Well...

[J.D.]

After reading a few posts...

I have realized that we are not all on the same ground here doctrinely, not even on the basics. I find it increasingly and even more increasingly difficult to discuss an issue when I am constantly looking at it from an entirely different level and point of view with hardly any common reference point from other web board members.

I appreciate all the answers and information I have recieved, particularly in the first question I asked about general GLBT information. It was very helpful.

However, I don't I will be able to continue full time on the board. I apologize if this is an inconvenience for some of you with unanswered questions, but I don't believe that staying here and continually posting will benefit you or me.

Again, thank you for the experience. I will drop in from time to time.

-JD

[Diane Vera]

I have realized that we are not all on the same ground here doctrinely, not even on the basics. I find it increasingly and even more increasingly difficult to discuss an issue when I am constantly looking at it from an entirely different level and point of view with hardly any common reference point from other web board members.

Suggestion to the moderators:

Since one of Soulforce's main aims seems to be to communicate with Christians, perhaps it might be productive for you to have some sub-forums that are limited to particular kinds of Christians? For example, perhaps a Catholics-only sub-forum and an evangelicals-only sub-forum? That way, people who want to hash out issues with other people of their own faith tradition could do so, without intrusion from people "not on the same ground doctrinally, not even on the basics."

I hope I didn't scare J.D. away....

[Zerbie]

Disagreeing on the technicality of limiting fora. I see no reason why anyone should be prohibited from reading/posting on threads discussing certain denominations. But it might be a quite good idea, if it wouldn't make the SF forum page too unwieldy, to have sub-categories like: Catholic discussion, UCC discussion, etc etc etc. There would be no need to limit access: only those interested would read/post.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Soulforce is an Interfaith organization. Persons who come here only to communicate with people who belong to the same religious denomination as they do, have simply come to the wrong place.

Every denomination (except maybe the Amish) has ample opportunities on the internet to establish their own little, narrow-minded forums. I see no reason why Soulforce should establish a forum that is limited to participants who are, for instance, Premillenial Dispensationalists.

Applying doctrinal tests to people in order to admit them to particular forums strikes me as just plain wrong, besides being impractical.

Steven Webster

[Diane Vera]

Well, I can see that my proposed specialized sub-forums could be a pain for the moderators.

An alternative and hopefully simpler suggestion, then:

Perhaps the Souforce website could provide links to websites of an assortment of GLBT and GLBT-friendly groups in particular faith traditions?

I notice that you already do have links to a few GLBT and GLBT-friendly Catholic groups, such as Dignity, in the "Roman Catholic" section under "Anti-GLBT watch." Also, you already have links to a few other groups associated with particular denominations, also under "Anti-GLBT watch."
But I don't yet find, for example, any general evangelical GLBT groups such as Evangelicals Concerned listed anywhere on the Soulforce site (except in a recent thread in the forum -- see the thread Homosexual-or bi & Evangelical: Is it possible? (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2069), which contains links to EC and a few other evangelical GLBT and GLBT-friendly groups and ministries).

I would suggest listing an assortment of GLBT and GLBT-friendly religious groups (or at least Christian groups, unless Soulforce wants to expand its focus to encompass other religions) somewhere under "Resources," perhaps, in addition to listing a few of these groups in the appropriate places under "Anti-GLBT watch."

[Diane Vera]

Als long as I'm suggesting links to add to the Soulforce site: On your page about Ex-Gay Ministries and Reparative Therapy (http://www.soulforce.org/article/726), you might perhaps want to add a link to Ex-Gay Watch (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/).

I notice that Ex-Gat Watch includes some coverage of Soulforce's activities, e.g. 2007 Equality Ride Launches With Ex-Gay Survivors (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/03/2007-equality-ride-launches-with-ex-gay-survivors/).

[bryanf]

Allowing sub-sections for specific traditions does not mean a breakdown of interfaith dialogue; actually I will argue that it will promote it. How can we discuss our faith with one another if the faith we own is under crisis or is in a particular stage of refinement? By alotting for these subforums we would recognize vallidity of differing backgrounds while still ever yet saying come, be a broader part of the whole. I do believe that the continue climate of the forums will only continue to alienate and dare yet offend people from strong faith-tradition backgrounds. If we trully believe in interfaith dialogue then let us celebrate our faiths with each other. Tolerance that seeks uniformity brings death. Tolerance that celebrates our differences brings life.

