I have charted my life around the pursuit of faithful Anabaptism that does not fall back on an authoritarian defensive posture when challenged. I don't think Blaurock, Sattler, Hubmier or other early Anabaptists would hide behind a document and anoint gatekeepers to fence out ideas they disagree with. I think those lit souls did the opposite, seeking out forums to engage the unconvinced.

I get gloomy at the prospect Anabaptism dissolving into strategic, defensive, bitter retreat rather than taking the opportunities to sharpen rhetoric, learn the emerging landscape of ideas, and learning to be winsome and convincing.

Some people fish from the shore, others dress like the fish and go swimming to catch them.

[nett]

I find this thread to be one of the most discouraging on the forum.

I have charted my life around the pursuit of faithful Anabaptism that does not fall back on an authoritarian defensive posture when challenged. I don't think Blaurock, Sattler, Hubmier or other early Anabaptists would hide behind a document and anoint gatekeepers to fence out ideas they disagree with. I think those lit souls did the opposite, seeking out forums to engage the unconvinced.

I get gloomy at the prospect Anabaptism dissolving into strategic, defensive, bitter retreat rather than taking the opportunities to sharpen rhetoric, learn the emerging landscape of ideas, and learning to be winsome and convincing.

The typical liberal strategy to just continue shouting loudly, while refusing to listen to anything you don't want to hear. That's what Ken and Szd regularly do on threads they don't like. It's not conducive to fruitful discussion, and they repeatedly ignore requests to respect what OPs ask.

Look at how much better Rzehr's thread about marriage was without their vapid bleating about how great divorce is for "abused" women or something.

[Ernie]

I find this thread to be one of the most discouraging on the forum.

I have charted my life around the pursuit of faithful Anabaptism that does not fall back on an authoritarian defensive posture when challenged. I don't think Blaurock, Sattler, Hubmier or other early Anabaptists would hide behind a document and anoint gatekeepers to fence out ideas they disagree with. I think those lit souls did the opposite, seeking out forums to engage the unconvinced.

I get gloomy at the prospect Anabaptism dissolving into strategic, defensive, bitter retreat rather than taking the opportunities to sharpen rhetoric, learn the emerging landscape of ideas, and learning to be winsome and convincing.

In my mind,
A. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have at home, but not in the church.
B. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have in the church but not in settings of people with similar religous persuasions.
C. There are some conversations that it makes sense to have among people of similar religious persuasions, but not in the public forum.
D. There are other conversations that it makes sense to have in the public forum.

Do you agree with me? Or is there some part of what I say above that you do not agree with?

[temporal1]

Page 3:

I'm asking if it would be gate-kept at all.
You said a "safe environment". That implies keeping boundaries and limiting participation.

This could easily be done with a thread and a few who would help to manage it by reminding others of its purpose.

WE can easily move posts that would take away from it.
I see no reason to try to get a new person to separate and have to figure out how to do that.

The mechanics of doing all that would be a challenge,
along with a discomfort of a new person being separated and not really knowing why.

If you started a thread to do that, we Mods would make sure to keep things focused and less hostile.

RZehr models one approach: (nett mentions just above.) ^^

Whose wife shall she be?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4843

This has been done over the years. EdselB was one who structured some topics in similar ways.
More would be great!

i may not be allowed to participate, but i love reading!

[RZehr]

well looks to me like this is controversial but I don't know why. I've heard the input from those who didn't vote but nothing from those who voted no. At the same time, I would say that there is enough interest that it would be used.

Maybe the ones who voted no, were liberals who voted before they read that you said only conservatives should vote. I've a pretty fast trigger finger, and with some regularity I answer these polls before I read the OP.

[temporal1]

well looks to me like this is controversial but I don't know why. I've heard the input from those who didn't vote but nothing from those who voted no. At the same time, I would say that there is enough interest that it would be used.

Maybe the ones who voted no, were liberals who voted before they read that you said only conservatives should vote. I've a pretty fast trigger finger, and with some regularity I answer these polls before I read the OP.

Yes. and. with polls, it seems there must be plenty of read-only members who select poll choices without commenting.
even on MD, there were often lots of poll choices, with little or no written response or explanation.
and, some occasionally deliberately choose options they believe might be unwanted or might ruffle feathers.

some are dedicated to remaining quiet/anonymous. it’s kinda surprising to think they might vote. but it appears ..

(i didn’t vote, i don’t wear a headcovering.)

[nett]

well looks to me like this is controversial but I don't know why. I've heard the input from those who didn't vote but nothing from those who voted no. At the same time, I would say that there is enough interest that it would be used.

Maybe the ones who voted no, were liberals who voted before they read that you said only conservatives should vote. I've a pretty fast trigger finger, and with some regularity I answer these polls before I read the OP.

If so, they should fess up.

[Ken]

well looks to me like this is controversial but I don't know why. I've heard the input from those who didn't vote but nothing from those who voted no. At the same time, I would say that there is enough interest that it would be used.

Maybe the ones who voted no, were liberals who voted before they read that you said only conservatives should vote. I've a pretty fast trigger finger, and with some regularity I answer these polls before I read the OP.

Wait….I thought conservative Mennos weren’t supposed to vote!