ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Dave Likeness on December 09, 2015, 04:00:51 PM

Title: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on December 09, 2015, 04:00:51 PM
I am not a Donald Trump supporter, but I believe that he has
hit a responsive chord among the electorate.  There are several
reasons.

1)  He is not a career politician whose only aim is to get re-elected
term after term either as a U.S. Senator or Governor.  He does not
need the job of President for his own financial well-being or perks.

2) He speaks on the issues which trouble many Americans and does
not use politically correct language.  As an outsider he speaks from
the heart and lets the chips fall where they may.

3. Americans are not looking for another Bush or Clinton.  They do not
want political dynasties, they want real solutions to real problems.  People
sense that America is adrift morally with legal abortion and legal gay marriage.
People are fearful that Terrorism is not being taken seriously by the Federal
government.

4.  Donald Trump has become the poster boy for the angst and anxiety
of the populace.  He shoots from the hip with his bluster and people
feel he is speaking for them.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Matt Hummel on December 09, 2015, 04:51:45 PM
Tubus delenda est.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 09, 2015, 04:57:52 PM
What Dave Likeness posted upstream is frighteningly reminiscent of the factors which brought Hitler to power. Trump gathers up people's ignorance, fears and hatreds and gives them expression. He creates classes of "enemies" allegedly destroying our society. He practices a rhetoric which has its own satanic charisma. He claims to restore some "greatness" lost because of the leadership of the last 30 years.
BTW, he's not against gay marriage or our current abortion laws.
Prayers for the republic are needed indeed.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 09, 2015, 05:02:24 PM

BTW, he's not against gay marriage or our current abortion laws.
Prayers for the republic are needed indeed.
When did you suddenly become so concerned about these issues?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Matt Hummel on December 09, 2015, 05:19:08 PM

BTW, he's not against gay marriage or our current abortion laws.
Prayers for the republic are needed indeed.
When did you suddenly become so concerned about these issues?

I think Charles' point is Herr Trump is not quite the Prince Charming that the Uruk Hai wing of the Republican Party thinks he is. In my Government class today, the boys were introduced to Niemoller through his famous quote as we discussed Trump.

Life long Republican and NY expat so I know Der Donald for what he is. Advent miracle- I again find myself saying, "Listen to Charles!"
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on December 09, 2015, 05:30:04 PM
Donald Trump certainly does not appeal to the better angels of our nature as did arguably the best Republican in history, Abraham Lincoln.  Rather he appeals to fear and anger and stirs it up.  Demagogue seems an appropriate characterization.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on December 09, 2015, 05:33:22 PM
Humility is not a quality which The Donald exhibits.  He is an egomaniac.
Today, Trump blasted Time Magazine for naming Angela Merkel of
Germany as The Person Of The Year instead of him.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 09, 2015, 05:37:26 PM
And I'm with Mr. Hummel on this issue. Anything is possible.
Craig, my point in mentioning abortion and gay marriage was to note that for those on the far right side of the "conservative" spectrum these are usually key issues. Yet it seems to be large numbers of the far-righters whooping it up at Trump rallies.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Rev. BT Ball on December 09, 2015, 05:51:17 PM
If you have some time, the Lutheran Senator from Nebraska gave a very helpful speech on the Senate floor, not directly addressing Trump but speaking to the issue of Islam and gives some ideas why Trump is in the lead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQuaR73ogvo
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on December 09, 2015, 05:51:42 PM

BTW, he's not against gay marriage or our current abortion laws.
Prayers for the republic are needed indeed.
When did you suddenly become so concerned about these issues?

I think Charles' point is Herr Trump is not quite the Prince Charming that the Uruk Hai wing of the Republican Party thinks he is. In my Government class today, the boys were introduced to Niemoller through his famous quote as we discussed Trump.

Life long Republican and NY expat so I know Der Donald for what he is. Advent miracle- I again find myself saying, "Listen to Charles!"

The Niemoller quote was the front page of today's Daily News.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 09, 2015, 05:55:21 PM
If you have some time, the Lutheran Senator from Nebraska gave a very helpful speech on the Senate floor, not directly addressing Trump but speaking to the issue of Islam and gives some ideas why Trump is in the lead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQuaR73ogvo
Sasse isn't getting much love here...
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/09/ben-sasse-americans-are-turning-to-demagogues-like-trump-because-their-current-leadership-is-terrible-on-terror/
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 09, 2015, 05:59:36 PM
 
Bloomberg poll: 65% of Republican likely primary voters favor Trump’s plan to bar Muslims from U.S. temporarily

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/09/bloomberg-poll-64-of-republican-likely-primary-voters-favor-trumps-plan-to-bar-muslims-from-u-s-temporarily/


#BREAKING SouthCarolina! #2016 #GOP @FoxNews #poll
Trump 35
Carson 15
Cruz&Rubio 14
Bush 5
Graham 2
http://fxn.ws/1OTUdoq
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on December 09, 2015, 07:58:51 PM
The Trump phenomenon will not survive the realities of electoral politics.  Prediction: Cruz wins the Iowa caucuses, Christie could win NH with Cruz and Rubio close behind, Cruz wins SC with Rubio second, Rubio takes the big Southern primaries with Cruz second.  Trump finishes out of the money.  The Republican nominee is Cuban and (out on a limb here) Carly Fiorina is VP nominee.  Clinton of course is the Dem nominee unless she is indicted--and maybe even then.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 09, 2015, 10:09:59 PM
The Trump phenomenon will not survive the realities of electoral politics.  Prediction: Cruz wins the Iowa caucuses, Christie could win NH with Cruz and Rubio close behind, Cruz wins SC with Rubio second, Rubio takes the big Southern primaries with Cruz second.  Trump finishes out of the money.  The Republican nominee is Cuban and (out on a limb here) Carly Fiorina is VP nominee.  Clinton of course is the Dem nominee unless she is indicted--and maybe even then.

And The Donald runs an independent campaign. According to one poll of Trump supporters, 68% will vote for him if he runs independently.

Clinton's gift.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on December 09, 2015, 10:53:06 PM
I am not a Donald Trump supporter, but I believe that he has
hit a responsive chord among the electorate.  There are several
reasons.

1)  He is not a career politician whose only aim is to get re-elected
term after term either as a U.S. Senator or Governor.  He does not
need the job of President for his own financial well-being or perks.

A big "Amen" on that one. As disappointing as experienced politicians like Clinton and George W. were, the current totally inexperienced "community organizer" has been much, much worse. America is looking for someone who has the sort of experience that might well indicate that he can accomplish something more than making excuses and blaming his predecessor. And, after having a President who is owned outright by George Soros and others, an independent is very appealing. On the other hand, Trump isn't nearly as good a business leader as his reputation.

2) He speaks on the issues which trouble many Americans and does
not use politically correct language.  As an outsider he speaks from
the heart and lets the chips fall where they may.

His refusal to use politically correct doubletalk is very appealing. There is a small minority of people who place style over substance, but only so long as the style is polite to the point of being effete. If he were alive today, I suspect Harry Truman's bluntness would be appreciated.

3. Americans are not looking for another Bush or Clinton.  They do not
want political dynasties, they want real solutions to real problems.  People
sense that America is adrift morally with legal abortion and legal gay marriage.
People are fearful that Terrorism is not being taken seriously by the Federal
government.

I think it goes beyond the sort of vague fears we once had. It seems to me that an increasing number of people are genuinely afraid that America will turn into a socialist state, and/or that we'll lose a major war fought on our own soil.

4.  Donald Trump has become the poster boy for the angst and anxiety
of the populace.  He shoots from the hip with his bluster and people
feel he is speaking for them.

The populace has a lot to be anxious about. "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" has replace "The check is in the mail" as the #1 lie in America.

The American people, at least a big enough majority of them to win an election, are simply fed up with the ineffectiveness of politicians from either party. The Democrats have ruined almost everything they touch, but the Republicans seem to be a feckless bunch who can't even take advantage of majorities in both houses of Congress. In that environment, an outsider like Trump seems a much better prospect to bring about renewed hope and change for the better. The slogan "Hope and Change" worked for a community organizer with absolutely no experience or qualifications. Donald Trump might be a long shot, but to many, many voters, he's America's last, best hope.

That's sad, when you think about it. Trump has a lot of flaws, and probably would make a terrible President. But except for Cruz, I don't see anyone in either party who looks like a better choice.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Padre Dave on December 09, 2015, 10:57:22 PM
The Trump phenomenon will not survive the realities of electoral politics.  Prediction: Cruz wins the Iowa caucuses, Christie could win NH with Cruz and Rubio close behind, Cruz wins SC with Rubio second, Rubio takes the big Southern primaries with Cruz second.  Trump finishes out of the money.  The Republican nominee is Cuban and (out on a limb here) Carly Fiorina is VP nominee.  Clinton of course is the Dem nominee unless she is indicted--and maybe even then.
You read my mind!  Trump is the model of Americam narcissism, but if history holds, he is the one who will get elected.  Our Boomer generation produced Clinton with all of the cultural excesses and relativism of our generation.  The surprise was that he was a good consensus builder with Gingrich and actually did some good.  George Bush represented my portion of the Boomer generation....hard working, some relativism but not Clintonesque in the excesses (he could keep his pants zipped) and represented the "cowboy" ethic that I have lived most of my life.  He is a good man.  Obama is the Gen X answer to us Boomers: all hat, no horse.  He is urbane, and edgy, though so idea=ological that he hasn't accomplished anything lasting that can't be undone, except that he DID fundamentally transform America, to something I dreaded and worse.

In keeping with our American cultural narcissism, Trump is the logical representative.  The problem is that he lacks both hat and horse.  He inherited his money and has built a lot of tacky stuff, which matches his personality.  The problem is that Hillary is an enigma...more skeletons than Bill, but not yet exposed.  She is the politician's politician....whatever way the wind blows, she will adapt, but with doctrinaire feminist and very liberal, and expedient in her politics. 

This is a good time to be a Canadian, I reckon.  You guys need a retired Pastor to....oh, wait, you guys are frozen 10 months of the year, right?  Well, back to the trenches.....Kyrie Eleison.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on December 10, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
Obama is the Gen X answer to us Boomers: all hat, no horse.  He is urbane, and edgy, though so idea=ological that he hasn't accomplished anything lasting that can't be undone, except that he DID fundamentally transform America, to something I dreaded and worse.
Just for the record, Barack Obama was born in 1961, so he is technically another Baby Boomer (born 1946-1964).  Since Scott Walker (1967) and Bobby Jindal (1971) dropped out, Ted Cruz (1970) and Marco Rubio (1971) are the only candidates currently running to become the first president from Generation X.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: D. Engebretson on December 10, 2015, 09:32:03 AM
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/08/donald-trump-may-be-a-dangerous-buffoon-but-hes-no-hitler/ (http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/08/donald-trump-may-be-a-dangerous-buffoon-but-hes-no-hitler/)

I am not a fan of Trump, and like others here I see him as an egomaniac.  However, the rhetoric about the man sometimes misses the point in historical comparisons. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Satis Est on December 10, 2015, 09:43:00 AM
  I am concerned about Donald Trump. He's a bully and a narcisist. He appeals to the hard-coated kernel of primal evil that remains in us, that must be drowned each and every day by the Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism, and encourages us to instead nourish that kernel until it grows and devours everything that is good and true. His popularity is based in making us feel good about our anger and our hatred, and convincing us that the solution to our fear is to beat up those who are not only our true enemies, but anyone else who is weaker, different, or possesses something which we covet. He is dangerous.

However, polls are one thing. Actual votes are another. One of my hopes is that he has not won a single vote -- yet. I wait for Iowa and New Hampshire. We will know a lot more about Trump's true strength then.

(And my other hope is the reaction of leaders like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to Mr. Trump's proposal about Muslims, and that Republican leaders are very worried about Trump's popularity. They need to be.)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 10, 2015, 10:46:57 AM
There have been other loonies that did well in this phase of the campaign and then showed poorly in actual votes. And there is the hope that the sensible Republicans (and there are many, even the majority of them) will finally step up and put an end to Trump's candidacy.
Having the nominee be a smart, sensible, kind-hearted person like Jeb Bush would make for a healthier campaign.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on December 10, 2015, 10:52:37 AM
Mr. Trump is part of a Clinton sleeper-cell. All Ms. Clinton has to do now is move slightly to the right and she will win by a huge margin. Mr. Trump has divided and conquered her opponents for her and she comes out smelling... well, like a Clinton.

Peter (Voting for Putin) Garrison
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 10, 2015, 10:54:43 AM
There have been other loonies that did well in this phase of the campaign and then showed poorly in actual votes. And there is the hope that the sensible Republicans (and there are many, even the majority of them) will finally step up and put an end to Trump's candidacy.
Having the nominee be a smart, sensible, kind-hearted person like Jeb Bush would make for a healthier campaign.


Oh darn....just when I was beginning to believe I could support Jeb Bush. ;)


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 10:57:15 AM
  I am concerned about Donald Trump. He's a bully and a narcisist. He appeals to the hard-coated kernel of primal evil that remains in us, that must be drowned each and every day by the Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism, and encourages us to instead nourish that kernel until it grows and devours everything that is good and true. His popularity is based in making us feel good about our anger and our hatred, and convincing us that the solution to our fear is to beat up those who are not only our true enemies, but anyone else who is weaker, different, or possesses something which we covet. He is dangerous.

To the point of advocating for war crimes, i.e., "taking out" the families of the terrorists. Example: His statements that the 9/11 terrorists were willing to sacrifice their lives, but they first sent their wives back to the mideast so they could watch on TV the fall of the Twin Towers with glee. "We need to take them out."   :o
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven W Bohler on December 10, 2015, 11:07:37 AM
  I am concerned about Donald Trump. He's a bully and a narcisist. He appeals to the hard-coated kernel of primal evil that remains in us, that must be drowned each and every day by the Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism, and encourages us to instead nourish that kernel until it grows and devours everything that is good and true. His popularity is based in making us feel good about our anger and our hatred, and convincing us that the solution to our fear is to beat up those who are not only our true enemies, but anyone else who is weaker, different, or possesses something which we covet. He is dangerous.

To the point of advocating for war crimes, i.e., "taking out" the families of the terrorists. Example: His statements that the 9/11 terrorists were willing to sacrifice their lives, but they first sent their wives back to the mideast so they could watch on TV the fall of the Twin Towers with glee. "We need to take them out."   :o

Not being knowledgeable about these things, can there be such a thing as "war crimes" against those acting as individuals (rather than as government agents, such as a military)? 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 11:18:09 AM
Trump's suggestion is that the gov't/military "take them out." Unless you or someone else would be going over there to do so. But then in history individuals certainly have been charged with, convicted of, and executed for war crimes, as agents of a gov't.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven W Bohler on December 10, 2015, 12:17:22 PM
Trump's suggestion is that the gov't/military "take them out." Unless you or someone else would be going over there to do so. But then in history individuals certainly have been charged with, convicted of, and executed for war crimes, as agents of a gov't.

So it would be a war crime because of who carried it out, regardless of the victim or there not being any declared war against another sovereign government/nation? 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 12:18:48 PM
Trump's suggestion is that the gov't/military "take them out." Unless you or someone else would be going over there to do so. But then in history individuals certainly have been charged with, convicted of, and executed for war crimes, as agents of a gov't.

So it would be a war crime because of who carried it out, regardless of the victim or there not being any declared war against another sovereign government/nation?

No.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven W Bohler on December 10, 2015, 12:20:16 PM
Trump's suggestion is that the gov't/military "take them out." Unless you or someone else would be going over there to do so. But then in history individuals certainly have been charged with, convicted of, and executed for war crimes, as agents of a gov't.

So it would be a war crime because of who carried it out, regardless of the victim or there not being any declared war against another sovereign government/nation?

No.

I guess I am just not getting this.  What is it that defines something as being a war crime (as opposed to just an ordinary crime, like inciting murder)?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 12:30:50 PM
Trump's suggestion is that the gov't/military "take them out." Unless you or someone else would be going over there to do so. But then in history individuals certainly have been charged with, convicted of, and executed for war crimes, as agents of a gov't.

So it would be a war crime because of who carried it out, regardless of the victim or there not being any declared war against another sovereign government/nation?

No.

I guess I am just not getting this.  What is it that defines something as being a war crime (as opposed to just an ordinary crime, like inciting murder)?

An interesting concept, that if one does not declare war on, e.g., ISIS, one is not bound by the terms of the Geneva Convention and can then torture captives and otherwise treat them inhumanely, can invade and kill the combatants' families with impunity, etc. IOW, there would be no war crimes.

My assumption was a declared war. Perhaps Mr. Trump is not making that assumption. If the above is true, then his statement to "take out" the families is simply hateful, evil, murderous, and asinine.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven W Bohler on December 10, 2015, 12:53:02 PM
Can a nation declare war on ISIS?  It is not a nation or government, is it?  And is a nation bound to the Geneva Convention if its opponent refuses to abide by it?  All that aside, it would seem that if our nation sinks to the same level as the terrorists and engages in the same practices we abhor their utilizing, then what is the point of fighting them?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 01:16:15 PM
No argument here.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 02:39:56 PM
Trump's suggestion is that the gov't/military "take them out." Unless you or someone else would be going over there to do so. But then in history individuals certainly have been charged with, convicted of, and executed for war crimes, as agents of a gov't.

So it would be a war crime because of who carried it out, regardless of the victim or there not being any declared war against another sovereign government/nation?

No.

I guess I am just not getting this.  What is it that defines something as being a war crime (as opposed to just an ordinary crime, like inciting murder)?


First, nation states together have by treaty and custom created the "law of armed conflict."  If you want to dive into its details, here's a good place to start. (https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law)


Second, in general, the law of armed conflict imposes obligations on nation states, not on individuals.  Whether an individual American (for example) would be criminally liable for an action depends not on the law of armed conflict but on US criminal law.  As it happens, US law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441) does impose criminal penalties on people who violate some provisions of international law of armed conflict.


Third, the law of armed conflict does apply whether or not a country has formally declared war.


Fourth, the law of armed conflict was created by nation states for a world in which nation states would be the enemy combatants.  To a non-trivial extent, non-state actors have emerged that don't fit easily into the paradigm envisioned by the law of armed conflict.  To confuse matters further, entities such as al Qaeda and Da'ish (i.e., ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State) reject international law as external to Islamic law and therefore both illegitimate and inapplicable.  So what law applies to action against these groups?  The law of armed conflict?  Domestic criminal law?  Something else?  Nothing at all?  The US has taken a hodgepodge approach.  In general, for example, it has accorded Geneva Convention protection to prisoners while arguing (at times, at least) that it is not obligated to do so.


Fifth, could the US declare war on a non-state actor?  Congress could do that, I suppose.  Precisely what that might mean is unclear under both international and domestic law.  In any event, as we all know, Congress since WWII has generally couched its declarations of war as authorizations of the use of military force.  To a greater or lesser extent, these purport to describe the extent to which the President may use force.  Of course, citing their authority as Commander in Chief, presidents of both parties have tended to take some liberties in construing the extent to which they are limited by an AUMF.


We could go on and on.  But that's enough for now.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 10, 2015, 02:59:45 PM
Related to this discussion is this recent discussion by Dr. Alvin Schmidt.  One of his points is that we in the west just do not understand what the Quran says specifically unless we have read it, and it is the Quran that the faithful Islamists are following. 

Assuming Dr. Schmidt's understanding is correct, how would the intelligencia of this forum propose we go about dealing with the current war the Islamists have declared on us?

http://issuesetc.org/2015/12/07/3-president-obabmas-remarks-about-islam-in-his-oval-office-address-dr-alvin-schmidt-12715/

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 03:04:06 PM
  I am concerned about Donald Trump. He's a bully and a narcisist. He appeals to the hard-coated kernel of primal evil that remains in us, that must be drowned each and every day by the Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism, and encourages us to instead nourish that kernel until it grows and devours everything that is good and true. His popularity is based in making us feel good about our anger and our hatred, and convincing us that the solution to our fear is to beat up those who are not only our true enemies, but anyone else who is weaker, different, or possesses something which we covet. He is dangerous.

However, polls are one thing. Actual votes are another. One of my hopes is that he has not won a single vote -- yet. I wait for Iowa and New Hampshire. We will know a lot more about Trump's true strength then.

(And my other hope is the reaction of leaders like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to Mr. Trump's proposal about Muslims, and that Republican leaders are very worried about Trump's popularity. They need to be.)


We all should worry.  In my opinion, Trump's popularity reflects one part of the populist revolt against long-established institutions -- government, the church, the media, etc. -- that for many decades (or longer, in some cases) have both shaped our shared culture and constrained societal excess.  His populism is not really conservative or liberal, as we've used those terms in US political discourse.  It instead is about people who (not without some justification) feel as if they have been betrayed by the institutions in which they have for so long put their trust.  Trump's supporters, BLM, and others are arguing from very different perspectives that these institutions need to be dismantled and rebuilt to achieve some vision of greatness.


Unfortunately, most of our politicians today -- from Trump to Sanders and everywhere in between -- are mixing authoritarian rhetoric with populist rhetoric to create an anti-constitutional stew that will not be good for the country over time.  They are promising action, the will of Congress or the courts be damned.  Our system only works if our leaders accept Constitutional checks-and-balances.  This means that the government will often fail to "work together to get things done."  Checks and balances make government inefficient, after all.  But gridlock is a feature, not a bug.  We all sometimes dislike this, wishing that the government would just do what we want.  But inefficiency is better than autocracy in my book.  On this score, Mr. Trump and I are in very different camps.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven W Bohler on December 10, 2015, 03:16:05 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that many (if not most) of Mr. Trump's supporters do not see gridlock.  They see a Republican party (at least in its leadership) that promises to thwart certain policies but then, once elected, does not.  My guess is that many of these Trump supporters WISH for gridlock since they see the current president pretty much doing what you decry: taking action, the will of the people (and maybe Congress), the courts, and the Constitution be damned.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 03:23:03 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 03:32:17 PM
First, nation states together have by treaty and custom created the "law of armed conflict."  If you want to dive into its details, here's a good place to start. (https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law)


Second, in general, the law of armed conflict imposes obligations on nation states, not on individuals.  Whether an individual American (for example) would be criminally liable for an action depends not on the law of armed conflict but on US criminal law.  As it happens, US law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441) does impose criminal penalties on people who violate some provisions of international law of armed conflict.


Third, the law of armed conflict does apply whether or not a country has formally declared war.


Fourth, the law of armed conflict was created by nation states for a world in which nation states would be the enemy combatants.  To a non-trivial extent, non-state actors have emerged that don't fit easily into the paradigm envisioned by the law of armed conflict.  To confuse matters further, entities such as al Qaeda and Da'ish (i.e., ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State) reject international law as external to Islamic law and therefore both illegitimate and inapplicable.  So what law applies to action against these groups?  The law of armed conflict?  Domestic criminal law?  Something else?  Nothing at all?  The US has taken a hodgepodge approach.  In general, for example, it has accorded Geneva Convention protection to prisoners while arguing (at times, at least) that it is not obligated to do so.


Fifth, could the US declare war on a non-state actor?  Congress could do that, I suppose.  Precisely what that might mean is unclear under both international and domestic law.  In any event, as we all know, Congress since WWII has generally couched its declarations of war as authorizations of the use of military force.  To a greater or lesser extent, these purport to describe the extent to which the President may use force.  Of course, citing their authority as Commander in Chief, presidents of both parties have tended to take some liberties in construing the extent to which they are limited by an AUMF.

We could go on and on.  But that's enough for now.

Thanks for this, Mr. Gale.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven W Bohler on December 10, 2015, 03:34:24 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 03:39:21 PM
Related to this discussion is this recent discussion by Dr. Alvin Schmidt.  One of his points is that we in the west just do not understand what the Quran says specifically unless we have read it, and it is the Quran that the faithful Islamists are following. 

Assuming Dr. Schmidt's understanding is correct, how would the intelligencia of this forum propose we go about dealing with the current war the Islamists have declared on us?

http://issuesetc.org/2015/12/07/3-president-obabmas-remarks-about-islam-in-his-oval-office-address-dr-alvin-schmidt-12715/ (http://issuesetc.org/2015/12/07/3-president-obabmas-remarks-about-islam-in-his-oval-office-address-dr-alvin-schmidt-12715/)

... Fletch


I am always bothered when political leaders (including Presidents Bush and Obama) presume to define a religion -- especially when they do not subscribe to that religion.  It is not for our political leaders, particularly when non-Muslims, to define true Islam.


Our political leaders instead should say that we support those of all religions who endorse the notion that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, including freedom of speech and religion.  Many Muslims fall into this category.  We should join hands in alliance with them.  We can support these Muslims in their efforts to reform Islam.  However, we cannot effect that reformation (that would be offensively presumptuous).


Of course, some people oppose our founding ideals, which drive inextricably toward rights-based democracy.  Many of these are Muslims, who rely on portions of the Quran which taken literally rule out the notion of rights-based democracy.  We should fight this perspective in all its manifestations (Islamic or otherwise).  Political Islam is not, and will never be, consistent with our founding principles.


I lived in New York in 2001.  Shortly after 9/11, my congregation hosted a series of dinners with a local imam and some people from his Mosque.  This imam was very involved in inter-faith work and on friendly terms with other religious leaders.  He and his co-religionists stated unambiguously that they rejected violence.  I believed them then and believe them now.  However, when asked whether "democracy and Islam were compatible," the imam's answer shocked us all a bit.  He paused a moment and then said that the two are compatible.  But.  He also made clear that questions resolved by the Quran and religious authorities are beyond the legitimate reach of democratic bodies.  I think that we all appreciated the honestly, but we also were surprised and more than a bit taken aback. 


By framing the issues as they have, our political leaders have made honest discussion of these issues nearly impossible.  And that's too bad.  In my view, our government's policies ought to stay out of religious issues.  But through our government, we have every right to promote and protect the inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and partially enumerated in our Constitution.   
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 03:46:30 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that many (if not most) of Mr. Trump's supporters do not see gridlock.  They see a Republican party (at least in its leadership) that promises to thwart certain policies but then, once elected, does not.  My guess is that many of these Trump supporters WISH for gridlock since they see the current president pretty much doing what you decry: taking action, the will of the people (and maybe Congress), the courts, and the Constitution be damned.


I agree.  And I understand (and to a considerable degree share) their frustration.  But Donald Trump is not the antidote.  I hope that they and the rest of us are spared from having to learn this lesson under President Trump.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 03:49:13 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?


I'm relived that you've eliminated that outrageous "would."! :)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 04:01:49 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?

Sorry, it just grates. Similar to "I would like to thank so-and-so for..." Well, then go ahead and thank them! Nobody is stopping you!

Why the subjunctive which "is an irrealis mood (one that does not refer directly to what is necessarily real.)"
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 04:03:13 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?

I'm relived that you've eliminated that outrageous "would."! :)

Goodness, we don't need to relive it!   ;)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 04:04:34 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?

I'm relived that you've eliminated that outrageous "would."! :)

Goodness, we don't need to relive it!   ;)


You better stop now or, uh, someone might accuse you of needing to have the last word. :D
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 10, 2015, 04:08:03 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?

I'm relived that you've eliminated that outrageous "would."! :)

Goodness, we don't need to relive it!   ;)


You better stop now or, uh, someone might accuse you of needing to have the last word. :D

I would like to add to that, and, or is it but, think I perhaps, maybe, however reconsider so that more horses are not let out ............  ;)

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Michael Slusser on December 10, 2015, 04:17:35 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?

I'm relived that you've eliminated that outrageous "would."! :)

Goodness, we don't need to relive it!   ;)


You better stop now or, uh, someone might accuse you of needing to have the last word. :D

I would like to add to that, and, or is it but, think I perhaps, maybe, however reconsider so that more horses are not let out ............  ;)

... Fletch
I would like to side with Pastor Bohler.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 04:20:44 PM
Except, Mr. Gale, I would suggest that... [emphasis added]

Arrgh!  Et tu, Steven?   :o

Sorry.  Should I have said: "I suggest..."?

I'm relived that you've eliminated that outrageous "would."! :)

Goodness, we don't need to relive it!   ;)


You better stop now or, uh, someone might accuse you of needing to have the last word. :D

I would like to add to that, and, or is it but, think I perhaps, maybe, however reconsider so that more horses are not let out ............  ;)

... Fletch
I would like to side with Pastor Bohler.

Peace,
Michael


 :D ;D
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 04:31:15 PM
 ;D

Like fingernails on a chalk board! Arrgh! :o The subjunctive mood* is a tip-toeing "Obama" mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzSlldIUHQ

*"A verb is in the subjunctive mood when it expresses a condition which is doubtful or not factual."

All hail the indicative!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 10, 2015, 04:55:30 PM
;D

Like fingernails on a chalk board! Arrgh! :o The subjunctive mood* is a tip-toeing "Obama" mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzSlldIUHQ

*"A verb is in the subjunctive mood when it expresses a condition which is doubtful or not factual."

All hail the indicative!

Very much not Obama very much not tip-toeing:  http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw (http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 05:05:02 PM
;D

Like fingernails on a chalk board! Arrgh! :o The subjunctive mood* is a tip-toeing "Obama" mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzSlldIUHQ

*"A verb is in the subjunctive mood when it expresses a condition which is doubtful or not factual."

All hail the indicative!

Very much not Obama very much not tip-toeing:  http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw (http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw)

Then go right ahead and remind us, Barry!

I love the line, "Good Lord, he's going to run as Barry Goldwater!"
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Michael Slusser on December 10, 2015, 05:06:10 PM
;D

Like fingernails on a chalk board! Arrgh! :o The subjunctive mood* is a tip-toeing "Obama" mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzSlldIUHQ

*"A verb is in the subjunctive mood when it expresses a condition which is doubtful or not factual."

All hail the indicative!

Very much not Obama very much not tip-toeing:  http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw (http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw)

Touché!  And the subjunctive in support of persuasion is no vice, either.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 10, 2015, 05:11:56 PM
;D

Like fingernails on a chalk board! Arrgh! :o The subjunctive mood* is a tip-toeing "Obama" mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfzSlldIUHQ

*"A verb is in the subjunctive mood when it expresses a condition which is doubtful or not factual."

All hail the indicative!

Very much not Obama very much not tip-toeing:  http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw (http://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw)

Touché!  And the subjunctive in support of persuasion is no vice, either.

Peace,
Michael

Goodness, it's not a vice! Simply a pet peeve along with the misuse of the verbs lie and lay. If you want to persuade then suggest, don't tell someone that you would suggest if you could or will suggest somewhere down the road.

