How does it hang together?

[RubySera_Martin]

Which passage should Christians listen to? How do Christians know they are listening to the right passage?

I am a Mennonite by birth and am most familiar with Mennonite religious teachings. So I will use the Mennonite position as my starting point.

Here is a passage that Mennonites make into a test of faith while most other Christians seem not to look at it:

Matt. 5:33 “Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. The Revised Standard Version. 1971 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA




Given that taking the oath is required by civil government for certain legal procedures, the following passage opposes the above:

Rom. 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. The Revised Standard Version. 1971 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA



Then there is also the verse that demands us to obey God no matter what governments or anyone else tells us to do:

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The Revised Standard Version. 1971 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA



The case is far more complicated than this but perhaps this touches the tip of the ice berg. Christians have gone to prison or worse for their belief that taking the oath is a sin before God. Other Christians have arrested and executed these same Christians for civil disobedience. Both sides acted in the Name of God as they understood scripture. For the Mennonite perspective, see: http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/art.20.html

Other issues that come under the same category are infant baptism vs. believer's baptism, and military intervention vs pacifist resolutions. There are clear scriptural commands against infant baptism and military intervention or killing of any sort. We are to obey God rather than man. We are to be willing to be persecuted, even killed, for the sake of Christ. Yet we are not allowed to resist the government.

• What if the government commands that which Jesus forbids?
• How can Christians serve in a govenment that does this?

For the Mennonite Confession of Faith see http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Ruby!

I always wonder about this: What would happen if an intelligent person who had zero exposure to Christianity was given a Bible to study with no commentary and no theological input? What would they conclude from their study of Christianity's sacred book?

I've tried to step outside the box and look back in from an outside, objective viewpoint. I don't think that a unified theology which takes the entire Bible into account is possible without some really tortuous logic to iron out the kinks and disagreements. For that reason I tend to see the various writings in the Bible as sort of dialog between differing points of view that evolves though time. For example, the four Gospels are obviously written for different audiences, and the ideas expressed in them don't entirely jibe. And the Gospels themselves demonstrate an evolution of thought from the Pauline material. Even Paul's stuff evolves from his first work, 1st Thesselonians, through Galations and Romans. He buffs his message to the point where it's quite different as regards the nature of the Law, for example.

What makes a unique sect? Well, you've got to have some sort of unique identity. There's enough stuff in the Bible where you can choose what to emphasize in creating a dogmatic sense of identity. What I'd like to know from Mennonites or the Amish is what's so special about the nineteenth century, it's technology and dress, that make those things the backbone of their identity? Why not the seventeenth, sixteenth, or fifteenth century? Why not wear big frilly collars or ledderhosen? Why not consider the wheel too modern? I mean, what's the cutt-of point and why?

See, I think it's mostly about creating identity and a herd instinct. Do JW's really not celebrate holidays because their Pagan, or is it a mind control thing where not participating in common social events helps insulate the members and insure that they have little in common with their neighbors so that the consequence of being shunned becomes more drastic and dire?

I'm starting to ramble.

Chris

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Hi Ruby!

I always wonder about this: What would happen if an intelligent person who had zero exposure to Christianity was given a Bible to study with no commentary and no theological input? What would they conclude from their study of Christianity's sacred book?

I've tried to step outside the box and look back in from an outside, objective viewpoint. I don't think that a unified theology which takes the entire Bible into account is possible without some really tortuous logic to iron out the kinks and disagreements. For that reason I tend to see the various writings in the Bible as sort of dialog between differing points of view that evolves though time. For example, the four Gospels are obviously written for different audiences, and the ideas expressed in them don't entirely jibe. And the Gospels themselves demonstrate an evolution of thought from the Pauline material. Even Paul's stuff evolves from his first work, 1st Thesselonians, through Galations and Romans. He buffs his message to the point where it's quite different as regards the nature of the Law, for example.

What makes a unique sect? Well, you've got to have some sort of unique identity. There's enough stuff in the Bible where you can choose what to emphasize in creating a dogmatic sense of identity. What I'd like to know from Mennonites or the Amish is what's so special about the nineteenth century, it's technology and dress, that make those things the backbone of their identity? Why not the seventeenth, sixteenth, or fifteenth century? Why not wear big frilly collars or ledderhosen? Why not consider the wheel too modern? I mean, what's the cutt-of point and why?

See, I think it's mostly about creating identity and a herd instinct. Do JW's really not celebrate holidays because their Pagan, or is it a mind control thing where not participating in common social events helps insulate the members and insure that they have little in common with their neighbors so that the consequence of being shunned becomes more drastic and dire?

I'm starting to ramble.

Chris

Chris, if this is what your rambles sound like, I'd like to hear more of them.

What does the Bible look like to an intelligent person who has no introduction to it? I saw a post on here somewhere by a person like that. I was fascinated....I found it. Here: http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/belief-and-spirituality/how-to-start-and-stay-on-the-path-5296.html.

What I'd like to know from Mennonites or the Amish is what's so special about the nineteenth century, it's technology and dress, that make those things the backbone of their identity? Why not the seventeenth, sixteenth, or fifteenth century? Why not wear big frilly collars or ledderhosen? Why not consider the wheel too modern? I mean, what's the cutt-of point and why?

Excellent question, Chris! If you find the answer somewhere, I can focus my research on some other aspect of religion. This is a question I've been asking most of my life. My mother seems to know all the history for all the traditions but when I ask where the traditions came from in the first place all she has to say is, "It's always been like this." She says this in the kind of voice that lets me know I've asked one question too many. So I'm doing my own research.

