An Introduction

[Mongo]

Ruby,

 

Thanks much for your responses. I much better understand how you interpreted these issues during deconversion.

 

In that context, I can see how they were not crisis points.

 

Re. Dispensationalism

 

I am referring to the Darby (Schoefield) version of Dispensationalism (19th century) which was essentially developed to "decode" the Book of Revelations and spawned a host of "end times" churches. From the Wikipedia, Mennonite doctrine pre-dates Darbyism and hence would not belong to the family of protestant churches that embrace one of the versions of Darbyism. Perhaps your Mennonite denomination of orgin is one that does.

 

My suspicion is that you are referring to a similar doctrine shared by Catholics that god ushered in a new “dispensation” of grace when the New Covenant was established. While there are basic similarities, modern Dispensationalism is far more complicated and intricate than the doctrine that explains the New and Old Covenants.

 

Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, as a former Catholic, I see your and agree with point. This was what I was taught when I was young. I’m not sure the Fundamentalist (I am former Fundy too) view is so easily reconciled since it requires literal translation of scripture. I’ll have to give that further consideration.

 

Mongo

[Guest zarathustra]

Hi Mongo,

 

Thanks for the reply. I am aware of such stories in the OT, however; the Xtian apologists that I have read satisfactorily answers those moral questions for me. Ultimately for me, Xtianity hinges on who Jesus of Nazareth was, which is why I am more interested in doctrinal issues concerning him, the canon, the Early Church, etc.

 

BB

 

I agree that the answers you are seeking trump the moral issues. Certainly proving that God has a vindicative nature does not disprove his existence.

My own questions have been very similar to yours. I wanted to know why should I believe someone walked on water just because it somebody wrote it down 2000 yrs ago. Once you start looking into the doctrine you begin to understand that everthing you understand about god (trinity, salvation, justification) is determined by not by god, but by other humans no more knowledgable than you. And if those human deciders who also thought that that the earth was flat, that the heart was the seat of thought, that the mustard seed was the smallest seed, etc. were so much more ignorant of the world than you are now, why should you believe anything they have to say.

An interesting book that has a review of the doctrrine of the trinity is by Charles Freeman and it is titled (??) The Closing of the Western Mind. You may also want to consider the Case Against God by George Smith. It is a philosophical approach.

However, I'd recommend going beyond historical doctrine and looking at the historicity of the new testament writings themselves. In other words, who wrote the books of the new testament? How do we know Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were even witnesses to the event described? If they were witnesses, did they actually write the gospels? Why do their accounts differ? If credible answers cannot be offered to any of these questions, why believe the bible to hold any meaningful truth at all. Afterall, you are being asked to stake your entire life's conduct on a single book written 2000 yrs ago by people whose names we don't even really know.

One of the best historical resources is Bart Erhman's the New Testament wich is a CD course which can be found at Teach12.com. I have an extra copy if you can't afford to purchase it.

[mick]

ruby,

 

First of all, I apologize for offending you. The last thing I want or need is to be at war with anybody here.

 

I just feel strongly about that topic.

 

Mick

 

 

If you "blew off" the OT attocities because of the "dispensation of grace" you didn't think very hard about it. Also, if you blew them off because of the absurd CHristian defenses, you also didn't think very hard.

 

Are you talking to me, Mick?

 

No matter who you are talking to, you are being a judgmental bully and you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

You DO NOT have the information about anyone else's life to make those statements. Get it? You do not know the first thing about my life, or the life of anyone else here. If you are nice and polite and ask, perhaps we'll tell you.

 

If those statements are about me, they're just plain ludicrous. Maybe when and if you learn to think on the adult level you will understand why. In the mean time it will make you look good to be a bit more modest.

 

If you want to know more about my situation, you can look up my story at "Double Deconversion." I don't know where it is but you can search. So long as you don't do that you have no right to blow off at me--or anyone else for that matter.

[R. S. Martin]

ruby,

 

First of all, I apologize for offending you. The last thing I want or need is to be at war with anybody here.

 

I just feel strongly about that topic.