Maybe I acquired an aversion in hearing those jokers who give a conditional Aaronic Benediction: "May the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord...."   :o
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on December 10, 2015, 06:33:23 PM
Can a nation declare war on ISIS?  It is not a nation or government, is it?  And is a nation bound to the Geneva Convention if its opponent refuses to abide by it?  All that aside, it would seem that if our nation sinks to the same level as the terrorists and engages in the same practices we abhor their utilizing, then what is the point of fighting them?

That depends on how "declaring war" is defined. There was, for a certain time in history, a code of international conduct regarding warfare in which an official "Declaration of War" was required to be passed by the Parliament or Congress, and delivered to the enemy country. Sometimes, though not always, there was a ritual smacking the face of the enemy's Foreign Minister or other high official with a velvet glove. In reality, as long as the branch of government that controls the pursestrings authorizes budget money to pay for the cost of combat, then the nation is at war.

The first war America fought was against the Muslim Barbary Pirates, a bunch of people with no more legal standing than ISIS has today. We waged war against various Native American nations, against the unrecognized government of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, and against the Viet Cong in Vietnam. None of those opponents were legally recognized nation-states.

As for what is and isn't terrorism, William Tecumseh Sherman's description of war is accurate. It is "terrorism" to deliberately target innocent non-combatants. But if one's enemies insist on placing bona-fide military targets in close proximity to innocent civilians to use those civilians as human shields, then there will probably be what the military euphemistically refers to as "collateral damage". A strong case can be made that the least terroristic method of using military force is to attack the enemy with such overkill and ferocity that the conflict will end quickly and peace can be restored for the survivors.

As Christians, we should desire peace. I do not know if that means we should commit what amounts to "enemy-assisted-suicide" instead of fighting back. As Christians, we should wage war humanely, and without excessive, unnecessary cruelty. The Geneva Convention is one set of orderly rules for "humane war", which is quite the oxymoron. Some provisions of the Geneva Convention are moot when the enemy is an organized force with the strength of a nation-state, but that isn't a nation-state.

As for why we fight, nations don't wage war to make a point or to prove moral superiority. Nations fight when the situation is either defeat the enemy or have the enemy defeat you. It sounds very noble and pious to declare that we won't lower ourselves to the level of our enemies. In the Kingdom of the Left, that's important. In the Kingdom of the Right, the most merciful thing to do for all concerned is to end the conflict as swiftly as possible. That means that our military must do what it does best, kill people and break things. If we could destroy the enemies supplies and munitions, we could achieve victory, and therefore peace, with minimal loss of human life. But, when the enemy's tactics include putting vests loaded with explosives onto women and children, simply destroying their weapons becomes problematical. And when the enemy can walk across the US border from Mexico with impunity, loaded with drugs to sell for funds, weapons, and explosives, the choices of what to do in order to prevent the kind of warfare we recently saw in San Bernardino become harder to face.

If there are around 1,000,000 people entering the US either illegally or as "refugees" annually, and only 2% of them are jihadis, during Obama's seven years in office turning a blind eye to Muslim terrorists, that's a force of 140,000 terrorists who can start shooting up movie theaters or shopping malls, setting IEDs made from pressure cookers at the finish line of public foot races, and otherwise wreak havoc through terror.

If we pray to God to deliver us, how do we know God won't send us a Joshua to lead us in defeat of those who wish to kill us? Clearly, our enemies are not impressed by thoughtful words or polite negotiations. When facing a Philistine giant, do you attempt to negotiate with him, or do you hit him between the eyes with a rock and then cut his head off?
Title: Trump and a Theological State of Emergency
Post by: Norman Teigen on December 15, 2015, 01:07:44 PM
http://religiondispatches.org/declaring-a-theological-state-of-emergency-trumps-ignorance-must-not-be-ours/

It is time for responsible people to distance themselves from this dangerous man.

"Not since the Nazi period has the specter of religiously-based oppression taken on such a heightened profile, with the potential for such devastating results. I believe it is a true emergency for which strong and constructive countermeasures are necessary."

Title: Re: Trump and a Theological State of Emergency
Post by: Voelker on December 15, 2015, 02:08:30 PM
http://religiondispatches.org/declaring-a-theological-state-of-emergency-trumps-ignorance-must-not-be-ours/ (http://religiondispatches.org/declaring-a-theological-state-of-emergency-trumps-ignorance-must-not-be-ours/)

It is time for responsible people to distance themselves from this dangerous man.

"Not since the Nazi period has the specter of religiously-based oppression taken on such a heightened profile, with the potential for such devastating results. I believe it is a true emergency for which strong and constructive countermeasures are necessary."
Laugh at the ridiculous, for laughter has a deflationary quality. Do not screech at the ridiculous, for that further puffs it up with hot air.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 15, 2015, 03:11:24 PM
Trump is very well regarded here...

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/14/if-trump-doesnt-win-a-primary-does-that-mean-the-vote-is-rigged/
Title: Re: Trump and a Theological State of Emergency
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 15, 2015, 03:27:25 PM
http://religiondispatches.org/declaring-a-theological-state-of-emergency-trumps-ignorance-must-not-be-ours/

It is time for responsible people to distance themselves from this dangerous man.

"Not since the Nazi period has the specter of religiously-based oppression taken on such a heightened profile, with the potential for such devastating results. I believe it is a true emergency for which strong and constructive countermeasures are necessary."

I've heard that sort of thing before from the likes of Dr. Hunt ("feminist theologian" and "Roman Catholic active in the women-church movement, ... with particular attention to liberation issues"), particularly with regard to the candidacy of Pat Robertson (he actually won primaries in 1988) and just about any other openly believing Evangelical conservative (hardly a good description of Trump, but any foil will do) seeking major elective office.  The hazards, I suppose, of being at the GTU in Berkeley 1988-92 and also remembering what these people say every 4 years of those less enlightened ("Wolf!! Wolf!!") than they think they are.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: RDPreus on December 15, 2015, 03:27:56 PM
I finally figured it out.  The Donald Trump phenomenon is a conservative plot.  Once mainstream Republicans start to think that this guy could actually win they will be more hospitable to a man like Ted Cruz who would normally be considered too conservative.  A good plan.  And it just might work.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on December 15, 2015, 03:49:41 PM
Let's say Donald Trump comes in a close second at the Republican National Convention.  Wouldn't he run as a third party candidate?
Let's say somebody else comes in a close second to Donald Trump at the RNC.   Wouldn't that person run as a third party candidate?

Isn't the damage already done when it comes to the Republican candidates?


Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 15, 2015, 04:29:15 PM
Let's say Donald Trump comes in a close second at the Republican National Convention.  Wouldn't he run as a third party candidate?
Let's say somebody else comes in a close second to Donald Trump at the RNC.   Wouldn't that person run as a third party candidate?

Isn't the damage already done when it comes to the Republican candidates?


Dave Benke
No, most of them pledged to support the nominee...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Matt Hummel on December 15, 2015, 05:17:47 PM
Let's say Donald Trump comes in a close second at the Republican National Convention.  Wouldn't he run as a third party candidate?
Let's say somebody else comes in a close second to Donald Trump at the RNC.   Wouldn't that person run as a third party candidate?

Isn't the damage already done when it comes to the Republican candidates?


Dave Benke

Hence the thought that Trunmp is helping Him & Bill as Perot did. Only Perot's motivation was a real hatred of Bush the Elder.Trump has probably been promised something nice. Secretary of Reality TV?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 15, 2015, 06:32:35 PM
Let's say Donald Trump comes in a close second at the Republican National Convention.  Wouldn't he run as a third party candidate?
Let's say somebody else comes in a close second to Donald Trump at the RNC.   Wouldn't that person run as a third party candidate?

Isn't the damage already done when it comes to the Republican candidates?


It is very, very, very difficult to run as a third-party or independent candidate, largely because the system is rigged to keep any off the ballot.  In fact, in most states, it is harder now (and frightfully more expensive) to get on the ballot than it was when Ross Perot ran in 1992.  Granted, like Perot, Trump probably has the financial resources to pull it off, so he may be tempted.  But I don't see how it would be possible if he waited until after the Convention in July, unless he aimed only for enough big Electoral College states to throw the election into the House of Representatives.  None of the other Republican candidates have a chance with a 3rd party or independent candidacy.

As for "damage" to Republican candidates, at this point we dependent upon pundits and pollsters -- and the latter at a time where all the proven techniques are out the window.  No one really has any idea until people actually start voting, and that doesn't start until February.

spt+
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on December 15, 2015, 06:40:28 PM
Donald Trump has not received a vote from anyone--and the votes he does receive won't win anything for him.  He is a blowhard--but to call him dangerous is just silly.  He is no where near as dangerous as was Huey Long in the 1930's--who really was a danger to the Republic.  So let's not get our undergarments in a twist.  The nation works through all sorts of pretenders and even survives the incompetent's who make it through on the back of a good speech.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 15, 2015, 07:24:31 PM
Let's say Donald Trump comes in a close second at the Republican National Convention.  Wouldn't he run as a third party candidate?
Let's say somebody else comes in a close second to Donald Trump at the RNC.   Wouldn't that person run as a third party candidate?

Isn't the damage already done when it comes to the Republican candidates?


Dave Benke


It's impossible after the conventions to mount even a half-hearted third-party run.  In many states, just getting on the ballot would be impossible.


As for "damage" being "already done," I'm not sure what you're asking.  Is your point that the GOP will be hopeless divided?  That Trump somehow has tainted the other candidates?  Something else?


Whatever the question, I doubt that any damage has been done.  At least yet.  Ask again in March after votes have cast real ballots and we have a better sense as to where this is headed.  At that point, the Republicans could be in worse position.  Or better.  We shall see.


Remember, though, that Secretary Clinton is not President Obama.  In my view -- and I think that polls bear this out -- she is not all that strong a politician.  That doesn't mean that she won't win.  She is sitting in the same position as GHW Bush in 1987-88 and is probably the favorite to win right now.  But one of the several (it feels like several thousand) polls has her tied with Cruz and several points behind Rubio.  She is comfortably ahead of Trump and Carson, as I recall.  Those polls don't mean much, at this stage.  Rubio, for example, isn't all that well know.  His poll numbers probably include people who prefer a generic Republican to a well-known Clinton.  Would increased exposure help or hurt Rubio?  We don't know.  We do know, however, that once you get beyond his core supporters, nobody likes Trump.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on December 15, 2015, 07:34:25 PM
The danger of The Donald is that he panders to and thus encourages the fears and prejudices of people.  He appeals to the worst angels of people's natures.  Many people are afraid of terrorism and afraid of what the economy will do to them and their families.  These are genuine fears and need to be addressed.  President Obama did not address the very real concerns of many people when he seemed to imply that the proper way to deal with terrorism is by making climate change the first priority and that focusing on that would take care of terrorism.  And who will pay for the war on climate change (that many still doubt)?  Ordinary people already concerned about making ends meet.  This is not to say that climate change does not need to be addressed, it does, but President Obama seems somewhat detached from people's concerns.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has tapped into those fears and concerns.  That is a significant part of his appeal.  However, he resorts more to fanning those fears than reasonable solutions.  He also encourages scapegoating with moves like closing the boarders to all Muslims - over reaction to say the least.  Also not practical, of questionable utility, and absolutely useless for enlisting moderate Muslims in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism.  Muslims are the most frequent victims of radical Islamic terrorism and key in combating terrorism.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 15, 2015, 08:29:51 PM
Is anyone watching the debate tonight?

about to start...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 15, 2015, 09:21:40 PM
A president is only as dangerous as the rest of the government lets him be. Part of the frustration conservatives have with the Republican establishment is that we've given them control of both houses of Congress and yet the POTUS still rules by fiat. I believe he has issued more executive orders on contested matters with major ramifications than all Republican presidents combined, and the congress just shrugs and says, "Whay can ya' do?" Democrats, even when they're in the minority, tend not to roll over and just let Republican presidents do whatever they want. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 15, 2015, 11:09:35 PM
I don't know whether he means it.  But Trump just said without equivocation that he would not run as an independent.  That issue, therefore, seems to be off the table.



Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 16, 2015, 01:11:42 AM
I don't know whether he means it.  But Trump just said without equivocation that he would not run as an independent.  That issue, therefore, seems to be off the table.
Ditto for Dr.Carson...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on December 16, 2015, 09:54:27 AM
I find it extremely amusing that so many people complain about partisan candidates who are professional politicians, more concerned with their party than the entire nation are the same ones who have to mock the first Presidential candidate I can remember (and I'm 64 years old) who isn't a professional politician and who simply picked a party whose flag he could run under. Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot proved that a non-politician has no chance of getting elected as a third-party candidate. Finally, there is a viable candidate running with a fairly good chance of victory who isn't a professional politician, and all anyone seems to be able to do is to make jokes about the fact that he doesn't hide behind politically correct euphemisms and weasel words. In the Kingdom of the Left, we almost always are faced with selecting the least objectionable candidate from a field of choices where no one is a really good choice. Donald Trump's rhetoric isn't the kind of mealy-mouthed pablum voters, especially self-styled "intellectual" voters, seem to prefer. I have to wonder if having a certain snobbishly academic speaking style is really what should be most important in a candidate.

I wonder how many of the participants in this forum, if they lived in the Holy Land two millennia ago, would have rejected John the Baptist because he had a coarse, abrasive style of speaking and didn't come across like one of the smooth talking Pharisees.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on December 16, 2015, 10:07:47 AM
My objection to Donald Trump is not how he puts across his message (no one could have accused Martin Luther of being mealy mouthed, for example) but the message that he is putting across.  Threatening to bar all Muslims from entering the country would be disastrous on several levels.  Intentionally targeting the families of terrorists is part of the terrorist game plan.  And so on.  How he says things is not the problem so much as what he is saying.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 16, 2015, 10:32:28 AM
My objection to Donald Trump is not how he puts across his message (no one could have accused Martin Luther of being mealy mouthed, for example) but the message that he is putting across.  Threatening to bar all Muslims from entering the country would be disastrous on several levels.  Intentionally targeting the families of terrorists is part of the terrorist game plan.  And so on.  How he says things is not the problem so much as what he is saying.

My objection is both.Proposing unconstitutional actions and war crimes, and repeating them for emphasis, is not only objectionable. It feeds the reactionary anger within us.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 16, 2015, 11:10:05 AM
I don't agree with many Trump policy/operations proposals to date, and vociferously disagree with more than a few.  Inverting the order of the discussion:

1. The targeting families bloviating is way, way over the top.  The current administration's use of drones targeting alleged (no trial) terror suspects does actually kill a staggering number of "collateral damage" innocents or un-named co-conspirators and objections seem hardly heard.  Shame.  Apparently, as long as you don't target them, it isn't a war crime.  If you say you will, apparently it is a war crime.  Later judges may find both to be war crimes.

2. The temporary restriction on entry/immigration of a particular nationality, class or group of peoples until such a time as an emergency ends, or systems are in place to assure reasonable reviews is currently neither illegal nor un-Constitutional.  Mis-use seems chillingly possible.  The law needs review in Congress, and its Constitutionality or lack thereof brought forth for adjudication in Federal court - now that Trump's bombast has made the nation actually aware of it (again...).  Ignorance of the law is no excuse, someone once advised. 

The Democratic majority House and Senate passed and President Truman signed, in 1952, a Federal law stating specifically that it was legal, a power given to the President for his/her decision-making including who, how long they can be denied entry, and testing claims of religious persecution by determining the religion of applicants as well as where they came from claiming persecution. 

President Carter used this law to stop all Iranian immigration, require registering of all Iranian-nationality students then in the US, and deporting some thousands of those who were here (wait for it) illegally, during the US Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran.

The law seems rather Draconian, for emergencies only.  It invests potentially dangerously dictatorial powers in the individual who is President, and clearly opens charges of discrimination against any President who may utilize or even speak of using its powers.

I would advocate immediately beginning the revisiting of this long-standing law and revising it to eliminate potential for misuse while retaining some type of executive power where a real and present danger can be proven.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 16, 2015, 11:20:37 AM
The targeting families bloviating is way, way over the top.  The current administration's use of drones targeting alleged (no trial) terror suspects does actually kill a staggering number of "collateral damage" innocents or un-named co-conspirators and objections seem hardly heard.  Shame.  Apparently, as long as you don't target them, it isn't a war crime.  If you say you will, apparently it is a war crime.

Generally, that's the essence of a crime: intent along with an act. Of course there's the "knew or should have known" aspect.

Later judges may find both to be war crimes.

Are you serious? And what do you mean by "both"?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 16, 2015, 11:27:39 AM
Later judges may find both to be war crimes. 

Are you serious? And what do you mean by "both"?

The words "later judges may" are projection.  Those in charge in later times mold laws, not the present.  Advocating what would clearly seem to be a war crime in today's terms is seen as, at the least a hate speech crime in many countries.  So, probably not a stretch.
The world has also seen more than a few murderous national leaders (Serbia, Liberia, Chile, Cambodia - is the list endless?) eventually determined post hoc to be indictable for war crimes within their own countries. 
So, "both" or not is for the future to judge.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: SomeoneWrites on December 16, 2015, 11:28:02 AM

1. The targeting families bloviating is way, way over the top.  The current administration's use of drones targeting alleged (no trial) terror suspects does actually kill a staggering number of "collateral damage" innocents or un-named co-conspirators and objections seem hardly heard.  Shame.  Apparently, as long as you don't target them, it isn't a war crime.  If you say you will, apparently it is a war crime.  Later judges may find both to be war crimes.


Recently heard the joke

What's the difference between an ISIS meeting and a Syrian Wedding?

- I don't know either, I just fly the drone. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 16, 2015, 11:33:04 AM
Later judges may find both to be war crimes. 

Are you serious? And what do you mean by "both"?

The words "later judges may" are projection.  Those in charge in later times mold laws, not the present.  Advocating what would clearly seem to be a war crime in today's terms is seen as, at the least a hate speech crime in many countries.  So, probably not a stretch.
The world has also seen more than a few murderous national leaders (Serbia, Liberia, Chile, Cambodia - is the list endless?) eventually determined post hoc to be indictable for war crimes within their own countries. 
So, "both" or not is for the future to judge.

Oh, okay. Although I think judges already have determined that targeting families is a war crime. Collateral damage as a war crime in the future? Perhaps. Future judges also may determine that preaching a Christian sermon is a crime...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on December 17, 2015, 11:53:01 AM
Currently, the outsider Donald Trump and the insiders
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are the three top GOP candidates
in the polls.   Until the voting in Iowa, New Hampshire, and
South Carolina Primaries, polls do not mean too much.

The one reality as of this moment:  Jeb Bush needs a miracle
win in one of those states to remain relevant.  The Donald took
all the oxygen out of Jeb's campaign.  The Bush Dynasty could
be over.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 17, 2015, 11:55:00 AM

The one reality as of this moment:  Jeb Bush needs a miracle
win in one of those states to remain relevant.  The Donald took
all the oxygen out of Jeb's campaign. The Bush Dynasty could
be over.

I sure hope so...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 22, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Gotta' admit, the Donald is very entertaining----never a dull moment...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: RogerMartim on December 22, 2015, 09:20:24 PM
Donald Trump is a big embarrassment to America—even if he will end up as a sidebar.

Holding his nose up high while referencing to Hillary's bathroom necessities. He will ask King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud if he pees standing up or sitting down?

I am embarrassed that we are entertaining this clown.

And the rest of them on the slate are clowns too.

The sad thing is that I have a real issue with abortion, but I can't support those who go on this one issue at the expense of so many other important issues.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Richard Johnson on December 22, 2015, 10:13:33 PM
Yeah,  I'd say "embarrassing" comes closer to it than "entertaining."
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 22, 2015, 10:15:33 PM
He is not "interesting," Craig; as RogerMartim says, he is an embarrassment. And frightening. We have had rapscallions and thieves in high office and we have some whose brain pans aren't filled edge to edge, but this one...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 22, 2015, 10:25:53 PM
He is not "interesting," Craig; as RogerMartim says, he is an embarrassment. And frightening. We have had rapscallions and thieves in high office and we have some whose brain pans aren't filled edge to edge, but this one...
Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 22, 2015, 11:22:29 PM
He is not "interesting," Craig; as RogerMartim says, he is an embarrassment. And frightening. We have had rapscallions and thieves in high office and we have some whose brain pans aren't filled edge to edge, but this one...
I said entertaining, not interesting Pr. A...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 22, 2015, 11:23:22 PM
 He's not entertaining either, Craig.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 22, 2015, 11:58:56 PM
Yeah,  I'd say "embarrassing" comes closer to it than "entertaining."


Me too.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on December 23, 2015, 03:38:16 AM
A point that needs to be considered is why he's so popular.   He obviously addresses concerns that many people have that they don't find being addressed by other candidates.

One is his blunt speech.   We have a president who can't seem to bring himself to acknowledge that the majority of the people who are working to kill and terrorize us are Islamic.   Trump uses that to encourage fear and prejudice which he then exploits by offering himself as the candidate who will get tough on Muslims.   It won't be effective to try to counter that demagoguery by ignoring that inconvenient fact and pretending the problem is one of gun control or global climate change.  Islamic terrorism is real and needs to be addressed as such.  But surely there are ways to address it that do more than appeal to fear and prejudice.   The facts include the fact that the principle victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.   One tragedy is that the majority of Muslims have found their religion hijacked and used against them.   The fear that there are Muslims out to kill and subjugate us is real and realistic.    We need leaders who will acknowledge that but then not encourage that fear and pander to prejudice but lead us  to counter the extremists.   But that will be hard, demagoguery is much easier.

Trump pretends to be a leader by finding a groundswell of fear and prejudice,  egging it on to become a mob (or mob mentality);and then pretending to lead it towards where it naturally wants to go. We need leaders who will address those fears and channel them in constructive directions.  To appeal to the better angels of our nature.  To say to Trump's impractical, harsh but appealing quick fixes, that we're better than that.

The fears of many Americans, of terrorism,  of economic failure, of crime, and the prejudices that grow from those fears are real and will be addressed one way or another.   There has got to be a better way than Trump.   But ignoring them, or trying to shame them away is not that way.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 23, 2015, 08:28:58 AM
A point that needs to be considered is why he's so popular.   He obviously addresses concerns that many people have that they don't find being addressed by other candidates.

One is his blunt speech.   We have a president who can't seem to bring himself to acknowledge that the majority of the people who are working to kill and terrorize us are Islamic.   Trump uses that to encourage fear and prejudice which he then exploits by offering himself as the candidate who will get tough on Muslims.   It won't be effective to try to counter that demagoguery by ignoring that inconvenient fact and pretending the problem is one of gun control or global climate change.  Islamic terrorism is real and needs to be addressed as such.  But surely there are ways to address it that do more than appeal to fear and prejudice.   The facts include the fact that the principle victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.   One tragedy is that the majority of Muslims have found their religion hijacked and used against them.   The fear that there are Muslims out to kill and subjugate us is real and realistic.    We need leaders who will acknowledge that but then not encourage that fear and pander to prejudice but lead us  to counter the extremists.   But that will be hard, demagoguery is much easier.

Trump pretends to be a leader by finding a groundswell of fear and prejudice,  egging it on to become a mob (or mob mentality);and then pretending to lead it towards where it naturally wants to go. We need leaders who will address those fears and channel them in constructive directions.  To appeal to the better angels of our nature.  To say to Trump's impractical, harsh but appealing quick fixes, that we're better than that.

The fears of many Americans, of terrorism,  of economic failure, of crime, and the prejudices that grow from those fears are real and will be addressed one way or another.   There has got to be a better way than Trump.   But ignoring them, or trying to shame them away is not that way.

It could also be that Trump does a good job of telling the lies that a significant percentage of our population would like to believe our true.  From that perspective, he is not an embarrassment to our country.  He's just the catalyst that makes it possible for us to do it to ourselves.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John_Hannah on December 23, 2015, 08:49:47 AM
Maybe he's simply a mole from the Democratic Party. He's certainly doing them a lot of good. This in the year that really is the Republican "turn" at the White House.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 23, 2015, 08:57:12 AM
Maybe he's simply a mole from the Democratic Party. He's certainly doing them a lot of good. This in the year that really is the Republican "turn" at the White House.

I would like to see a public servant's turn in the White House.  However, the electorate has done a pretty job of saying we do not want one.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 23, 2015, 09:50:31 AM
Maybe he's simply a mole from the Democratic Party. He's certainly doing them a lot of good. This in the year that really is the Republican "turn" at the White House.

I would like to see a public servant's turn in the White House.  However, the electorate has done a pretty job of saying we do not want one.


I agree with you here, John, we as a nation are no longer looking for a "servant" but a "fuhrer". Very dangerous distinction....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 23, 2015, 10:59:44 AM
Maybe he's simply a mole from the Democratic Party. He's certainly doing them a lot of good. This in the year that really is the Republican "turn" at the White House.


You might be right.  You're certainly right that this is the conventional wisdom.  But conventional wisdom has looked less than wise over the last few months. 


I still don't think that Trump will be the nominee.  And yet, I've thought all along that he was on the verge of losing all his support.  So this may be more unwise conventional wisdom.  In any event, if Trump does not win the nomination, I don't think that he'll be much of a factor next November. 


No matter who wins either nomination, I think that we (who in some sense are among the "establishment," I suppose) all risk failing the understand the frustration among many, many voters.  You see it in many Trump supporters.  You see it in Black Lives Matter.  You see it in Sanders voters.  Many of these people do not hold traditional liberal or conservative views.  They instead are fed up with the cabal of powerful elites who run big government, big business, big labor, big Wall Street interests, etc.  Not everyone apportions blame in the same way among these power blocs (some, for example, see big business as the main problem, some blame big government, and some blame all the groups equally).  However, they share a sense that they are being deprived of a fair shot at success.  They feel as if their leaders have either lied to them or are just too weak to make a difference.


At this point, I don't know how this dynamic will assert itself between now and next November.  But for the first time in a long time, the chances for surprise and upheaval of the settled order seem real. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John_Hannah on December 23, 2015, 11:44:05 AM
Maybe he's simply a mole from the Democratic Party. He's certainly doing them a lot of good. This in the year that really is the Republican "turn" at the White House.


You might be right.  You're certainly right that this is the conventional wisdom.  But conventional wisdom has looked less than wise over the last few months. 


I still don't think that Trump will be the nominee.  And yet, I've thought all along that he was on the verge of losing all his support.  So this may be more unwise conventional wisdom.  In any event, if Trump does not win the nomination, I don't think that he'll be much of a factor next November. 


No matter who wins either nomination, I think that we (who in some sense are among the "establishment," I suppose) all risk failing the understand the frustration among many, many voters.  You see it in many Trump supporters.  You see it in Black Lives Matter.  You see it in Sanders voters.  Many of these people do not hold traditional liberal or conservative views.  They instead are fed up with the cabal of powerful elites who run big government, big business, big labor, big Wall Street interests, etc.  Not everyone apportions blame in the same way among these power blocs (some, for example, see big business as the main problem, some blame big government, and some blame all the groups equally).  However, they share a sense that they are being deprived of a fair shot at success.  They feel as if their leaders have either lied to them or are just too weak to make a difference.


At this point, I don't know how this dynamic will assert itself between now and next November.  But for the first time in a long time, the chances for surprise and upheaval of the settled order seem real.

Agree.   :)

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on December 23, 2015, 01:03:24 PM
Here's a stat that left me in the dark:  According to the poll, 46% of Republican voters said Republicans would have a better chance to win the 2016 election with Trump as the nominee.

How does that work?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 23, 2015, 01:40:59 PM
"Our" Mollie.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/10-stupidest-things-about-the-posts-cartoon-portraying-cruzs-children-as-monkeys/
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on December 23, 2015, 01:43:47 PM
"Our" Mollie.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/10-stupidest-things-about-the-posts-cartoon-portraying-cruzs-children-as-monkeys/

Yes. My belief is that there will be a coming together of various factions in the Republican party behind Ted Cruz as the alternative to The Donald. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 23, 2015, 02:05:13 PM
Yeah,  I'd say "embarrassing" comes closer to it than "entertaining."

Me too.

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 23, 2015, 02:09:18 PM
Yeah,  I'd say "embarrassing" comes closer to it than "entertaining."

Me too.

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)

The term "American Exceptionalism" was apparently first known to be used by Josef Stalin as a derisive rejoinder to most things American, back in the day.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 23, 2015, 02:51:03 PM
Yeah,  I'd say "embarrassing" comes closer to it than "entertaining."

Me too.

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)

The term "American Exceptionalism" was apparently first known to be used by Josef Stalin as a derisive rejoinder to most things American, back in the day.

And the term "Lutheran" also was first known to be used by Johann Eck as a derisive one against Luther.

I find neither embarrassing.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 23, 2015, 02:58:58 PM
Yeah,  I'd say "embarrassing" comes closer to it than "entertaining."

Me too.

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)

The term "American Exceptionalism" was apparently first known to be used by Josef Stalin as a derisive rejoinder to most things American, back in the day.

And the term "Lutheran" also was first known to be used by Johann Eck as a derisive one against Luther.

I find neither embarrassing.

I agree.  Just the facts, 'mam sir!
Sometimes those that deride, ridicule or degrade others provide both the best incentive to their foes, and also demonstrate the weakness that leads to their folly.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 07:30:57 AM

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)

How does Trump's popularity demonstrate American exceptionalism?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 24, 2015, 09:34:22 AM

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)

How does Trump's popularity demonstrate American exceptionalism?

No one said it does. Same ole, same ole, Mr. Mundinger.

Perhaps in the new year you could come up with some new fallacies rather than the same boring ones?   ;)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 09:43:24 AM

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)

How does Trump's popularity demonstrate American exceptionalism?

No one said it does. Same ole, same ole, Mr. Mundinger.

Perhaps in the new year you could come up with some new fallacies rather than the same boring ones?   ;)

For you I'll pose the question a little differently.  What is it about America that makes us "exceptional"?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 24, 2015, 10:08:46 AM
For you I'll pose the question a little differently.  What is it about America that makes us "exceptional"?

Start by defining the term in a way that most people may have learned it.  Two versions, since citing one of anything on this Forum seems to always be called out as the wrong one by parties to the conversation:

Free Dictionary:
"
ex·cep·tion·al·ism , n. 
1.  The condition of being exceptional or unique.
2.  The theory or belief that something, especially a nation, does not conform to a pattern or norm."

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.
"exceptionalism , n.
1.  (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an attitude to other countries, cultures, etc based on the idea of being quite distinct from, and often superior to, them in vital ways."

