There has been much bantering recently of my association with, or desire to associate with the H church. It also has been suggested to me that what I write here, does not come across as genuinely honest of my beliefs. I realize that it is easy to take a person's comments in isolation of what one has said in the past, and so one can be misunderstood. All of us when we express ourselves, do so from a base of understanding we take for granted, and so if that is not understood then our comments can be taken other then a bigger picture might present. Where my comments may have hurt anybody who is hurting or suffering from Holdeman actions, I apologize. It has never been my intent to approve of any unbiblical actions, perpetrated on any individual.

I thought to briefly (for any interested) spell out where I stand in relation to the Bible... and if some think this slots me into H type thinking, so be it. I cannot, nor will I apologize for how I understand the Bible.

1) Firstly, I believe that any person, anywhere, who calls on God with an honest heart of faith, is heard by God and receives comfort from God through Jesus Christ. This is the essence of faith, and is the result of believing (John 3:16). Faith itself is an invisible real attribute, a gift from God, the result of which can be seen by the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit. It is not dependant on any other person, clergy or church, but is an individual relationship between a believer and God. No other person can harm this, however discouragement can set one adrift without feeling of faith, but that does not mean it is not present. Any who "believe" are secure in the embrace of Christ, and it is impossible to think one believes, and not really be believing. I struggled with this very issue 30 year ago, and am convinced that to tell another who believes, that he does not really believe, is a grave misinterpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ and a miscarriage (failure in the administration of justice; Webster) of the Christian faith. Christ is who He said He is, He is believable and HE will never fail in any of His promises to those who believe in Him.

2) I believe that those who "believe" should attach themselves to a Bible teaching church, out of a desire to fellowship with others of faith. This itself is not salvation, but is for corporate worship, nurturing, teaching and of course, where generally the sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ are observed.

3) I believe that original inherited sin is present in all believers, and will be so till we receive new bodies at the resurrection. Such sin rises to the surface in all, including those who believe and must be acknowledged, repented of and God through Christ erases the penalty for sin. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." A believer will strive to live a life patterned after Christ, but the perfect righteous character and standard of God is above any level that a believer can achieve to. It is Christ that stands as our Intercessor and Advocate, and He bridges the gap of sin between God and those who believe.

4) I believe it is possible to step away from faith, and return to a life of sin and eternal separation from God. Such a one will realize and be aware of his/her broken relationship with God.

5) I believe the "fruit of the Spirit", (9 of them listed in Gal.5) are the prime characteristics that are evident in believers, and should be the basis of how we deal with others. Family and individuality must be respected in believers, and the unorthodox meddling that so many on this site have experienced at the hands the Holdeman church is a miscarriage of the Christian faith. I believe such has mostly been perpetrated unintentionally and out of ignorance of the Christian faith; and should be genuinely forgiven, and not hold any back from a satisfying life pf peace, joy and fellowship with others of faith. That does not make right what has happened to many, but to have those actions control one's spiritual well being, is like stepping away from the peace and joy that Christ deals to those who trust in Him. To live the life of a satisfied believer, is to live thankfully aware of God's grace, sharing this joy with others, "forgiving others as Christ has forgiven us."

The is a brief outline of my view of Christian living; and am prepared to answer critics or give further explanation.

I appreciate your open and honest reply to those who criticize you. As you stated, it is not our place to judge another's experience...

Some seem to think it is a bad thing to be like Holdeman Mennonites. In general, they are good folks and nothing to be ashamed of. While I hold different doctrine and believe they are incorrect in some of their views, I still have respect for them as a people. Fortunately, I wasn't subjected to their underhanded discipline because I went to them and asked them to remove my membership. There was no hard fellings on either side.

Onward & Upward

Galen: There was no hard fellings on either side.

Oh by the way Galen the holdemans believe you are going to hell when you die. No hard feelings other than that.

<<< I still have respect for them as a people. Fortunately, I wasn't subjected to their underhanded discipline >>>


An absolutely perfect example of what appears to be effeminate government, at least if the first two sentences are correlated. What he appears to say was since it didn't happen to me (or in other words, since my feelings weren't hurt), then I take no clear position on their policies. People suffer under men who rule subjectively like this. A good King, President, or ruler watches for security of the people and not just his own ass. This thing of men thinging like women, i.e., with their feelings, has become absolutely pervasive. If you want a glaring, stark contradiction to this type of thinking, go read the writing of our founders who created our glorious constitution and bill-of-rights, and guess what, those men were product of what Literature books call, "the age of reason". Think about it.

