By Thy Words

[temporal1]

I find it interesting that most people on here are very critical about how Cory and R&S wrote their ideas and minimize the concern and intentions behind their writings. And then turn around and sort of justify BTW writings, because we ought to focus on the message behind the sarcasm. I don’t think the same measure is being used, which might be something like “R&S and Cory could have wrote a little bit better, maybe their off based on some areas, but the gist of their writings have some truth. And BTW may be sarcastic, and might have some attitude problems, but they are pointing out valid criticisms.”

That is pretty much my opinion on the thread.
BTW sarcasm and wit reminds me a lot of what some in my family could write about some things. I’m no stranger to this style of feelings and writings. But yes, I do think that BTW is not so much about helping anyone see the light and errors of their ways, but is primarily about cathartically and entertainingly for people whom have left those conservative settings.
It wouldn’t have crossed my mind that R&S and Cory’s writings would have ever caused anyone to have messed up thinking. We read some of it growing up, and we never considered R&S to be reflective of real life. But we were one notch removed from that level of conservative thought and now I can see that it could mess some people up in those churches. Particularly if those things were taken literally and not with a grain of salt. And I can read some of the anger here about those results.

I have no negative experience with these writings. But nor have I ever been in a setting that beat this stuff into ones head nonstop.

So here I am again, weighing in with my free opinion on something I know little about, have virtually no experience with,
just like I do on racism. Or whatever else strikes my fancy. So I’m not trying to convince anyone on these things one way or another, but instead just adding my thoughts.
I’m just not close enough to racism or off the deep end conservative applications, or to family or friends who have been strongly impacted.

But in accordance with Mennonets generally accepted rules of engagement, I can’t let those things hold me back from tossing my two cents into the pot.

In my understanding, this is a pretty good description of what INFORMAL DISCUSSION is.
i understand this forum to be for the purpose of informal discussion.

What makes it specially interesting (to me) is, 1. the definite majority here are most interested in Jesus at center, AND,
2. the eclectic mix of members exchanging on a nearly level playing field. That unique combination, 1+2.

Prior to the internet, this type of interaction, across all socio-economic, cultural, religious, age, education, even male-female interactions, was unheard of, outside family settings. Here, scholars, professionals, church leadership, retirees, the handicapped, et al., interact openly with laypeople of all descriptions.

The internet allows many who were formerly isolated due to physical impairments to interact “on a level playing field” with others, to the point that often the impairments are a non-issue, not mentioned! Many who formerly relied on real life visitors, now are able to access interaction 24/7, not dependent on visiting hours! It is quite a change.

It’s odd (to me) how “seamlessly” the adjustment has been made, as-if life was always this way!

[ragpicker]

I find it interesting that most people on here are very critical about how Cory and R&S wrote their ideas and minimize the concern and intentions behind their writings. And then turn around and sort of justify BTW writings, because we ought to focus on the message behind the sarcasm. I don’t think the same measure is being used, which might be something like “R&S and Cory could have wrote a little bit better, maybe their off based on some areas, but the gist of their writings have some truth. And BTW may be sarcastic, and might have some attitude problems, but they are pointing out valid criticisms.”

That is pretty much my opinion on the thread.
BTW sarcasm and wit reminds me a lot of what some in my family could write about some things. I’m no stranger to this style of feelings and writings. But yes, I do think that BTW is not so much about helping anyone see the light and errors of their ways, but is primarily about cathartically and entertainingly for people whom have left those conservative settings.
It wouldn’t have crossed my mind that R&S and Cory’s writings would have ever caused anyone to have messed up thinking. We read some of it growing up, and we never considered R&S to be reflective of real life. But we were one notch removed from that level of conservative thought and now I can see that it could mess some people up in those churches. Particularly if those things were taken literally and not with a grain of salt. And I can read some of the anger here about those results.

I have no negative experience with these writings. But nor have I ever been in a setting that beat this stuff into ones head nonstop.

So here I am again, weighing in with my free opinion on something I know little about, have virtually no experience with, just like I do on racism. Or whatever else strikes my fancy. So I’m not trying to convince anyone on these things one way or another, but instead just adding my thoughts.
I’m just not close enough to racism or off the deep end conservative applications, or to family or friends who have been strongly impacted.

But in accordance with Mennonets generally accepted rules of engagement, I can’t let those things hold me back from tossing my two cents into the pot.

I would find it significantly problematic that a church’s main publishing arm produces materials that need to be taken with a grain of salt. That’s not innocuous.

It’s less problematic when an individual author’s work needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Soloist]

I would find it significantly problematic that a church’s main publishing arm produces materials that need to be taken with a grain of salt. That’s not innocuous.

It’s less problematic when an individual author’s work needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I believe that Scripture can be elevated to no caution or check, but all man's writings regardless of who needs to be balanced against Scripture. I have yet to see someone present an example and express through Scripture why one of these publications is wrong.

[ragpicker]

I would find it significantly problematic that a church’s main publishing arm produces materials that need to be taken with a grain of salt. That’s not innocuous.

It’s less problematic when an individual author’s work needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I believe that Scripture can be elevated to no caution or check, but all man's writings regardless of who needs to be balanced against Scripture. I have yet to see someone present an example and express through Scripture why one of these publications is wrong.

You need scripture to prove that a sexually perverted mindset is wrong?