Also helping a discussion such as this, if it occurs, is considering "exceptionalism" as seen by citizens, inhabitants, original peoples, and/or history of other nations and states.  All have shared such claims, including contemporaneous ones.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 24, 2015, 10:10:32 AM

The media love him.

And, as the Founding Fathers knew, the problem with democracy is that all the people, and not just the wise and/or intelligent, get to elect those who hold office.

Embarrassing?  I find it rather funny that most of those embarrassed by Trump are also embarrassed about "American exceptionalism."  They want the US to be like other nations.  Well, here's your chance!

 ::)

How does Trump's popularity demonstrate American exceptionalism?

No one said it does. Same ole, same ole, Mr. Mundinger.

Perhaps in the new year you could come up with some new fallacies rather than the same boring ones?   ;)

For you I'll pose the question a little differently.  What is it about America that makes us "exceptional"?


How about "a constitution deliberately written to limit power"? We were the only country in human history with that notion deliberately embraced from the founding, so much so, that there was some necessary tweaking involved to come up with a government that could actually function. And even in the tweaking more limits to power were established by passage of the Bill of Rights.


Lou


Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 24, 2015, 10:36:10 AM
Here's a touch of rising exceptionalism elsewhere, and perhaps a harbinger for areas of or entire closer nations:
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6710149/2015/12/23/bruneis-sultan-bans-christmas-hardline-shift
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 24, 2015, 10:38:12 AM
Another sign of "American Exceptionalism" - hard to find this possible in almost any other nation on earth, in several ways:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/23/statement-president-persecuted-christians-christmas
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 10:39:29 AM
For you I'll pose the question a little differently.  What is it about America that makes us "exceptional"?

Start by defining the term in a way that most people may have learned it.  Two versions, since citing one of anything on this Forum seems to always be called out as the wrong one by parties to the conversation:

Free Dictionary:
"
ex·cep·tion·al·ism , n. 
1.  The condition of being exceptional or unique.
2.  The theory or belief that something, especially a nation, does not conform to a pattern or norm."

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.
"exceptionalism , n.
1.  (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an attitude to other countries, cultures, etc based on the idea of being quite distinct from, and often superior to, them in vital ways."

Also helping a discussion such as this, if it occurs, is considering "exceptionalism" as seen by citizens, inhabitants, original peoples, and/or history of other nations and states.  All have shared such claims, including contemporaneous ones.

The second definition certainly applies.  We do make that claim about ourselves.  But, I'd suggest that it is contradicted by the first.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 10:43:55 AM
How about "a constitution deliberately written to limit power"? We were the only country in human history with that notion deliberately embraced from the founding, so much so, that there was some necessary tweaking involved to come up with a government that could actually function. And even in the tweaking more limits to power were established by passage of the Bill of Rights.

From the outset, our Constitution has limited power to the wealthy who already have the power.  That's pretty much how it works in most countries.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 10:47:22 AM
Another sign of "American Exceptionalism" - hard to find this possible in almost any other nation on earth, in several ways:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/23/statement-president-persecuted-christians-christmas

I'm guessing that the majority of Americans who hold dearly to the notion of American Exceptionalism hold the President who shared that statement in very low regard.  And, in the process, they provide a little more evidence that suggests we are not all than exceptional.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 24, 2015, 11:35:35 AM
How about "a constitution deliberately written to limit power"? We were the only country in human history with that notion deliberately embraced from the founding, so much so, that there was some necessary tweaking involved to come up with a government that could actually function. And even in the tweaking more limits to power were established by passage of the Bill of Rights.

From the outset, our Constitution has limited power to the wealthy who already have the power.  That's pretty much how it works in most countries.


So much cynicism, so much pain. Even on Christmas.


Jesus takes away the sin of the world. God bless you John.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 24, 2015, 11:44:10 AM
Worth watching, all 6 minutes of it. It's from the HBO series "Newsroom" and the anchor, Will MacAvoy, is at a college panel discussion. The questions are about "American greatness." And his answer is brilliant. That's his producer in the audience who holds up the sign reminding him that this isn't the greatest country in the world. Worth watching, all six minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Boris on December 24, 2015, 12:26:59 PM
Worth watching, all 6 minutes of it. It's from the HBO series "Newsroom" and the anchor, Will MacAvoy, is at a college panel discussion. The questions are about "American greatness." And his answer is brilliant. That's his producer in the audience who holds up the sign reminding him that this isn't the greatest country in the world. Worth watching, all six minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c

I really enjoyed it.  Thanks for posting this.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on December 24, 2015, 01:18:59 PM
How about "a constitution deliberately written to limit power"? We were the only country in human history with that notion deliberately embraced from the founding, so much so, that there was some necessary tweaking involved to come up with a government that could actually function. And even in the tweaking more limits to power were established by passage of the Bill of Rights.

From the outset, our Constitution has limited power to the wealthy who already have the power.  That's pretty much how it works in most countries.


So much cynicism, so much pain. Even on Christmas.


Jesus takes away the sin of the world. God bless you John.


Lou

I don't think that Mr. Mundinger's theologucal construct would lead him to pain or cynicism. After all, those who join to enact any constitution, like those who join to form any marriage (however defined), are sin-filled. Thus (and I've never quite followed this part of his theory), all marriages (and constitutions, presumably) are equally worthy of celebration.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 01:26:49 PM
So much cynicism, so much pain.

Cynicism - perhaps.  Pain - no.  Realism - for sure.

Jesus takes away the sin of the world.

I think you and for sure others have asked me how it is possible for our country to confess its sins.  If our country cannot confess its sin, how can Jesus take them away?

God bless you John.

Thanks and may God also bless you.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 01:33:47 PM
I don't think that Mr. Mundinger's theologucal construct would lead him to pain or cynicism.

I have difficulty understanding how some Lutherans embrace a theological construct that is so dismissive of the consequences of original sin in their own lives.

After all, those who join to enact any constitution, like those who join to form any marriage (however defined), are sin-filled.

Our constitution is a human construct.  The founders were not exempt from original sin.  Some of them were not even Christian.  How is it possible that the document, and even more so its implementation, not be tainted by sin?

Thus (and I've never quite followed this part of his theory), all marriages (and constitutions, presumably) are equally worthy of celebration.

I have never asserted anything about "celebration", equally worthy or otherwise.   Thus, there is nothing to "follow".
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 24, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Cynicism - perhaps.  Pain - no.  Realism - for sure.
...
I think you and for sure others have asked me how it is possible for our country to confess its sins.  If our country cannot confess its sin, how can Jesus take them away

1.  “A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is prematurely disappointed in the future.” (Sydney Harris)
Is this your vantage point?

2.  According to Scripture, how are the sins of an inanimate, man-created thing confessed and repented?

May God bless you with a Christmas joyful in the Lord (...and "tight lines" for the New Year, of course...).
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 01:47:12 PM
1.  “A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past; he is prematurely disappointed in the future.” (Sydney Harris)

If that is the functional definition of cynic, then I am not a cynic. 

According to Scripture, how are the sins of an inanimate, man-created thing confessed and repented?

They aren't confessed by the inanimate.  That, however, does not let the individual members of the electorate nor those whom they elect to office off the hook.

May God bless you with a Christmas joyful in the Lord (...and "tight lines" for the New Year, of course...).

Thanks.  You likewise.  And, may all your flies be dry.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 24, 2015, 01:50:23 PM
...And, may all your flies be dry. 

Pray for all those heterodox (or are they heretical) nymphers!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 24, 2015, 01:56:06 PM
...And, may all your flies be dry. 

Pray for all those heterodox (or are they heretical) nymphers!

Nymphing is not heterodox - it's dry fly fishing at the bottom of the water column. ;) (and, unfortunately, about the only way to get into fish on the Missouri when there is not an active hatch).
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on December 25, 2015, 10:05:21 PM
How about "a constitution deliberately written to limit power"? We were the only country in human history with that notion deliberately embraced from the founding, so much so, that there was some necessary tweaking involved to come up with a government that could actually function. And even in the tweaking more limits to power were established by passage of the Bill of Rights.

From the outset, our Constitution has limited power to the wealthy who already have the power.  That's pretty much how it works in most countries.

That his total hogwash. The Constitution does not limit power to the wealthy. However, those with power and influence general tend to rise to positions of leadership. What makes America unique is that instead of an aristocracy with inherited power, we have a meritocracy, where those who are both clever and diligent achieve power. Yes, it's never equal. Yes, some second and third generations of people have inherited wealth and power. Even then, it's no guarantee of success.

As much as I detest his politics and lack of accomplishments, the current President of the United States achieved the highest office in the land despite no inherited wealth, an education paid for by pretending to be qualified for aid as a foreign student, college and university degrees from institutions where no one on the faculty can remember him every being in classes, a career as a "community organizer" (whatever that is!) that resulted in communities no better organized after he moved on than they were when he started, a succession of elective offices where he seldom showed up to vote and never sponsored a single important piece of legislation, and suddenly he's President and a millionaire! So tell me how the deck is stacked in favor of the wealthy who already have power.

Or take Bill and Hillary Clinton. Neither one ever had a serious private sector job to amass any wealth from. Bill was Governor of Arkansas and Hillary had an honorary position at a law firm so they could put her name on the letterhead. They managed to achieve a great deal of political power, and got filthy rich AFTER Bill got elected first as Arkansas Governor then as President of the United States. Again, tell me (heck, tell us all!) how the Clintons managed to get started in politics without any wealth, and then amassed a huge fortune as "honest" public servants.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 25, 2015, 10:49:35 PM
Worth watching, all 6 minutes of it. It's from the HBO series "Newsroom" and the anchor, Will MacAvoy, is at a college panel discussion. The questions are about "American greatness." And his answer is brilliant. That's his producer in the audience who holds up the sign reminding him that this isn't the greatest country in the world. Worth watching, all six minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c
Old, tired, trite, and basically nonsense. Pray tell, what is the greatest country on earth, and why?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 25, 2015, 11:08:15 PM
There doesn't have to be a "greatest country on earth," Peter. But there should be a shot of realism for those who can't stop blowing the horns and sounding the gongs saying that we are.
And if you find it "nonsense" that we trail other countries in the world in things like infant mortality, care for the elderly, providing medical benefits to everyone and other "measurements," then I don't know what to say to you. (But then, I never know what to say to your views.)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 25, 2015, 11:12:25 PM
Worth watching, all 6 minutes of it. It's from the HBO series "Newsroom" and the anchor, Will MacAvoy, is at a college panel discussion. The questions are about "American greatness." And his answer is brilliant. That's his producer in the audience who holds up the sign reminding him that this isn't the greatest country in the world. Worth watching, all six minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c)
Old, tired, trite, and basically nonsense. Pray tell, what is the greatest country on earth, and why?


According to my son (because I never watched it) the HBO show was old, tired, trite, and basically nonsense. However, this speech indicates factual truths about our nation. Based on most criteria of being "great," we are not number 1.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 26, 2015, 01:43:12 AM
There doesn't have to be a "greatest country on earth," Peter. But there should be a shot of realism for those who can't stop blowing the horns and sounding the gongs saying that we are.
And if you find it "nonsense" that we trail other countries in the world in things like infant mortality, care for the elderly, providing medical benefits to everyone and other "measurements," then I don't know what to say to you. (But then, I never know what to say to your views.)
At issue is what do we believe to be the purpose of the federal government. Infant mortality is a horribly skewed statistic because many nations record as stillbiths or miscarriages what we would record as infant mortality. Care for the elderly in terms of what, what the typical person does or what the government guarantees?

If any detached, unbaised observer was asked which was the greatest country on earth in 2015, they would notice that the largest economy, the strongest military, the highest standard of living, and by far the greatest harmony among the widest variety of people was the United States.

What is exceptional about The U.S. is that we are a nation founded upon a theory of government rather than a mere geographical and biological kinship. And that theory rates liberty higher than other common goods. That theory is, of course, rejected among progressive voters who think socialism is the only moral type of government. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 26, 2015, 03:46:30 AM
Peter engages in the slick tactic of easy labeling ("progressive voters" "socialism" "only moral type of government").
As for Peter's measurements, I suspect that China's economy is larger than ours (we owe them tons of money, you know), that the Russian or Chinese military may be as strong or stronger than ours (depends upon how many combatants you are willing to sacrifice), and that harmony among citizens in Canada or Switzerland (four languages, six or seven different ethnic cultures) is greater than in the U.S.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 07:54:01 AM
One is inclined to wonder why, if our country is not among the elite in the world, why foreigners have demonstrated a clear preference for owning American dollars, why we are having troubles with people trying to get into our country, why refugees seem to want to move in our direction, why when there is a revolution or civil war there is an appeal for Americans to get involved, why if there is a humanitarian crisis the UN is knocking at our door to lead in the providing the assistance--the list could probably go on.


No argument that the US is far from perfect and there are days I wish I could live in Uruguay or New Zealand, but we are seen as the world as a leader, like it or not. The Norways, Swedens, Denmarks, Switzerlands of the world can be better in some parameters largely because they do not have the responsibilities for international security and stability that they expect the US to provide.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 08:03:36 AM
At issue is what do we believe to be the purpose of the federal government....

From a Lutheran perspective, the answer to that question ought to be a no brainer.  Shouldn't it be about God's left hand and first use for the purpose of serving neighbor?

If any detached, unbaised observer was asked which was the greatest country on earth in 2015, they would notice that the largest economy, the strongest military, the highest standard of living, and by far the greatest harmony among the widest variety of people was the United States.

What does any of that have to do with being God's left hand?  If the detached, unbiased observer were Amos, I do not think you would appreciate what he had to say.

What is exceptional about The U.S. is that we are a nation founded upon a theory of government rather than a mere geographical and biological kinship. And that theory rates liberty higher than other common goods.

We do not walk that talk.

That theory is, of course, rejected among progressive voters who think socialism is the only moral type of government.

The theory has never been embraced by free-market capitalists - except to the extent they are able to exploit it for the purpose of exploiting others to achieve their selfish ends.  What is moral about that?



Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 08:29:58 AM
At issue is what do we believe to be the purpose of the federal government....

From a Lutheran perspective, the answer to that question ought to be a no brainer.  Shouldn't it be about God's left hand and first use for the purpose of serving neighbor?




Except, of course, first use is about curbing sin.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 08:34:43 AM
At issue is what do we believe to be the purpose of the federal government....

From a Lutheran perspective, the answer to that question ought to be a no brainer.  Shouldn't it be about God's left hand and first use for the purpose of serving neighbor?




Except, of course, first use is about curbing sin.


Lou

Yes, curbing sin.  And, curbing sin to what purpose?  Concern for the welfare of neighbor.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 08:37:37 AM

The theory has never been embraced by free-market capitalists - except to the extent they are able to exploit it for the purpose of exploiting others to achieve their selfish ends.  What is moral about that?


This is, of course, a straw man. I do not doubt there are free market capitalists who exploit their fellow man. But I am a "free market capitalist" who believes and acts consistent with the idea that a truly free market would be the best means possible to actually serve the neighbor what and where she needs. In the fallen world, it is demonstrably the "best" among a series of bad alternatives at actually delivering the goods.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 08:42:03 AM
At issue is what do we believe to be the purpose of the federal government....

From a Lutheran perspective, the answer to that question ought to be a no brainer.  Shouldn't it be about God's left hand and first use for the purpose of serving neighbor?




Except, of course, first use is about curbing sin.


Lou

Yes, curbing sin.  And, curbing sin to what purpose?  Concern for the welfare of neighbor.


So the neighbor can use their own time, talent, and treasure to the glory of God. A true free market of goods and services for the sake of the neighbor and the world.....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 08:53:21 AM
So the neighbor can use their own time, talent, and treasure to the glory of God. A true free market of goods and services for the sake of the neighbor and the world.....

A truly free market is all about the use of time, talent and treasure for the glory of self.  The Donald demonstrates that well and the message is appealing to a substantial percentage of the American electorate.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 08:57:24 AM
So the neighbor can use their own time, talent, and treasure to the glory of God. A true free market of goods and services for the sake of the neighbor and the world.....

A truly free market is all about the use of time, talent and treasure for the glory of self.  The Donald demonstrates that well and the message is appealing to a substantial percentage of the American electorate.


No, that is the fallen free market you love to target. I am sorry that is all you can imagine. Jesus can expand our imagination. If "the Donald" is the nominee of his party, I will be changing my registration....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 09:09:24 AM
No, that is the fallen free market you love to target. I am sorry that is all you can imagine.

Sure it is the fallen free market.  But, then, we live in a fallen world. 

Jesus can expand our imagination.

Jesus has expanded my imagination.  I imagine that the "redeemed free market" would look something like the Christian community described in Acts.  My imagination is not sufficiently broad to think we can have that kind of free market on this side of the eschaton.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 09:51:55 AM

Jesus has expanded my imagination.  I imagine that the "redeemed free market" would look something like the Christian community described in Acts.  My imagination is not sufficiently broad to think we can have that kind of free market on this side of the eschaton.


Neither do I, but that should be our hope. And the further we abandon such hope, the further we move in the wrong direction with negative consequences. The community in Acts was not coerced by any governmental agency--it cannot be legislated or mandated. A little tidbit that progressives regularly ignore in their rush to have government "serve the neighbor."


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Richard Johnson on December 26, 2015, 09:58:13 AM
The talk about imagination reminds me of a prayer in the Book of Common Prayer that I find quite beautiful:

Almighty and eternal God, so draw our hearts to you, so guide our minds, so fill our imagination, so control our wills, that we may be wholly yours, utterly dedicated to you; and then use us, we pray, as you will, and always to your glory and the welfare of all people; through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: SomeoneWrites on December 26, 2015, 10:10:14 AM
The talk about imagination reminds me of a prayer in the Book of Common Prayer that I find quite beautiful:

Almighty and eternal God, so draw our hearts to you, so guide our minds, so fill our imagination, so control our wills, that we may be wholly yours, utterly dedicated to you; and then use us, we pray, as you will, and always to your glory and the welfare of all people; through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

I think it's beautiful, but particularly frustrating when one finds the opposite happening. 

I really think there just needs to be two.
The Lord's prayer

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Prayer
Another time when the Orthodox Church hit a home run.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 10:15:41 AM
'Tis beautiful. And we are drawn, not coerced. Gospel not Law. Loved not bullied.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 10:50:25 AM
The community in Acts was not coerced by any governmental agency--it cannot be legislated or mandated. A little tidbit that progressives regularly ignore in their rush to have government "serve the neighbor."

Of course it can't be "coerced".  But, the little tidbit that conservatives regularly ignore is the reality that freedom does not result in the absence of government control.  License (distinct from freedom) results for the wealthy and powerful while the rest of society suffers.  Remember, the law in its first use is a curb.  The curb ought to prevent such excess.  The lack of government control encourages the excess to flourish and, in this country, it has.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on December 26, 2015, 11:14:53 AM
At issue is what do we believe to be the purpose of the federal government....

From a Lutheran perspective, the answer to that question ought to be a no brainer.  Shouldn't it be about God's left hand and first use for the purpose of serving neighbor?
Once again, you demonstrate that you are not opposed to a theocracy...just other people's theocracy.  As I understand Lutheran theory of the two kingdoms, you're answer is wrong.

The Founders structured government to preserve individual liberty from government tyranny.  That has nothing to do with serving one's neighbor in a Lutheran sense.  Any other opinions you may have about that are your own, but they are not the purpose for which our system of government was designed.  Note that this does NOT guarantee a happy outcome for all, and no one, the Founders included, suggests otherwise.  Just that government will not be an instrument of oppression against individuals, your hobby horses about restraining the rich and powerful notwithstanding.

But I realize that some consider government "oppressive" if allows wealth to be unevenly distributed.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on December 26, 2015, 11:21:06 AM
The community in Acts was not coerced by any governmental agency--it cannot be legislated or mandated. A little tidbit that progressives regularly ignore in their rush to have government "serve the neighbor."

Of course it can't be "coerced".  But, the little tidbit that conservatives regularly ignore is the reality that freedom does not result in the absence of government control.  License (distinct from freedom) results for the wealthy and powerful while the rest of society suffers.  Remember, the law in its first use is a curb.  The curb ought to prevent such excess.  The lack of government control encourages the excess to flourish and, in this country, it has.
Again, I fear your tyrannical theocracy.  Antithetical to liberty.  In the abstract, not much difference to sharia, just kinder and gentler.  Down the path Calvinism, I suppose (as others have noted).   Man can be perfected through the right sort of government.  Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking will be as quickly rewarded.

It's a straw man to suggest that conservatives advocate for an absence of government control.  The problem is what you would have government control.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 11:25:53 AM
The community in Acts was not coerced by any governmental agency--it cannot be legislated or mandated. A little tidbit that progressives regularly ignore in their rush to have government "serve the neighbor."

Of course it can't be "coerced".  But, the little tidbit that conservatives regularly ignore is the reality that freedom does not result in the absence of government control.  License (distinct from freedom) results for the wealthy and powerful while the rest of society suffers.  Remember, the law in its first use is a curb.  The curb ought to prevent such excess.  The lack of government control encourages the excess to flourish and, in this country, it has.


Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 11:30:30 AM
Once again, you demonstrate that you are not opposed to a theocracy...

Not true.  I do not think any government in this age ought to be grounded in the Lutheran Confessions.  I am only trying to understand whether and, if so, how Scripture and the Confessions inform individual Lutheran's understanding of responsible citizenship.

The Founders structured government to preserve individual liberty from government tyranny.

The founders structured government to preserve the individual liberties of white, land-holding men.  It has taken us more than 2 centuries to come to the realization that the principles articulated in the Constitution really ought to preserve individual liberties for all citizens - irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. etc.  It is very curious that the phrase, "defense of liberty", is used to oppose the efforts to extend Constitutional protections to the classes of people who traditionally have been marginalized because the Constitution, historically, has not provided them such protections.

But I realize that some consider government "oppressive" if allows wealth to be unevenly distributed.

Government is not oppressive when it allows for uneven wealth distribution.  It is oppressive when government facilitates uneven wealth distribution.  Our government has done a much better job of serving those who benefit from uneven wealth distribution than it has in serving those who are the victims of it.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 11:32:08 AM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 11:53:27 AM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 11:57:14 AM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 12:03:14 PM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Rather a narrow view of the options available to me....



What do you prefer?


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 12:47:45 PM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Rather a narrow view of the options available to me....



What do you prefer?


Lou

It is a narrow view of options because oligarchy is the only predictable outcome in a society which favors a privileged few. 

Personally, I'd prefer a society which walks its talks and makes amends for the consequences of our failure to do so.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 12:52:29 PM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Rather a narrow view of the options available to me....



What do you prefer?


Lou

It is a narrow view of options because oligarchy is the only predictable outcome in a society which favors a privileged few. 

Personally, I'd prefer a society which walks its talks and makes amends for the consequences of our failure to do so.


Nobody here is arguing with that.... The devil is in how to get there without privileging a few...


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 02:49:14 PM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Rather a narrow view of the options available to me....



What do you prefer?


Lou

It is a narrow view of options because oligarchy is the only predictable outcome in a society which favors a privileged few. 

Personally, I'd prefer a society which walks its talks and makes amends for the consequences of our failure to do so.


Nobody here is arguing with that.... The devil is in how to get there without privileging a few...


Lou

The devil is that, if you privilege a few, you can't get there.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 03:05:29 PM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Rather a narrow view of the options available to me....



What do you prefer?


Lou

It is a narrow view of options because oligarchy is the only predictable outcome in a society which favors a privileged few. 

Personally, I'd prefer a society which walks its talks and makes amends for the consequences of our failure to do so.


Nobody here is arguing with that.... The devil is in how to get there without privileging a few...


Lou

The devil is that, if you privilege a few, you can't get there.


So you prefer anarchy? There is no system that does not privilege a few.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 03:19:01 PM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Rather a narrow view of the options available to me....



What do you prefer?


Lou

It is a narrow view of options because oligarchy is the only predictable outcome in a society which favors a privileged few. 

Personally, I'd prefer a society which walks its talks and makes amends for the consequences of our failure to do so.


Nobody here is arguing with that.... The devil is in how to get there without privileging a few...


Lou

The devil is that, if you privilege a few, you can't get there.


So you prefer anarchy? There is no system that does not privilege a few.


Lou

If America really were exceptional, anarchy would work just fine.

I would prefer a system in which we were committed to actually living according to the values that punctuate our political rhetoric.  And, given the reality that the system will always privilege a few, acceptance of the reality that regulation is essential to buffer the consequences of privilege.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 26, 2015, 04:05:22 PM
Well, I will grant you one thing--equal opportunity license.

It is hardly equal opportunity license when only a favored few have the capacity to take advantage of it.


Better few than all....


Lou

Only if you prefer oligarchy.
Rather a narrow view of the options available to me....



What do you prefer?


Lou

It is a narrow view of options because oligarchy is the only predictable outcome in a society which favors a privileged few. 

Personally, I'd prefer a society which walks its talks and makes amends for the consequences of our failure to do so.


Nobody here is arguing with that.... The devil is in how to get there without privileging a few...


Lou

The devil is that, if you privilege a few, you can't get there.


So you prefer anarchy? There is no system that does not privilege a few.


Lou

If America really were exceptional, anarchy would work just fine.

I would prefer a system in which we were committed to actually living according to the values that punctuate our political rhetoric.  And, given the reality that the system will always privilege a few, acceptance of the reality that regulation is essential to buffer the consequences of privilege.

God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

...Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 04:46:44 PM

If America really were exceptional, anarchy would work just fine.




Ah, now we agree, the government that works best is the one that works least. If we really were approaching Godliness, the need for government would simply dissipate. The fact that we seem to need ever more governance is simply a sign that we are becoming ever more wicked. More government is the surest mark of increasing sinfulness.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 07:29:49 PM
God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

God's system is intended to privilege each the same.  We have the option to reject the privilege.

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate.  Scripture has strong words against that kind of privilege.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 07:37:06 PM
Ah, now we agree, the government that works best is the one that works least.

I agree except that, we are not exceptional.  We are ungovernable.  Less government would only result in some other corrupt form for ordering society.

Given the reality of corrupt humanity, how does first use and God's left hand function without government?

The fact that we seem to need ever more governance is simply a sign that we are becoming ever more wicked. More government is the surest mark of increasing sinfulness.

I see no evidence to support the contention that we are becoming ever more wicked. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 26, 2015, 07:54:12 PM
God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

God's system is intended to privilege each the same.  We have the option to reject the privilege.

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate.  Scripture has strong words against that kind of privilege.

Scripture reference for your first statement please.  Are you implying God is not in charge of everything?  That those with wealth and power are not under God's control?

...F
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 26, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
Scripture reference for your first statement please. 

Are you mounting an argument in favor of pre-destination???????

Are you implying God is not in charge of everything?  That those with wealth and power are not under God's control?

I am not implying that God is not in charge of everything.  I am implying that those who use their wealth and power to further their own interests at the expense of those less fortunate themselves are behaving in a manner that is contrary to God's purpose.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on December 26, 2015, 08:01:56 PM
God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

God's system is intended to privilege each the same.  We have the option to reject the privilege.

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate.  Scripture has strong words against that kind of privilege.
No, just no.  What you say about free market capitalism is simply untrue.  Properly functioning free market capitalism is destructive to privilege, witness all the business models being disrupted by the internet, starting with newspaper industry.

 Again I reject your call for your theocracy.  I'm sorry you are unable to recognize what you are saying.

 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 08:19:27 PM

I see no evidence to support the contention that we are becoming ever more wicked.


The government, which is necessary you have agreed because of man's fallenness, is getting larger. If government is necessary to curb wickedness, the main reason for more government is that we are becoming more wicked whether we can see it or not.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 26, 2015, 08:33:20 PM

God's system is intended to privilege each the same. 


Scripture would seem to indicate the contrary assertion...."Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." David was favored over his brothers. The parables of the talents and the vineyard workers demonstrate that Jesus own teaching would indicate privilege. Jesus own words at Luke 12:48..."to whom much was given, much will be required" would seem to indicate a privileging of some over others. The very commandments "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" imply differential gifting, otherwise stealing and coveting are simply meaningless. The Jews are the least of all the nations and yet privileged by God that they may be a blessing to all the other nations. God blesses that we may be a blessing. The blessings are differentiated.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 26, 2015, 10:08:09 PM
God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

God's system is intended to privilege each the same.  We have the option to reject the privilege.

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate.  Scripture has strong words against that kind of privilege.

Scripture reference for your first statement please.  Are you implying God is not in charge of everything?  That those with wealth and power are not under God's control?


No, they are not under God's control. They, however, will face God's judgment, see Luke 16:19-31. If this rich man had been under God's control, he would have helped poor, sick Lazarus dying at his gate.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 26, 2015, 10:11:46 PM

I see no evidence to support the contention that we are becoming ever more wicked.


The government, which is necessary you have agreed because of man's fallenness, is getting larger. If government is necessary to curb wickedness, the main reason for more government is that we are becoming more wicked whether we can see it or not.


Yup. Sinners continually find new ways to be selfish and greedy - and then new ways of curbing have to be enacted. Sinners look for the loopholes - and then they need to be filled.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 26, 2015, 10:14:06 PM
God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

God's system is intended to privilege each the same.  We have the option to reject the privilege.

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate.  Scripture has strong words against that kind of privilege.
No, just no.  What you say about free market capitalism is simply untrue.  Properly functioning free market capitalism is destructive to privilege, witness all the business models being disrupted by the internet, starting with newspaper industry.

Again I reject your call for your theocracy.  I'm sorry you are unable to recognize what you are saying.


And new Walmarts never affect small business? Family farms keep disappearing as those who greater capital can buy them up.


Capitalism requires capital. Those who have lots of it are more likely to succeed that those who don't have it.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 26, 2015, 10:17:07 PM
God's system is intended to privilege each the same.

Your conclusion requires a bit of explication, for you seem to have oversimplified for the purpose of a debating point, and pared down God to your vision of "economy" on earth.   You state that God's economy is one that would privilege all men the same in terms of earthly wealth.  Isn't God's economy by and about Him only, that He would have all men come to believe in Him and be reunited with him?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 26, 2015, 10:19:46 PM
And new Walmarts never affect small business? Family farms keep disappearing as those who greater capital can buy them up.

Glad to hear from you that God is in favor of small business and family farms -- perhaps by extension even the people who run and own them?  That's right, they didn't build those enterprises, government did!

Perhaps you meant to address the people involved.  Perhaps addressing God's will for mankind?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 26, 2015, 10:25:49 PM
And new Walmarts never affect small business? Family farms keep disappearing as those who greater capital can buy them up.

Glad to hear from you that God is in favor of small business and family farms -- perhaps by extension even the people who run and own them?  That's right, they didn't build those enterprises, government did!