I'm finding some not-so-flattering stuff. First of all, "always" goes all the way back to about 1874. I choose that date because it's the date Charles Hodge published his Systematic Theology, which my prof suggests is the first fundamentalist theology published. My history is scanty but from what I know it seems the ninteenth century was pretty eventful for Mennonites. As well as for a lot of other denominations.

They had fled persecution in Europe to Pennsylvania by invitation from William Penn. I forget the date. It was quite a while before the ninteenth century. In about 1802 they started settling the area in Ontario where I was born. Just a few ambitious young men with their families moved into the bush here. Rightfully this land belongs to the Natives but somewhere in the dark recesses of history whites bought it off Joseph Grant, the chief with whom the agreement had been made. The Mennonites bought it from a white man named Robert Beasly and thought they had clear title to it. Then someone went to York (now Toronto) on business and found out there was something twisted about the deal and they had to come up with a LOT of hard cash to get a clear title. Back in PA, someone made some pretty big waves and came up with some cash. Others reluctantly chipped in and the land was paid for. The city of Kitchener-Waterloo now stands on the spot.

I think there were a lot of revivals or camp meetings going on in the US and Canada during the ninteenth century. About 1850, the Mennonite church split into Old and New Mennonites. I'm not sure of the names but these work for the time being. I guess the New Mennonites probably "went the way of the world," while the Old Mennonites are the part from which I come. A few decades later, the Old Mennonites split again, first in Ontario, then in the US. (BTW, all of this is Swiss Mennonites. Russian Mennonites have a very different history and I don't know it very well.) The split of the approx. the 1880s is what produced the Old Order Mennonites (into which I was born) and the main Mennonite Church in the US and in Canada. The split, at least here in Ontario, was concerned with new fads such as mid-week services and talks by missionaries. Half the group was against it and half wanted it. Sunday School and English preaching are issues that both sides agree were relevant. And if you get enemies agreeing on something, I always think there must be a kernal of truth in it.

So now we have a Mennonite center in the KW area. Some are north or town, others are west and south of town. Some are in town. Many other immigrants of German European ancestory were also developing a major presence. They were probably stronger than the Mennonites by then, though I have never studied this point. There is also a major center in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and possibly other states.

I am not sure when or how the Amish came to North America. Today they tend to live in approximately the same areas as the Old Order and other plain Mennonites do. The Amish-Mennonite split occurred about 1693 in Europe due to differences around beliefs on excommunication I think. To this day, the Amish are more rigid in their practice of formal shunning than most Mennonites.

It seems that in the main Mennonite Church of the US and Canada there was a strong movement toward plain dress and lifestyle very late in the ninteenth century. All my dates are approximate and not exactly accurate but I get the impression from hearing people tell stories about their parents or grandparents that by 1910 things had really clamped down. One man told me a few years ago that at the time of this "clamp-down" his mother was a teenager. She had planned to go to highschool, but just before she enrolled the church decided that education beyond Grade 8 was worldly and she was not allowed to go.

My mother grew up in the 1930s and 40s and remembers when the children of the main Mennonite Church were dressed almost the same as the Old Order Mennonite children. There were some in her school. By the 1960s when I was in school, the children of the main Mennonite Church were dressed like any kids in town. I was unable to understand the things she was telling me until I was exposed to Mennonite history from the main group. I've also talked with people who remember that women wearing head-coverings and cape dresses was something that just didn't work in the mission field. By the 1960s the main Mennonite Church was dropping the dress code, and today they show up in church with sandles and shorts, or in formal dress, according to personal choice. Here in KW they retain the pacifist position and are active in Christian Peacemaker Teams and other humanitarian endeavors. The Old Order Mennonites do not participate in this. They retain the plain dress and cautiously accept or reject new inventions as they appear in society. They see themselves as being a light to the world with their plain dress and lifestyle.

I think the plain dress is based on what was more or less a consensus among Quakers and othe conservatively minded Christians of the ninteenth century as being very modest and plain. There's a book by the title of "Four Centuries of Mennonite Garb," or something to that effect, by Melvin Gingerich, I think. Historians don't like that book too well but it does give some idea on the topic and contains some good pictures. As to your question on why choose ninteenth century garb as the norm, based on this sketchy historical background I am inclined to think it's because it so happened that it was in the ninteenth century that there was this continent wide movement to piety.

I'm beginning to feel like I'm rambling and perhaps not making too much sense. Feel free to ask for clarification. All of this is just off the top of my head and not too well organized. I don't know why the Quakers, Mennonites, and Amish, and in some cases also the Lutherans, all ended up with more or less the same kind of dress and lifestyle. The argument can be made that the Mennonites, Lutherans, and Amish all spoke the same Pennsylvania German dialect. But I think the Quakers would have spoken English. Of course, by that point in history the Mennonites, Amish, and Lutherans could also read and speak English.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Wow, that's really interesting Ruby!

I'm not sure about Canada, but I think that the abolitionist movement in the U.S. had a huge impact on how the sects which were forged in the mid nineteenth century shaped their theology. What I mean is that they must have felt that the rapid technological changes plus the dire nature of the social upheaval of the time was a sure sign of the End. But I think that the background behind it all was the ramifications of the industrial age in general. This was the nativity of protestant dispensationalism, and it comes directly from the idea that the universe is atomic, mechanical: functions like a big clock with little gears inside big gears.

If you look at second generation movements like the Seventh-day Adventists, which I come from, they were incorporating the ideas of "plain-ness" and pacifism, ala Quakers et al., into a new and very american form of protestantism with emphasis on a mechanistic and apocolyptic eschatology. That this was all happening in the run-up to the american civil war cannot be an accident.

