Bunny Trails

[Josh]

Anyway, just throwing that in here for anyone who thinks they have reached a point of no return. There is no such point with God. Amazing, isn't it !

This is something we need reminded of a lot - and testimonies of those who were well past the point of no return really help.

[ohio jones]

Have you ever read the book, When I Lay My Isaac Down?

I just ordered it.

The author was my 8th grade English and History teacher, years before the events in the book happened. I heard a radio interview with her soon after the first edition was published, but sort of forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me I haven't read it yet.

[Robert]

Have you ever read the book, When I Lay My Isaac Down?

I just ordered it.

The author was my 8th grade English and History teacher, years before the events in the book happened. I heard a radio interview with her soon after the first edition was published, but sort of forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me I haven't read it yet.

I just ordered it too. I think my daughters will really enjoy it. They just returned from a writers conference in Indiana. I did find a used copy for quite cheap.

[temporal1]

Information Rage, by the 9th page ..
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=633
it's confusing to read a thread dominated by a member who has been blocked by the OP, who addresses the OP over+over, judges, accuses, instructs the OP .. knowing the OP is (at least trying) to ignore that member to keep some semblance of general peace ..

there is no law to prohibit.
(i thought) it was widely agreed, just because there is or isn't a law, doesn't make a thing right or wrong?

Jesus help me, i pray.
when i'm aware my input is not wanted, i try not to require being informed of this a second time.
it has happened.
the shortest path to authentic reconciliation is respect of requested boundaries, understood or not.
refusing to respect requested boundaries is not a winning strategy.

as hope used to say, "my 2 cents."

[Sudsy]

Another 2 cents worth (well, not really as we have discontinued pennies in Canada)

At some point don't we have to accept that there are habits of how we respond to other's questions and postings and topics that likely will not change to what we personally believe is the right and/or proper way to respond ?

Don't you think that many of us, in some way(s), get somewhat frustrated by how others post or fail to post on a subject or how we keep referring to a specific topic as I was recently scolded for my repeated 'men praying everywhere lifting up holy hands' reference ?

Could it be that there are reasons beneath the surface why we do and do not follow certain norms of communication ?

Are we not challenged to how we remain peaceful, tolerant, gentle and how to 'turn the other cheek' and not demand a certain kind of response ?

We can ask questions or a response from others but can't they ignore us with no response or answer ?

Isn't it true that any thread can be ignored if the topic of conversation is bothersome ?

Is there a 'no' answer to any of these questions ?

[justme]

...a thread dominated by a member who has been blocked by the OP, who addresses the OP over+over, judges, accuses, instructs the OP .. knowing the OP is (at least trying) to ignore that member to keep some semblance of general peace ..

no. it's not an attempt to keep some semblance of general peace.

it's a male dominance battle.
through and through.
on BOTH sides

don't get caught up in taking sides.
or if you do take sides, make sure you're not being blinded by personal bias.

[MaxPC]

...a thread dominated by a member who has been blocked by the OP, who addresses the OP over+over, judges, accuses, instructs the OP .. knowing the OP is (at least trying) to ignore that member to keep some semblance of general peace ..

no. it's not an attempt to keep some semblance of general peace.

it's a male dominance battle.
through and through.
on BOTH sides

I disagree. I choose to avoid a battle with anyone, even those who may perseverate in trying to engage in a battle. Instead, I choose to avoid distractions and pursue charitable discourse. My purpose is simply to keep focused upon the topic of the thread. I find authentic Anabaptist thought fruitful and helpful when dealing with every day issues. If you think otherwise on these matters that is your prerogative. At some point, boundaries do need to be respected. Disagreements can be non-hostile and discussed with equanimity - after all that is the purpose of the Bunny Trails, yes? The forum archives are quite instructive on this matter as is the suggestion of the Book of James regarding matters of speech.

Speech is a test for a true examination of one’s faith.
EXPOSITION:
JAMES 3:1 has for the seventh time in this letter the vocative “my brothers.” The test of speech for genuine faith is introduced by the strong exhortation: “stop becoming many teachers” or “do not yourselves become many teachers.” People are accepting all kinds of methods and cults and "isms"; yet many of these teachers, as far as the total Word of God is concerned, are absolutely ignorant. Those who teach error and lead others into it will receive the greater condemnation.

JAMES 3:2 contains a natural transition from teacher to tongue since the tongue is the teacher’s primary tool for communication to his students. Teachers in particular are likely to stumble in speech, yet James moves from the particular to the general with his usage of “anyone” in verse two. This verse’s last clause, “able to keep his whole body in check,” parallels the thought “if anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless” (1:26). The hardest impulse to control is those of the tongue. Hence, the man who is able to control his tongue also will be able to control all his members and capacities where sin seeks to manifest itself.