Perhaps you meant to address the people involved.  Perhaps addressing God's will for mankind?


Huh? My father had his own business. It was not built with government subsidies, but from a kind man who helped my Dad get a franchise. My father also lost his business when large, well-funded corporations came into town with whom he couldn't compete.


My wife worked for Walmart for 16.5 years. For the most part her experiences with them were very good. She certainly had many more benefits and better pay than when she went to work for a small mom and pop quilt shop. In fact, when the quilt shop went out of business, the financial benefits (401 K and stocks) from Walmart helped her buy the long-arm quilting machine the quilt shop had to sell to start her own in-home business.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 26, 2015, 10:54:52 PM

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate. 

No, John, it doesn't.

You might take time to learn what "free market capitalism" is.  The Foundation for Economic Education (http://fee.org)'s magazine, The Freeman (http://fee.org/freeman/issues/), would be a good place to start.  It's not difficult, but it takes some time.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on December 27, 2015, 12:12:53 AM
Worth watching, all 6 minutes of it. It's from the HBO series "Newsroom" and the anchor, Will MacAvoy, is at a college panel discussion. The questions are about "American greatness." And his answer is brilliant. That's his producer in the audience who holds up the sign reminding him that this isn't the greatest country in the world. Worth watching, all six minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPHSXUS0_1c
Old, tired, trite, and basically nonsense. Pray tell, what is the greatest country on earth, and why?

Since when is it a competition? All people who live in any nation should strive to make their nation as "great" as it possibly can be. That's just being a good citizen of the Kingdom of the Left.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 27, 2015, 09:00:09 AM
Oh the difference in the perspectives of those who focus on the cross and Christ crucified to bring us eternal life versus a focus on social justice and equality for our temporal life.  Unity in Christ and the Gospel versus a theocracy of Law on earth. Come Lord Jesus.

...Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 09:11:44 AM
The government, which is necessary you have agreed because of man's fallenness, is getting larger. If government is necessary to curb wickedness, the main reason for more government is that we are becoming more wicked whether we can see it or not.

I'd suggest that humanity today is no more corrupt than it has ever been.  There are just more of us.

Scripture would seem to indicate the contrary assertion...."Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." David was favored over his brothers. The parables of the talents and the vineyard workers demonstrate that Jesus own teaching would indicate privilege. Jesus own words at Luke 12:48..."to whom much was given, much will be required" would seem to indicate a privileging of some over others. The very commandments "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" imply differential gifting, otherwise stealing and coveting are simply meaningless. The Jews are the least of all the nations and yet privileged by God that they may be a blessing to all the other nations. God blesses that we may be a blessing. The blessings are differentiated.

The critical piece that holds all of that together is the verse that I bolded.  We could also add references to all of the passages that reference Spiritual gifts.

It is not a matter of God loving some more than others or loving some but not loving others.  God does "bless" some more than others.  God does so that those who have been richly blessed might be a blessing to others.  "Blessed to be a blessing to others" is anathema in the religion of free-market capitalism.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 09:16:42 AM
You state that God's economy is one that would privilege all men the same in terms of earthly wealth.

To the extent that God has an earthly economy, it would be one in which abundance is used in service to others and one in which abundance is not attained by taking advantage of others.

Isn't God's economy by and about Him only, that He would have all men come to believe in Him and be reunited with him?

Yes.  Moreover, I think we bear false witness to that when we attempt to use Scripture to brace arguments touting the morality of free-market capitalism.

Glad to hear from you that God is in favor of small business and family farms -- perhaps by extension even the people who run and own them?  That's right, they didn't build those enterprises, government did!

I'd suggest that the notion of the "self-made man" is exaggerated in the American myth.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 09:21:22 AM

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate. 

No, John, it doesn't.

You might take time to learn what "free market capitalism" is.  The Foundation for Economic Education (http://fee.org)'s magazine, The Freeman (http://fee.org/freeman/issues/), would be a good place to start.  It's not difficult, but it takes some time.

Pax, Steven+

I have studied enough economics to understand the mantra.  I have also lived long enough in a country that celebrates free-market economy to know that we do not walk our talk.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 27, 2015, 10:11:59 AM
  "Blessed to be a blessing to others" is anathema in the religion of free-market capitalism.


That is, of course, your opinion which you are free to state. I am a free market capitalist who happens to embrace "blessed to be a blessing" but I also do not hold free market capitalism as my religion so we are obviously not talking the same subject matter. Thanks for the conversation.


I have yet to hear you endorse an economic model which could serve humanity in better ways. You have been clear in your negativity about the current model at work in our nation but until you make a concrete proposal for some positive change we cannot really pay much attention. Some of us have meaning full lives to lead and meaning full service to render.


Lou


Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 27, 2015, 10:15:28 AM

I'd suggest that the notion of the "self-made man" is exaggerated in the American myth.


"Self-made man" is simply false. God makes man, some he blesses richly, others less richly. And He commands "do not steal, do not covet." Man still has problems with all of this.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 27, 2015, 10:17:57 AM

Yes.  Moreover, I think we bear false witness to that when we attempt to use Scripture to brace arguments touting the morality of free-market capitalism.




....or touting the morality of socialism, or communism, or fascism, or monarchism, or ism, or ism, or ism....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 10:21:42 AM
That is, of course, your opinion which you are free to state. I am a free market capitalist who happens to embrace "blessed to be a blessing" but I also do not hold free market capitalism as my religion so we are obviously not talking the same subject matter. Thanks for the conversation.

I did not suggest that it was your religion.  But, you have used Scripture passages in your effort to defend it.  That connection doesn't work.

I have yet to hear you endorse an economic model which could serve humanity in better ways. You have been clear in your negativity about the current model at work in our nation but until you make a concrete proposal for some positive change we cannot really pay much attention.

I think you have seen my posts in which I conceded that every system is flawed.  But, in my opinion, democratic socialism, as practiced in several northern European countries, seem to be more effective systems for ensuring love of neighbor, in a left hand sense, than free-market capitalism.

Some of us have meaning full lives to lead and meaning full service to render.

We all do.  Capitalism is a barrier.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 27, 2015, 11:22:28 AM
God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

God's system is intended to privilege each the same.  We have the option to reject the privilege.

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate.  Scripture has strong words against that kind of privilege.
What would you do to prevent people from exchanging goods and services at a ptice agreeable to both parties? That's all free market capitalism does. Nothing wicked about that at all. Those who prey upon the weak to enrich themselves are being wicked, but that is hardly the free market's fault. You may as well blame the post office for hate mail or decry freedom of speech because of all the lies and insults it allows.

And God did not intend to privilege everyone the same. There are degrees of glory in heaven not because of our resistance to God's egalitarian intent but because He calls people to stations of differing glory. Even among the unfallen there are angels and archangels. Is that because the angels resisted God's design of equal privilege? No. It is because there is nothing contrary to God's design about hierarchy. In an unfallen world, Adam would still be king and we would not. The difference is that there would be no oppression, envy, scorn, etc. that always accompanies such differences among sinners. Sin is in mistaking worldly wealth and power with true glory, which comes via bearing one's cross. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: David Garner on December 27, 2015, 11:58:42 AM
God's system will always privilege a few ... even after the Last Day when those chosen by God will be separated from those in the outer darkness.

God's system is intended to privilege each the same.  We have the option to reject the privilege.

Free market capitalism privileges those with the wealth and power to take from the less fortunate.  Scripture has strong words against that kind of privilege.
What would you do to prevent people from exchanging goods and services at a ptice agreeable to both parties? That's all free market capitalism does. Nothing wicked about that at all. Those who prey upon the weak to enrich themselves are being wicked, but that is hardly the free market's fault. You may as well blame the post office for hate mail or decry freedom of speech because of all the lies and insults it allows.

And God did not intend to privilege everyone the same. There are degrees of glory in heaven not because of our resistance to God's egalitarian intent but because He calls people to stations of differing glory. Even among the unfallen there are angels and archangels. Is that because the angels resisted God's design of equal privilege? No. It is because there is nothing contrary to God's design about hierarchy. In an unfallen world, Adam would still be king and we would not. The difference is that there would be no oppression, envy, scorn, etc. that always accompanies such differences among sinners. Sin is in mistaking worldly wealth and power with true glory, which comes via bearing one's cross.

I have said it before and I will say it again -- capitalism and socialism share the same basic flaw.  They ignore the reality of sin in man.  I'd wager we could expand that to any economic system, honestly.

The problem with capitalism in our country is not capitalism per se.  It is our culture, which is narcissistic and materialistic.  No economic system will provide any sort of protection to the downtrodden so long as we live in the culture of me first.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 27, 2015, 02:18:52 PM
That is, of course, your opinion which you are free to state. I am a free market capitalist who happens to embrace "blessed to be a blessing" but I also do not hold free market capitalism as my religion so we are obviously not talking the same subject matter. Thanks for the conversation.

I did not suggest that it was your religion.  But, you have used Scripture passages in your effort to defend it.  That connection doesn't work.




No, I used scripture in this conversation only to show your assertion that "God privileges everyone the same" to be false. It was your connection that did not work.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 02:22:10 PM
What would you do to prevent people from exchanging goods and services at a ptice agreeable to both parties? That's all free market capitalism does.

I would do nothing to prevent the exchange of goods and services at prices agreeable to both parties.  Free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges - they can occur under a variety of systems.  Unfortunately, in practice, free market capitalism does much more than that.  And our history clearly demonstrates that.  The playing field gets tilted in favor of those who have sufficient wealth and power to manipulate it.

Nothing wicked about that at all. Those who prey upon the weak to enrich themselves are being wicked, but that is hardly the free market's fault.

There is nothing wicked about the concept of free-market capitalism.  However, every participant is a sinner and greed and dishonesty are very attractive temptations because they can be leveraged for personal gain at the expense of others.  That is not the market's fault - that is the participant's fault.  Government has a duty to curb such behaviors and regulation is essential if the system is to work as the text books say it should.

And God did not intend to privilege everyone the same.

God love us each the same.  Perhaps that is one of the more difficult messages of Christianity - God loves my adversaries as much as God loves me.  Grace undermines the efforts of religions to reward the "good ones".

There are degrees of glory in heaven not because of our resistance to God's egalitarian intent but because He calls people to stations of differing glory. Even among the unfallen there are angels and archangels. Is that because the angels resisted God's design of equal privilege? No. It is because there is nothing contrary to God's design about hierarchy.

That may or may not be true and neither you nor I have any idea about who sits where in such hierarchy.  Even if what you said is correct, you are talking about the age to come.  How is that relevant to the current age.  Did God really intend for a few people to have sufficient wealth and influence that they might take advantage of others?  Did God intend for families to be homeless?  For children to go to be hungry?  For people to be denied adequate health care?  For people to be denied access to adequate education?  etc.?  etc.?  etc.?  I don't think so.

In an unfallen world, Adam would still be king and we would not.

You can't possibly know anything about the characteristics of the unfallen world because your entire experience has been that of a sinner living in the fallen world.

Sin is in mistaking worldly wealth and power with true glory, which comes via bearing one's cross.

Agreed and there is much about free market capitalism that facilitates that kind of misunderstanding, even among Christians who embrace a theology that ought to lead them to a different conclusion.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 02:25:59 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again -- capitalism and socialism share the same basic flaw.  They ignore the reality of sin in man.  I'd wager we could expand that to any economic system, honestly.

The problem with capitalism in our country is not capitalism per se.  It is our culture, which is narcissistic and materialistic.  No economic system will provide any sort of protection to the downtrodden so long as we live in the culture of me first.

I agree with you, David.   That, however, does not relieve us of responsibility for the downtrodden.  In the context of first use and God's left hand, care for the disenfranchised is a legitimate government function.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 27, 2015, 02:33:11 PM

I have yet to hear you endorse an economic model which could serve humanity in better ways. You have been clear in your negativity about the current model at work in our nation but until you make a concrete proposal for some positive change we cannot really pay much attention.

I think you have seen my posts in which I conceded that every system is flawed.  But, in my opinion, democratic socialism, as practiced in several northern European countries, seem to be more effective systems for ensuring love of neighbor, in a left hand sense, than free-market capitalism.

Some of us have meaning full lives to lead and meaning full service to render.

We all do.  Capitalism is a barrier.


We are not a northern European country with minimal ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity which is where your model may work. It won't work here where we have these diversities. The Swedes are beginning to sense the tension as they accept more minorities through their refugee programs. The Norwegians are not willing to even go as far as the Swedes, having basically closed their borders to folks that would broaden diversity.


In this context, in this country, capitalism is less of a barrier to delivering blessings to others than any alternative I have seen. Big polyglot countries (US, Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, India) do better as they embrace capitalism. They do worse when one set of elites comes to dominate the others under any other notion. Those "Democratic Socialist" countries held by some to be an ideal only have one set of elites and in those countries those elites are all Lutheran. So if you wish to argue that only Lutherans should be allowed to be in power, perhaps I could agree with you, but we won't get very far with that will we?


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 27, 2015, 02:51:02 PM
Trump’s fans are excited to rally — but they’re not sure they’ll show up to vote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-fans-are-excited-to-rally--but-theyre-not-sure-theyll-show-up-to-vote/2015/12/26/3c29bbb6-a5c3-11e5-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 27, 2015, 03:29:13 PM
What would you do to prevent people from exchanging goods and services at a ptice agreeable to both parties? That's all free market capitalism does.

I would do nothing to prevent the exchange of goods and services at prices agreeable to both parties.  Free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges - they can occur under a variety of systems.  Unfortunately, in practice, free market capitalism does much more than that.  And our history clearly demonstrates that.  The playing field gets tilted in favor of those who have sufficient wealth and power to manipulate it.


Indeed, free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges.  It is such exchanges.

I will repeat my encouragement for you to check out The Freeman (http://fee.org/freeman/issues/) and the Foundation for Economic Education (http://fee.org/).  If you must pontificate on a subject, you really ought to know something about it beside anti-free-market capitalist political talking points.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 27, 2015, 03:40:57 PM

I have said it before and I will say it again -- capitalism and socialism share the same basic flaw.  They ignore the reality of sin in man.  I'd wager we could expand that to any economic system, honestly.


Actually, capitalism does not so much ignore that reality as economists have yet to figure out how to measure what they tend to call the cost of information.  So they don't, and our economic conversations tend to pretend that, since we cannot measure them, they do not exist.  Even though they are intrinsic to the very science of economics, which is first-and-foremost observational, not predictive.  It's rather like creating models of the climate based on the Sun's interaction with the atmosphere, but setting aside clouds.

spt+
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 27, 2015, 04:53:20 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again -- capitalism and socialism share the same basic flaw.  They ignore the reality of sin in man.  I'd wager we could expand that to any economic system, honestly.

The problem with capitalism in our country is not capitalism per se.  It is our culture, which is narcissistic and materialistic.  No economic system will provide any sort of protection to the downtrodden so long as we live in the culture of me first.

I agree with you, David.   That, however, does not relieve us of responsibility for the downtrodden.  In the context of first use and God's left hand, care for the disenfranchised is a legitimate government function.


I thought the role of government was to provide order and reduce chaos so we are free to worship and be served by God via the Means of Grace.  I also thought the primary role of helping the disenfranchised belonged to the individual - why do you wish to turn it over to an amorphous government?   That sounds a lot like advocating that we abandon our primary vocation of loving God (as thanks for all His gifts to us) by loving and serving neighbor.  Am I reading you wrong?  I don't get the apparent fascination with big government to solve all our problems.  Enlighten me.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on December 27, 2015, 05:52:12 PM
In the Presidential Election of 2008
Obama had 69 million votes
McCain had 60 million votes

In the Presidential Election of 2012
Obama had 60 million votes
Romney had 57 million votes

In 2012 we had 12 million less votes cast
and now we come to 2016.  Will this current
Presidential Election continue this downward
trend?   Or will a populist candidate like Donald
Trump ignite the electorate to come out and vote
for him?

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 27, 2015, 06:08:02 PM
What would you do to prevent people from exchanging goods and services at a ptice agreeable to both parties? That's all free market capitalism does.

I would do nothing to prevent the exchange of goods and services at prices agreeable to both parties.  Free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges - they can occur under a variety of systems.  Unfortunately, in practice, free market capitalism does much more than that.  And our history clearly demonstrates that.  The playing field gets tilted in favor of those who have sufficient wealth and power to manipulate it.


Indeed, free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges.  It is such exchanges.


In comparing what you wrote and the dictionary definition of capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."


Wiki has this quote:


Chris Jenks. Core Sociological Dichotomies. "Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labor of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labor of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit." London, England, UK; Thousand Oaks, California, USA; New Delhi, India: SAGE. p. 383.


What is included in both these, but not your statement is the motivation of "profit". Granted, in a strictly free-market system, supply and demand set the price. I've seen farmers in Nebraska selling their corn for less than it cost to produce it, because that's the price the market set because there was a glut (or at least a report of a glut) of corn.


However, it seems to me that without government interference, free-market would end up creating monopolies where one party controls the supply, and thus controls the price, e,g, when the government split up Standard Oil. Without some regulations, the supplier who has the most capital can survive periods when demand and prices are low without going broke; and who can also buy out smaller suppliers and thus become the sole supplier. Supply and demand no longer sets the price, but profit. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 27, 2015, 06:13:49 PM
Elites and media really hate Donald Trump’s voters

http://nypost.com/2015/12/26/elites-and-media-really-hate-donald-trumps-voters/
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 06:20:45 PM
Indeed, free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges.  It is such exchanges.

If that is the case, our economic system - which was built and continues to operate on exploitation - is not free-market capitalism.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 06:27:59 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again -- capitalism and socialism share the same basic flaw.  They ignore the reality of sin in man.  I'd wager we could expand that to any economic system, honestly.

The problem with capitalism in our country is not capitalism per se.  It is our culture, which is narcissistic and materialistic.  No economic system will provide any sort of protection to the downtrodden so long as we live in the culture of me first.

I agree with you, David.   That, however, does not relieve us of responsibility for the downtrodden.  In the context of first use and God's left hand, care for the disenfranchised is a legitimate government function.


I thought the role of government was to provide order and reduce chaos so we are free to worship and be served by God via the Means of Grace.  I also thought the primary role of helping the disenfranchised belonged to the individual - why do you wish to turn it over to an amorphous government?   That sounds a lot like advocating that we abandon our primary vocation of loving God (as thanks for all His gifts to us) by loving and serving neighbor.  Am I reading you wrong?  I don't get the apparent fascination with big government to solve all our problems.  Enlighten me.

... Fletch

Taking care of societies disenfranchised adds order and reduces chaos.

The primary role of helping the disenfranchised does rest with the individual.  Yet, we live in the wealthiest country in the world, we brag about our exceptionalism, we claim to have been founded on principles of Christianity and have significant numbers of disenfranchised people who lack the capacity to lift themselves out of poverty.  There is a significant disconnect because we do not walk our talk.  And, if individuals can't or won't take care of our disenfranchised, it then is an appropriate role for government.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 27, 2015, 07:31:52 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again -- capitalism and socialism share the same basic flaw.  They ignore the reality of sin in man.  I'd wager we could expand that to any economic system, honestly.

The problem with capitalism in our country is not capitalism per se.  It is our culture, which is narcissistic and materialistic.  No economic system will provide any sort of protection to the downtrodden so long as we live in the culture of me first.

I agree with you, David.   That, however, does not relieve us of responsibility for the downtrodden.  In the context of first use and God's left hand, care for the disenfranchised is a legitimate government function.


I thought the role of government was to provide order and reduce chaos so we are free to worship and be served by God via the Means of Grace.  I also thought the primary role of helping the disenfranchised belonged to the individual - why do you wish to turn it over to an amorphous government?   That sounds a lot like advocating that we abandon our primary vocation of loving God (as thanks for all His gifts to us) by loving and serving neighbor.  Am I reading you wrong?  I don't get the apparent fascination with big government to solve all our problems.  Enlighten me.

... Fletch

Taking care of societies disenfranchised adds order and reduces chaos.

The primary role of helping the disenfranchised does rest with the individual.  Yet, we live in the wealthiest country in the world, we brag about our exceptionalism, we claim to have been founded on principles of Christianity and have significant numbers of disenfranchised people who lack the capacity to lift themselves out of poverty.  There is a significant disconnect because we do not walk our talk.  And, if individuals can't or won't take care of our disenfranchised, it then is an appropriate enabling role for government rather than addressing the root cause.

I fixed your post.   ;)

... M
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 07:48:14 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again -- capitalism and socialism share the same basic flaw.  They ignore the reality of sin in man.  I'd wager we could expand that to any economic system, honestly.

The problem with capitalism in our country is not capitalism per se.  It is our culture, which is narcissistic and materialistic.  No economic system will provide any sort of protection to the downtrodden so long as we live in the culture of me first.

I agree with you, David.   That, however, does not relieve us of responsibility for the downtrodden.  In the context of first use and God's left hand, care for the disenfranchised is a legitimate government function.


I thought the role of government was to provide order and reduce chaos so we are free to worship and be served by God via the Means of Grace.  I also thought the primary role of helping the disenfranchised belonged to the individual - why do you wish to turn it over to an amorphous government?   That sounds a lot like advocating that we abandon our primary vocation of loving God (as thanks for all His gifts to us) by loving and serving neighbor.  Am I reading you wrong?  I don't get the apparent fascination with big government to solve all our problems.  Enlighten me.

... Fletch

Taking care of societies disenfranchised adds order and reduces chaos.

The primary role of helping the disenfranchised does rest with the individual.  Yet, we live in the wealthiest country in the world, we brag about our exceptionalism, we claim to have been founded on principles of Christianity and have significant numbers of disenfranchised people who lack the capacity to lift themselves out of poverty.  There is a significant disconnect because we do not walk our talk.  And, if individuals can't or won't take care of our disenfranchised, it then is an appropriate enabling role for government rather than addressing the root cause.

I fixed your post.   ;)

... M

Fletch - that demonstrated the problem with our economy/society.  Thus, is did not fix the post.  To the extent that our government has performed and enabling function, it is the consequence of our collective refusal to acknowledge the root cause of the problem.  And, if we won't acknowledge the problem, we cannot correct it.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 27, 2015, 09:30:52 PM
A little bit of this - and sometimes a lot - appears to infiltrate a lot of thinking around here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-foolish-theism-of-government-enthusiasts/2015/12/25/5c623b4c-aa64-11e5-bff5-905b92f5f94b_story.html
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 27, 2015, 11:11:33 PM
A little bit of this - and sometimes a lot - appears to infiltrate a lot of thinking around here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-foolish-theism-of-government-enthusiasts/2015/12/25/5c623b4c-aa64-11e5-bff5-905b92f5f94b_story.html

I wonder how George Will handles the concept of original sin.  And, I am still waiting to read a convincing argument that top down private enterprise more moral than top down government.

People forget that we live in a democratic republic in which the authority of government is vested in we, the people.  Top down private enterprise is us (the bottom) vs. them (the top).  Top down government can't be us vs. them.  To the extent that it is a confrontational proposition, it is us vs. us.

And, for what its worth, there is a lot of foolish theism embraced by free-market enthusiasts, too.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on December 27, 2015, 11:46:30 PM
I wonder how George Will handles the concept of original sin.  And, I am still waiting to read a convincing argument that top down private enterprise more moral than top down government.
Well, since he's an atheist (http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/09/22/george_will_the_realclearreligion_interview.html) (surprise!), probably not at all.  You should be careful about your assumptions.  Of course, that is your problem--not being able to see past them (government good, private enterprise bad).  Imposing your moral judgment, while criticizing others for doing the same.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 28, 2015, 02:50:36 AM

Indeed, free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges.  It is such exchanges.

What is included in both these, but not your statement is the motivation of "profit"....

If you knew the first thing about economics, Brian, you wouldn't have said that.

And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

Unless one party forces the other.

spt+
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on December 28, 2015, 03:11:12 AM

However, it seems to me that without government interference, free-market would end up creating monopolies where one party controls the supply, and thus controls the price, e,g, when the government split up Standard Oil. 

It may seem to be that way, but... well, read your own signature line.  The reality is just about every monopoly became one and kept it because of government interference.  There are occasional exceptions, but I've not heard the Justice Department threatening to break up Church & Dwight, manufacturers of Arm & Hammer Baking Soda, which has dominated the market for over 150 years.  (Although they have tried to go after the company because of its not-nearly-as-dominant share in the condom market!)

Interestingly, the government broke apart Standard Oil only after it had already lost a significant part of its market share to new competitors, even though the price of oil was lower than ever. 

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on December 28, 2015, 06:53:35 AM

However, it seems to me that without government interference, free-market would end up creating monopolies where one party controls the supply, and thus controls the price, e,g, when the government split up Standard Oil. 

It may seem to be that way, but... well, read your own signature line.  The reality is just about every monopoly became one and kept it because of government interference.  There are occasional exceptions, but I've not heard the Justice Department threatening to break up Church & Dwight, manufacturers of Arm & Hammer Baking Soda, which has dominated the market for over 150 years.  (Although they have tried to go after the company because of its not-nearly-as-dominant share in the condom market!)

Interestingly, the government broke apart Standard Oil only after it had already lost a significant part of its market share to new competitors, even though the price of oil was lower than ever.

We should note, however, that Adam Smith himself was well aware of the problems of the market--commenting in one place that 2 people from the same industry upon meeting would always seek to find ways to manipulate the prices of their products.

The biggest issue with the free market today is that it does not exist in anything like a pure form.  Entrepreneurs have been replaced with bureaucrats who lack the internal drive to innovate and seek instead to maximize short term profits for their own benefit.  General Motors is a good example.  They created the Saturn franchise and made quality vehicles that had customer satisfaction levels equal to that of luxury vehicles.  However, the profit per unit sold was far less for a Saturn than for a big pickup truck.  So they essentially ignored Saturn and when the downturn came, it was jettisoned--not because it lacked a market, but because bureaucrats made short term decisions for short term profits.  Henry Ford would have known better.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 07:13:14 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 07:19:33 AM
The biggest issue with the free market today is that it does not exist in anything like a pure form.

I'd go a step further and suggest that the biggest problem with the free market is that it is not possible for it to exist in anything like a pure form.  The problem is not with the theory but those who claim to be practitioners of the theory.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 08:42:28 AM
The biggest issue with the free market today is that it does not exist in anything like a pure form.

I'd go a step further and suggest that the biggest problem with the free market is that it is not possible for it to exist in anything like a pure form.  The problem is not with the theory but those who claim to be practitioners of the theory.


You really are quite the hypocrite. "I condemn no one." Except those who espouse views different than your own. ::)


I happen to believe good agreements (including business agreements) are ones which are beneficial to both parties and freely entered into by both parties. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood that to be the basic underlying paradigm of "Free Market Theory." I have walked away from a number of business deals (in agriculture) which may have benefited me or my family (in the short run) when I was a of a mind that someone on the other side did not really want to make the agreement.




Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 08:51:25 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?


Oh very good .... take the worst case examples from the nation's history and use them to condemn an entire way of viewing human behavior. One might as well say since there have been brothels, rapes, sexual abuse of children, STD's, prostitution, etal. we should therefore condemn sexual contact and all should be celibate--only test tube babies under tight government monitoring for the betterment and improvement of the human species. Sheesh!


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: truthseeker on December 28, 2015, 08:57:45 AM
I sort of envy your discuss about the advantages and disadvantages of free market economic system which is a bit of luxury for us Chinese. :P
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 09:18:39 AM
I sort of envy your discuss about the advantages and disadvantages of free market economic system which is a bit of luxury for us Chinese. :P


Sigh.....indeed, we here are privileged in ways we do not even recognize. This discussion is simply not even possible in so much of the world.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 28, 2015, 09:32:34 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?
All of those things are the opposite of free market capitalism, by definition. Your big beef with free market capitalism is that there have been times when our nation didn't practice it?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 09:48:31 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?
All of those things are the opposite of free market capitalism, by definition. Your big beef with free market capitalism is that there have been times when our nation didn't practice it?

My beef with free-market capitalism is 1) that our nation has never practiced it and 2) that fellow Christians are willing to vigorously defend an economic system that stands in opposition to the commandments to love God and love neighbor.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 09:57:38 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?


Oh very good .... take the worst case examples from the nation's history and use them to condemn an entire way of viewing human behavior. One might as well say since there have been brothels, rapes, sexual abuse of children, STD's, prostitution, etal. we should therefore condemn sexual contact and all should be celibate--only test tube babies under tight government monitoring for the betterment and improvement of the human species. Sheesh!


Lou

As Pr. Tibbets seemed to imply, it is much easier to pretend that sin does not exist within our economic system.

As I have implied more than once in this conversation, my major complaint is that we do not walk our talk.  I did use the worst case examples from our history, but those examples are hardly trivial.  A couple of them are cornerstones in our economy's foundation.  As such, they continue to corrupt our economy and our society in the 21st Century.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 28, 2015, 10:14:16 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?


Oh very good .... take the worst case examples from the nation's history and use them to condemn an entire way of viewing human behavior. One might as well say since there have been brothels, rapes, sexual abuse of children, STD's, prostitution, etal. we should therefore condemn sexual contact and all should be celibate--only test tube babies under tight government monitoring for the betterment and improvement of the human species. Sheesh!


Lou

As Pr. Tibbets seemed to imply, it is much easier to pretend that sin does not exist within our economic system.

As I have implied more than once in this conversation, my major complaint is that we do not walk our talk.  I did use the worst case examples from our history, but those examples are hardly trivial.  A couple of them are cornerstones in our economy's foundation.  As such, they continue to corrupt our economy and our society in the 21st Century.

John,

Based on your view of a corrupt United States and its economic system, and sinful citizens that do not walk the talk, where else in the world would you prefer to live and why?  (I use the term citizens on purpose as a government is made up systems, processes, and structures operated by citizens with various beliefs, philosophies, principles, and ideas - governments are not a being capable of walking the talk - my opinion).

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 10:39:12 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?


Oh very good .... take the worst case examples from the nation's history and use them to condemn an entire way of viewing human behavior. One might as well say since there have been brothels, rapes, sexual abuse of children, STD's, prostitution, etal. we should therefore condemn sexual contact and all should be celibate--only test tube babies under tight government monitoring for the betterment and improvement of the human species. Sheesh!


Lou

As Pr. Tibbets seemed to imply, it is much easier to pretend that sin does not exist within our economic system.

As I have implied more than once in this conversation, my major complaint is that we do not walk our talk.  I did use the worst case examples from our history, but those examples are hardly trivial.  A couple of them are cornerstones in our economy's foundation.  As such, they continue to corrupt our economy and our society in the 21st Century.