I worked a summer for an Old German Baptist construction company in Lancaster county, PA when I was in my early twenties. They were the Longenecker family. Old German Baptists are a step under Amish. They use modern machinery, but are a no-frills plain group. IOW, cars but no whitewalls. You know, straw hat on weekdays, felt hat for church, no zippers etc. What an interesting group! I found their tight knit relationship with each other admirable, but they also discouraged higher education and their women, if you ever saw one, might as well have been muslims in calico.

One thing I found extra interesting is how they would set up social opportunities for the adolescents, and I mean 14 and 15 year old boys and girls, to pair up and get a little hanky panky in "unbeknownst" to the adults. The kids thought they were sneaking off and pairing up, but the adults were actually controlling it.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Perhaps the test of one's faith is not in verse but rather in deed.

As far as taking an oath, well it has been modified in the US, due to such considerations as the one Ruby brings up. Since the use of the term "swear" bothers many, there is the added alternative which is very Biblical...

"Do your swear, or Affirm"...is now used. If I recall, to "affirm" is to agree (to say yes), and to not affirm, is to simply say no.

Example: In court, the bailiff asks the witness "Raise your right hand, Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?"

The response can be, "I do", or "I swear", or "I affirm", or "I do not".

I wonder, if a Canadian soldier swore before a Mennonite father that he would lay down his life to protect the father and family during trouble, at all costs, would the Mennonite dismiss the soldier's oath? Or would he accept it for the respect, value and honor in which it was given? It wasn't given in order to be held accountable (or made good). It isn't a marker that the recipient holds. It is a promise made to one who did not ask for it, none the less, it is a sense of security that there is someone out there who is looking out for the father and family, without expectation of compensation. That too, is a way in which God mysteriously works.

That is an act of faith.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Perhaps the test of one's faith is not in verse but rather in deed.

That verse is part of the basis for one of our Articles of Faith. If I had not promised to abide by that commandment I could not have been baptized. That is what I meant by a test of faith. Perhaps test of membership is a more accurate term.

The Articles of Faith my church used were an older version from the ones on the website I posted. However, my father read this newer version of the Confession of Faith and said he agrees with it. I think it is basically the same except for some minor differences in wording. For example, the new version allows for divorce by not stating outright that it is forbidden for Chrisitans. The version I was raised with was very clear that divorce is not acceptable. There are other minor differences like this.

As far as taking an oath, well it has been modified in the US, due to such considerations as the one Ruby brings up. Since the use of the term "swear" bothers many, there is the added alternative which is very Biblical...

"Do your swear, or Affirm"...is now used. If I recall, to "affirm" is to agree (to say yes), and to not affirm, is to simply say no.

Example: In court, the bailiff asks the witness "Raise your right hand, Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?"

The response can be, "I do", or "I swear", or "I affirm", or "I do not".

I understand that to affirm is an option with courts and lawyers where Mennonites are well known and do business. However, I am not sure about raising one's hand, or placing one's hand on the Bible, and the phrase "so God help me." Jesus said anything that goes over and beyond a simple yes or no is swearing. These other gestures and phrases definitely go beyond a simple affirmation. There is nothing wrong with the actions in an of themselves, but doing them by way of pledge seems to carry connotations that might be deemed offensive to God.

I wonder, if a Canadian soldier swore before a Mennonite father that he would lay down his life to protect the father and family during trouble, at all costs, would the Mennonite dismiss the soldier's oath? Or would he accept it for the respect, value and honor in which it was given? It wasn't given in order to be held accountable (or made good). It isn't a marker that the recipient holds. It is a promise made to one who did not ask for it, none the less, it is a sense of security that there is someone out there who is looking out for the father and family, without expectation of compensation. That too, is a way in which God mysteriously works.

If the Mennonite father were a Canadian, perhaps. If he were from another country, it might mean more to have a soldier from his own country do it. I have never been in a situation where my life was in immediate danger from other people. But I was raised with the impression that we don't depend on humans (the military) for our protection; we put our trust in God alone. This impression came in large part from the stories of our religious heroes, the Anabaptists, who suffered martyrdom at the hands of soldiers and other law enforcement officers rather than forsake their faith in God.

That is an act of faith.

my thoughts

v/r

From the Mennonite perspective, this is faith in humans. As you stated in another thread, our faith should be in God alone. Mennonites (at least the ones I know) do not accept that the military is an instrument of God.

I've heard stories and watched a movie about Mennonites in Russia when the Bolsheviks and other rebels attacked their colonies during the Russian Revolution and later. I understand that in Russia, the Mennonites lived in separate colonies from the rest of the population. When the threat to family and property became severe, some of them set up a Sebst-Suz (self-defense with use of arms; not sure of the German spelling). According to folk tale, they were not harrassed until after they set up their armed defense because outsiders respected their nonresistent position. I don't know if this is factually correct.

Some of the men who served and survived were interviewed as old men regarding their participation. In retrospect, do they feel that it was the right thing to do? Their answers were varied. Some regretted having failed to place absolute trust in God. But one man was very clear that he did not regret it. He said, "If bastards rape your mother and sisters do you just stand by and do nothing?"

In the wars in North America, Mennonites have taken varying positions regarding the degree of participation they would engage in. In one war, perhaps the War of Independence, or the Civil War, Mennonites drove supply wagons for the army. In more recent wars, Mennonites with education served as medical personnel in armies. Many others went to prison or suffered persecution of some sort for their absolute non-participation in the same wars. By WW2 there was a program of alternative service in place for conscientious objectors.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

That is the Mennonite position on war and the oath. And it is solidly based on scripture.
However, in the opening post I also listed scriptures that can be used to oppose the Mennonite position. Many Christians do oppose this position. How do they decide which scriptures to live and die by?

Thus, the real question of this thread is: How do Christians know which scriptures to go by when there are conflicting passages?

 

[wil]

How do Christians know which scriptures to go by when there are conflicting passages?