I would say (but I haven't studied this out carefully), but it looks like our countries founding documents (and the men who produced them) was nearly the first example of truly masculine government since Jesus. It is El Shaddi who bind up our wounds, but it is Jehovah who establishes justice.

"I would say (but I haven't studied this out carefully), but it looks like our countries founding documents (and the men who produced them) was nearly the first example of truly masculine government since Jesus. It is El Shaddi who bind up our wounds, but it is Jehovah who establishes justice."

Hey Scott, if it can't save our asses, it's just another "document" in the world!

Brent

Hey Scott again, look what the "document" produced.......your effeminate society and what that inspired around the world!

Brent

Well Brent, perhaps your comments are worthy of a response. My understanding is that typical governments which proceeded the USG were effeminate insofar as typified by a heavy influence of whim and caprice of the elite. So in my view, the "age of reason" certainly being a masculine trait, that our founding documents were a charge straight up the middle against a super established effeminate tide previously established over thousands of years.

But you say that it produced an effeminate society. I can find evidence that these men and documents did not completely or successfully turn the tide against previously established habits of effeminate government (although it tried), but I can find none whatsoever that they produced an effeminate society. Could you please give us some clear examples that would correlate the vision of these men to the effeminate trends in society. I'm sure many readers would be interested in your data.

>>>Oh by the way Galen the holdemans believe you are going to hell when you die. No hard feelings other than that. <<<

Who cares what the holdemans believe. It sure helps to move a thousand miles away from them to put things in perspective. Altho I must admit I am facing Christmas and other "family" get togethers with some trepidition so I guess I'm influenced more then I want to admit

Once again Scott, no authentic "document" has a one true boundary in it.

Scott asks me, "Could you please give us some clear examples that would correlate the vision of these men to the effeminate trends in society. I'm sure many readers would be interested in your data."

I wasn't charging any government or people, unless it was you. Effeminate society was your interpretation, and it wields great influence in the world. That was my point.

Brent

<<< Hey Scott again, look what the "document" produced.......your effeminate society and what that inspired around the world!>>>

Brent, you are making a strong assertion here. I asked you for the evidence to back it up. Are you suggesting your last post was a credible answer?

<<< Once again Scott, no authentic "document" has a one true boundary in it.>>>

Sorry, cannot wrap my brain around that thought enough to know if I agree, disagree, or don't care. Certainly can't fit it into anything that I've written??? Please explain.

My family are holdeman.

My son just graduated highest in the class at the snake river correctional facility.

Isn't life great?

"Sorry, cannot wrap my brain around that thought enough to know if I agree, disagree, or don't care. Certainly can't fit it into anything that I've written??? Please explain."

Well Scott, it was just like you to give a distinction that had an obvious agenda, where no authentic document has one except what will judge or benefit all in all the variables and drama of life from the plebeians to the king.

Brent

Brent, if you sat in the seat of judgement against a man that was charged, would you execute him if he couldn't guess the charges against him, and then, would you execute him for the charges that he wildly confessed by guessing?

But anyway, thanks for reproving me. I value any and all input.

Brent, with just a little more thought (less thought?), I think your 6:29 post could set a new world record for non-answer and obscuration. Young man, you may be famous yet.

"Brent, with just a little more thought (less thought?), I think your 6:29 post could set a new world record for non-answer and obscuration. Young man, you may be famous yet."

No Scott, you just wanted to confirm a little picture and act like nothing else existed. If I would have argued with my own little picture or cause, it would have been to your great glee, because you have such confidence {though I believe questionable} in your logic and reason and mathematical ways of going about things, that you think you could win me in such a debate, though even that is debatable because I'm a man of reason myself, though not intellectually dishonest in it. But I'm not going to engage with you in a debate of personal borders just to see which piss ant border will stand. That would be like two different denominations arguing which one was better, for crying out loud!

Brent