And my suggestion would be for the following subdivisions. Primarily because Soulforce is mostly a USA group

Christian:
-->Evangelical
-->Catholic
-->Orthodox
-->Reformed
-->Other

Muslim:

Judaism:

Folk Religion / Paganism / NeoPaganism:

Eastern Religions:


If by providing these forums we can increase the participation, I think it would be a wonderful idea. One suggestion though is to have specific moderators in each group who would have the responsibility to encourage others to participate in interfaith dialogue. Additionally by allowing for different groups to be here, we provide an opportunity to see how other faith traditions in the LGBT community might dialogue.

So in the end not only does this provide a safe heaven, it could encourage dialogue, and provide an educational chance to see how each other thinks.

[BruceChris]

Quote:
Perhaps the Souforce website could provide links to websites of an assortment of GLBT and GLBT-friendly groups in particular faith traditions?

http://www.welcomingresources.org/

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Diane Vera]

Quote:
http://www.welcomingresources.org/


Here is the above site's list of
Christian/Denominationally-Based GLBT Organizations (http://www.welcomingresources.org/links.htm#religious).

[keltic63]

Take a look at what happens when you subdivide to make everyone happy: http://www.christianforums.com/ :eek:

[bryanf]

Which that is why it needs to be as minimal as possible.

Another benefit of allowing for subforums is to encourage individuals to be a change agent within the tradition that they are in.

[matthewspeed]

JD, I agree with you for the most part. You are not alone. I really liked your explanation on the evolution argument. Please don't stop communicating on this forum. I would love to discuss theology and doctrinal isssues with you or anyone else for that matter.

[WillySF]

I am new here, so please forgive me if I come across a tad arrogant in what I have to say. Such is not my intention.

I used to participate in a discussion forum on Beliefnet. I still do drop by on occasion. At the time I was very participatory the board I frequented most was the Anglican/Episcopal Board, since at the time I was very involved within my local episcopal parish. We had a wide range of folks with a diverse lot of opinions. Such has tended to be the anglican way until recently. Anglicans (Episcopalians are American Anglicans) have found their unity through "common prayer" and worship, namely within the confines of the Prayer Book. Good thing is, although the BCP (Book of Common Prayer) is very cohesive and clear about what our worship is like, it still allows for local interpretation. What is so wonderful about that is it allows individual freedom, yet bonds us together. As an Episcopalian, if I travel abroad and find myself in another episcopal parish I will recognize its worship and be able to participate easily. Some worship may be "low church", some "high church" with smells and bells. Some parishes are very charismatic in their approach, others are rather evangelical. But we are all Episcopalians/Anglicans.

Years ago, the board I would frequent began to draw lines. It became divisive. Feelings were hurt and participants left. Some of the most intelligent and critical thinkers decided to best be on their way. And it was decided that the board would split into more specific categories; Conservative, Liberal and (get this) Gay! It was the end of the community in my mind. The board still operates, but it is now cliquey and clubby. There is little of any substance, and I find that I no longer find myself challenged by the contributions of its members as I once was. Nowadays we say "community" and believe its definition is synonymous with "people of a like mind or belief". Well, it couldn't be further from the truth. Community signifies a diverse group of people who happen to live together. We may not all be of one mind (imagine that!) but we put aside our difference and learn and support each other anyhow.