 

Mick

 

 

If you "blew off" the OT attocities because of the "dispensation of grace" you didn't think very hard about it. Also, if you blew them off because of the absurd CHristian defenses, you also didn't think very hard.

 

Are you talking to me, Mick?

 

No matter who you are talking to, you are being a judgmental bully and you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

You DO NOT have the information about anyone else's life to make those statements. Get it? You do not know the first thing about my life, or the life of anyone else here. If you are nice and polite and ask, perhaps we'll tell you.

 

If those statements are about me, they're just plain ludicrous. Maybe when and if you learn to think on the adult level you will understand why. In the mean time it will make you look good to be a bit more modest.

 

If you want to know more about my situation, you can look up my story at "Double Deconversion." I don't know where it is but you can search. So long as you don't do that you have no right to blow off at me--or anyone else for that matter.

 

Mick,

 

It's okay feeling strongly about a topic. It is not okay is putting down people for being different from yourself. That is what you were doing and it not okay.

 

Ruby

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby,

 

Thanks much for your responses. I much better understand how you interpreted these issues during deconversion.

 

In that context, I can see how they were not crisis points.

 

 

 

Good! They weren't even issues or roadblocks. They simply weren't part of the problem for me. The problem was as I described it above. This is not because I don't think but apparently because I was raised with different teachings than real fundamentalists. I'm not quite clear on fundamentalism at this point but it seems some Mennonites are fundies and some are not.

 

The ones I come from are probably stronger on pietism but there are many overlaps. Also, it is probably not possible for our group to exist in the middle of solid fundamentalism for en entire century without picking up some of it. I see signs in the generation just younger than myself that they are beginning to zero in on fundamentalism. I wish I could somehow stop it right NOW.

 

Re. Dispensationalism

 

I am referring to the Darby (Schoefield) version of Dispensationalism (19th century) which was essentially developed to "decode" the Book of Revelations and spawned a host of "end times" churches. From the Wikipedia, Mennonite doctrine pre-dates Darbyism and hence would not belong to the family of protestant churches that embrace one of the versions of Darbyism. Perhaps your Mennonite denomination of orgin is one that does.

 

My suspicion is that you are referring to a similar doctrine shared by Catholics that god ushered in a new "dispensation" of grace when the New Covenant was established. While there are basic similarities, modern Dispensationalism is far more complicated and intricate than the doctrine that explains the New and Old Covenants.

 

You might be right on this. I didn't know this much about it. We seem to be deviating from the original purpose of this thread. I'll start a new one on dispensationalism.

 

Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, as a former Catholic, I see your and agree with point. This was what I was taught when I was young. I'm not sure the Fundamentalist (I am former Fundy too) view is so easily reconciled since it requires literal translation of scripture. I'll have to give that further consideration.

 

Mongo

 

I look forward to your "further considerations" on this because I feel totally in the dark as to how fundamentalism could possibly see it differently. I've kinda lost track as to what part of this conversation is related to Dianne's and what is new. The "new stuff" should probably be in a different thread. What do you think?

 

We all know and accept that Jesus taught by parable and metaphor, don't we? That excludes the need to take ALL scripture literally. I've seen scholars say no one takes the entire Bible literally because it is simply not possible. There are too many internal contradictions.

 

Thus, offering your son to the soldier who is molesting your daughter is not a literal translation of turning the other cheek. First of all, cheeks are probably not a prominent part of the situation but bodies are. Instead of offering your son's body, you could offer your own. As an adult you might be better able to handle the situation than your children are. Possibly you could decide the terms on which anyone violates your person because your physical strength is a much better match for the soldier's than that of your children.

 

Just some thoughts and possibly not very good ones at that.

[mick]

Ruby,

 

I sincerely aplogize. I need to be able to come here without thinking I have enemies here. I do however reitirate, that I cannot understand anyone who does not apostate on the realization of the OT attrocities. However, I don't want it to be a problem for me coming here.

 

Mick

 

ruby,

 

First of all, I apologize for offending you. The last thing I want or need is to be at war with anybody here.

 

I just feel strongly about that topic.