This is the answer from this Christian. As I understand it the bible was written by various authors with a variety of inspiration and agendas. It was then translated and edited with the same notion. Prior to printing presses and spell check scribes were involved who tended to add or omit things based on their thinking, and some of the checkers wrote notes in the margins which ended up as parts of the next text.

So in the end what we have is a combination of stories from a combination of sources, with a combination of intent. But knowing this makes some of the contradictions and tough verses a little more palatable. That being said, I still think there was regular divine intervention going on (you meant it for....but G-d meant it for...)

So I see imbedded in all the text in all the scripture very valuable information. I say buried, but at times it is on the surface (literal). I say at times because it doesn't go for me scripture by scripture whether to read literal or to make interpretation, it goes by situation and time.

The book and scripture is different based on where I am right now. And I'm not talking about how enlightened, but what is going on in my life, where my head is at, whether I am in my own hell, or heaven, whether my life is in turmoil, grief, or bliss...whether I am contemplative or....whatever.

Text I read 10 years ago was different last year, different last week, and may be different next week and ten years from now. Not to say some doesn't just stay with a great meaning...most adjust, dramatically or small nuances.

I think there are many levels of understanding of all scripture and depending on where I am, what I need, what the world needs...I read it differently.

When it comes to some texts...as in when I can't replace the word G-d or Jesus with the word LOVE and have the sentence make sense, it is time to contemplate, time to look for metaphor, analogies, parables, a metaphysical or deeper meaning....

That is my thought, currently.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, RubySera!

Thank you for your thoughts and history. I have learned some here.

Thus, the real question of this thread is: How do Christians know which scriptures to go by when there are conflicting passages?

I wish I had something eloquent or profound to offer. I don't. I suspect most follow what they are taught, going by what guidelines are laid down by their respective hierarchies. They emphasize what is emphasized for them, and play down what is overlooked.

I let the spirit guide me in my understanding. I suppose that means tempering all with a grain of common sense. For the most part, I think the Bible reinforces itself, that conflict is only by narrow focus. When all is taken together, most conflicts are resolved.

In the case of oaths, for instance, I can see where some would agree with you, and others not. I suppose in this instance, it is well to follow your heart as the spirit leads. I am familiar with the verses you mention, I am also familiar with times in the Bible when oaths were the downfall of some (such as those who conspired against Paul). It also seems to me I recall instances of oaths being taken that were proper in their place (the story of someone shaving their head until their vow was fulfilled, don't recall where offhand). And the lesson taught that it is better not to take an oath, but if an oath be taken to assure it is fulfilled. Not taking an oath seems to me the safest way to assure not bearing false witness in this sense. But it is not improper to take an oath for the correct reasons and with the correct intent. When an oath becomes improper, is when it is taken lightly with no intent of fulfilling it. At least, that is how I understand.

As for pacifism, I will leave that to individual interpretation.

 

[Jeannot]

Side issue: The Mennonites have often co-operated with the Catholic Worker Movement. The CW is rather radical and counter-cultural. It was started by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin (as in the movie ENTERTAINING ANGELS, where Martin Sheen played Maurin)

BTW, the Mennonite church a few miles from me looks very modernistic. I guess these must be the New Mennonites, huh?

 

[Quahom1]

This is a joke, but I also use it for the more serious point I am trying to make:

A man of devout faith is stuck on the roof of his house due to high flood water. As the water rises to the second level windows, He prays to God for protection and trusts God will save him.

Shortly after a Coast Guard survival skiff comes by, and the military personnel call for the man to jump in, as they have room. "No" he says, "God will save me".

The water rises past the eaves of the roof and now the current is too strong for even a boat, let alone swimming through, but the man's faith is strong, and he is confident God will save him. Shortly after a Coast Guard rescue helicopter comes by and the survival man repels down the the roof and tells the man to hook on, so he can be pulled to safety. "No" he says, "God will save me."

The water finally covers the whole of the roof and the man is swept away and drowns.

Standing before the throne of God, the man is confused and angry. When asked why, the man says "You promised me that if I followed and trusted you and your word, you would protect and save me...yet you let me drown! Why?"

God leaned forward and quietly answered, "First, I sent my servants to you in a boat, then again in a helicopter...what more did you want?"

First, each of us has our own calling in life. That is the way God made us (fearfully and wonderfully). Each of us has an important role to play for each other and for God. Some witness and keep pure the faith, some are called to judge, some are called to defend, some are called to work, some to think, some to manage, some to fight, some to rescue, some to minister...it is a way of maintaining balance.

God uses each of us to help the other, and aside from "supernatural overt actions", God is protecting and saving us by other means as well.

In the movie "Witness" the Phildephia detective is at first not welcomed in the Amish community he finds himself obligated to remain in. His ways are harsh, and against most of what the community believes in. But he knows the minds of those who would cause harm to that community and the boy he has "sworn" to protect. However, he tries hard to understand them and abide by their ways while there, and the community in turn realizes the evil that could invade their lives is being thwarted by his presense.

They find that they both also have much in common, and respect for each other grows in time. When the time comes for the detective to go back to Philadelphia, the best line of the movie is when the Amish grand father tells him, "You watch out for them English eh?"

The detective from Philadelphia with his "gun of the hand", is acknowledged as an "honorary member" of the Amish community.

Regardless of who we are, or what walk of life we come from, we all need each other, to do things we can not. God did this on purpose.

For some one way is not wrong, but for another it might be (Peter expresses this fact quite clearly). So, by doing what we each believe is right in God's eyes, we are both honoring God.

For example: I can eat pork. My neighbor however can not. What I do is in honor to God, and what my neighbor does is in honor to God.

What would be wrong is if I were to try to serve my neighbor Pork, to eat, as that would cause him to stumble before God.

