MennoNet.com

Bootstrap wrote:

Ernie wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:But it certainly is ironic when people suggest that you can't be an Anabaptist or a Mennonite if you believe what the original Anabaptists and Mennonites taught.

I don't know of anyone who believes this. Do you know of some?

I think I've seen some of that here on MD - ironically, it's not usually the Anabaptists and Mennonites.

examples?
if these are not Anabaptists or Mennonites, what difference do they make? they aren't establishing membership rules. are they learning/inquiring/speculating? .. all fair for this open forum.

temporal1 wrote:if these are not Anabaptists or Mennonites, what difference do they make? they aren't establishing membership rules. are they learning/inquiring/speculating? .. all fair for this open forum.

You and Max are consistently the loudest in proclaiming who the true Anabaptists and Mennonites are. And I'm not sure that you are the ones with the firmest grasp on this. We can't stop you from doing this, but I often do wonder why you think you are so expert on these questions. And it creates a constant undertone of squabbling that really isn't helpful.

Why not let the other people here speak for themselves? Why not let people who have actually read these writings discuss them, without claiming to know who is right if you haven't read them?

And if either of you really is interested in reading what the early Anabaptists said, in context, let's look at their writings and do that, instead of picking at other people on the forum.

temporal1 wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:

Ernie wrote:I don't know of anyone who believes this. Do you know of some?

I think I've seen some of that here on MD - ironically, it's not usually the Anabaptists and Mennonites.

examples?
if these are not Anabaptists or Mennonites, what difference do they make? they aren't establishing membership rules. are they learning/inquiring/speculating? .. all fair for this open forum.

Agreed.
"He who hath an ear let him hear what the spirit is saying..."
The CA/CM response has been very clear and logical, seasoned with grace and a clear understanding of Scriptures. Further they did so without the twisting and hyperbole to justify sinful mistakes as evidenced here. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=197

Max, did you think that was a response to my previous post? Or were you just trying to confirm what I said with another example?

You avoid the substance of the conversation, sitting on the sidelines and making comments about the people, who you like and who you do not. That makes it much harder to have a substantive conversation. If you don't want to discuss the subject, why not let others do so?

If you respect the CAs / CMs as much as you say you do, why not learn from their example? Why not observe the ways we manage to discuss things productively among various streams of our tradition?

very clear and logical, seasoned with grace and a clear understanding of Scriptures

We agree on this goal.

Bootstrap wrote:

temporal1 wrote:if these are not Anabaptists or Mennonites, what difference do they make? they aren't establishing membership rules. are they learning/inquiring/speculating? .. all fair for this open forum.

You and Max are consistently the loudest in proclaiming who the true Anabaptists and Mennonites are. And I'm not sure that you are the ones with the firmest grasp on this. We can't stop you from doing this, but I often do wonder why you think you are so expert on these questions. And it creates a constant undertone of squabbling that really isn't helpful.

Why not let the other people here speak for themselves? Why not let people who have actually read these writings discuss them, without claiming to know who is right if you haven't read them?

And if either of you really is interested in reading what the early Anabaptists said, in context, let's look at their writings and do that, instead of picking at other people on the forum.

interesting view.
i can't speak for Max, but, true, i consistently state i'm present for the CM view.

i do this for clarity and clarification, and to acknowledge not all are CM.

recently, i stated i am Anabaptist by theology, so, i believe i'm close to your stance on that.

everyone has their own perspective.
i find liberal Anabaptists and disgruntled former Anabaptists to be ones who most-speak-for conservative Anabaptists, more than any others, by far. these often claim inside status and privilege while doing so. imho, they take advantage of the brotherhood in this way.
some "holding hostage" happens there.

this, as it appears to me. you are welcome to your view.

Request: I would like Max and Temp to exit this thread and let the rest of us discuss here. I apologize for mentioning you explicitly here, that was a mistake. We can discuss that in another thread if you like. If CMs or CAs ever feel I am speaking for them, I would request them to weigh in directly, perhaps with a PM to me, perhaps in a response to my post. I don't want to be doing that.

In particular, I would like to see any other information people have on early Anabaptist writers on Divorce and Remarriage. Pointers to original source material would be particularly helpful - I still haven't found a copy of Sattler's "On Divorce" or "Concerning Divorce" online in either English or German.

Bootstrap wrote:

Ernie wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:But it certainly is ironic when people suggest that you can't be an Anabaptist or a Mennonite if you believe what the original Anabaptists and Mennonites taught.

I don't know of anyone who believes this. Do you know of some?

I think I've seen some of that here on MD - ironically, it's not usually the Anabaptists and Mennonites.

here, you are alluding to "others" in a possibly passive-aggressive, exclusive, "we are better than" attitude that is not anything i find in scriptures.

so?

Bootstrap wrote:Request: I would like Max and Temp to exit this thread and let the rest of us discuss here. I apologize for mentioning you explicitly here, that was a mistake. We can discuss that in another thread if you like.

In particular, I would like to see any other information people have on early Anabaptist writers on Divorce and Remarriage. Pointers to original source material would be particularly helpful - I still haven't found a copy of Sattler's "On Divorce" or "Concerning Divorce" online in either English or German.

i will happily respect your request, IF you will honor others' similar requests?
just say the word.

actually, i would respect your request without conditions ..
but, i am making the request for you to respect others' requests.
something you have openly refused to do over+over in the past.

Yes, I agree T1: that request must go both ways
BS must respect our requests to stay out of our threads when we are interested in learning from CAs and CMs.

Since I typed out a post in the Mennonite view of Divorce and Remarriage and by the time I posted it became locked and got lost I would like to try and remember it and do it again here. If that is not okay then maybe it can be moved elsewhere?

When we fellowship with conservative Anabaptist's I really feel at home and connected with most all of them. I feel my heart is against divorce and remarriage but yet as what was said about culture and background my mind was struggling with this idea, and I wasn't sure if I could discredit the exception clause and wanted to read scripture right without omitting. Besides with my background being a backwoods hick where alcoholism, domestic violence, adultery and the such were not foreign. It seemed there were legitimate reasons for divorce and even possibly remarriage...

It may come as a surprise from some of my posts but my heart has been fighting with my mind about this.

Meditating about things in scripture coupled with the thread really helped exercise my mind if that is the right wording in helping it connect to what my heart had been telling.

Thank you to all for participating and really being a big help in seeking out God's will and design in this matter.