[Soloist]

You need scripture to prove that a sexually perverted mindset is wrong?

You have misread me.

I am talking about the publications that this person is mocking. I am not talking about Cory. I stated before that I wanted to read his writing and withhold judgment. You however, have already judged him. Perhaps you read his writings already and are convinced in your own mind but I am not convinced without reading his book as so far I do not honestly know how out of context these references are.

[RZehr]

I find it interesting that most people on here are very critical about how Cory and R&S wrote their ideas and minimize the concern and intentions behind their writings. And then turn around and sort of justify BTW writings, because we ought to focus on the message behind the sarcasm. I don’t think the same measure is being used, which might be something like “R&S and Cory could have wrote a little bit better, maybe their off based on some areas, but the gist of their writings have some truth. And BTW may be sarcastic, and might have some attitude problems, but they are pointing out valid criticisms.”

That is pretty much my opinion on the thread.
BTW sarcasm and wit reminds me a lot of what some in my family could write about some things. I’m no stranger to this style of feelings and writings. But yes, I do think that BTW is not so much about helping anyone see the light and errors of their ways, but is primarily about cathartically and entertainingly for people whom have left those conservative settings.
It wouldn’t have crossed my mind that R&S and Cory’s writings would have ever caused anyone to have messed up thinking. We read some of it growing up, and we never considered R&S to be reflective of real life. But we were one notch removed from that level of conservative thought and now I can see that it could mess some people up in those churches. Particularly if those things were taken literally and not with a grain of salt. And I can read some of the anger here about those results.

I have no negative experience with these writings. But nor have I ever been in a setting that beat this stuff into ones head nonstop.

So here I am again, weighing in with my free opinion on something I know little about, have virtually no experience with, just like I do on racism. Or whatever else strikes my fancy. So I’m not trying to convince anyone on these things one way or another, but instead just adding my thoughts.
I’m just not close enough to racism or off the deep end conservative applications, or to family or friends who have been strongly impacted.

But in accordance with Mennonets generally accepted rules of engagement, I can’t let those things hold me back from tossing my two cents into the pot.

I would find it significantly problematic that a church’s main publishing arm produces materials that need to be taken with a grain of salt. That’s not innocuous.

It’s less problematic when an individual author’s work needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I suppose it would be a very easy thing to do to find material in most any Mennonite publishing house that I disagreed with. So I don’t find that to be the precise problem, but rather the percentage of it, and the disproportionate position R&S literature holds over its constituency.
I don’t even know why I’m making this comment.
At the end of the day, I really don’t know any of these people, or the damage that is being blamed on them.

I plead ignorant. But I do for some - I suppose sociological - reason, view them in the big picture as more of an ally that I do BTW. And I suppose that is really what colors my lightly held opinion. And to be frank, I am projecting the similar dynamic on some of you. That you see BTW as more of an ally than you do R&S and Cory. But again, that is perhaps an unfair projection and supposition on my part.

[ABC 123]

I plead ignorant. But I do for some - I suppose sociological - reason, view them in the big picture as more of an ally that I do BTW. And I suppose that is really what colors my lightly held opinion. And to be frank, I am projecting the similar dynamic on some of you. That you see BTW as more of an ally than you do R&S and Cory. But again, that is perhaps an unfair projection and supposition on my part.

Well, some of us have actually lived through some of these things enough to second guess your own sanity.

[Soloist]

I plead ignorant. But I do for some - I suppose sociological - reason, view them in the big picture as more of an ally that I do BTW. And I suppose that is really what colors my lightly held opinion. And to be frank, I am projecting the similar dynamic on some of you. That you see BTW as more of an ally than you do R&S and Cory. But again, that is perhaps an unfair projection and supposition on my part.

Well, some of us have actually lived through some of these things enough to second guess your own sanity.

What things have you lived through and why are they wrong?

[appleman2006]

Some of you are asking for examples of why something like this upsets me, Ok let me tell you a story. This is something I experienced some 20 years ago, more or less, it was the closing night of a winter Bible school term. We had just experienced a two hour program made up primarily of some very inspiring chorale singing. After, a group of us were sitting in the teacher’s study room when one of the other teachers made a comment that almost blew my socks off. I had always had a relatively high opinion of this man but after that I have never quite had the same respect. The man commented that the singing was great but that he did not get much out of it as he was distracted throughout the whole service by the way the girls were dressed.
Let me tell you folks, those girls were dressed about as modestly as a girl could be dressed. I was left with only one conclusion. If a man could sit through a service like that and have only lustful thoughts then he had a huge problem. And no amount of increased modesty in the way women dress was going to fix it,
And just for the record this was a long way from a nationwide or eastern setting so I am in no way picking on any one group here.
Folks I cannot see Cory’s heart. Only God can do that. So I am not going to judge the intent of his heart. But I am going to say beyond a doubt he is very wrong on this issue. I do not care how smart some of you think he is. On this issue he is way off base. And it is not only wrong. It is potentially very very dangerous.
This stuff has got to stop.
I am not exactly sure what the writer had in mind when he said”to the pure all things are pure”. But it would seem to me that the exact opposite might also be true. To the impure all things are impure.

[justme]

I am not exactly sure what the writer had in mind when he said”to the pure all things are pure”. But it would seem to me that the exact opposite might also be true. To the impure all things are impure.

i totally agree.