Likewise some find it Godly about serving in the military or taking an oath, while others would find the opposite for themselves. Both are honoring God in their way.

What would be wrong is if one were to try to force the other to their way, causing them to stumble in their mission in life, or their honoring God...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[BlaznFattyz]

matt 5:3 refers to people who are being devious by making believe what they say is true, they will say, i swear on the life of my child, so you totally believe them, but they are actually lying. it is not good to swear on anything, but rather let your answer be simply the truth if it is. it does not mean to not swear on the bible if the court requires it, do what they are asking, but let that not be what makes you tell the truth, tell the truth because you want to be truthful.

rom 13:1 refers to obeying laws and the authority. if one does not honor the rules of their parents, and does not obey the rules of the law like stop signs, or stealing, etc. then how is that person supposed to have the heart to listen to god if they are against all that is just. by not listening to what is just is rebelling against wisdom. a person that does not listen to the higher authority that is saying live this way and you will live a good life, that person is foolish and pays for their mistakes in life. it does not mean to go against laws such as go to war to defend the freedom of your people.

acts 5:29 refers to being called directly from god to do something. it does not mean to go against authority on your own will. if an angel of the lord or jesus himself spoke to you face to face and said to do something that was righteous, and it went against someone, then in that instance do what god commands you. but those days are most likely over for the moment, as we are in the church age right now.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Thanks everybody for your contributions. I've been following this thread but didn't have time to respond. I don't have time now but I'll take it. I identify best with Wil's response on how to decide which scripture is authoritative.

Originally posted by juantoo3

I suspect most follow what they are taught, going by what guidelines are laid down by their respective hierarchies. They emphasize what is emphasized for them, and play down what is overlooked.

I suspect you're onto a solid truth here. This raises the question: If all a person is doing is following some rules laid down by others, how can they claim conviction? or faith? It seems that true faith must be based on solid personal experience. For example, people say they know God exists. But if their only foundation for this knowledge is the Bible or the church, then I would ask: Do they really KNOW?

Originally posted by Jeannot

BTW, the Mennonite church a few miles from me looks very modernistic. I guess these must be the New Mennonites, huh?

They probably have a different name and possibly a different historical lineage from the ones I referred to. But yes, in very broad terms, you're probably correct. Members of the main Mennonite Church today cannot be distinguished distinguished by their dress from the regular person on the street. In other words, they dress and live like the rest of society. There are exceptions on the level of individuals. Thus, the main Mennonite Church has either become the New Mennonite, or become like them in lifestyle and dress. In religious belief, they probably adhere to the Confession of Faith listed above.

Quahom, I've read that story before. Possibly as a Reader's Digest joke. About the movie Witness, it does not accurately portray the Amish. I have not seen it but a man who grew up Amish watched it and that was his evaluation. My impression is that, like most media-produced Amish/Mennonite material, it showed the main highlights of the culture and religion such as approximately the right clothing and beliefs. But the underlying nuances of culture that make us human are strictly mainstream society or a show-business hybrid.

Regarding the deeper meaning of the story about the man on the roof and your points about each having their God-ordained role in life. From the Mennonite perspective, the man on the roof took faith too literally. I think this is what you have been trying to get me to say. This raises your point that the military is part of God's ordained planned. My question is: How do the Mennonites decide at which point to accept help from the government and when to resist it?

I think the answer some Mennonites would give is: In the case of the man on the roof, military efforts supported life. In the case of war, military efforts eliminate life. In the case of attack we must use the "coals of fire" and "turn the other cheek" approach. The philosophy is that humans respond to kindness. I realize this is not always the reality, and this is where my questions come in regarding the Mennonite position.

Originally posted by Quahom:

The detective from Philadelphia with his "gun of the hand", is acknowledged as an "honorary member" of the Amish community.

That, I believe, is pure fantasy on the part of the play writer. I do not believe that this sort of thing could possibly happen because it violates everything the Amish stand for.

For example: I can eat pork. My neighbor however can not. What I do is in honor to God, and what my neighbor does is in honor to God.

This is where my question kicks in: How do you know that God wants you to reject the biblical passage that forbids eating pork?

BlaznFattyz, I like the way you explain things, but how do you know your explanation is correct? The same applies to Juantoo's explanation of oaths.

How do people know their understanding is the correct understanding?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, RubySera!

Thank you for your thoughts!

This raises the question: If all a person is doing is following some rules laid down by others, how can they claim conviction? or faith? It seems that true faith must be based on solid personal experience.

In answering a question with a question, I would ask how much "religion" is cultural? A mother's influence on her children, a family's influence on adolescents (sp?), peer pressure, civic duty and other cultural factors weigh in, I believe. True, a person may decide to "convert" to another faith walk, but they will carry their parental and cultural influences with them when they go. Perhaps they will struggle with some concepts, and hopefully find some peaceful resolution.

For instance, I may choose in my walk not to eat pork (or other "unclean" flesh per Leviticus). Yet, in my childhood, Mom served pork chops and ham on a fairly regular basis. So I struggle. I choose not to eat pork as an honorable thing to G-d, a "fast" of sorts if you like. But I can never be totally free of having once eaten pork. I make peace knowing that my Mom had the best of intent in raising me and my brothers, and that I do what I feel is correct in my walk.

For example, people say they know God exists. But if their only foundation for this knowledge is the Bible or the church, then I would ask: Do they really KNOW?

How can we know? I mean, we cannot hold G-d in our hands and see Him. There are those things we can know, that we can dissect and analyze. There are those things we can experience. And there are those things we must take on faith. In the end, we can at best (IMHO) take those things we can know and add them to those things we experience and point to those things we accept by faith. We draw a line on a map, figuratively speaking, and hope for the best.