 

Mick

 

 

If you "blew off" the OT attocities because of the "dispensation of grace" you didn't think very hard about it. Also, if you blew them off because of the absurd CHristian defenses, you also didn't think very hard.

 

Are you talking to me, Mick?

 

No matter who you are talking to, you are being a judgmental bully and you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

You DO NOT have the information about anyone else's life to make those statements. Get it? You do not know the first thing about my life, or the life of anyone else here. If you are nice and polite and ask, perhaps we'll tell you.

 

If those statements are about me, they're just plain ludicrous. Maybe when and if you learn to think on the adult level you will understand why. In the mean time it will make you look good to be a bit more modest.

 

If you want to know more about my situation, you can look up my story at "Double Deconversion." I don't know where it is but you can search. So long as you don't do that you have no right to blow off at me--or anyone else for that matter.

 

Mick,

 

It's okay feeling strongly about a topic. It is not okay is putting down people for being different from yourself. That is what you were doing and it not okay.

 

Ruby

[Guest BaylorBear]

But I'm off-topic. BB, have you read any Gnostic literature? The Nag Hammadi Library, for instance? Reading those texts broadened my concept of God and the Saviour. Be prepared for some radical ideas if you have not been introduced to this type of literature yet. I haven't seen the Dead Sea Scrolls but I understand they are worth reading, too.

 

I am aware of other texts. The History Channel re-aired Banned From the Bible last night-it was very interesting.

 

I think the editor under whose name the Nag Hammadi Library (it's all in one volume) is listed is James Robinson but I'm not perfectly sure. If you are interested, type "Nag Hammadi Library" into Google or Amazon.com. That should give you the info you need to check your local public library if you don't want to buy it.

 

Early Christian Writings

 

If you want to explore doctrine from various perspectives, you might find Comparative Religion helpful. There is information and also dialogue forums on that site. The Center for Progressive Christianity is another possibility.

 

Thanks for the links.

 

BB

[Guest BaylorBear]

 

If you "blew off" the OT attocities because of the "dispensation of grace" you didn't think very hard about it. Also, if you blew them off because of the absurd CHristian defenses, you also didn't think very hard.

 

Are you talking to me, Mick?

 

No matter who you are talking to, you are being a judgmental bully and you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

 

You DO NOT have the information about anyone else's life to make those statements. Get it? You do not know the first thing about my life, or the life of anyone else here. If you are nice and polite and ask, perhaps we'll tell you.

 

If those statements are about me, they're just plain ludicrous. Maybe when and if you learn to think on the adult level you will understand why. In the mean time it will make you look good to be a bit more modest.

 

If you want to know more about my situation, you can look up my story at "Double Deconversion." I don't know where it is but you can search. So long as you don't do that you have no right to blow off at me--or anyone else for that matter.

 

If this board had a rep system then I'd rep you

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby,

 

I sincerely aplogize. I need to be able to come here without thinking I have enemies here. I do however reitirate, that I cannot understand anyone who does not apostate on the realization of the OT attrocities. However, I don't want it to be a problem for me coming here.

 

Mick

 

I accept your apology. It's okay not understanding a person so long as you don't put them down. I think I explained to Mongo why those passages are not a major hindrance for me. There are other issues that bothered me far more. I keep being amazed at the different things over which people deconvert. We're just not all the same. In addition, we were not all raised with the same teachings.

[R. S. Martin]

 

If this board had a rep system then I'd rep you

 

Thanks, Dianne. I'm not sure what a "rep" is in this case but the smilie makes me think it must be something positive.

 

Mick, just to be clear, I do NOT condone the attrocities in the OT. Never have and never will. However, there were other much larger and much more immediate issues I had to deal with.

 

Mick, I think I'm a lot like you. I can't afford to have enemies here. I think you and I are both very sensitive people. That is why I would like if you could understand me but I don't know how better to explain. Maybe it will help if you read up on my posts.

[Saviourmachine]

Much fun in discovering the world.

 

At www.edge.org you can view sessions of talented people discussing science and religion. If you're scientifically inclined, you can read Dawkins, Sagan, Penrose, Hofstadter, Gould, Davies. As some oil to start up your rusted engines.