Honestly, I do not understand literalists and fundamentalists. And not because we are starting from an entirely different set of assumptions about the universe, nor a whole other set of definitions of basic concepts (which we do), but solely due to the fact that I cannot fathom why they are so intent in having everyone believe as they do! I know this can work the other way around, but I don't see mainline protestants and catholics demanding the other side accept their conditions – for the most part they simply wish to be included in the dialogue. It is called a dialogue because in order for dialogue to exist there have to be at least two different viewpoints. Otherwise we'd call it a monologue, and it would not challenge a single individual. Such would be boring to say the least. Why is it that I see this time and time again, where a literalist/fundamentalist person enters the dialogue with the intention of igniting a response knowing full well that the dialogue is not a literalist versus metaphorical one, and then leaves in a huff under the guise that he is unable to "talk sense" to the rest of us unenlightened individuals? The reality is that the majority of these folk only want to justify themselves and look disparagingly upon the rest, content that they alone possess all the answers and rather satisfied that their "conversion" efforts were to no avail. Yet they keep coming back. It must give them a wonderful sense of self, that's all I can say.

[u-dog]

I oppose the idea of dividing this forum along sectarian lines. On most issues I find the diversity of perspective and belief to be refreshing and challenging. Makes me think twice or three times before coming to a conclusion.

Every so once in a while I want to have it out with others of my tradition about doctrine or scripture or theology or worship. When that happens I can start a new thread and just say "Hey this is a thread for Christians to fight about the virgin birth "... Budhists and Pagans can read and participate as long as they understand that we are having a conversation within certain explicitly Christian parameters. Then, I, as a Christian am free to read a post by Scott or Marutidas or not. If I read it I am free to respond to it or not.

In short... I like this place the way it is.

[tpdncr4christ]

Look at the rainbow. Can you say, as in draw a line, when one color stops and the other color starts? Why are we going to devide into seperate sub-forums? I don't see the need... aren't we more beautiful when we mesh together like a rainbow?

Keep your individuality, keep your color, but don't seperate yourself from the rest of us. Thats just... umm... not as cool.

[WillySF]

Great metaphor! You're right about rainbows – all the colours bleed together. And let's not forget the source – pure light that encompasses all!

[andrewlittle]

Great comments - couldn't agree more.

If we keep separate rooms, then we will collectively be the sum of our parts.

If we engage with each other, especially those we have disagreements with, then we collectively become greater than the sum of the parts.

The latter gets my vote.

[Daniel]

Subdivisions are for the suburbs! Where everyone can keep to themselves and not be bothered by those other people.

In town- which is where I see this community-everyone meets at the cafe on mainstreet- strong coffee (or tea if one prefers....where they alway warm the pot and use loose leaves.. not bags for god's sake!), good desserts, comfort food and a little after dinner nitecap is savored as the candles twinkle on the tables.

One thing though- a bat keeps flying around at all hours. You'd never know it, but she's the most friendly creature there.

[Zerbie]

One thing though- a bat keeps flying around at all hours. You'd never know it, but she's the most friendly creature there.

Aw!!

Love you, Daniel.
:love:

[bryanf]

Alright I'll concede. WillySF you gave a fine testimony. To the point I am now switching sides.

-Ben (my real name)

[Jamie McDaniel]

Another thing driving the number of forums is the membership. Members who have been around over a year will recall when we just had the Hello My Name Is... and the Main Forum. Once the Main Forum started getting 20+ new threads per day, it was time to break it into different forums.

keltic63, that forum you linked to is absolutely huge. That may be one reason why they have so many sub-forums.

I also frequent a web development forum that has over 50 sub-forums. Of course they also have an average of 1500 members online at any given time.

At some point in our growth, we will likely need to add some new forums. However, I don't think the idea of creating sub-forums for specific denominations and faiths would be a good fit for Soulforce for the same reasons others have already given. With the size we are now, you can always create a thread to discuss things specific to a certain denomination or faith.

[Diane Vera]

With the size we are now, you can always create a thread to discuss things specific to a certain denomination or faith.

Then perhaps this option should be suggested to people who seem unconfortable with wider-ranging dialogue?

[Diane Vera]

Honestly, I do not understand literalists and fundamentalists. And not because we are starting from an entirely different set of assumptions about the universe, nor a whole other set of definitions of basic concepts (which we do), but solely due to the fact that I cannot fathom why they are so intent in having everyone believe as they do!

But, you see, the desire for everyone to believe as they do is, itself, intrinsic to their belief system. In their view, a person's eternal destiny depends on having the right belief.