JAMES 3:3-5 contain two metaphors or proverbs concerning the power of the tongue and the need to control it. Two are given because a Jewish court would require two witnesses. His point is that a little object (like the tongue) is able to control the larger, while subjecting tremendous forces to its own desire. The two illustrations clearly establish the need in life for the exercise of control at the crucial point of speech.

JAMES 3:5-6 picture the great damage the tongue can produce. While maintaining the imagery of smallness and largeness, James shifts from horses and ships which are controlled by a small object to a small fire which when left uncontrolled produces vast destruction. Hence, the uncontrolled tongue is “a world of evil” or “a vast system of iniquity.” The source of the deadly fire is “Hell” itself. Theologically, Hell is the Lake of Fire where the satanic hosts of evil and the unsaved will be thrown at the final judgment. Therefore, James connects the destructive fire of the tongue with Hell.

JAMES 3:7-8 illustrate that the tongue has devastating characteristics when left uncontrolled. James reaches the pinnacle of his evaluation of the tongue by declaring that it is “a restless evil” or “unstable evil” — recalling his previous comments concerning “a double-minded man unstable in all he does” (1:8). As a deadly poison, the tongue is full of death. Double-minded and doubled-tongue are kin!

JAMES 3:9-12 assert that the tongue is inconsistent. Notice that James includes himself in this
inconsistency when he uses the terms “we praise the Lord” and “we curse men.”

Only the perfect man is exempt from misuse of the tongue! His three illustrations reveal the source of such death-bearing poison that flow from the mouth. The real problem can be stated: What you bring forth is what you are. It is impossible for a spring to bring forth sweet water and bitter; likewise, for fig tree to bear olives or a vine to bear figs or a spring to yield both salt water and fresh water.

Here James reiterates Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 7:16-20, which concludes: “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” Therefore, it can be said the tongue is an excellent yardstick for a person to measure his own character. “Fruit” primarily refers to “righteousness” in the NT. If a teacher or anyone is not righteous, he will not speak in a manner which produces righteousness, which is the paramount conclusion of this chapter “peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness” (3:18).

http://www.bookofjamesbiblestudy.com/James3/speech.html

The Wisdom Test
In chapter 3, James stresses two marks of genuine faith: (1) one’s speech shows the
condition of the heart and (2) wisdom and the tongue are integral parts of James test of genuine faith. The wise reveal their wisdom through their conduct and tongue.

What is wisdom? Is it more than just conformity to truth? Does it go beyond an abundance of facts? What is the difference between intellectual brilliance, impressive knowledge and recall of information, and the quality of wisdom that the Bible frequently extols?

Unlike the hypocrites of Matthew 6:15, the truly wise know how to act out of humility. The wise are not building their own reputations. Like Moses (Numbers 12:3) and Jesus (Matthew 11:29; 21:5; 2 Corinthians 10:1), they are not interested in defending themselves. They avoid conflict and especially avoid advertising themselves. Humility is the mark of the truly wise. If instead of being marked by a holy lifestyle (gentleness and good deeds), a person is marked by a heart that harbors bitter envy and selfish ambition they have wisdom from below instead of from heaven.

EXPOSITION:

JAMES 3:13: The question asked is for self-examination. Wise and understanding are qualities that God desires in all His people (Hosea 14:9). All of the adjectives describe conditions of the heart. Humility is the outflow of wisdom. Humility lacks all signs of pride, aggressiveness, or self-assertiveness while wisdom and understanding are rooted in knowledge of the Holy One. Humility commences in the Fear of the LORD:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is
understanding (Proverbs 9:10).

Expert knowledge (epistemon) is not enough, regardless of how extensive. In the Bible, the wise man is not simply the person who knows the most. Not only facts but also attitudes are involved. In Hebrew thought, the wise are those who possess moral insight and skill in deciding practical issues of conduct— wisdom derived from personal knowledge of God and His Word. Without the fear of the LORD, obedience to the law reverts to legalism or to rebelliousness. Such was the case with Israel during the forty years of wandering. The people needed a change of heart as indicated by the LORD’s lament:

Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children for ever! (Deuteronomy 5:29).

The fear of the LORD is not a phobia. Rather, it is that holy response to God by which the godly are inclined more and more to submit to and to imitate God. Fear of the LORD comes to expression in four ways: (1) faith and trust; (2) ethical integrity; (3) awe for God; and (4) reverence for God. These four expressions are marks of humility.

First, the fear of the LORD is expressed in faith and trust, which are the requisites for obedience to God’s law. Israel’s rebellion in the desert showed that they did not trust him:

But you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God. You did not trust him or obey
him. You have been rebellious against the LORD ever since I have known you (Deuteronomy 9:23-24).