Agreed, sin continues to corrupt human society, particularly in this case the sins of greed, avarice, and covetousness. Are you saying that these corruptions are unique to countries which attempt to practice free market economics?


As to what may or may not be "cornerstones of our nation's economy".....the only way any of us can move past injustice and resentments from the past is through the forgiveness of sins. One of the main reasons our society and individuals still suffer so is that we continue to hold grudges and nurse old resentments rather than letting go and beginning again. My family were dirt poor immigrants, some were sent to Australia because of debt structure problems in Britain. Those ancestors could have sat on their rear ends bemoaning the way the structures of society abused them and accomplished nothing but instead they left the old behind and built anew. Some succeeded, others did not as they succumbed to alcoholism, broken marriages, or simply bad timing. The ones who have thrived are the ones who best put adversity behind them, not nursing old wounds and grudges.


I came very close to personal bankruptcy in 1998 when a company I was doing business with filed bankruptcy and did not pay the $600,000 they owed me. It nearly broke the spirit of this 5th generation american farmer. But with a supportive wife and family, we pulled up our pants and (according to my banker against all odds) regained our footing. We could have focused on getting back what we were owed and lost what little was left. Instead we focused on what we had left and moved on. The Lord has been very good to us. It begins with "forgiving their sin and remembering the iniquity no more" (Jeremiah). Hanging on to old resentment serves no good purpose (though I would still have difficulty doing business with Bank of America). ;)


The old things done wrong in the past can never be undone. To attempt to do so is a fool's errand. Don't live like a fool.


Lou


Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 10:43:15 AM
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

How do you square that logic with slavery, the slave trade, one-sided transactions with indigenous peoples, indentured servitude, child labor, etc., all of which significantly contributed to the establishment of our nation's economy?
All of those things are the opposite of free market capitalism, by definition. Your big beef with free market capitalism is that there have been times when our nation didn't practice it?

My beef with free-market capitalism is 1) that our nation has never practiced it and 2) that fellow Christians are willing to vigorously defend an economic system that stands in opposition to the commandments to love God and love neighbor.


I yet do not know where or how "free market capitalism" stands in opposition to the commandments to love god and neighbor.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 11:04:15 AM
Agreed, sin continues to corrupt human society, particularly in this case the sins of greed, avarice, and covetousness. Are you saying that these corruptions are unique to countries which attempt to practice free market economics?

Sin corrupts every society.  But, you and I live in and are accountable for this one.

As to what may or may not be "cornerstones of our nation's economy".....the only way any of us can move past injustice and resentments from the past is through the forgiveness of sins. One of the main reasons our society and individuals still suffer so is that we continue to hold grudges and nurse old resentments rather than letting go and beginning again.

Where is the forgiveness if there has been no confession?  Where is the amendment of our sinful lives.  The main reason our society and individuals still suffer is that oppression initiated in our past continue to function today.  Letting go of grudges and resentments is fine.  But, how can the person who exists well below the first rung on the ladder, as a consequence of our history, begin again.  Perhaps those who have benefited from our sinful past should also think in terms of beginning again, without the benefits to which they are not rightfully entitled.

I came very close to personal bankruptcy in 1998 when a company I was doing business with filed bankruptcy and did not pay the $600,000 they owed me. It nearly broke the spirit of this 5th generation american farmer. But with a supportive wife and family, we pulled up our pants and (according to my banker against all odds) regained our footing. We could have focused on getting back what we were owed and lost what little was left. Instead we focused on what we had left and moved on. The Lord has been very good to us. It begins with "forgiving their sin and remembering the iniquity no more" (Jeremiah). Hanging on to old resentment serves no good purpose (though I would still have difficulty doing business with Bank of America). ;)

What might that story have looked like had you been a tenant farmer on land that your ancestors worked as slaves?

The old things done wrong in the past can never be undone. To attempt to do so is a fool's errand. Don't live like a fool.

We cannot undo the wrongs of the past.  We can make amends for the consequences of our wrongful past as those consequences are perpetuated in the present generation.

I yet do not know where or how "free market capitalism" stands in opposition to the commandments to love god and neighbor.

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 28, 2015, 11:15:30 AM

Indeed, free-market capitalism is not a prerequisite for such exchanges.  It is such exchanges.

What is included in both these, but not your statement is the motivation of "profit"....

If you knew the first thing about economics, Brian, you wouldn't have said that.


I didn't say that. Two sources I quoted said "for profit."

Quote
And the first thing about economics is the observation that each party in the transaction (believe they) will be better off after the exchange than they were before it.  No profit, no transaction.

Unless one party forces the other.


Exactly. What keeps one party from forcing the other? Or misrepresenting what they are selling? Can we assume that sinful, greedy people will always act in "good faith"? We have stereotyped used car salesmen as always lying to customers - and a used car salesman I know responded, "If you think we stretch the truth, you should hear what people say who are trading in cars."


It seems to me that there is a difference between "personal (or corporation) profit" - what gains are made by the seller(s) from the transaction and "community profit" - what the community gains - which can mean loss for the seller(s). Jesus' death on the cross was a sacrifice on his part for the benefit of the world. I don't know that we would talk about Jesus profiting from this transaction.


Practically, and I've seen it happen in three different businesses. When the founding owners who were more concerned about quality and customer service - the community benefit; sold out to investors who were more concerned about the bottom line. These three business ended up going out of business.


Of course, it can also happen that an emphasis on customer service that results in low pay for workers and not enough profit to pay the bills can also result in the closing of a business (as the one where my wife used to work). Running a business in the real world is much messier than reading about economics in a book.


I've argued for 50 years, back when my dad had his own business, that the system was stacked against small business owners. For example, when he bought an inventory of only 24 toasters he had to pay a higher price for each toaster (and higher shipping per toaster) than a large store that bought 240 of the same model, or a huge chain store that bought 2400. Because their costs were lower, they could sell the same item at a lower price.


Why do some small business go out of business when Walmart moves in? Walmart is able to buy their inventory at a lower price than the small businesses and then sell them for less. In fact, Walmart tells vendors what they are willing to pay for their product. If you don't sell to them at their price, they won't buy.


Small business closing isn't because Walmart pays employees less with fewer benefits. My wife's pay at the small shop she went to was half of what it was at Walmart and she had no benefits like she did at Walmart - 401K, stock options, health plan (if we wanted it).


My brother managed a clinic for a large HMO out of Sacramento. He saw the same thing. There were five different prices for the same piece of equipment depending on the size of the group buying it: the small clinic, one of their large hospitals, the sub-group: Sutter North, the large group: Sutter Health, and the lowest was a government price.


The mom & pop businesses are at a disadvantage.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 28, 2015, 11:21:17 AM
The biggest issue with the free market today is that it does not exist in anything like a pure form.  Entrepreneurs have been replaced with bureaucrats who lack the internal drive to innovate and seek instead to maximize short term profits for their own benefit.  General Motors is a good example.  They created the Saturn franchise and made quality vehicles that had customer satisfaction levels equal to that of luxury vehicles.  However, the profit per unit sold was far less for a Saturn than for a big pickup truck.  So they essentially ignored Saturn and when the downturn came, it was jettisoned--not because it lacked a market, but because bureaucrats made short term decisions for short term profits.  Henry Ford would have known better.


As I recall, (at least back then,) the profit margin was greater with pickup trucks because they didn't have to meet the safety standards that the cars had to meet. The irony of this is that mini-vans were classed as trucks so they fell under their easier safety regulations even though they were often designed to carry seven passengers.


If the government didn't require it, would car manufacturers have built safer cars - or would their motivation be: build more profitable cars?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 28, 2015, 11:25:48 AM
The biggest issue with the free market today is that it does not exist in anything like a pure form.

I'd go a step further and suggest that the biggest problem with the free market is that it is not possible for it to exist in anything like a pure form.  The problem is not with the theory but those who claim to be practitioners of the theory.


You really are quite the hypocrite. "I condemn no one." Except those who espouse views different than your own. ::)


I happen to believe good agreements (including business agreements) are ones which are beneficial to both parties and freely entered into by both parties. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood that to be the basic underlying paradigm of "Free Market Theory." I have walked away from a number of business deals (in agriculture) which may have benefited me or my family (in the short run) when I was a of a mind that someone on the other side did not really want to make the agreement.


As I recall, there was a time when a were a number of hog farmers destroyed their hogs because the market price was so low it wasn't worth feeding them and selling them at a loss.


As I recall from my economics class: business seek to maximize their profit and minimize their losses. Some times the best decision is to lose as little as possible.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on December 28, 2015, 11:34:06 AM
Where is the forgiveness if there has been no confession?  Where is the amendment of our sinful lives.  The main reason our society and individuals still suffer is that oppression initiated in our past continue to function today. 
You keep repeating things like this, but which make no sense.

(1) How do "we" confess these sins you wish to raise up?  I thought you denied we were a Christian nation.  This is why I keep harping on your desire for a theocracy, because of such projecting.  You are all for separation of church and state, until you want to pursue your utopia.  Then everyone should fall into line.

(2)  Why do you presume that everyone participating in this free market capitalism is Christian, and therefore have a need to seek amendment for sinful lives?  Again you are projecting.  Ayn Rand was an atheist, and so her vision of libertarian free market capitalism was not informed by religion.  Your demands for evidence of amendment over past sin is terribly ironic considering your position on that with respect to same-sex relationships.

I'm not denying that our society is better when infused with Christian principles.  Popes Benedict and Francis are correct in their diagnosis that materialism is corrosive to a just society.  But you need to stop projecting things onto others and judging them by your standards, unless you want to honestly take ownership of the theocracy you are advocating for.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 11:52:26 AM

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.


The engine of the free market capitalism I subscribe to is "mutually beneficial." So I reject your straw man, small man view of "free market capitalism." When you can broaden your thought patterns to include more actual people perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 12:10:07 PM


Where is the forgiveness if there has been no confession?  Where is the amendment of our sinful lives.  The main reason our society and individuals still suffer is that oppression initiated in our past continue to function today.  Letting go of grudges and resentments is fine.  But, how can the person who exists well below the first rung on the ladder, as a consequence of our history, begin again.  Perhaps those who have benefited from our sinful past should also think in terms of beginning again, without the benefits to which they are not rightfully entitled.



"Ill gotten goods never do anyone any good." Such is one mantra in my family with numerous stiories illustrating this fact. Most inheritances, well gotten or ill gotten, are gone and dissipated within three generations. This notion ( I am being charitable here) that somehow the benefits some in society are enjoying all come from the efforts of the abused minorities in American culture is a phantasm of the liberal left without any real substance. Immigrant communities who have arrived here with literally nothing on their backs have thrived even with systemic racism and bias. Asian minorities in particular have overcome great odds. Do you think they "benefited" from slavery and indentured servitude at the expense of others? Here in our community we see the same among Hispanics. I can show you an illiterate man who retired to a home provided by his sons for him in Arizona. His hard work as a hired laborer on a local farm had allowed his sons to receive an education and thrive today as a Doctor and a lawyer. He is not alone.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 28, 2015, 12:12:10 PM
Agreed, sin continues to corrupt human society, particularly in this case the sins of greed, avarice, and covetousness. Are you saying that these corruptions are unique to countries which attempt to practice free market economics?

Sin corrupts every society.  But, you and I live in and are accountable for this one.

As to what may or may not be "cornerstones of our nation's economy".....the only way any of us can move past injustice and resentments from the past is through the forgiveness of sins. One of the main reasons our society and individuals still suffer so is that we continue to hold grudges and nurse old resentments rather than letting go and beginning again.

Where is the forgiveness if there has been no confession?  Where is the amendment of our sinful lives.  The main reason our society and individuals still suffer is that oppression initiated in our past continue to function today.  Letting go of grudges and resentments is fine.  But, how can the person who exists well below the first rung on the ladder, as a consequence of our history, begin again.  Perhaps those who have benefited from our sinful past should also think in terms of beginning again, without the benefits to which they are not rightfully entitled.

I came very close to personal bankruptcy in 1998 when a company I was doing business with filed bankruptcy and did not pay the $600,000 they owed me. It nearly broke the spirit of this 5th generation american farmer. But with a supportive wife and family, we pulled up our pants and (according to my banker against all odds) regained our footing. We could have focused on getting back what we were owed and lost what little was left. Instead we focused on what we had left and moved on. The Lord has been very good to us. It begins with "forgiving their sin and remembering the iniquity no more" (Jeremiah). Hanging on to old resentment serves no good purpose (though I would still have difficulty doing business with Bank of America). ;)

What might that story have looked like had you been a tenant farmer on land that your ancestors worked as slaves?

The old things done wrong in the past can never be undone. To attempt to do so is a fool's errand. Don't live like a fool.

We cannot undo the wrongs of the past.  We can make amends for the consequences of our wrongful past as those consequences are perpetuated in the present generation.

I yet do not know where or how "free market capitalism" stands in opposition to the commandments to love god and neighbor.

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.

John,

Re the bolded red in your post.  I heartily disagree.  I am accountable to those to whom I have made a contract verbally or written in the kingdom of the left.  I am not accountable for past actions of anyone, especially those long gone, and especially for "society" or whatever nebulouos moniker you wish to use for the imperial "we".  Lou is absolutely correct in my opinion - Christ teaches us to forgive and move on if we wish to have even a glimer of a peaceful life on this earth, and a peaceful hereafter if we believe in His promises.  Dredging up sins of past generations is a one way ticket to conflict that does not end.   In other words, I believe in personal accountability and confession - in my opinion it is utterly silly for a country, an organization, or a country's or organization's leader, to appologize for something they personally had no part of - it is meaningless to anyone who bothers to objectively think.

P.S. I'm still waiting for an answer on where you would like to live.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 12:20:17 PM



What might that story have looked like had you been a tenant farmer on land that your ancestors worked as slaves?




My ancestors were peasants, possibly even serfs. We still rent ground. We are tenants. When I started farming I had about a dozen landlords each with their own expectations. One makes the best of the hand one receives. If one doesn't like their hand, move on. I simply despise the whining farmer who is always complaining how lousy his lot in life is. I have told more than one that if it is so bad, sell their interests and move on to something they might like. But do something where you do not have to live in daily bitterness and self-pity. I refuse to feed that kind of life. I refuse to enable it. Enabling self-pity may be a worse sin than what was perpetrated on the poor soul in the first place because it holds the person in bondage to past sin.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 28, 2015, 12:30:29 PM

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.


The engine of the free market capitalism I subscribe to is "mutually beneficial." So I reject your straw man, small man view of "free market capitalism." When you can broaden your thought patterns to include more actual people perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.


Often it happens. Sometimes one benefits at the expense of the other.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 12:34:29 PM
The biggest issue with the free market today is that it does not exist in anything like a pure form.  Entrepreneurs have been replaced with bureaucrats who lack the internal drive to innovate and seek instead to maximize short term profits for their own benefit.  General Motors is a good example.  They created the Saturn franchise and made quality vehicles that had customer satisfaction levels equal to that of luxury vehicles.  However, the profit per unit sold was far less for a Saturn than for a big pickup truck.  So they essentially ignored Saturn and when the downturn came, it was jettisoned--not because it lacked a market, but because bureaucrats made short term decisions for short term profits.  Henry Ford would have known better.


As I recall, (at least back then,) the profit margin was greater with pickup trucks because they didn't have to meet the safety standards that the cars had to meet. The irony of this is that mini-vans were classed as trucks so they fell under their easier safety regulations even though they were often designed to carry seven passengers.


If the government didn't require it, would car manufacturers have built safer cars - or would their motivation be: build more profitable cars?


Actually, the motive is to build cars the public wants.....in time the market adjusts. Takata is currently a having a rough go because their competitors have demonstrated their airbags are more reliable than the ones Takata makes. If they do not get their problems solved they will be out of business shortly. It has very little to do with price. In many transactions price comes into play when all other factors are equal. Consumers are price sensitive but rarely solely price driven. There is still a market for Cadillacs[size=78%].[/size] ;)

[size=78%]Lou[/size]

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 28, 2015, 12:39:29 PM
My ancestors were peasants, possibly even serfs. We still rent ground. We are tenants. When I started farming I had about a dozen landlords each with their own expectations. One makes the best of the hand one receives. If one doesn't like their hand, move on. I simply despise the whining farmer who is always complaining how lousy his lot in life is. I have told more than one that if it is so bad, sell their interests and move on to something they might like. But do something where you do not have to live in daily bitterness and self-pity. I refuse to feed that kind of life. I refuse to enable it. Enabling self-pity may be a worse sin than what was perpetrated on the poor soul in the first place because it holds the person in bondage to past sin.


My grandfather was a tenant farm in Iowa all his working life. He never was able to own any farm land. My dad and his two older brothers received other opportunities through our government: they all joined the Navy (WWII). They got training, they had the GI Bill so got higher education, relocated (the west coast), and they owned houses and businesses unrelated to farming.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 28, 2015, 12:46:28 PM
The biggest issue with the free market today is that it does not exist in anything like a pure form.  Entrepreneurs have been replaced with bureaucrats who lack the internal drive to innovate and seek instead to maximize short term profits for their own benefit.  General Motors is a good example.  They created the Saturn franchise and made quality vehicles that had customer satisfaction levels equal to that of luxury vehicles.  However, the profit per unit sold was far less for a Saturn than for a big pickup truck.  So they essentially ignored Saturn and when the downturn came, it was jettisoned--not because it lacked a market, but because bureaucrats made short term decisions for short term profits.  Henry Ford would have known better.


As I recall, (at least back then,) the profit margin was greater with pickup trucks because they didn't have to meet the safety standards that the cars had to meet. The irony of this is that mini-vans were classed as trucks so they fell under their easier safety regulations even though they were often designed to carry seven passengers.


If the government didn't require it, would car manufacturers have built safer cars - or would their motivation be: build more profitable cars?


Actually, the motive is to build cars the public wants.....in time the market adjusts. Takata is currently a having a rough go because their competitors have demonstrated their airbags are more reliable than the ones Takata makes. If they do not get their problems solved they will be out of business shortly. It has very little to do with price. In many transactions price comes into play when all other factors are equal. Consumers are price sensitive but rarely solely price driven. There is still a market for Cadillacs.

I believe that a majority of people shopping at Walmart are their primarily for the price. Most of the other factors, e.g., the crowds and sometimes the service are negatives. In contrast, we have friends who proudly state that they have never shopped at Walmart. The negatives outweigh the savings on price.

In your illustration, should one competitor make a reliable and cheap airbag that drives all the other manufacturers out of business, is that good? Once they have a monopoly, they could hike up their profits.

Should the government protect the manufacture through patents and copyrights that keep competitors from copying their process and products? Doesn't that add regulations to the "free" market?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 28, 2015, 12:50:04 PM



What might that story have looked like had you been a tenant farmer on land that your ancestors worked as slaves?




My ancestors were peasants, possibly even serfs. We still rent ground. We are tenants. When I started farming I had about a dozen landlords each with their own expectations. One makes the best of the hand one receives. If one doesn't like their hand, move on. I simply despise the whining farmer who is always complaining how lousy his lot in life is. I have told more than one that if it is so bad, sell their interests and move on to something they might like. But do something where you do not have to live in daily bitterness and self-pity. I refuse to feed that kind of life. I refuse to enable it. Enabling self-pity may be a worse sin than what was perpetrated on the poor soul in the first place because it holds the person in bondage to past sin.


Lou
My one formal household rule (well, maybe not rule, but motto) is "Do it cheerfully or don't do it." If you have no choice but to do it, then then you have no reason not to do it cheerfully. Your attitude toward it is your choice. And if you have a choice about whether to do it, then you also have no reason not to do it cheerfully. Again, your attitude is your choice. Complaining is the opposite of gratitude and is always out of place in a Christian's mouth.

Being a victim is a terrible, unfair, and unfortunate thing. Deliberately choosing to act like a victim or cultivating a sense of one's real or imagined victim status is insufferable, counter-productive, and self-absorbed.   
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 01:28:29 PM

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.


The engine of the free market capitalism I subscribe to is "mutually beneficial." So I reject your straw man, small man view of "free market capitalism." 

I'd suggest that the "small man view" is the one which is bought into the deception that mutual benefit is the engine to our economy.  The attitude associated with all of the bad history is not an anomaly. 

When you can broaden your thought patterns to include more actual people perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.

Where was the "mutually beneficial" in the transaction by which the land which you farm was acquired from its rightful owners several generations ago?

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 01:32:44 PM
Being a victim is a terrible, unfair, and unfortunate thing. Deliberately choosing to act like a victim or cultivating a sense of one's real or imagined victim status is insufferable, counter-productive, and self-absorbed.

So, if the victim refuses to act like a victim, we may ignore him because we are unaware.  And, if the victim chooses to act like a victim we may ignore him because his status is insufferable.  Is that how you teach God's left hand to your confirmands?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 01:34:40 PM
Agreed, sin continues to corrupt human society, particularly in this case the sins of greed, avarice, and covetousness. Are you saying that these corruptions are unique to countries which attempt to practice free market economics?

Sin corrupts every society.  But, you and I live in and are accountable for this one.

As to what may or may not be "cornerstones of our nation's economy".....the only way any of us can move past injustice and resentments from the past is through the forgiveness of sins. One of the main reasons our society and individuals still suffer so is that we continue to hold grudges and nurse old resentments rather than letting go and beginning again.

Where is the forgiveness if there has been no confession?  Where is the amendment of our sinful lives.  The main reason our society and individuals still suffer is that oppression initiated in our past continue to function today.  Letting go of grudges and resentments is fine.  But, how can the person who exists well below the first rung on the ladder, as a consequence of our history, begin again.  Perhaps those who have benefited from our sinful past should also think in terms of beginning again, without the benefits to which they are not rightfully entitled.

I came very close to personal bankruptcy in 1998 when a company I was doing business with filed bankruptcy and did not pay the $600,000 they owed me. It nearly broke the spirit of this 5th generation american farmer. But with a supportive wife and family, we pulled up our pants and (according to my banker against all odds) regained our footing. We could have focused on getting back what we were owed and lost what little was left. Instead we focused on what we had left and moved on. The Lord has been very good to us. It begins with "forgiving their sin and remembering the iniquity no more" (Jeremiah). Hanging on to old resentment serves no good purpose (though I would still have difficulty doing business with Bank of America). ;)

What might that story have looked like had you been a tenant farmer on land that your ancestors worked as slaves?

The old things done wrong in the past can never be undone. To attempt to do so is a fool's errand. Don't live like a fool.

We cannot undo the wrongs of the past.  We can make amends for the consequences of our wrongful past as those consequences are perpetuated in the present generation.

I yet do not know where or how "free market capitalism" stands in opposition to the commandments to love god and neighbor.

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.

John,

Re the bolded red in your post.  I heartily disagree.  I am accountable to those to whom I have made a contract verbally or written in the kingdom of the left.

You are correct, Fletch.  You are no more accountable than the scribe or Pharisee was welfare of the man in the ditch.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 28, 2015, 01:46:19 PM
Agreed, sin continues to corrupt human society, particularly in this case the sins of greed, avarice, and covetousness. Are you saying that these corruptions are unique to countries which attempt to practice free market economics?

Sin corrupts every society.  But, you and I live in and are accountable for this one.

As to what may or may not be "cornerstones of our nation's economy".....the only way any of us can move past injustice and resentments from the past is through the forgiveness of sins. One of the main reasons our society and individuals still suffer so is that we continue to hold grudges and nurse old resentments rather than letting go and beginning again.

Where is the forgiveness if there has been no confession?  Where is the amendment of our sinful lives.  The main reason our society and individuals still suffer is that oppression initiated in our past continue to function today.  Letting go of grudges and resentments is fine.  But, how can the person who exists well below the first rung on the ladder, as a consequence of our history, begin again.  Perhaps those who have benefited from our sinful past should also think in terms of beginning again, without the benefits to which they are not rightfully entitled.

I came very close to personal bankruptcy in 1998 when a company I was doing business with filed bankruptcy and did not pay the $600,000 they owed me. It nearly broke the spirit of this 5th generation american farmer. But with a supportive wife and family, we pulled up our pants and (according to my banker against all odds) regained our footing. We could have focused on getting back what we were owed and lost what little was left. Instead we focused on what we had left and moved on. The Lord has been very good to us. It begins with "forgiving their sin and remembering the iniquity no more" (Jeremiah). Hanging on to old resentment serves no good purpose (though I would still have difficulty doing business with Bank of America). ;)

What might that story have looked like had you been a tenant farmer on land that your ancestors worked as slaves?

The old things done wrong in the past can never be undone. To attempt to do so is a fool's errand. Don't live like a fool.

We cannot undo the wrongs of the past.  We can make amends for the consequences of our wrongful past as those consequences are perpetuated in the present generation.

I yet do not know where or how "free market capitalism" stands in opposition to the commandments to love god and neighbor.

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.

John,

Re the bolded red in your post.  I heartily disagree.  I am accountable to those to whom I have made a contract verbally or written in the kingdom of the left.

You are correct, Fletch.  You are no more accountable than the scribe or Pharisee was welfare of the man in the ditch.

John,

I think you are conflating the kingdom of the right with the kingdom of the left.  For example, if I am a Christian (having heard the Gospel), I have made a verbal contract with myself to try to understand and use the "third use of the law".  That, in my opinion, is what Lou was talking about when he said he walked away from deals that the other party was not really going to benefit from.  It seems you want to use the "third use of the law" as a club on others - with or without their agreement (that is pure Law).  That to me is not acting in Christian love but acting in some sort of "I'm better than those other heathens and they must bow down to my superior understanding of rightness."  That, my friend, is acting like the ultimate Pharisee - my opinion, of course.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 28, 2015, 02:08:17 PM
John,

I think you are conflating the kingdom of the right with the kingdom of the left.  For example, if I am a Christian (having heard the Gospel), I have made a verbal contract with myself to try to understand and use the "third use of the law".  That, in my opinion, is what Lou was talking about when he said he walked away from deals that the other party was not really going to benefit from.  It seems you want to use the "third use of the law" as a club on others - with or without their agreement (that is pure Law).  That to me is not acting in Christian love but acting in some sort of "I'm better than those other heathens and they must bow down to my superior understanding of rightness."  That, my friend, is acting like the ultimate Pharisee - my opinion, of course.

Fletch - I am very much talking about living in God's left hand kingdom.  As a Christian, I presume that you also have made a verbal contract with yourself to live faithfully in God's left hand, confident that your place in God's right hand is secure.  That means understanding the first, second and third uses of the law and applying both in service to neighbor.  Welfare of the neighbor is what God's left hand is about and it is how God uses His Law in the first sense.  Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan in response to the question, "who is my neighbor" and Martin Luther understood that parable to mean that every person in need of his love was his neighbor. 

The reality is that you and I have many neighbors who are not served well by our social/economic system.  In my opinion, our awareness of God's left hand and how God uses His Law in the first sense, in relation to our awareness of disenfranchised neighbors ought to inform how we individually engage the political system.  Frankly, I do not understand how it is possible to be thus informed and yet be supportive of public policy that perpetuates disenfranchisement.

fwiw, God's use of the Law in the third sense is a matter between you and the Holy Spirit.  I wouldn't think of clubbing you with the third use.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 28, 2015, 02:09:46 PM

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.


The engine of the free market capitalism I subscribe to is "mutually beneficial." So I reject your straw man, small man view of "free market capitalism." 

I'd suggest that the "small man view" is the one which is bought into the deception that mutual benefit is the engine to our economy.  The attitude associated with all of the bad history is not an anomaly. 

When you can broaden your thought patterns to include more actual people perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.

Where was the "mutually beneficial" in the transaction by which the land which you farm was acquired from its rightful owners several generations ago?
Who "rightfully" owned it generations ago? By what right?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 28, 2015, 02:31:57 PM
Being a victim is a terrible, unfair, and unfortunate thing. Deliberately choosing to act like a victim or cultivating a sense of one's real or imagined victim status is insufferable, counter-productive, and self-absorbed.

So, if the victim refuses to act like a victim, we may ignore him because we are unaware.  And, if the victim chooses to act like a victim we may ignore him because his status is insufferable.  Is that how you teach God's left hand to your confirmands?
I don't divide people into classes of victims and oppressors. I teach my confirmands not to victimize anyone and to forgive those who have victimized them. Both of those precepts are found in the catechism. There are no lessons in macro-economics, group identity politics, or quasi-sociology in the catechism, so I do precious little railing against capitalism, decrying America, or trying to get people to feel more guilty about Western Civilization. The class at school is 9 black and 8 white kids and everything I say applies in the very same way to all 17 of them. There is nothing I say only to the black kids or only to the white kids, and everything I say to them applies to all of them in the same way. Nobody is free to ignore a victim, but none of them are inherently more a victim or more an oppressor than any of the rest of them in the class. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 28, 2015, 02:40:26 PM
John,

I think you are conflating the kingdom of the right with the kingdom of the left.  For example, if I am a Christian (having heard the Gospel), I have made a verbal contract with myself to try to understand and use the "third use of the law".  That, in my opinion, is what Lou was talking about when he said he walked away from deals that the other party was not really going to benefit from.  It seems you want to use the "third use of the law" as a club on others - with or without their agreement (that is pure Law).  That to me is not acting in Christian love but acting in some sort of "I'm better than those other heathens and they must bow down to my superior understanding of rightness."  That, my friend, is acting like the ultimate Pharisee - my opinion, of course.

Fletch - I am very much talking about living in God's left hand kingdom.  As a Christian, I presume that you also have made a verbal contract with yourself to live faithfully in God's left hand, confident that your place in God's right hand is secure.  That means understanding the first, second and third uses of the law and applying both in service to neighbor.  Welfare of the neighbor is what God's left hand is about and it is how God uses His Law in the first sense.  Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan in response to the question, "who is my neighbor" and Martin Luther understood that parable to mean that every person in need of his love was his neighbor. 

The reality is that you and I have many neighbors who are not served well by our social/economic system.  In my opinion, our awareness of God's left hand and how God uses His Law in the first sense, in relation to our awareness of disenfranchised neighbors ought to inform how we individually engage the political system.  Frankly, I do not understand how it is possible to be thus informed and yet be supportive of public policy that perpetuates disenfranchisement.

fwiw, God's use of the Law in the third sense is a matter between you and the Holy Spirit.  I wouldn't think of clubbing you with the third use.

John,

So, what do you propose?  (It is not good to throw a hand grenade on the table without the means to defuse it.)  Where do you want to live, and why?  (third request). 