... how do you know your explanation is correct?

I don't. I trust by faith that my walk is acceptable. I have some things that are "proven" to me, I have my experiences, and I have my trust by faith in G-d.

How do people know their understanding is the correct understanding?

I cannot speak for other people. I think the illusion of knowing is a comfort to people who are...intellectually lazy. For some people of my acquaintance, there is too much deep thought involved. It gives them a headache. It is far more comforting to be involved in a group that claims to know, giving rise to a state of mind wherein the group is somehow superior to other groups. It is a very seductive train of thought, to be one of the chosen, to the exclusion of others. Of course, this leads from time to time to battles great and small, even to wars in the name of G-d. After all, how can I be exclusively chosen, and you be exclusively chosen as well, if you do not believe as I do?

Since you have been kind enough to provide a little background, may I do the same? I would not be truthful if I said I have not been exposed to "authority / hierarchy / organized" Christianity. But I am truthful in saying my exposure is much more limited than many. My Mom was a nominal Catholic, who in later years dabbled a bit with Mormonism. Her Father as near as I can tell was a Baptist, though not a strict one. My Mom's Stepmother was a Christian Scientist (Mary Baker Eddy). I know of these things because I have my maternal parents Bibles in my possession. Growing up, Mom took us to a Nazarene church for a couple of years, and from there we went to a non-denominational church for a while. I have been inside a Catholic church I think three times that I remember, not counting being baptised as an infant. My Dad was not particularly religious, although he didn't go out of his way to knock religion particularly. His Dad was a "sky-pilot" preacher of sorts, although I don't think it was of any particular denomination ($20 preacher's license from the Universalists). I did spend a little time with this Grandfather in his later years before he passed. I think he meant well, but he wasn't of any particular brand or denomination, and would occasionally talk in what terms he understood of Hinduism, and occasionally of Paganism.

When I went into the service (Navy), I found myself in the company of some Pentecostals. I took the time to read a Gideon's KJV pretty much from cover to cover (didn't make it through Psalms or Job). It was at this point that I asked to be formally baptized. As a young man I stumbled on some literature from a group that claimed to be Messianic Jews. I have learned that term holds a bad connotation with some, but what I learned had nothing direct to do with converting Jews (like the Jews for Jesus group), but rather had the intent in their teaching of bringing Christians more in line with Judaism. I think that material had the biggest impact on my faith walk. The way I saw it, and still do, is that Jesus was born a Jew to a Jewish Mother, raised in a Jewish household, taught Jewish scripture and way of life, with which He in turn taught a new interpretation to Jewish followers. Just like the bumper sticker, "My boss is a Jewish Carpenter"

In later years, in part because of my paternal Grandfather, I listened to some of the teachings of Pastor Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel. I found I liked his teaching because he did it in a scholarly manner, and I found he reached many of the same conclusions I had, and expounded on them still further. He teaches from the Companion Bible, which with a Strong's Concordance, brings out a lot of the subtleties in the teachings of the Bible that are usually lost in translation into English.

Now, I find myself at a bit of a crossroads of sorts. On the one hand, I want to believe I "know." On the other hand, I don't think my path has the sum total of knowledge. There is a passage in Romans (10:12, or 12:10, I forget) that leads me to believe that "non-believers" still know as much as I do, that is, we all know instinctively to do what is right. It is written on our hearts. What we view as right might differ a little in the details, but in the end, I think, it is what we do with what we know that counts, that what we know means next to nothing as far as getting into heaven.

Now, I know I spend a lot of time "eating my rice gruel" as some would say, looking and searching, dissecting and analyzing. Perhaps I don't spend as much time as I should "washing my bowl." There is method to my madness, and I credit my madness to G-d for gifting me with the mind He has, and for placing me on the path He has chosen for me. I walk the path I do because it comes natural to me. It allows me to discuss, I would hope intelligently, with many people of diverse faiths, and even those of no faith at all. I strive to not be judgemental, allowing that all people need to find their own way back to the source, back to our Creator. To those that seek I offer, to those who have already found I accept as they are. I hope for the best in the end, but the "truth" is, I don't know. That is, I don't know beyond what circumstantial evidence there is in my life to lead me to believe. I trust, by faith, that G-d IS. Everything else is hope.

I don't know if this makes any sense, or if it helps, but I hope it does.

 

[Quahom1]

"RubySera_Martin"...
I suspect you're onto a solid truth here. This raises the question: If all a person is doing is following some rules laid down by others, how can they claim conviction? or faith? It seems that true faith must be based on solid personal experience. For example, people say they know God exists. But if their only foundation for this knowledge is the Bible or the church, then I would ask: Do they really KNOW?

I would say no. Without personal experience of God, there is no conviction, or at best it is a conviction with no substance (the seeds scattered over shallow soil comes to mind).

Quahom, I've read that story before. Possibly as a Reader's Digest joke. About the movie Witness, it does not accurately portray the Amish. I have not seen it but a man who grew up Amish watched it and that was his evaluation. My impression is that, like most media-produced Amish/Mennonite material, it showed the main highlights of the culture and religion such as approximately the right clothing and beliefs. But the underlying nuances of culture that make us human are strictly mainstream society or a show-business hybrid.

That wasn't the point. The story was about two people who are very different in everyday life, but when they come together (especially out of need), they find they have much in common in the basics of life. They can find a friendship and comraderie of sorts, or at least basic respect for each other, despite the differences. And the story clearly pointed out that we all need each other, sometimes for the very concept of survival.

Regarding the deeper meaning of the story about the man on the roof and your points about each having their God-ordained role in life. From the Mennonite perspective, the man on the roof took faith too literally. I think this is what you have been trying to get me to say. This raises your point that the military is part of God's ordained planned. My question is: How do the Mennonites decide at which point to accept help from the government and when to resist it?