Second, the fear of the LORD is expressed in ethical integrity (progressive sanctification), whereby the believer aligns himself more and more with God’s will. Enoch, Noah and Abraham are examples of ethical integrity because they were blameless and righteous in their walk with God.

Third, awe for God is a major motivating factor in the fear of the LORD. Awe is that sense of respect, honor, and greatness that we cultivate toward a superior or a person in power. It is the emotional reaction to God’s presence, miracles, and revelation. The revelation at Mount Sinai created this sense of awe for the holy God (Exodus 19).

Fourth, the fear of the LORD is the response to God’s holiness that is expressed in reverence for God. Reverence involves consecrating oneself to the LORD for the purpose of living in harmony with God and with other people. The best expression of reverence is the imitation of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2:6-16). God’s law teaches us in detail to imitate God in being compassionate, gracious, forbearing, loving, faithful, forgiving, and just.

http://www.bookofjamesbiblestudy.com/Ja ... mtest.html

[Robert]

I disagree. I choose to avoid a battle with anyone, even those who may perseverate in trying to engage in a battle. Instead, I choose to avoid distractions and pursue charitable discourse. My purpose is simply to keep focused upon the topic of the thread. I find authentic Anabaptist thought fruitful and helpful when dealing with every day issues. If you think otherwise on these matters that is your prerogative. At some point, boundaries do need to be respected. Disagreements can be non-hostile and discussed with equanimity - after all that is the purpose of the Bunny Trails, yes?

I have learned the hard way through the years that others do not perceive me as I think I present myself. I have found the same with you. I do not think many perceive you as you think you are presenting yourself. While you are not confrontational, you are passive aggressive. Very Anabaptist of you actually.

I find I learn more about others and myself when I engage in disagreements with others. I find by being willing to engage, I am actually putting the other person first before whatever point or principle I am holding to. Engagement is when we show value to others. By walking away, or hiding from disagreements, we are actually showing we value our opinions more than people.

[Josh]

Information Rage, by the 9th page ..
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=633
it's confusing to read a thread dominated by a member who has been blocked by the OP, who addresses the OP over+over, judges, accuses, instructs the OP .. knowing the OP is (at least trying) to ignore that member to keep some semblance of general peace ..

there is no law to prohibit.
(i thought) it was widely agreed, just because there is or isn't a law, doesn't make a thing right or wrong?

Jesus help me, i pray.
when i'm aware my input is not wanted, i try not to require being informed of this a second time.
it has happened.
the shortest path to authentic reconciliation is respect of requested boundaries, understood or not.
refusing to respect requested boundaries is not a winning strategy.

as hope used to say, "my 2 cents."

temporal1,

The OP formally disfellowshipped me and quoted 1 Corinthians 6:10 to inform me that he thinks I have lost my salvation / am not saved.

I generally avoid getting into arguments with the OP and going back-and-forth, but I feel like I can participate in MennoNet too, and I respond sometimes when other people are part of a conversation.

I have asked multiple times for authentic reconciliation between myself and the OP and have gotten no response; at this point, I have given up on that. I don't think it's fair of the OP to request a "boundary" that he can never be challenged by anyone he disagrees with.

[Bootstrap]

I really don't want a battle, but I do want to know what is true. Whenever we discuss a new topic, we ask questions and try to come to the truth, most people are not offended by this.

And when Max tells us about things he is doing, I think his track record is important. Max passes off pictures of Amish and plain Mennos as "plain Catholics" on his website, tells fake histories of plain Catholics, claims that he has "impressive credentials" in canon law that he does not, and continues to tell us stories of who he is while refusing to give any detail that can help us corroborate these stories.

I would rather not have to keep bringing that up, but if people ask why I don't just assume everything Max tells us is true, there is a history. I still have a list of the original sources of most of the images on his website.

Was he ever a professor? Who knows, he has told us other things about himself that are not true. I have no way of knowing. Professors aren't usually bothered by answering basic questions that can help people figure out what is true, professors are used to debate. Professors usually teach some specific subject, and have a passion for that subject. Max has never said what he taught or called himself a professor of any particular subject.

When I told people about the work I am doing with refugees, they asked about the agency, and they looked it up and asked questions. That's normal. I don't think they were doing that because they doubted my word, I think they just wanted to know more. That's what I see with just about everybody who talks about things they are doing.

Is Max actually doing some kind of ethics training? Who knows. If he is, he should be able to easily answer the kinds of questions I was asking, and there would be no reason to seem them as challenges to his truthfulness. They didn't start out that way. The more he resists answering, the more I wonder.