I propose an effective focus is to proclaim the Word of God (far higher probablity of success according to the Scriptures - God will followup as He sees fit) and not so much a focus on social justice which should be a joyful response and not a command.  In business terms, focus on meeting customer needs (external focus corresponding to proclamation of the Word), not on making money (internal focus corresponding to social justice).  If I do the first effectively, the second will take care of itself.  If I focus on the second, I'll be forever frustrated because I'm trying to be in control instead of God.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 28, 2015, 03:02:51 PM

The engine of free market capitalism is greed.  The textbooks try to sanitize that reality by using the politically correct term - profit motive.


The engine of the free market capitalism I subscribe to is "mutually beneficial." So I reject your straw man, small man view of "free market capitalism." 

I'd suggest that the "small man view" is the one which is bought into the deception that mutual benefit is the engine to our economy.  The attitude associated with all of the bad history is not an anomaly. 

When you can broaden your thought patterns to include more actual people perhaps we can have a worthwhile discussion.

Where was the "mutually beneficial" in the transaction by which the land which you farm was acquired from its rightful owners several generations ago?


How far back do you wish to go? One of my brothers loves to read old title reports. You can find interesting stories in there. At the present time I own no land we inherited and I really do not know the various means by which the lands came to be titled the way they are. As far as I am aware, every parcel had a buyer and a seller who agreed on a price and the transaction was made. The land I own all had a willing buyer (me) and a willing seller (one may have been coerced by a banker...). What do you think would improve that? What is the title history on the ground in which you have your abode?


I am aware of a transaction that left a bad taste in the mouth of the seller. A pair of brothers (cousins of mine) inherited a pear orchard from their father. One made an offer to buy out the other, the deal was made. Within a couple of years the price of pears went up and the value of the orchard doubled. The one brother convinced himself his brother had cheated him out of his inheritance and held a grudge against his brother for the rest of his life. He had a miserable life...divorce, financial failure, ill health. If this is an example of a failure of free market transaction, of abuse within the system, I am not impressed.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 28, 2015, 04:41:57 PM
Peter writes
There is nothing I say only to the black kids or only to the white kids, and everything I say to them applies to all of them in the same way. Nobody is free to ignore a victim, but none of them are inherently more a victim or more an oppressor than any of the rest of them in the class.
I comment
This is simply not true. But I despair of arguing it here.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on December 28, 2015, 04:49:19 PM
Peter writes
There is nothing I say only to the black kids or only to the white kids, and everything I say to them applies to all of them in the same way. Nobody is free to ignore a victim, but none of them are inherently more a victim or more an oppressor than any of the rest of them in the class.
I comment
This is simply not true. But I despair of arguing it here.
Why isn't it true?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 28, 2015, 05:45:28 PM
Peter writes
There is nothing I say only to the black kids or only to the white kids, and everything I say to them applies to all of them in the same way. Nobody is free to ignore a victim, but none of them are inherently more a victim or more an oppressor than any of the rest of them in the class.
I comment
This is simply not true. But I despair of arguing it here.
Why isn't it true?

Well, the Christian black kids, by the Grace of God, are living in the land of the free and the brave rather than in Africa, the land of their ancestors  where the strife, murder, rape, animism, and pillage are still going on - they are certainly not victims.  The Christian white kids are living in the land were whites are being persecuted by the secularist oppressors - perhaps they are the victims.   ;)

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 28, 2015, 10:43:17 PM
African-Americans in our society experience that society differently from people like this humble correspondent and Peter. And it is foolish not to admit that. And to recognize the consequences.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 28, 2015, 11:07:37 PM
African-Americans in our society experience that society differently from people like this humble correspondent and Peter. And it is foolish not to admit that. And to recognize the consequences.
Single and married people do, too, and to a greater degree. Children of their married biological parents and children of broken homes do, too, and to a greater degree. But that is all based on averages and generalizations that don't apply in every case. You can't force people into representing social categories without dehumanizing them. So I treat everyone in my confirmation class the same; I don't divide them by race any more than by family income. Everything the catechism says, it says to all of them the same. I do no service to the black children by encouraging them to think of themselves as victims. And the ten commandments condemn all of them sufficiently on the merits without adding the bogus guilt-by-association of group identity politics whereby the white kids are supposed to feel really guilty for being white. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 07:17:45 AM
"You can't force people into representing social categories without de-humanizing them."


I was an RA for a floor of guys in the dorm at Iowa State in the mid-70's. One time we were gathered for a training session on how to better interact with the Black students on our floors. A young white professional from the government came to lead us through our training. She was absolutely befuddled by the reaction of the Black RA's to her presentation. She wanted us to be sensitive to the special needs of our Black students in ways that the Black RA's found extremely offensive. No one actually likes being treated like they are incompetent to manage their own lives, that they need special privilege to thrive, that they are of a different status than everyone else. Our  trainer never did understand what was happening as she fed the Black anger at that gathering. The more liberal students among my colleagues were almost in tears that the way they had been interacting with Black folks could get the response that it did.


People are people. Treat them that way. Co-dependency is a huge problem among caring people.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 29, 2015, 07:44:57 AM
African-Americans in our society experience that society differently from people like this humble correspondent and Peter. And it is foolish not to admit that. And to recognize the consequences.
Single and married people do, too, and to a greater degree. Children of their married biological parents and children of broken homes do, too, and to a greater degree. But that is all based on averages and generalizations that don't apply in every case. You can't force people into representing social categories without dehumanizing them. So I treat everyone in my confirmation class the same; I don't divide them by race any more than by family income. Everything the catechism says, it says to all of them the same. I do no service to the blak children by encouraging them to think of themselves as victims. And the ten commandments condemn all of them sufficiently on the merits without adding the bogus guilt-by-association of group identity politics whereby the white kids are supposed to feel really guilty for being white.

Peter, well said.  I have come to the conclusion that some of the reasons progressive/liberal/elites tend to feed the diversity/multicultural ethos are to make themselves feel they are accomplishing something useful while the opposite is the truth, to actually keep the various groups separate under the guise of do-gooding, and most heinously to keep themselves in a position of self-enabled power over the perceived less fortunate.  I doubt most even realize or recognize it.  I think of the opening pericope in Matthew 7 and the self-righteousness of the pharisees.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 29, 2015, 07:53:37 AM
Of course you do not "encourage" anyone to think of themselves as victims. I keep chiding certain folk here who like to moan about how awful they are treated by "liberals." Still, minorities do experience discrimination and we must be aware of that and how it shapes their views and how we contribute to the discrimination. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 09:53:47 AM
So, what do you propose?

Fletch - I was an artilleryman.  I prefer "firecracker" to handgrenades.  ;)

Actually, I have answered your question several times in previous conversations like this.  The answer begins with collectively acknowledging the ways in which current members of society have been disenfranchised as a consequence of the sins we have committed in previous generations.  Then, follow that with a significant overhaul of public education, social services programs, etc. to ensure that the opportunities that have been taken away from the disenfranchised are restored.  If that means those of us who currently benefit from the sins committed in previous generations have to pay more in taxes, so be it.

I propose an effective focus is to proclaim the Word of God (far higher probablity of success according to the Scriptures - God will followup as He sees fit) and not so much a focus on social justice which should be a joyful response and not a command.  In business terms, focus on meeting customer needs (external focus corresponding to proclamation of the Word), not on making money (internal focus corresponding to social justice).  If I do the first effectively, the second will take care of itself.  If I focus on the second, I'll be forever frustrated because I'm trying to be in control instead of God.

You are proposing a Second use/God's right hand solution.  Basically, I agree with it.  Yet, I note that he Word already has been proclaimed and received by you and me.  We are called to live faithfully today.  What are we going to do today while we wait for others to catch up with us.  We still have the First use/God's left hand issue staring us in the face.  How will God use you and me to follow up?  How will you and I joyfully respond to the crying need for social justice in God's left hand?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 09:54:52 AM
How far back do you wish to go?

One or two transactions prior to the oldest title report.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 10:02:30 AM
I don't divide people into classes of victims and oppressors. I teach my confirmands not to victimize anyone and to forgive those who have victimized them. Both of those precepts are found in the catechism. There are no lessons in macro-economics, group identity politics, or quasi-sociology in the catechism, so I do precious little railing against capitalism, decrying America, or trying to get people to feel more guilty about Western Civilization. The class at school is 9 black and 8 white kids and everything I say applies in the very same way to all 17 of them. There is nothing I say only to the black kids or only to the white kids, and everything I say to them applies to all of them in the same way. Nobody is free to ignore a victim, but none of them are inherently more a victim or more an oppressor than any of the rest of them in the class.

Catechism is instruction in God's right hand kingdom for people who are called to live faithfully, while they wait, in God's left hand kingdom.  The reality is that there is a significant disconnect between the way things are and the way thing ought to be in God's left hand.  One such disconnect is that our society has a multi-generational problem with oppressors and victims.  We bear false witness to the confession we share if we intentionally choose to ignore that fact.

I am not advocating that you teach social justice in confirmation.  My preference would be that you stick to the catechism.  I am suggesting that supporting public policies that perpetuate the sins of our predecessors is not faithful living.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 10:09:05 AM
How far back do you wish to go?

One or two transactions prior to the oldest title report.


It is interesting that you are bothered that our government "took property" from some when at the time they felt the property could be used to better purposes, but you seem to have no problem with government now "taking property" from people for higher purposes through higher taxes. Can you see the problem with your stance in favor of "Democratic Socialism"? It is government "taking" under a more palatable name. Go look in the mirror.


Lou


And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 10:14:35 AM
It is interesting that you are bothered that our government "took property" from some when at the time they felt the property could be used to better purposes, but you seem to have no problem with government now "taking property" from people for higher purposes through higher taxes.

That analogy is false.  The government had no lawful authority to take land from indigenous peoples.  It does have lawful authority to levy taxes.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 10:21:16 AM
It is interesting that you are bothered that our government "took property" from some when at the time they felt the property could be used to better purposes, but you seem to have no problem with government now "taking property" from people for higher purposes through higher taxes.

That analogy is false.  The government had no lawful authority to take land from indigenous peoples.  It does have lawful authority to levy taxes.


Where do you get the idea the government has had no such authority? We had property condemned in the 60's so the BPA could build a transmission line across it. We had property taken on a county right-of-way as a condition for being allowed to complete a sale in the 80's. There was no compensation in either case. Sheesh.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 29, 2015, 10:41:32 AM
So, what do you propose?

Fletch - I was an artilleryman.  I prefer "firecracker" to handgrenades.  ;)

Actually, I have answered your question several times in previous conversations like this.  The answer begins with collectively acknowledging the ways in which current members of society have been disenfranchised as a consequence of the sins we have committed in previous generations.  Then, follow that with a significant overhaul of public education, social services programs, etc. to ensure that the opportunities that have been taken away from the disenfranchised are restored.  If that means those of us who currently benefit from the sins committed in previous generations have to pay more in taxes, so be it.

I propose an effective focus is to proclaim the Word of God (far higher probablity of success according to the Scriptures - God will followup as He sees fit) and not so much a focus on social justice which should be a joyful response and not a command.  In business terms, focus on meeting customer needs (external focus corresponding to proclamation of the Word), not on making money (internal focus corresponding to social justice).  If I do the first effectively, the second will take care of itself.  If I focus on the second, I'll be forever frustrated because I'm trying to be in control instead of God.

You are proposing a Second use/God's right hand solution.  Basically, I agree with it.  Yet, I note that he Word already has been proclaimed and received by you and me.  We are called to live faithfully today.  What are we going to do today while we wait for others to catch up with us.  We still have the First use/God's left hand issue staring us in the face.  How will God use you and me to follow up?  How will you and I joyfully respond to the crying need for social justice in God's left hand?
How will it be determined which of us benefit from the sins of prior generations?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on December 29, 2015, 10:44:21 AM
Catechism is instruction in God's right hand kingdom for people who are called to live faithfully, while they wait, in God's left hand kingdom.  The reality is that there is a significant disconnect between the way things are and the way thing ought to be in God's left hand.  One such disconnect is that our society has a multi-generational problem with oppressors and victims.  We bear false witness to the confession we share if we intentionally choose to ignore that fact.
This is positively chilling.  You think you know the way things ought to be in God's left hand?  That's the conceit of the central planner.  How many people have died throughout history, because some thought they knew they answer to that and acted accordingly.  The instrument of the left-hand kingdom is the sword, and it always will end up being used.  The world is a complicated place, and the law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.  The problem remains that not enough people are going to volunteer to clean the toilets.

And again, with your last sentence, you demonstrate that you are no different than the confessional types you criticize, when instructing others on exactly what the confessions mean.  It would be fine if you confined it to just how an individual should live his life of faith.  But you don't stop there, wanting to make God's Kingdom of this world, just like the zealots who were disappointed that Jesus wasn't the messiah they were expecting.

It is interesting that you are bothered that our government "took property" from some when at the time they felt the property could be used to better purposes, but you seem to have no problem with government now "taking property" from people for higher purposes through higher taxes. Can you see the problem with your stance in favor of "Democratic Socialism"? It is government "taking" under a more palatable name. Go look in the mirror.

Lou
Well-stated, yet again.  Private property is the bulwark against tyranny and oppression.  John continue to claim he can discern "justice".  Such humility.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 10:53:09 AM
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session," attributed to Mark Twain or Gideon J Tucker or both. It would seem government has authority that others have also been suspicious of....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 11:06:52 AM
It is interesting that you are bothered that our government "took property" from some when at the time they felt the property could be used to better purposes, but you seem to have no problem with government now "taking property" from people for higher purposes through higher taxes.

That analogy is false.  The government had no lawful authority to take land from indigenous peoples.  It does have lawful authority to levy taxes.


Where do you get the idea the government has had no such authority? We had property condemned in the 60's so the BPA could build a transmission line across it. We had property taken on a county right-of-way as a condition for being allowed to complete a sale in the 80's. There was no compensation in either case. Sheesh.


Lou

Imminent domain is defined by statute.  Absent declaration of war, there was no legal authority for the taking of land by force from the indigenous peoples
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on December 29, 2015, 11:09:26 AM
Heck, why don't we just give it all back and return to the lands of our origins?  Oh, wait a minute, our ancestors invaded those lands sometime back, didn't they?  Well, where should we go then?  Maybe we should all just commit suicide and allow the indigenous peoples to have it back--but then again what do you do with folks who are only part indigenous peoples and part European or African or Asian? 

Moaning about the sad old past is a pastime for people with way too much time on their hands.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 29, 2015, 11:16:31 AM
Imminent Eminent domain is defined by statute.  Absent declaration of war, there was no legal authority for the taking of land by force from the indigenous peoples

Fixed it for you... no extra charge.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 11:18:10 AM
This is positively chilling.

God's left hand is about love of neighbor and our neighbor's welfare.  I do not claim to know the full dimensions of God's left hand.  But, I do no that we are sinners who live in a fallen world.  The poor will always be with us and we are called to have concern for their welfare.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 11:18:48 AM
Imminent Eminent domain is defined by statute.  Absent declaration of war, there was no legal authority for the taking of land by force from the indigenous peoples

Fixed it for you... no extra charge.

Thanks, Randy.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 11:21:43 AM
Heck, why don't we just give it all back and return to the lands of our origins?  Oh, wait a minute, our ancestors invaded those lands sometime back, didn't they?  Well, where should we go then?  Maybe we should all just commit suicide and allow the indigenous peoples to have it back--but then again what do you do with folks who are only part indigenous peoples and part European or African or Asian? 

Moaning about the sad old past is a pastime for people with way too much time on their hands.

You offer the frequently used, but very poor, excuse for doing nothing.  I would suggest there is a significant difference between "moaning about the sad old past" and acknowledging the sins of the pasts and the consequence of those sins in the current age.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 11:24:21 AM
How will it be determined which of us benefit from the sins of prior generations?

Have you ever bothered to notice that, in this country, the descendants of slaves and indigenous people are significantly over-represented in the disenfranchised population?  Do you really think that is just a coincidence?  Do you really think it is their fault because they are just too lazy to quit playing the victim card?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 29, 2015, 11:27:17 AM
Imminent Eminent domain is defined by statute.  Absent declaration of war, there was no legal authority for the taking of land by force from the indigenous peoples

Fixed it for you... no extra charge.

Thanks, Randy.

Tuesday bonus: A bit of history about "eminent domain":

''The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.'' 160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.'' 161 In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, 162 and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation14.html#sthash.lQqXdTTr.dpuf

In some states, "eminent domain" is legally referred to as "appropriation" (New York) or "expropriation" (Louisiana) -- perhaps more telling about its nature as "seizure" by those in power.  Foreign countries often use "nationalization" and "confiscation" policies.

Too often, its exercise is by coercion/extortion -- "Do you want a permit to do x?  Might be faster and easier to get if you give us that easement...  Take your time to decide..."

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 29, 2015, 11:28:54 AM
How will it be determined which of us benefit from the sins of prior generations?

Have you ever bothered to notice that, in this country, the descendants of slaves and indigenous people are significantly over-represented in the disenfranchised population?  Do you really think that is just a coincidence?  Do you really think it is their fault because they are just too lazy to quit playing the victim card?

So, unless you are one of the "descendants of slaves ...", does that mean you benefited from their disenfranchisement?  After all, as you pointed out to Pastor Culler, what are you going to do to repent of receiving benefits from those ill-gotten gains?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 11:38:28 AM
So, unless you are one of the "descendants of slaves ...", does that mean you benefited from their disenfranchisement?  After all, as you pointed out to Pastor Culler, what are you going to do to repent of receiving benefits from those ill-gotten gains?

I don't know that we necessarily are the beneficiaries of the ill-gotten gains as much as we are guilty of supporting the social systems that perpetuate the disenfranchisement.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 29, 2015, 11:39:42 AM
"You can't force people into representing social categories without de-humanizing them."


I was an RA for a floor of guys in the dorm at Iowa State in the mid-70's. One time we were gathered for a training session on how to better interact with the Black students on our floors. A young white professional from the government came to lead us through our training. She was absolutely befuddled by the reaction of the Black RA's to her presentation. She wanted us to be sensitive to the special needs of our Black students in ways that the Black RA's found extremely offensive. No one actually likes being treated like they are incompetent to manage their own lives, that they need special privilege to thrive, that they are of a different status than everyone else. Our  trainer never did understand what was happening as she fed the Black anger at that gathering. The more liberal students among my colleagues were almost in tears that the way they had been interacting with Black folks could get the response that it did.


People are people. Treat them that way. Co-dependency is a huge problem among caring people.


A psychology class I took in college was "Individual differences." People are people, and every person is unique.


There's was a saying in my MBTI training: "All INTPs (for example) are alike; some INTPs are alike; and all INTPs are different."


The analogy is made to left-handed people: "All left handed people are alike," e.g., they prefer writing their names with their left hands. "Some left-handed people are alike," e.g., some left-handed batters bat from the left side of home-plate, but some bat from both sides. "All left-handed people are different." They do not have the same personalities, abilities, likes, etc.


In terms of minorities, they are all in a category of being a minority. Some of their experiences will be the same as other minorities, but others are not. Every person is an individual.


Some friends adopted children from Korea. I wondered if they should be considered "minorities," (e.g., in the ELCA's so-called "quota" requirements,) because they were growing up in a white, middle-class, suburban home with white-privileged parents. They had to change grade-schools for their son because he was getting beat up because he looked different. His looks made him a minority and subject to some of the prejudices that exist against minorities.


Conversely, should we say that because nearly all of us in this forum are white males in America, we are the privileged class? The answers are: yes, maybe, and sometimes no.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 29, 2015, 11:44:46 AM
So, unless you are one of the "descendants of slaves ...", does that mean you benefited from their disenfranchisement?  After all, as you pointed out to Pastor Culler, what are you going to do to repent of receiving benefits from those ill-gotten gains?

I don't know that we necessarily are the beneficiaries of the ill-gotten gains as much as we are guilty of supporting the social systems that perpetuate the disenfranchisement.

I couldn't help but notice you didn't answer the question I posed.  What are you going to do about it?  Or what do you propose that I do about it?  What is Pastor Culler supposed to do about it?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 29, 2015, 11:46:33 AM
It is interesting that you are bothered that our government "took property" from some when at the time they felt the property could be used to better purposes, but you seem to have no problem with government now "taking property" from people for higher purposes through higher taxes.

That analogy is false.  The government had no lawful authority to take land from indigenous peoples.  It does have lawful authority to levy taxes.


Where do you get the idea the government has had no such authority? We had property condemned in the 60's so the BPA could build a transmission line across it. We had property taken on a county right-of-way as a condition for being allowed to complete a sale in the 80's. There was no compensation in either case. Sheesh.


Lou

Imminent domain is defined by statute.  Absent declaration of war, there was no legal authority for the taking of land by force from the indigenous peoples

And who gets to define indigenous?  How far back do you want to go with that one?  Adam, Eve, God?

And, thank you for responding to my earlier question.  I think we have a similar objective - help others in need - we just differ on the best way to achieve it.  I am not a fan of trying to create heaven on earth - it is not Scriptural, nor is it in our Constitution.  I happen to think one-on-one interactions operating in my circle of influence to meet my neighbors' needs is a far better strategy.  I am not a fan of collectivism or big brother government as history seems to indicate when the personal motive is taken away for betterment of ones self and ones neighbor, sinful man tends to follow a strategy of to hell with everyone else as there is no need to perform better than the absolute minimum required.  I favor the definition of right and wrong to come from the one external reliable source rather than the internal source of sinful man.  I do not think it is Scriptural to enable a welfare culture - the Scriptures tend to focus more on helping those who truly are unable of helping themselves, e.g. widows without family, the injured man in the ditch.  I also do not think the Scriptures say to right the wrongs done by generations past.  For example, how do you propose we go back and "fix" the sin of Adam because of all the sorrow he caused future generations?  We can't, only God did that.  Every time man tries to fix things without following God's way, we screw it up worse than it was when we started. 

... M
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 29, 2015, 11:54:13 AM
How will it be determined which of us benefit from the sins of prior generations?

Have you ever bothered to notice that, in this country, the descendants of slaves and indigenous people are significantly over-represented in the disenfranchised population?  Do you really think that is just a coincidence?  Do you really think it is their fault because they are just too lazy to quit playing the victim card?

I think it is due to an on-purpose enabling strategy as I discussed in another post about why the liberal/progressive/elitist folks want it that way.  Enabling is a great strategy for promoting division and disunity, especially when the disenfranchised can be gullible enough to think they are being helped.

... M
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 29, 2015, 11:59:25 AM
And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.


What gave the government the right to give the land? (Similarly with the homestead laws.)


In 1400 where we live was "First Nations" land. Native Americans claimed it as their own. In 1550 maps showed this area to be "New Spain." The Spaniards claimed it as their own, but so did the natives. The Mexican revolution (1810-1821) made this land part of Mexico. Then there was the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848 - the reasons for this war is a whole 'nother discussion. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred "ownership" of much of the west from Mexico to the United States. However, Southern Arizona and New Mexico were still part of Mexico. This land was bought from Mexico by the United States in 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase. (There is a small town south of Yuma called Gadsden.) What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to claim ownership of the land so that they would fight over it and/or buy and sell it?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 29, 2015, 12:13:59 PM
Here is a lighter side to add some sparkle to your day re. the recent conversation:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/29/top-5-historical-moments-that-need-revising/

The purpose of the modern university is no longer about creating an intellectual space; it is now devoted to rooting out social injustices while reexamining and rewriting history through a progressive lens. Whether removing statues of historical figures whose existence offends, or teaching how 9/11 was America’s fault, universities across the nation are rolling up their sleeves to scrub history clean.

Whereas the challenge used to be removing bias in historical research, the historian is now tasked with making students feel better about their race’s contributions to history. Thus, in the spirit of the times, here are the top five moments in history that could be revised with a progressive philosophy. Trigger warning: History.


Read the five in the link.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 12:17:06 PM
And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.


What gave the government the right to give the land? (Similarly with the homestead laws.)


In 1400 where we live was "First Nations" land. Native Americans claimed it as their own. In 1550 maps showed this area to be "New Spain." The Spaniards claimed it as their own, but so did the natives. The Mexican revolution (1810-1821) made this land part of Mexico. Then there was the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848 - the reasons for this war is a whole 'nother discussion. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred "ownership" of much of the west from Mexico to the United States. However, Southern Arizona and New Mexico were still part of Mexico. This land was bought from Mexico by the United States in 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase. (There is a small town south of Yuma called Gadsden.) What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to claim ownership of the land so that they would fight over it and/or buy and sell it?


Machiavelli.... ;)


Lou


Seriously, though, once you go very far down this road of reparations for past sins you can only end up in cultural suicide. We all would have to go back to some "homeland" somewhere in central Asia and turn all of Europe back over to the Basques who seem to have been the original inhabitants. Making up for past sins is incredibly futile, even in the immediate present. The only way forward is to "plow the straight furrow" by not looking back. Even God says he quits counting after the third and fourth generation. I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 29, 2015, 12:28:12 PM
Ah, the uses, abuses and myths of history!
The (in)famous aphorism that
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana)
may be better understood while considering that
"History repeats itself, and has few options" (Joseph Brodsky). 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on December 29, 2015, 12:36:13 PM
And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.


What gave the government the right to give the land? (Similarly with the homestead laws.)


In 1400 where we live was "First Nations" land. Native Americans claimed it as their own. In 1550 maps showed this area to be "New Spain." The Spaniards claimed it as their own, but so did the natives. The Mexican revolution (1810-1821) made this land part of Mexico. Then there was the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848 - the reasons for this war is a whole 'nother discussion. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred "ownership" of much of the west from Mexico to the United States. However, Southern Arizona and New Mexico were still part of Mexico. This land was bought from Mexico by the United States in 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase. (There is a small town south of Yuma called Gadsden.) What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to claim ownership of the land so that they would fight over it and/or buy and sell it?


Machiavelli.... ;)


Lou


Seriously, though, once you go very far down this road of reparations for past sins you can only end up in cultural suicide. We all would have to go back to some "homeland" somewhere in central Asia and turn all of Europe back over to the Basques who seem to have been the original inhabitants. Making up for past sins is incredibly futile, even in the immediate present. The only way forward is to "plow the straight furrow" by not looking back. Even God says he quits counting after the third and fourth generation. I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.

I fear too few people participating in this discussion are aware of the difference between "ownership" of land and political sovereignty over land. When the United States assumed political jurisdiction over land that at one time was ruled by Spain, then later ruled by Mexico, the United States recognized private title to individual plots of land from Spanish land grants. The United States assumed sovereign rights to govern the lands, but continued to respect the rights of individuals who actually owned plots of land. Where the Native People were cheated was in not permitting them to claim ownership of individual plots of land, which most of them wouldn't have done anyway because they rejected the idea of personal ownership of a piece of land.

There is a strong legal principle regarding land ownership that to "own" land, one must use the land. Tilling the soil and growing crops on it. as God commanded us to do in Genesis, was the legal foundation of determining if land "belonged" to anyone. To this day, if someone develops or improves a piece of land that the holder of title has done nothing to for a certain length of time, the developer can sue to gain title to the land. The details of that vary from state-to-state since such laws are the province of the states, not the Federal government. Based on those laws, Native Americans have just cause to protest having their farms or villages taken over. But they have no legal claim of ownership of land that they simply hunted on.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 29, 2015, 01:05:57 PM
...and then can get into the entire "Prescriptive Rights" and "Prescriptive Easements" issue.  In many states, the arcane concept of "possession is nine-tenths of the law" or "if you don't use it, you lose it" is, in regard to real estate, "real".  The owner of a piece of land can lose use/access to/ownership to others (private or governmental entities) of a portion of their deeded land who/which have used it openly for their/its own purposes without permission (i.e., trespass) or even with non-contractual permission (e.g., no rent, no instrument, "casual" use) for a specified number of years (varies from state to state in the USA), if the usurper can document lengthy use even if sporadic (...right to cross your land to drive their cattle to summer pasture, for example). 

The legal duty falls to a property owner to protect its rights against the trespasser in order to maintain the "right" of ownership. 
Caveat emptor.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 01:30:03 PM
Indeed, Tektronix company of Beaverton, Oregon chained and padlocked a gate across a paved road that ran through their campus on New Year's day every year. The rest of every year the public was free to use the road as any other public right-of-way. If they had not so excluded access every year, after a certain number of years the right-of-way would have been deemed public property and would have been required to be open to the public at all times. We are currently involved in a pair of disputes with some neighbors over just such access. One neighbor is claiming a boundary adjustment needs to be made because someone placed a fence in the wrong spot long before we got here (over 30 years ago). We believe he is misreading the survey reports and we have over 30 years of the boundary being established in our favor. Another neighbor has claimed an easement across one of our fields because the previous owner of the property let him use that route as access for a number of years but not recently. Our attorney has advised us that on this one we have no recourse. The easement was used without complaint for a number of years, it could be legally established if it went to court. Adverse possession is very real in the State of Washington. (and Oregon for that matter....)


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 29, 2015, 01:41:26 PM
Adverse possession is very real in the State of Washington. (and Oregon for that matter....)
Lou

Thus the value (and expense...) of a Title Search, Preliminary Title Insurance Commitment and an ALTA Survey prior to closing on real property...(I would always couple this with an independent documents search at County Clerk/Recorder, Building and Land Use Entitlement Permits archives -- and allegedly serving Utilities.


(Edited to correct error in quote placement.  Mea culpa.)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 29, 2015, 03:34:26 PM
And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.


What gave the government the right to give the land? (Similarly with the homestead laws.)


In 1400 where we live was "First Nations" land. Native Americans claimed it as their own. In 1550 maps showed this area to be "New Spain." The Spaniards claimed it as their own, but so did the natives. The Mexican revolution (1810-1821) made this land part of Mexico. Then there was the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848 - the reasons for this war is a whole 'nother discussion. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred "ownership" of much of the west from Mexico to the United States. However, Southern Arizona and New Mexico were still part of Mexico. This land was bought from Mexico by the United States in 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase. (There is a small town south of Yuma called Gadsden.) What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to claim ownership of the land so that they would fight over it and/or buy and sell it?


Machiavelli.... ;)


Lou


Seriously, though, once you go very far down this road of reparations for past sins you can only end up in cultural suicide. We all would have to go back to some "homeland" somewhere in central Asia and turn all of Europe back over to the Basques who seem to have been the original inhabitants. Making up for past sins is incredibly futile, even in the immediate present. The only way forward is to "plow the straight furrow" by not looking back. Even God says he quits counting after the third and fourth generation. I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.