The decision is made when government encroaches (or attempts to encroach), on the rights of the citizen (in my case US), that is the Constitutional rights each citizen has been garaunteed. Freedom of religion takes precedence over the desires of government representitives, as does freedom of speech, reasonable expectation of privacy...Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the New England Anibaptists was specific on this point, no part of the government could enforce their will over the religious beliefs of anyone.

I think the answer some Mennonites would give is: In the case of the man on the roof, military efforts supported life. In the case of war, military efforts eliminate life. In the case of attack we must use the "coals of fire" and "turn the other cheek" approach. The philosophy is that humans respond to kindness. I realize this is not always the reality, and this is where my questions come in regarding the Mennonite position.

But in the case of war, military efforts are supporting life, as well (though there is the cost of life to the enemy). No amount of kindness will quell the rage of a rabid animal (or person). Some times the mind set of the enemy might as well be considered "rabid".

That, I believe, is pure fantasy on the part of the play writer. I do not believe that this sort of thing could possibly happen because it violates everything the Amish stand for.

Stranger things happen in life every day...like you said, treating others with respect should reciprocate a like king of respect, regardless of who we are (especially if both parties are rational).

This is where my question kicks in: How do you know that God wants you to reject the biblical passage that forbids eating pork?

BlaznFattyz, I like the way you explain things, but how do you know your explanation is correct? The same applies to Juantoo's explanation of oaths.

Peter explains quite well why I am allowed to eat pork. What goes in a man comes out of a man, that is not the problem. The unclean which comes from a man comes from his heart, and out of his mouth.

How do people know their understanding is the correct understanding?

I ask God, then trust that He will reveal to me what is to be revealed (for me). I do not even attempt to ask God "well what about them?" That is not my place. I may be my brother's keeper, but I have no right to dictate what my brother shall do, or be, or think. Nor have I the right to critisize or judge on such matters (except that their actions may cause harm to others, but that is a different matter all together).

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Stranger things happen in life every day...

That refers to the Amish community who made a soldier with gun in hand an honorary member of the community. My first response was like my mother used to say of non-Mennonites, "They just don't understand how we live and believe." I knew the assumption is all wrong but I didn't know how to say it so I just didn't.

However, for people who will go to prison or face a firing squad or freeze for lack of clothing before putting on a military uniform, accepting a detective with gun in hand as a member of the community does not happen. (A gun for the purpose of killing animals is okay, but not for self-defense against humans. Whether this is logical is not for me to say at this point.) A play-writer who gets the ethos of culture and religion wrong from the get-go might be ignorant enough to add a sensational bit like that to conclude a movie. I grew up with this kind of news report and other nonsense. The ethos is just plain wrong. The entire plot is unrealistic. It is, however, the kind of stuff authors of novels and movies make up because it is sensational. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

It is, of course, possible that there is an Amish community that would do this. But in this area, female social workers, nurses, and other human service providers who enter the homes, schools, or community in general of the Amish and conservative Mennonites have said they don't use make-up or jewelry and they wear long dresses. This comes out of formal research conducted by a social work professor and myself.

This is in keeping with what my mother said about the physiotherapist who came into my parents' home to help Dad after his stroke. My mother told me how decent she was and that she always wore a decent dress. My mother said she does not think this woman ever wears slacks or jeans. I knew better but decided to let her hold onto the illusion. It made her feel better about this young woman who had become a regular part of their life.

Likewise, I can see a soldier or police officer becoming a beloved member of a family and community. In fact, I know of such a case. My brother and sister-in-law invited a couple to their wedding who was good friends with her family. The man was a police officer. But a person would not become a member in any official sense of the word so long as he held his badge or license or other papers. Maybe I don't understand the term "honorary member." Maybe this is what you meant.

Like other human service providers, I would expect a police officer or soldier who enters the community on the level of family member/friend to leave his gun, uniform, and license out of the picture. He would do all within his power not to be an offense to his hosts. Guns are not a problem for Mennonites and the Amish because guns are a way of acquiring food via hunting. But making a soldier a member of the community in any formal way seems outside the range of possibilities. He might be told upon leaving, "If you ever need something to eat or a place to sleep you will find it here."

Chances are he could drive into any farm lane to say hello and expect to be treated to a dozen fresh eggs, garden produce, home baking, or whatever the family has on hand that he can't get in the city. If this is the kind of thing you mean by an honorary member, then yes, I believe it.

If anyone is interested in reliable material on the conservative Mennonites and Amish I can probably direct you to something.

I will respond to the rest of this and other posts in my next message.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I couldn't post anything right after my last post because the site was down. Juantoo contacted me afterward, so I will try again.

Quahom said:

I would say no. Without personal experience of God, there is no conviction, or at best it is a conviction with no substance (the seeds scattered over shallow soil comes to mind).

Thank you for this honesty.

Juantoo, I won't copy all of your post but I read it more than once. It's very helpful to have Christians confess that there is a limit to what can be known, and that there is an element of trust based on what can be known. If all Christians in my life had been so confident in their faith, that they could be so honest about this, my life might have been quite a bit easier. For too many decades have I lived under the threat of condemnation for asking these questions. Finally, I decided to bite the bullet and do what needed to be done to find happiness or peace. Human condemnation no longer mattered. But it helps heal the hurt to hear Christians confess in all honesty that they can't know for absolute fact that God exists.

That wasn't the point. The story was about two people who are very different in everyday life, but when they come together (especially out of need), they find they have much in common in the basics of life. They can find a friendship and comraderie of sorts, or at least basic respect for each other, despite the differences. And the story clearly pointed out that we all need each other, sometimes for the very concept of survival.