I said nothing about sins. I'm reporting history and asked a question. What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to possess the land? To sell it or give it away? I'm not saying that anyone did anything wrong. I'm in the United States because one government paid another government for the land. It's possible they could sell it back, and I'd be in Mexico.





Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 29, 2015, 03:36:16 PM
And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.


What gave the government the right to give the land? (Similarly with the homestead laws.)


In 1400 where we live was "First Nations" land. Native Americans claimed it as their own. In 1550 maps showed this area to be "New Spain." The Spaniards claimed it as their own, but so did the natives. The Mexican revolution (1810-1821) made this land part of Mexico. Then there was the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848 - the reasons for this war is a whole 'nother discussion. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred "ownership" of much of the west from Mexico to the United States. However, Southern Arizona and New Mexico were still part of Mexico. This land was bought from Mexico by the United States in 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase. (There is a small town south of Yuma called Gadsden.) What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to claim ownership of the land so that they would fight over it and/or buy and sell it?


Machiavelli.... ;)


Lou


Seriously, though, once you go very far down this road of reparations for past sins you can only end up in cultural suicide. We all would have to go back to some "homeland" somewhere in central Asia and turn all of Europe back over to the Basques who seem to have been the original inhabitants. Making up for past sins is incredibly futile, even in the immediate present. The only way forward is to "plow the straight furrow" by not looking back. Even God says he quits counting after the third and fourth generation. I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.


I said nothing about sins. I'm reporting history and asked a question. What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to possess the land? To sell it or give it away? I'm not saying that anyone did anything wrong. I'm in the United States because one government paid another government for the land. It's possible they could sell it back, and I'd be in Mexico.

Si, Padre.

... F
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on December 29, 2015, 03:37:20 PM
And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.


What gave the government the right to give the land? (Similarly with the homestead laws.)


In 1400 where we live was "First Nations" land. Native Americans claimed it as their own. In 1550 maps showed this area to be "New Spain." The Spaniards claimed it as their own, but so did the natives. The Mexican revolution (1810-1821) made this land part of Mexico. Then there was the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848 - the reasons for this war is a whole 'nother discussion. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred "ownership" of much of the west from Mexico to the United States. However, Southern Arizona and New Mexico were still part of Mexico. This land was bought from Mexico by the United States in 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase. (There is a small town south of Yuma called Gadsden.) What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to claim ownership of the land so that they would fight over it and/or buy and sell it?


Machiavelli.... ;)


Lou


Seriously, though, once you go very far down this road of reparations for past sins you can only end up in cultural suicide. We all would have to go back to some "homeland" somewhere in central Asia and turn all of Europe back over to the Basques who seem to have been the original inhabitants. Making up for past sins is incredibly futile, even in the immediate present. The only way forward is to "plow the straight furrow" by not looking back. Even God says he quits counting after the third and fourth generation. I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.

I fear too few people participating in this discussion are aware of the difference between "ownership" of land and political sovereignty over land. When the United States assumed political jurisdiction over land that at one time was ruled by Spain, then later ruled by Mexico, the United States recognized private title to individual plots of land from Spanish land grants. The United States assumed sovereign rights to govern the lands, but continued to respect the rights of individuals who actually owned plots of land. Where the Native People were cheated was in not permitting them to claim ownership of individual plots of land, which most of them wouldn't have done anyway because they rejected the idea of personal ownership of a piece of land.

There is a strong legal principle regarding land ownership that to "own" land, one must use the land. Tilling the soil and growing crops on it. as God commanded us to do in Genesis, was the legal foundation of determining if land "belonged" to anyone. To this day, if someone develops or improves a piece of land that the holder of title has done nothing to for a certain length of time, the developer can sue to gain title to the land. The details of that vary from state-to-state since such laws are the province of the states, not the Federal government. Based on those laws, Native Americans have just cause to protest having their farms or villages taken over. But they have no legal claim of ownership of land that they simply hunted on.


Then we have the irony of the government paying farmers not to farm some of the land they own.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on December 29, 2015, 03:39:54 PM
African-Americans in our society experience that society differently from people like this humble correspondent and Peter. And it is foolish not to admit that. And to recognize the consequences.
Single and married people do, too, and to a greater degree. Children of their married biological parents and children of broken homes do, too, and to a greater degree. But that is all based on averages and generalizations that don't apply in every case. You can't force people into representing social categories without dehumanizing them. So I treat everyone in my confirmation class the same; I don't divide them by race any more than by family income. Everything the catechism says, it says to all of them the same. I do no service to the black children by encouraging them to think of themselves as victims. And the ten commandments condemn all of them sufficiently on the merits without adding the bogus guilt-by-association of group identity politics whereby the white kids are supposed to feel really guilty for being white.

Because a person can claim they treat all children the same in their class room hardly changes how those same children are treated outside the class room on the basis of who they are, namely persons of color.

Who ever said the white kids are to feel guilty about how black children experience life or that  teacher or that pastor ought encourage black children to think of themselves as "victims"? 

Get real... poverty and race are factors in sectors of our society that limit the potential of many children.    Those of us whose ancestors came to this country from Europe did not have it easy, but we cannot claim to walk in the shoes of today's urban poor or those in depressed rural areas. 

Check the CTCR Racism report. The leading factors that contribute to continued racism are denial and self-defense.

marie meyer

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 03:56:09 PM
And for the record, most of our farming is in the desert--nobody wanted it. It has been said "a jack-rabbit had to carry a canteen to cross between Moses Lake and George". The land was developed for agriculture by the government and given to veterans after WWII as part of the GI Bill. Many "proved up" on it. They are dying off now. Others sold their interests to pursue other goals.


What gave the government the right to give the land? (Similarly with the homestead laws.)


In 1400 where we live was "First Nations" land. Native Americans claimed it as their own. In 1550 maps showed this area to be "New Spain." The Spaniards claimed it as their own, but so did the natives. The Mexican revolution (1810-1821) made this land part of Mexico. Then there was the Mexican-American war in 1846-1848 - the reasons for this war is a whole 'nother discussion. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo transferred "ownership" of much of the west from Mexico to the United States. However, Southern Arizona and New Mexico were still part of Mexico. This land was bought from Mexico by the United States in 1854 with the Gadsden Purchase. (There is a small town south of Yuma called Gadsden.) What gave Spain, Mexico, or the United States the right to claim ownership of the land so that they would fight over it and/or buy and sell it?


Machiavelli.... ;)


Lou


Seriously, though, once you go very far down this road of reparations for past sins you can only end up in cultural suicide. We all would have to go back to some "homeland" somewhere in central Asia and turn all of Europe back over to the Basques who seem to have been the original inhabitants. Making up for past sins is incredibly futile, even in the immediate present. The only way forward is to "plow the straight furrow" by not looking back. Even God says he quits counting after the third and fourth generation. I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.

I fear too few people participating in this discussion are aware of the difference between "ownership" of land and political sovereignty over land. When the United States assumed political jurisdiction over land that at one time was ruled by Spain, then later ruled by Mexico, the United States recognized private title to individual plots of land from Spanish land grants. The United States assumed sovereign rights to govern the lands, but continued to respect the rights of individuals who actually owned plots of land. Where the Native People were cheated was in not permitting them to claim ownership of individual plots of land, which most of them wouldn't have done anyway because they rejected the idea of personal ownership of a piece of land.

There is a strong legal principle regarding land ownership that to "own" land, one must use the land. Tilling the soil and growing crops on it. as God commanded us to do in Genesis, was the legal foundation of determining if land "belonged" to anyone. To this day, if someone develops or improves a piece of land that the holder of title has done nothing to for a certain length of time, the developer can sue to gain title to the land. The details of that vary from state-to-state since such laws are the province of the states, not the Federal government. Based on those laws, Native Americans have just cause to protest having their farms or villages taken over. But they have no legal claim of ownership of land that they simply hunted on.


Then we have the irony of the government paying farmers not to farm some of the land they own.


It is an incredible irony, isn't it? A pair of farms my family owns are in the CRP program. The government, in its wisdom, put together a program which pays us to maintain grass and wildlife habitat rather than produce wheat. It is a very popular program with environmentalists....and it pays competitively with actually operating the ground. There are at least 2 counties here in Central Washington which are up against the limit as to the amount of acreage that can be enrolled per county. The program receives mixed reviews among farmers. Counties which have been heavily enrolled have seen their local infrastructure disappear as far fewer people are needed to operate acreage. On the other hand, it is a guaranteed income in places that sometimes do not grow good crops. There is a $50000 per person payment limit involved, so the large farms have a more difficult time enrolling acreage in the program. We had sufficient family members with unused payment limits that we actually made a pretty good deal on a farm we recently purchased. The buyer pool was somewhat limited by the level of CRP contracts the farm brought with it. Our long-term plan will probably see the place go back into production.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 29, 2015, 03:59:26 PM
African-Americans in our society experience that society differently from people like this humble correspondent and Peter. And it is foolish not to admit that. And to recognize the consequences.
Single and married people do, too, and to a greater degree. Children of their married biological parents and children of broken homes do, too, and to a greater degree. But that is all based on averages and generalizations that don't apply in every case. You can't force people into representing social categories without dehumanizing them. So I treat everyone in my confirmation class the same; I don't divide them by race any more than by family income. Everything the catechism says, it says to all of them the same. I do no service to the black children by encouraging them to think of themselves as victims. And the ten commandments condemn all of them sufficiently on the merits without adding the bogus guilt-by-association of group identity politics whereby the white kids are supposed to feel really guilty for being white.

Because a person can claim they treat all children the same in their class room hardly changes how those same children are treated outside the class room on the basis of who they are, namely persons of color.

Who ever said the white kids are to feel guilty about how black children experience life or that  teacher or that pastor ought encourage black children to think of themselves as "victims"? 

Get real... poverty and race are factors in sectors of our society that limit the potential of many children.    Those of us whose ancestors came to this country from Europe did not have it easy, but we cannot claim to walk in the shoes of today's urban poor or those in depressed rural areas. 

Check the CTCR Racism report. The leading factors that contribute to continued racism are denial and self-defense.

marie meyer


They forgot the third--co-dependency.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 07:31:47 PM
I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.

I'm not talking about a way off this rock.  I'm talking about living faithfully while we are still here.  And, as I have suggested more than once, it is not a matter of flagellation over past sins.  It is calling to account for past sins that we have perpetuated in the current age.  Also, please note that I have not advocated "reparations".  I don't think that is possible even if we were committed to doing it.  I have advocated being honest without ourselves about all of the factors that have created multi-generational poverty and the reality that most of our disenfranchised citizens lack the capacity to break that cycle.

If we share an understanding of first use and God's left hand, I do not understand why the idea that we advocate for a socio-economic system that really does work for all of our citizens and a willingness to pay more in taxes, if that is required, to support the kinds of programs that will facilitate folks in poverty to the first rung is perceived as all that radical or all that "liberal".
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 29, 2015, 07:34:56 PM
I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.

I'm not talking about a way off this rock.  I'm talking about living faithfully while we are still here.  And, as I have suggested more than once, it is not a matter of flagellation over past sins.  It is calling to account for past sins that we have perpetuated in the current age.  Also, please note that I have not advocated "reparations".  I don't think that is possible even if we were committed to doing it.  I have advocated being honest without ourselves about all of the factors that have created multi-generational poverty and the reality that most of our disenfranchised citizens lack the capacity to break that cycle.

If we share an understanding of first use and God's left hand, I do not understand why the idea that we advocate for a socio-economic system that really does work for all of our citizens and a willingness to pay more in taxes, if that is required, to support the kinds of programs that will facilitate folks in poverty to the first rung is perceived as all that radical or all that "liberal".

To help you understand, think "Obamaphone".   ;D

... F
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 07:48:53 PM
I happen to think one-on-one interactions operating in my circle of influence to meet my neighbors' needs is a far better strategy

So am I.  But, when it comes to multi-generational poverty, we have a long history of not getting the job done.  Please note that I did not advocate in favor of any of the current government programs.  I advocated for public programs that work (I'm not convinced that we, as a society want those either).  My personal preference would be public-private partnerships (c.f. Reinventing Government) in which government defines minimum standards and some of the funding and private agencies deliver the services.  You might recall that George Bush proposed something similar with his idea of faith-based initiatives, but it never got legs.

I think it is due to an on-purpose enabling strategy as I discussed in another post about why the liberal/progressive/elitist folks want it that way.  Enabling is a great strategy for promoting division and disunity, especially when the disenfranchised can be gullible enough to think they are being helped.

You can find anecdotal information that supports that idea, but I think that concept is exaggerated and, too often, used as an excuse to simply defund programs and do nothing.  Certainly, our social services programs could do better and part of what I have been advocating is to overhaul the programs.  I also think it is an error to put all of the blame on liberal ideology.  The idea of confining folks in urban ghettos and turning a blind eye to their criminal activity as long as it is confined to the ghetto and using social programs to facilitate the confinement comes right out of conservative ideology.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 29, 2015, 07:57:13 PM
I do not understand the psychology of people like Mr Mundinger who insist on continual self and corporate flagellation over past sins. The only conclusion I am left with is such people do not really believe in forgiveness as the only way off this rock.

I'm not talking about a way off this rock.  I'm talking about living faithfully while we are still here.  And, as I have suggested more than once, it is not a matter of flagellation over past sins.  It is calling to account for past sins that we have perpetuated in the current age.  Also, please note that I have not advocated "reparations".  I don't think that is possible even if we were committed to doing it.  I have advocated being honest without ourselves about all of the factors that have created multi-generational poverty and the reality that most of our disenfranchised citizens lack the capacity to break that cycle.

If we share an understanding of first use and God's left hand, I do not understand why the idea that we advocate for a socio-economic system that really does work for all of our citizens and a willingness to pay more in taxes, if that is required, to support the kinds of programs that will facilitate folks in poverty to the first rung is perceived as all that radical or all that "liberal".

Two points:
1) What is the difference between "flagellation over past sins" and "calling to account for past sins"?
2) I think everyone on the board can agree that "a socio-economic system that really does work for all our citizens" is a worthy goal.  The difference lies in what qualifies as "really does work".  As Mr. Garner pointed out upthread (I think it was this thread), no system of economics or government can really account for that annoying little detail we call "sin".  "In capitalism, man exploits man.  In socialism, it's the other way around".  (I wish I could take credit for that but I don't remember where I read it.)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 08:07:29 PM
Two points:
1) What is the difference between "flagellation over past sins" and "calling to account for past sins"?

Please re-read my post and you might discover the answer to your own question.

I think everyone on the board can agree that "a socio-economic system that really does work for all our citizens" is a worthy goal.

If it really is a worthy goal, why is our society trending in the wrong direction?

As, Mr. Garner pointed out upthread (I think it was this thread), no system of economics or government can really account for that annoying little detail we call "sin".

I have been saying that since this tangent began (and in previous conversations like this one) and on that point David and I agree.

"In capitalism, man exploits man.  In socialism, it's the other way around".  (I wish I could take credit for that but I don't remember where I read it.)

I think I have been trying to make that point.  No matter how we structure society, our system will be corrupt and those with an advantage will exploit those without.  I do not understand why Lutherans would defend any of them.  We happen to live in a system that calls itself free-market capitalism (even though it isn't).  We have a duty to criticize it. ;)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 29, 2015, 08:08:58 PM
Check the CTCR Racism report. The leading factors that contribute to continued racism are denial and self-defense.

Indeed!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 29, 2015, 08:51:19 PM
Two points:
1) What is the difference between "flagellation over past sins" and "calling to account for past sins"?

Please re-read my post and you might discover the answer to your own question.

I think everyone on the board can agree that "a socio-economic system that really does work for all our citizens" is a worthy goal.

If it really is a worthy goal, why is our society trending in the wrong direction?

As, Mr. Garner pointed out upthread (I think it was this thread), no system of economics or government can really account for that annoying little detail we call "sin".

I have been saying that since this tangent began (and in previous conversations like this one) and on that point David and I agree.

"In capitalism, man exploits man.  In socialism, it's the other way around".  (I wish I could take credit for that but I don't remember where I read it.)

I think I have been trying to make that point.  No matter how we structure society, our system will be corrupt and those with an advantage will exploit those without.  I do not understand why Lutherans would defend any of them.  We happen to live in a system that calls itself free-market capitalism (even though it isn't).  We have a duty to criticize it. ;)

Please re-read my post and you might discover the answer to your own question.
I did.  That's why I asked.  :-)  "Being honest with all the factors ... "?  Again, that seems to be saying the same thing in yet a third way.

I understand you and Mr. Garner agreed on that point, which was why I referenced it.  I'm just trying to connect the dots on your points.  You seem to be saying "We messed up and we're seeing the consequences of messing up" but when asked what to do about it, the answer is "we're sinners and nothing we do is perfect" which just leaves us sitting in our guilt.  Then, when Pastor Hesse (among others) suggests looking to the Cross you go back to "we have to acknowledge our sin".  Which is where we started.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on December 30, 2015, 01:57:15 AM
African-Americans in our society experience that society differently from people like this humble correspondent and Peter. And it is foolish not to admit that. And to recognize the consequences.
Single and married people do, too, and to a greater degree. Children of their married biological parents and children of broken homes do, too, and to a greater degree. But that is all based on averages and generalizations that don't apply in every case. You can't force people into representing social categories without dehumanizing them. So I treat everyone in my confirmation class the same; I don't divide them by race any more than by family income. Everything the catechism says, it says to all of them the same. I do no service to the black children by encouraging them to think of themselves as victims. And the ten commandments condemn all of them sufficiently on the merits without adding the bogus guilt-by-association of group identity politics whereby the white kids are supposed to feel really guilty for being white.

Because a person can claim they treat all children the same in their class room hardly changes how those same children are treated outside the class room on the basis of who they are, namely persons of color.

Who ever said the white kids are to feel guilty about how black children experience life or that  teacher or that pastor ought encourage black children to think of themselves as "victims"? 

Get real... poverty and race are factors in sectors of our society that limit the potential of many children.    Those of us whose ancestors came to this country from Europe did not have it easy, but we cannot claim to walk in the shoes of today's urban poor or those in depressed rural areas. 

Check the CTCR Racism report. The leading factors that contribute to continued racism are denial and self-defense.

marie meyer
Who ever denied the existence of racism? There are racists. I am not one of them and do not deserve to be treated as one of them. There are black people who suffer from the legacy of slavery, no question. But not all black people are in that boat. The best way to perpetuate racial hatred is to insist on thinking you know something about a person because you can see the color of their skin. You don't. Racists think they do.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on December 30, 2015, 07:47:14 AM
We are not always speaking of "racial hatred," Peter, but of the subtle after-effects of the discrimination that not so long ago dominated our land. You will, of course, deny the validity and value of every study on racial inequality in our times. And it is not racism, but realism to say you can indeed know something about someone because of the color of their skin. You may not know them as a person, but you can know something about how they will experience life in certain places.
That's the real world. Yours...?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 30, 2015, 08:20:26 AM
Please re-read my post and you might discover the answer to your own question.
I did.  That's why I asked.  :-)  "Being honest with all the factors ... "?  Again, that seems to be saying the same thing in yet a third way.

You may have read the post more again and, again, you have misquoted me. 

I said, "And, as I have suggested more than once, it is not a matter of flagellation over past sins.  It is calling to account for past sins that we have perpetuated in the current age.  When we turn a blind eye to the consequences of the sins of prior generations, those sins now belong to the current generation.

I understand you and Mr. Garner agreed on that point, which was why I referenced it.  I'm just trying to connect the dots on your points.  You seem to be saying "We messed up and we're seeing the consequences of messing up" but when asked what to do about it, the answer is "we're sinners and nothing we do is perfect" which just leaves us sitting in our guilt.  Then, when Pastor Hesse (among others) suggests looking to the Cross you go back to "we have to acknowledge our sin".  Which is where we started.

Having confessed our sins, having been to the Cross, having received the promise of forgiveness and salvation in Christ's name, what do we do next? I'd suggest that we are called to do two things:  1) go back to the place where our Lord found us and live faithfully, including loving neighbor; and, 2) come back to the cross frequently because we continue to sin and have an on-going need to receive the promise of forgiveness and salvation.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 30, 2015, 08:24:59 AM
There are black people who suffer from the legacy of slavery, no question.

There also are Indian people who suffer from the legacy of our history.  Given that you and I agree that such disenfranchised people exist in our society, what do you suggest is obligation for those of us who are not thus weighed down to correct their situation?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 30, 2015, 08:37:20 AM
Please re-read my post and you might discover the answer to your own question.
I did.  That's why I asked.  :-)  "Being honest with all the factors ... "?  Again, that seems to be saying the same thing in yet a third way.

You may have read the post more again and, again, you have misquoted me. 

I said, "And, as I have suggested more than once, it is not a matter of flagellation over past sins.  It is calling to account for past sins that we have perpetuated in the current age.  When we turn a blind eye to the consequences of the sins of prior generations, those sins now belong to the current generation.

I understand you and Mr. Garner agreed on that point, which was why I referenced it.  I'm just trying to connect the dots on your points.  You seem to be saying "We messed up and we're seeing the consequences of messing up" but when asked what to do about it, the answer is "we're sinners and nothing we do is perfect" which just leaves us sitting in our guilt.  Then, when Pastor Hesse (among others) suggests looking to the Cross you go back to "we have to acknowledge our sin".  Which is where we started.

Having confessed our sins, having been to the Cross, having received the promise of forgiveness and salvation in Christ's name, what do we do next? I'd suggest that we are called to do two things:  1) go back to the place where our Lord found us and live faithfully, including loving neighbor; and, 2) come back to the cross frequently because we continue to sin and have an on-going need to receive the promise of forgiveness and salvation.
"Flagellation over past sins ... " was a direct quote.
"Calling to account for past sins ... " was a direct quote.
"Being honest with all the factors ... " was a direct quote.
Where did I mis-quote you?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 30, 2015, 09:06:05 AM
"Calling to account for past sins ... " was a direct quote, that I cited out of context

fixed your post
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 30, 2015, 09:10:02 AM
There are black people who suffer from the legacy of slavery, no question.

There also are Indian people who suffer from the legacy of our history.  Given that you and I agree that such disenfranchised people exist in our society, what do you suggest is obligation for those of us who are not thus weighed down to correct their situation?


The proper response is "How may I help?" and then a lot of listening and not enabling the patterns which have held them in the bondage they experience....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 30, 2015, 09:28:21 AM
"Calling to account for past sins ... " was a direct quote, that I cited out of context

fixed your post

"Out of context" and "misquote" are two different things.  In addition, my initial quote cited the entire paragraph.  That said, I saw two consecutive sentences with similar phrasing and asked what the difference is.  Near as I can tell, the difference seems to be "perpetuated to the current age".  Which was where I was going with my initial question:  what do we do about it? 

That was why I referenced the conversation with Mr. Garner - you seem to be saying that any solution is going to be tainted by our sinful nature.  Since that's the case, we won't ever really solve anything this side of eternity.  Since it isn't solved, the sin is "perpetuated to our present age" and we need to be "called to account".  Thus the parallel I drew between the two sentences.  "I'm not talking about flagellation over past sins.  I'm talking about calling to account for past sins that we can never do enough to fix".
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 30, 2015, 09:31:00 AM
There are black people who suffer from the legacy of slavery, no question.

There also are Indian people who suffer from the legacy of our history.  Given that you and I agree that such disenfranchised people exist in our society, what do you suggest is obligation for those of us who are not thus weighed down to correct their situation?


The proper response is "How may I help?" and then a lot of listening and not enabling the patterns which have held them in the bondage they experience....


Lou
This.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 30, 2015, 09:46:47 AM
The proper response is "How may I help?" and then a lot of listening and not enabling the patterns which have held them in the bondage they experience....

I would agree with that answer except for two things:

1) You did not say anything about a commitment to follow through to act upon what you learned from them.

2) More to the point of this conversation, they have been telling us how we may help throughout my lifetime and, over that same period, mainstream society has intentionally turned a deaf ear.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 30, 2015, 09:49:27 AM
"Out of context" and "misquote" are two different things.  In addition, my initial quote cited the entire paragraph.

Ignoring half of the sentence was both a misquote and a cite out of context.  You might have used the quote function to reference the entire paragraph, but then you asked me to clarify something that I had not really said.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 30, 2015, 09:58:26 AM
The proper response is "How may I help?" and then a lot of listening and not enabling the patterns which have held them in the bondage they experience....

I would agree with that answer except for two things:

1) You did not say anything about a commitment to follow through to act upon what you learned from them.

2) More to the point of this conversation, they have been telling us how we may help throughout my lifetime and, over that same period, mainstream society has intentionally turned a deaf ear.


1) I would not ask "how may I help?" if I had no intention of helping...


2) What have you heard "them" ask for? That you have turned a deaf ear to?


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 30, 2015, 10:02:19 AM
2) What have you heard "them" ask for? That you have turned a deaf ear to?

If our society expects them to pull themselves up by their boot straps, they want boots with straps.  They also have asked for equitable treatment from law enforcement.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 30, 2015, 10:11:13 AM
"Out of context" and "misquote" are two different things.  In addition, my initial quote cited the entire paragraph.

Ignoring half of the sentence was both a misquote and a cite out of context.  You might have used the quote function to reference the entire paragraph, but then you asked me to clarify something that I had not really said.

That was what I was trying to do with the second paragraph of my post that started this exchange.  I'm trying to understand what you consider the difference between those two sentences.  Because, as I again pointed out in the second paragraph of my previous post, I don't see a difference between "flagellation" and "I'm talking about calling to account for past sins that we can never do enough to fix". 

Additionally, before we go through another round of what exactly was said to whom, I will stipulate up front that you never wrote "I'm talking about calling to account for past sins that we can never do enough to fix".  But you did say, in answer to my question, "I think I have been trying to make that point.  No matter how we structure society, our system will be corrupt and those with an advantage will exploit those without.  I do not understand why Lutherans would defend any of them.  We happen to live in a system that calls itself free-market capitalism (even though it isn't).  We have a duty to criticize it. ;)"

So maybe I should have asked (my apologies for the long-winded cite but I don't want another fight about context and misquotes):
"What is the difference between 'flagellation over past sins' and 'calling to account for past sins that perpetuate themselves to the present age because no matter how we structure society, our system will be corrupt and those with an advantage will exploit those without.  I do not understand why Lutherans would defend any of them.  We happen to live in a system that calls itself free-market capitalism (even though it isn't).  We have a duty to criticize it. ;)"
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on December 30, 2015, 12:04:12 PM
African-Americans in our society experience that society differently from people like this humble correspondent and Peter. And it is foolish not to admit that. And to recognize the consequences.
Single and married people do, too, and to a greater degree. Children of their married biological parents and children of broken homes do, too, and to a greater degree. But that is all based on averages and generalizations that don't apply in every case. You can't force people into representing social categories without dehumanizing them. So I treat everyone in my confirmation class the same; I don't divide them by race any more than by family income. Everything the catechism says, it says to all of them the same. I do no service to the black children by encouraging them to think of themselves as victims. And the ten commandments condemn all of them sufficiently on the merits without adding the bogus guilt-by-association of group identity politics whereby the white kids are supposed to feel really guilty for being white.

Because a person can claim they treat all children the same in their class room hardly changes how those same children are treated outside the class room on the basis of who they are, namely persons of color.

Who ever said the white kids are to feel guilty about how black children experience life or that  teacher or that pastor ought encourage black children to think of themselves as "victims"? 

Get real... poverty and race are factors in sectors of our society that limit the potential of many children.    Those of us whose ancestors came to this country from Europe did not have it easy, but we cannot claim to walk in the shoes of today's urban poor or those in depressed rural areas. 

Check the CTCR Racism report. The leading factors that contribute to continued racism are denial and self-defense.

marie meyer
Who ever denied the existence of racism? There are racists. I am not one of them and do not deserve to be treated as one of them. There are black people who suffer from the legacy of slavery, no question. But not all black people are in that boat. The best way to perpetuate racial hatred is to insist on thinking you know something about a person because you can see the color of their skin. You don't. Racists think they do.

Truth be told, if I am walking alone at night and come upon a big black man, a fear arises in me.  This is not true should I come upon a big white man.

I doubt I would welcome having a black ob/gyn male physician join the medical group I visit.

I know  that I am quicker to judge unmarried black women mothers than I am to judge white women who have children out of wedlock.

The question is not whether I still harbor racist  thoughts based on the idea that I know something about black men and women, but how I act upon thoughts that spring up in my mind.

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 08:17:46 AM
That was what I was trying to do with the second paragraph of my post that started this exchange.  I'm trying to understand what you consider the difference between those two sentences.  Because, as I again pointed out in the second paragraph of my previous post, I don't see a difference between "flagellation" and "I'm talking about calling to account for past sins that we can never do enough to fix".

We can never do enough to fix the consequences of past sins.  We can do a lot to fix the consequences of past sins as they affect people who live among us.  That, however, is not going to happen if we use the excuse that these are past sins, we can never do enough so let's just ignore the problem.

The reality is that, in this country, there are well established voices who are quick to blame the disenfranchised for their plight, who point to the flaws in current social programs as the reason to eliminate the programs and who offer nothing in their place.  In my opinion, it is incorrect for Christians to add their voice to such arguments.

So maybe I should have asked (my apologies for the long-winded cite but I don't want another fight about context and misquotes):
"What is the difference between 'flagellation over past sins' and 'calling to account for past sins that perpetuate themselves to the present age because no matter how we structure society, our system will be corrupt and those with an advantage will exploit those without.  I do not understand why Lutherans would defend any of them.  We happen to live in a system that calls itself free-market capitalism (even though it isn't).  We have a duty to criticize it. ;)"

The distinction that I was trying to make with the initial post was between flagellation of past sins vs. confessing past sins which we have appropriated as our own because we have failed to love our neighbors who, today, are affected by the consequences of those past sins.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 31, 2015, 08:38:25 AM
That was what I was trying to do with the second paragraph of my post that started this exchange.  I'm trying to understand what you consider the difference between those two sentences.  Because, as I again pointed out in the second paragraph of my previous post, I don't see a difference between "flagellation" and "I'm talking about calling to account for past sins that we can never do enough to fix".

We can never do enough to fix the consequences of past sins.  We can do a lot to fix the consequences of past sins as they affect people who live among us.  That, however, is not going to happen if we use the excuse that these are past sins, we can never do enough so let's just ignore the problem.

The reality is that, in this country, there are well established voices who are quick to blame the disenfranchised for their plight, who point to the flaws in current social programs as the reason to eliminate the programs and who offer nothing in their place.  In my opinion, it is incorrect for Christians to add their voice to such arguments.