Oh, I see. This is something I grew up with. I have a really hard time imagining the whole of life lived inside a homogeous culture and society. Thus I find it really difficult to imagine the need for a movie to impress this kind of thing. But with a bit of a stretch I can do it--sort of.

By way of information, now that I am completely out of my community of origin and living in a fairly large city, there is no homogeneity. There is a fairly large international university in town and we get populations of all skin colours and many different cultures. Sitting next to a Muslim woman with a big shawl on her head (I can never remember what it's called) is not uncommon. Well, they usually choose to sit with each other on the bus and I have never shared a seat with one. But they are a common sight. As are East Asians.

Sharing space with people of very different cultures and languages is everyday life here. So I think I can be excused for not cluing in to the point of your story.

Ruby said: Regarding the deeper meaning of the story about the man on the roof and your points about each having their God-ordained role in life. From the Mennonite perspective, the man on the roof took faith too literally. I think this is what you have been trying to get me to say. This raises your point that the military is part of God's ordained planned. My question is: How do the Mennonites decide at which point to accept help from the government and when to resist it?

Quahom said: The decision is made when government encroaches (or attempts to encroach), on the rights of the citizen (in my case US), that is the Constitutional rights each citizen has been garaunteed. Freedom of religion takes precedence over the desires of government representitives, as does freedom of speech, reasonable expectation of privacy...

Ye, I know that is the law or whatever--maybe it could be called the contract from the government's side. My question can probably be answered only by Mennonites. How much help they accept from the government varies with the various groups. The group I come from has fought very hard for the right to reject some forms of government aid. They were willing to suffer material loss rather than accept a form of help that seemed to them to violate basic biblical mandates. I don't know how they decide at which point to accept or reject government aid. I just went by what I was told to do on that front. After leaving the church, the first thing I did was begin the process to acquire a health card.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the New England Anibaptists was specific on this point, no part of the government could enforce their will over the religious beliefs of anyone.

We could argue till kingdom come on this one. The spelling is Anabaptists, rebaptizers.

But in the case of war, military efforts are supporting life, as well (though there is the cost of life to the enemy).

Well, there is a fairly high cost in human life to both sides if the news reports, stories of personal experience, and common sense are half-way reliable.

No amount of kindness will quell the rage of a rabid animal (or person). Some times the mind set of the enemy might as well be considered "rabid".

I know. This applies to present-day situations. As to who the enemy actually is depends a great deal on such things as to where one lives and what religion one believes in.

Peter explains quite well why I am allowed to eat pork. What goes in a man comes out of a man, that is not the problem. The unclean which comes from a man comes from his heart, and out of his mouth.

I think it was Jesus who said that. Anyway, how do you decide to accept the NT permission and not the OT mandate?

How do people know their understanding is the correct understanding?
I ask God, then trust that He will reveal to me what is to be revealed (for me).

Oh, okay. So what the Bible says is not all that important. But if the Bible supports what one wants to do anyway, then so much the better. I see. And since there is such a variety of experiences and walks of life and cultures and religions and philosophies described in the Bible, one can find something to support one's wishes no matter what that happens to be. There is always the posibility to interpret a dream or intuition to make it say what one wants to hear. In that case, it most likely seems like a revelation from God.

Yes, I am bitter and I won't deny it. This mindset is so oppressive to the "enemy" or the person who doesn't fit, that Christianity turns into something Christ never intended. It condemns the suffering and supports the oppressors. Always has; always will. Fortunately, I have recently been exposed to a very different type of Christianity that much more closely follows Christ's teachings and example.

 

[Quahom1]

Ruby,

The Author of life is a Play write...the Master Play write... who are we to change His "script"?

v/r

Q

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Ruby,

The Author of life is a Play write...the Master Play write... who are we to change His "script"?

v/r

Q

I don't really know what you are talking about. Or why you say this to me specifically. Because I don't remember ever suggesting we change the script God has written for us. I think "God's script" is absolute reality and the best way for any of us to live is to be true to the reality of who we are as individuals without oppressing who others are.

Determining exactly what this reality is is not an easy task and it seems many people never really find it. They just go by what someone said they should do. Or they pick and choose verses in the bible to support what they really want to do without regard to the bigger picture. I don't really know how others operate. I'm trying to learn. Hense my questions and challenges on here as to how people decide which Bible passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively. For example, I still don't know how you decide which part of the Bible to listen to--the one that says not to eat pork or the one that says it doesn't matter.

I suspect you choose the latter because you like pork chops.

 

[Quahom1]

I don't really know what you are talking about. Or why you say this to me specifically. Because I don't remember ever suggesting we change the script God has written for us. I think "God's script" is absolute reality and the best way for any of us to live is to be true to the reality of who we are as individuals without oppressing who others are.

Determining exactly what this reality is is not an easy task and it seems many people never really find it. They just go by what someone said they should do. Or they pick and choose verses in the bible to support what they really want to do without regard to the bigger picture. I don't really know how others operate. I'm trying to learn. Hense my questions and challenges on here as to how people decide which Bible passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively. For example, I still don't know how you decide which part of the Bible to listen to--the one that says not to eat pork or the one that says it doesn't matter.

I suspect you choose the latter because you like pork chops.

Because Peter was specifically told by God that pork was not the issue...(read about the dream of PETER, with the bed sheets full of animals lowered down to him from heaven). That is why I can eat pork chops with a clear conscience. Because AS a Christian, I see what Christ was trying to tell us...namely if we follow God with all our hearts and strength and mind, we wouldn't need so many damn laws to try to follow, as written in the OT. We would naturally observe them because of our fastidiousness to the Way Jesus has shewn us.

I'm not the only one here that is "pig headed" it appears...

v/r

Q