So maybe I should have asked (my apologies for the long-winded cite but I don't want another fight about context and misquotes):
"What is the difference between 'flagellation over past sins' and 'calling to account for past sins that perpetuate themselves to the present age because no matter how we structure society, our system will be corrupt and those with an advantage will exploit those without.  I do not understand why Lutherans would defend any of them.  We happen to live in a system that calls itself free-market capitalism (even though it isn't).  We have a duty to criticize it. ;)"

The distinction that I was trying to make with the initial post was between flagellation of past sins vs. confessing past sins which we have appropriated as our own because we have failed to love our neighbors who, today, are affected by the consequences of those past sins.

I Confess my sins every Sunday morning, and receive Absolution.  Is that not sufficient?  The only thing I can do realistically is love my neighbors, meet their needs if asked to help, and treat them as fellow human beings - one-on-one.  Focusing on the past is just furthering the problems and stirs up hate.  And of course, I vote and make my opinions known in the public square.  But, expecting a nebulous "society" to do something is a pipe dream, in my opinion - it reminds me of always wanting the "other guy" to fix problems.

... F
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 09:01:47 AM
I Confess my sins every Sunday morning, and receive Absolution.  Is that not sufficient?

Sufficient for what? 

The only thing I can do realistically is love my neighbors, meet their needs if asked to help, and treat them as fellow human beings - one-on-one.

Why do you wait for them to ask for help?

And, I'd suggest that there is something else you can do.  You can put your neighbors' interests ahead of your own when informing your own socio-political perspective.

But, expecting a nebulous "society" to do something is a pipe dream, in my opinion - it reminds me of always wanting the "other guy" to fix problems.

The United States is not a nebulous society.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 31, 2015, 09:06:29 AM
I Confess my sins every Sunday morning, and receive Absolution.  Is that not sufficient?

Sufficient for what? 

The only thing I can do realistically is love my neighbors, meet their needs if asked to help, and treat them as fellow human beings - one-on-one.

Why do you wait for them to ask for help?

And, I'd suggest that there is something else you can do.  You can put your neighbors' interests ahead of your own when informing your own socio-political perspective.

But, expecting a nebulous "society" to do something is a pipe dream, in my opinion - it reminds me of always wanting the "other guy" to fix problems.

The United States is not a nebulous society.

1. You really have to ask that question?  Seriously?

2. Unsolicited advice is rarely received well.  I try to mind my own business before managing someone else's.  Mt 7:3

3. I disagree.  The US is made up of nebulous individuals, constantly changing due to birth, death and immigration.  Each individual is frequently changing their mind and beliefs based upon new and old data and experiences. 

... F
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 31, 2015, 09:38:30 AM
That was what I was trying to do with the second paragraph of my post that started this exchange.  I'm trying to understand what you consider the difference between those two sentences.  Because, as I again pointed out in the second paragraph of my previous post, I don't see a difference between "flagellation" and "I'm talking about calling to account for past sins that we can never do enough to fix".

We can never do enough to fix the consequences of past sins.  We can do a lot to fix the consequences of past sins as they affect people who live among us.  That, however, is not going to happen if we use the excuse that these are past sins, we can never do enough so let's just ignore the problem.

The reality is that, in this country, there are well established voices who are quick to blame the disenfranchised for their plight, who point to the flaws in current social programs as the reason to eliminate the programs and who offer nothing in their place.  In my opinion, it is incorrect for Christians to add their voice to such arguments.

So maybe I should have asked (my apologies for the long-winded cite but I don't want another fight about context and misquotes):
"What is the difference between 'flagellation over past sins' and 'calling to account for past sins that perpetuate themselves to the present age because no matter how we structure society, our system will be corrupt and those with an advantage will exploit those without.  I do not understand why Lutherans would defend any of them.  We happen to live in a system that calls itself free-market capitalism (even though it isn't).  We have a duty to criticize it. ;)"

The distinction that I was trying to make with the initial post was between flagellation of past sins vs. confessing past sins which we have appropriated as our own because we have failed to love our neighbors who, today, are affected by the consequences of those past sins.

But, as we both agree, any solution we adopt will be corrupted by sin.  Well-intentioned people will make mistakes, people will act out of self-interest, etc.  So the solution falls short, the problem still exists, you point out the problem still exists.  I.e., flagellation.  So I guess I'm stilll not understanding the difference.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on December 31, 2015, 09:41:31 AM


Why do you wait for them to ask for help?




This, THIS betrays a paternalistic attitude. The attitude which says "I know what you need more than you do, you poor hopeless soul." It is a fundamental mark which betrays co-dependency. If one lives in that attitude long enough towards one's neighbors, the neighbors will come to despise one because you treat them as fundamentally incompetent. I learned this one the hard way. I have a younger brother who simply could not get his act together and I knew precisely what he needed to do to "fix" his problems. Well, he hated my over-bearing free "advice" to the point he has not spoken to me in 20 years. I have a daughter who is a chip off the old block. She set out to save the world, at least one member of it, her first husband. He got tired of always being told how he could do so much better if "he just tried this". They are divorced.


There... I have confessed my sin. Don't go down the same road.


Christians care, we are supposed to care, but not at the price of disrespecting our fellow man. A lifeguard is taught not to attempt to rescue a drowning man until they are ready to be helped. Christians need to learn to lend a hand when it is requested. Not before. Jesus own words "what would you have me do for you?"(Mark 10:51, MT 20:32)


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 31, 2015, 09:55:28 AM


Why do you wait for them to ask for help?




This, THIS betrays a paternalistic attitude. The attitude which says "I know what you need more than you do, you poor hopeless soul." It is a fundamental mark which betrays co-dependency. If one lives in that attitude long enough towards one's neighbors, the neighbors will come to despise one because you treat them as fundamentally incompetent. I learned this one the hard way. I have a younger brother who simply could not get his act together and I knew precisely what he needed to do to "fix" his problems. Well, he hated my over-bearing free "advice" to the point he has not spoken to me in 20 years. I have a daughter who is a chip off the old block. She set out to save the world, at least one member of it, her first husband. He got tired of always being told how he could do so much better if "he just tried this". They are divorced.


There... I have confessed my sin. Don't go down the same road.


Christians care, we are supposed to care, but not at the price of disrespecting our fellow man. A lifeguard is taught not to attempt to rescue a drowning man until they are ready to be helped. Christians need to learn to lend a hand when it is requested. Not before. Jesus own words "what would you have me do for you?"(Mark 10:51, MT 20:32)


Lou

Mr. Mundinger - This also goes to the "flagellation" I have been talking about in the other sub-thread.  Continuous calls to do "something" without really understanding what that "something" is.  Or taking disagreement about how to best accomplish that "something" as evidence of not wanting to do anything.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 10:14:24 AM
This, THIS betrays a paternalistic attitude.

No it doesn't.  It just means living with our eyes open to the reality of the world around us.  The Good Samaritan certainly didn't bother to ask first.

Christians care, we are supposed to care, but not at the price of disrespecting our fellow man.

We are also not to grasp for excuses for puttting our selfish interests ahead of our neighbor in need.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 10:21:05 AM
Mr. Mundinger - This also goes to the "flagellation" I have been talking about in the other sub-thread.  Continuous calls to do "something" without really understanding what that "something" is. 

You misunderstood my answer to your question about what to do if you read into it the assumption that I was advocating doing something without really understanding what that something is.

Or taking disagreement about how to best accomplish that "something" as evidence of not wanting to do anything.

I agree with that and I would love to engage the conversation about how do we, as a society, best serve our disenfranchised population.  However, I have not heard those who oppose current social services programs suggest anything other than blaming the disenfranchised and defunding programs that serve them without replacing them with something else.


Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 31, 2015, 10:40:12 AM
Mr. Mundinger - This also goes to the "flagellation" I have been talking about in the other sub-thread.  Continuous calls to do "something" without really understanding what that "something" is. 

You misunderstood my answer to your question about what to do if you read into it the assumption that I was advocating doing something without really understanding what that something is.

Or taking disagreement about how to best accomplish that "something" as evidence of not wanting to do anything.

I agree with that and I would love to engage the conversation about how do we, as a society, best serve our disenfranchised population.  However, I have not heard those who oppose current social services programs suggest anything other than blaming the disenfranchised and defunding programs that serve them without replacing them with something else.

Which displays a certain insularity on your part - "I have not heard ...".  Since you have not heard of something, it doesn't exist.

Actually you are advocating doing something without understanding.  There is a scale and complexity to (for example) Ferguson, MO that didn't exist in the Good Samaritan parable you cited as an example to Pastor Hesse.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 31, 2015, 10:41:33 AM
I agree with that and I would love to engage the conversation about how do we, as a society, best serve our disenfranchised population.  However, I have not heard those who oppose current social services programs suggest anything other than blaming the disenfranchised and defunding programs that serve them without replacing them with something else.

There are, as you know, a few nuances inside of your blanket statement that need consideration.  Here, only one is addressed because I am scheduled to go help some disenfranchised folks that are not helped by a current ss program due to corruption in the program.
It is a program that brooks no constructive input, perhaps because those franchised (those who run the program) have the authority and the checkbook, without meaningful accountability to the disenfranchised or to the authorizing public.

Your statement judges those who oppose any current ss program because of clear evidence of graft and corruption, including great and unquestionable overpayments to its employees and contractors/suppliers.  They want a reformation, housecleaning, honesty and not greed within the program, not to kill it off.  Sometimes, unfortunately, a program is so corrupted that a total restart is needed.  That need raises the question of how to maintain the service to the disenfranchised during the disruption.

Meanwhile, until a few "franchised" reform or do a perp walk, either of which may never happen or can take many years, the disenfranchised are robbed once again.

Thus, your use of blanket condemnations of those who disagree with your unwritten parameters and performance specifications for unspecified programs intended to care for those in need unwittingly helps those who feed on their "customers" like carrion birds ripping out still living flesh -- to use your generality approach -- everywhere sinful mankind walks the earth.


Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 31, 2015, 10:43:59 AM
This, THIS betrays a paternalistic attitude.

No it doesn't.  It just means living with our eyes open to the reality of the world around us.  The Good Samaritan certainly didn't bother to ask first.

You keep using the Good Samaritan as an example of how we are to act in living in the world around us. Why is that?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 10:57:26 AM
This, THIS betrays a paternalistic attitude.

No it doesn't.  It just means living with our eyes open to the reality of the world around us.  The Good Samaritan certainly didn't bother to ask first.

You keep using the Good Samaritan as an example of how we are to act in living in the world around us. Why is that?

Because our Lord spoke that parable in response to the question, "who is my neighbor".  Further, Martin Luther used that parable to explain that my neighbors are those persons who are in need of our love.  Thus, I think there is a lot that you and I can learn from it when wrestling with the question, "how do we live faithfully in a fallen world?"

I am under no illusion that there is one answer superior to another in response to that question.  But, I think it is instructive that:
1) It is very easy to ignore the neighbor who needs our love.
2) The Samaritan did not wait to first ask the man what he needed - he saw the need and responded as best he could.
3) The Samaritan had no assurance that the care he provided would guarantee that the man would recover.  He acted, regardless.

I also am under no illusion that I have the "better answer".  In fact, quite the contrary.  In my opinion, the better answer can only result from Christians who agree that there is a problem and agree that we have a duty to act working together to define appropriate responses.  However, as a general observation, we have a lot of Christians in this country who seem content to refuse to see the problem.  And, in all honesty, it is a bit disappointing that some of the logic offered for ignoring the problem has been reiterated in this conversation.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on December 31, 2015, 11:01:25 AM
The Pharisee and the Levite did nothing wrong. In fact, they followed the law just as we are to do.

The Good Samaritan did what none of us can do, Mr. Mundinger. The Good Samaritan is Jesus. Why do you turn gospel into law other than because you are addressing those of us with whom you disagree via the "royal we"? Why do you wish to turn Jesus from Savior to Lawgiver?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on December 31, 2015, 11:26:39 AM
Re. the good Samaritan account:

Mr. Mundinger,

I also think there is a difference in need between the neighbor who is capable of asking for help vs. the neighbor who is laying in a ditch half dead.  One can express a need for help and one likely cannot.  My earlier reply was dealing with the neighbor who is capable of asking for help, not one who is comatose and in need of an IV, CPR and a defibrillator.   Why do you pick such extreme examples?  They border on straw men in my opinion and distract and divert from any good points you make that may deserve thoughtful answers.

... F
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on December 31, 2015, 11:32:17 AM
Quote: The Pharisee and the Levite did nothing wrong. In fact, they followed the law just as we are to do.

Is the OT God (who is also the NT God) pleased with the offering of bulls and rams or does he not expect the heart to do otherwise?

We do not follow the law you indicate, they were not following the 10 commandments they were following the ceremonial law and we do not follow that and they were following it according to God's full will which included mercy. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 11:47:42 AM
The Pharisee and the Levite did nothing wrong. In fact, they followed the law just as we are to do.

They followed the law.  But, as the parable demonstrates, Christ has turned the law upside down.  The Priest and the Levite were fine examples of how people yield to the temptation to turn adherence to the Law as service of self.  Yet, it is clear from the account that our Lord is providing instruction about loving God and loving neighbor.  Doing nothing really was not following the law, at all.

The Good Samaritan did what none of us can do, Mr. Mundinger. The Good Samaritan is Jesus. Why do you turn gospel into law other than because you are addressing those of us with whom you disagree via the "royal we"? Why do you wish to turn Jesus from Savior to Lawgiver?

I think a better interpretation/application of the parable is to understand how we, as simul justus et peccator, find ourselves in each of the characters in the story.  That also would be consistent with a plain read of the text.  The "royal we" is relevant because everyone of us (except those born with an original sin exemption) find ourselves in the ditch.

I agree that there is a lot of Gospel in the parable.  There also is a lot of instruction in faithful living.  We cannot ignore the fact that Jesus concluded the instruction by saying, "Go and do likewise".


Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 31, 2015, 12:00:14 PM
This, THIS betrays a paternalistic attitude.

No it doesn't.  It just means living with our eyes open to the reality of the world around us.  The Good Samaritan certainly didn't bother to ask first.

You keep using the Good Samaritan as an example of how we are to act in living in the world around us. Why is that?

Because our Lord spoke that parable in response to the question, "who is my neighbor".  Further, Martin Luther used that parable to explain that my neighbors are those persons who are in need of our love.  Thus, I think there is a lot that you and I can learn from it when wrestling with the question, "how do we live faithfully in a fallen world?"

I am under no illusion that there is one answer superior to another in response to that question.  But, I think it is instructive that:
1) It is very easy to ignore the neighbor who needs our love.
2) The Samaritan did not wait to first ask the man what he needed - he saw the need and responded as best he could.
3) The Samaritan had no assurance that the care he provided would guarantee that the man would recover.  He acted, regardless.

I also am under no illusion that I have the "better answer".  In fact, quite the contrary.  In my opinion, the better answer can only result from Christians who agree that there is a problem and agree that we have a duty to act working together to define appropriate responses.  However, as a general observation, we have a lot of Christians in this country who seem content to refuse to see the problem.  And, in all honesty, it is a bit disappointing that some of the logic offered for ignoring the problem has been reiterated in this conversation.

Who is ignoring the problem?  Mr. Bosch provided a positive example of someone trying to address the problem.  Or at least a manifestation of the larger problem.  It struck me as a very Lutheran response.  Within his vocation (I don't know him except as a screen name, so I may be off base) he is attempting to correct a program that has been mismanaged while still serving the disenfranchised.

Second, your use of the phrase "appropriate responses" is quite telling.  That's where the problem lies.  What qualfies as "appropriate"?  Government programs?  Private donations?  Churches?  I will readily grant that some are content to "cross by on the other side" (to use your out-of-context application of the parable).  But much of what you denigrate as ignoring the problem are you ignoring solutions put forth.  (Flagellation, anyone?)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 01:17:18 PM
Second, your use of the phrase "appropriate responses" is quite telling.  That's where the problem lies.  What qualfies as "appropriate"?  Government programs?  Private donations?  Churches?

All of the above and then some??  I though "appropriate responses" was self-evident from the way that I phrased it - 1) agreeing that there is a problem; 2)  agreeing that we have a duty response; and 3) together, crafting a solution that we all agree is appropriate.  As this conversation seems to demonstrate, we are not yet in agreement that there is a problem or a duty to respond.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 31, 2015, 02:09:15 PM
... As this conversation seems to demonstrate, we are not yet in agreement that there is a problem or a duty to respond.

Please identify the comments/commentators who have stated or implied that there is NOT a problem or a duty to respond.
Or, are you using the royal "we" here, too? 
The conversation is muddied by different, inappropriate, or novel definitions of standard terms and words.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on December 31, 2015, 02:24:51 PM
... As this conversation seems to demonstrate, we are not yet in agreement that there is a problem or a duty to respond.

Please identify the comments/commentators who have stated or implied that there is NOT a problem or a duty to respond.

Randy - I have been criticized from several directions in this conversation.  None of the those posts have criticized anything that I have proposed as solutions.  They all have criticized my for identifying the problem and noting the lack of a response to resolve it.  There has even been a post or two suggesting the blame rests with the victims.  That sounds like denial to me.  How would you interpret it?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 31, 2015, 03:36:25 PM
... As this conversation seems to demonstrate, we are not yet in agreement that there is a problem or a duty to respond.

Please identify the comments/commentators who have stated or implied that there is NOT a problem or a duty to respond.
Or, are you using the royal "we" here, too? 
The conversation is muddied by different, inappropriate, or novel definitions of standard terms and words.

How so?  Did it cross your mind I was trying to elicit a response as to what you considered "appropriate"?  All well and good to your "all of the above" answer, but if you expected me to agree to your answer I suppose I will have to disappoint you.  While I see nothing with which I disagree, I see precious little except a feel-good platitude.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 31, 2015, 03:58:32 PM
... As this conversation seems to demonstrate, we are not yet in agreement that there is a problem or a duty to respond.

Please identify the comments/commentators who have stated or implied that there is NOT a problem or a duty to respond.

Randy - I have been criticized from several directions in this conversation.  None of the those posts have criticized anything that I have proposed as solutions.  They all have criticized my for identifying the problem and noting the lack of a response to resolve it.  There has even been a post or two suggesting the blame rests with the victims.  That sounds like denial to me.  How would you interpret it?

Non-responsive, John.  You have not proposed any solutions, nor identified the problem except for (summarizing how it all comes across, not specifically quoting you, John): "we are all sinners", "we need to confess to and repent of the world's past sins, even those not specifically our own", "we need to continue to pay retribution for those past sins, whatever they may be and whosever they were - including our real, temporal ones", "we need to do this by supporting without reservation programs to help the disenfranchised of whatever cause and condition - without asking - and of whatever provenance the programs may be, particularly if they are societal (governmental?) in scope and power"

How would I interpret your denial of those critiques that tried in a positive manner to elicit a true response from you? 
You are in denial.  Others must pay.  It is never enough. 
The echoes you hear might be from your beating a drum of pure Law, and not hearing what others are saying.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 31, 2015, 04:07:35 PM
... As this conversation seems to demonstrate, we are not yet in agreement that there is a problem or a duty to respond.

Please identify the comments/commentators who have stated or implied that there is NOT a problem or a duty to respond.

Randy - I have been criticized from several directions in this conversation.  None of the those posts have criticized anything that I have proposed as solutions.  They all have criticized my for identifying the problem and noting the lack of a response to resolve it.  There has even been a post or two suggesting the blame rests with the victims.  That sounds like denial to me.  How would you interpret it?

Non-responsive, John.  You have not proposed any solutions, nor identified the problem except for (summarizing how it all comes across, not specifically quoting you, John): "we are all sinners", "we need to confess to and repent of the world's past sins, even those not specifically our own", "we need to continue to pay retribution for those past sins, whatever they may be and whosever they were - including our real, temporal ones", "we need to do this by supporting without reservation programs to help the disenfranchised of whatever cause and condition - without asking - and of whatever provenance the programs may be, particularly if they are societal (governmental?) in scope and power"

How would I interpret your denial of those critiques that tried in a positive manner to elicit a true response from you? 
You are in denial.  Others must pay.  It is never enough. 
The echoes you hear might be from your beating a drum of pure Law, and not hearing what others are saying.

Which is why I kicked off this entire sub-thread by asking about (there's that word again) "flagellation".  I realize you have tried several times to explain it but I guess the nuance is lost on me.

(BTW - when you started off by addressing "John" I thought, "Hey, I didn't write that! ... Oh ... wait ... nevermind"   :)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on December 31, 2015, 06:44:50 PM
Which is why I kicked off this entire sub-thread by asking about (there's that word again) "flagellation".  I realize you have tried several times to explain it but I guess the nuance is lost on me.

(BTW - when you started off by addressing "John" I thought, "Hey, I didn't write that! ... Oh ... wait ... nevermind"   :)

Sorry, John K, I thought the fact that I was responding to John M would be sufficient differentiation between John's.  I'll adjust.
As to confusion.... I (Randy B) have never used the "f" word in any public forum, including this one, and have never tried to explain either it or related nuances here (or elsewhere...).

So, Your first "you" is addressed to John M; your second "you" is addressed to Randy B.
I don't think that the concept addresses John M's thesis, but perhaps the nuance is lost on me!

Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Koke on December 31, 2015, 08:34:28 PM
Which is why I kicked off this entire sub-thread by asking about (there's that word again) "flagellation".  I realize you have tried several times to explain it but I guess the nuance is lost on me.

(BTW - when you started off by addressing "John" I thought, "Hey, I didn't write that! ... Oh ... wait ... nevermind"   :)

Sorry, John K, I thought the fact that I was responding to John M would be sufficient differentiation between John's.  I'll adjust.
As to confusion.... I (Randy B) have never used the "f" word in any public forum, including this one, and have never tried to explain either it or related nuances here (or elsewhere...).

So, Your first "you" is addressed to John M; your second "you" is addressed to Randy B.
I don't think that the concept addresses John M's thesis, but perhaps the nuance is lost on me!

Happy New Year!

No worries - I figured out which John you meant by the time I got to the end of the sentence.  :-)

As to the bolding, I should have taken more care to emphasize it was directed at Mr. Mundinger.  I don't know how closely you've been following the discussion but upthread he wrote that he "wasn't interested in flagellation".  I countered that he seemed to engage in that very behavior so I was using your summary as an example of what I meant.  My apologies for any confusion I caused.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 08:24:04 AM
Non-responsive, John.  You have not proposed any solutions, nor identified the problem except for (summarizing how it all comes across, not specifically quoting you, John): "we are all sinners", "we need to confess to and repent of the world's past sins, even those not specifically our own", "we need to continue to pay retribution for those past sins, whatever they may be and whosever they were - including our real, temporal ones", "we need to do this by supporting without reservation programs to help the disenfranchised of whatever cause and condition - without asking - and of whatever provenance the programs may be, particularly if they are societal (governmental?) in scope and power"

Actually, I have proposed an approach for developing solutions in this and previous threads.  To do that, we have to acknowledge the problem.  But, as a nation, we are in denial.  Specifically, I have not advocated "retribution".

In conversations like this, Ezekiel's definition of "sodomy" might be helpful.  Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 08:59:50 AM
In conversations like this, Ezekiel's definition of "sodomy" might be helpful.  Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

That would be like saying that this is the definition of vehicular manslaughter.

Behold, this was the guilt of your brother Eathan Couch, the "affluenza" teen: he had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 02, 2016, 09:52:41 AM

Actually, I have proposed an approach for developing solutions in this and previous threads.  To do that, we have to acknowledge the problem.  But, as a nation, we are in denial.  Specifically, I have not advocated "retribution".




I'm sure you will correct me....but I believe you have advocated "retribution." You stated up thread that you were in favor of "democratic socialism". You also made it clear that we as a nation need to recognize our corporate sins toward indigenous people and people who arrived here by slavery, indentured servitude, or the like. You have made it quite clear that the "ruling oligarchy" needs to be cast aside so the on-going abuse can come to an end. You have also indicated that you see no problem with taxation as a means to your proposed ends. "Taxation is not taking another's goods since "we"decide within the structures of our lawful entities to do it to ourselves". When I hear all of these things being advocated together, I am left concluding that your vision would imply retributive tax structures targeting the wealthy oligarchs for the sake of the historic downtrodden so they (those abused by previous societal structures of injustice) may enjoy the full fruits of American culture. Where is my understanding of your proposed future in error? And how is this vision not retributive?


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 10:04:46 AM
I'm sure you will correct me....but I believe you have advocated "retribution." You stated up thread that you were in favor of "democratic socialism".

"democractic socialism" does not equal "retribution".  And, in crafting the rest of that paragraph you failed to say anything about the specific proposal that I offered.  I will, however, give you extra credit for creative use of less than best construction.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 02, 2016, 10:15:15 AM
I'm sure you will correct me....but I believe you have advocated "retribution." You stated up thread that you were in favor of "democratic socialism".

"democractic socialism" does not equal "retribution".  And, in crafting the rest of that paragraph you failed to say anything about the specific proposal that I offered.  I will, however, give you extra credit for creative use of less than best construction.


Thanks John, from you this is a compliment. Or at least as close as you can get to one.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 02, 2016, 10:41:49 AM
  I will, however, give you extra credit for creative use of less than best construction.


Actually, you could set a fine example here of something you advocate for if you would address the argument rather than attack the person....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Matt Hummel on January 02, 2016, 10:51:22 AM
The Pharisee and the Levite did nothing wrong. In fact, they followed the law just as we are to do.

They followed the law.  But, as the parable demonstrates, Christ has turned the law upside down.  The Priest and the Levite were fine examples of how people yield to the temptation to turn adherence to the Law as service of self.  Yet, it is clear from the account that our Lord is providing instruction about loving God and loving neighbor.  Doing nothing really was not following the law, at all.

The Good Samaritan did what none of us can do, Mr. Mundinger. The Good Samaritan is Jesus. Why do you turn gospel into law other than because you are addressing those of us with whom you disagree via the "royal we"? Why do you wish to turn Jesus from Savior to Lawgiver?

I think a better interpretation/application of the parable is to understand how we, as simul justus et peccator, find ourselves in each of the characters in the story.  That also would be consistent with a plain read of the text.  The "royal we" is relevant because everyone of us (except those born with an original sin exemption) find ourselves in the ditch.

I agree that there is a lot of Gospel in the parable.  There also is a lot of instruction in faithful living.  We cannot ignore the fact that Jesus concluded the instruction by saying, "Go and do likewise".

Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) Samaritan is in fact the neighbor?

BTW- Tubus delenda est.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 02, 2016, 10:56:27 AM
The Pharisee and the Levite did nothing wrong. In fact, they followed the law just as we are to do.

They followed the law.  But, as the parable demonstrates, Christ has turned the law upside down.  The Priest and the Levite were fine examples of how people yield to the temptation to turn adherence to the Law as service of self.  Yet, it is clear from the account that our Lord is providing instruction about loving God and loving neighbor.  Doing nothing really was not following the law, at all.

The Good Samaritan did what none of us can do, Mr. Mundinger. The Good Samaritan is Jesus. Why do you turn gospel into law other than because you are addressing those of us with whom you disagree via the "royal we"? Why do you wish to turn Jesus from Savior to Lawgiver?

I think a better interpretation/application of the parable is to understand how we, as simul justus et peccator, find ourselves in each of the characters in the story.  That also would be consistent with a plain read of the text.  The "royal we" is relevant because everyone of us (except those born with an original sin exemption) find ourselves in the ditch.

I agree that there is a lot of Gospel in the parable.  There also is a lot of instruction in faithful living.  We cannot ignore the fact that Jesus concluded the instruction by saying, "Go and do likewise".

Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) Samaritan is in fact the neighbor?

Perhaps a "both/and", not an "either/or"?  Note also that the victim in the ditch wasn't asked what he wanted - an obvious need was met by the Samaritan.  The man in the ditch also did not turn down the help even though it was from a Samaritan.  Nor did the innkeeper refuse service to either one of them.  Whole bunch of good neighborliness going on there.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 02, 2016, 11:01:05 AM
...the specific proposal that I offered. 

John Mundinger, you have also stated that you don't have a specific solution, more recently than your specific proposal, and that you were proposing a methodology or process, not specific solutions.

Your "specific proposal" was either so long ago in this thread, or so enveloped in fog by subsequent dissertations and digressions that it has been lost in the mist, at least to me.  Would you please do us the favor of reiterating it, or at least quoting it from your best previous iteration, to get some of us out of the fog?  Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 11:09:57 AM
Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate)...

Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

Similarly, Matt. 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Matt Hummel on January 02, 2016, 11:20:34 AM
Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate)...

Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

or... Maybe it was to get the young man to see that no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) type people were his neighbors, so that when he "loved his neighbor" he had an appropriate definition. A whole lot changes when we see "neighbors" the way Our Lord wants us to see them. Our neighbors are the folks in the ELCA trying to destroy the idea of family. Our neighbors are foolish people in the LCMS who think that six 24 hour days wrought all we see. Our neighbors are Catholics who refuse to see the wisdom of Law & Gospel as the one size fits all hermeneutic. Our neighbors the Syrian Moslem refugees as well as the the Christians facing martyrdom.

Ever stop to wonder if the fact that the young man said, "the one who helped..." had less to do with his approval of the actions and more to do with the fact that he didn't want to say the S word?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 11:32:42 AM
John Mundinger, you have also stated that you don't have a specific solution, more recently than your specific proposal, and that you were proposing a methodology or process, not specific solutions.

The "specific proposal" is not a "specific solution" because the latter requires our society working together to 1) acknowledge the reality of the problem; 2) accepting responsibility for it; and, 3) work together to resolve it. 

Were we to do #3, it would result in a comprehensive overhaul of our social services program; health care; and, public education.  It might include public works projects to both address our failing infrastructure and to provide employment and employment training opportunities (I don't think I said that in the previous post - I should have).  I also noted a personal preference for public-private partnerships for delivering social services (I referenced "Reinventing Government") - i.e. government defines minimum standards and provides some of the funding/private organizations deliver the services with accountability.  It might require additional revenue, especially if we are unwilling to reduce spending on defense. 

It is my observation that we do not want to do either #1 or #2 so we cannot even begin to have the dialog necessary to make #3 a possibility.  And, were we to actually have that conversation, it would be exceedingly difficult to control the influence who think profits are a higher priority than actually serving the people who need the service (e.g. note the influence the pharmaceutical industry had in developing Medicare Part D).
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on January 02, 2016, 11:34:49 AM
Or is the point of the Parable that the Samaritan- a no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate)...

Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

or... Maybe it was to get the young man to see that no good, shiftless, lazy, dirty, ignorant, terror-prone, (fill in with what ever ethnic/religious/racial stereotype you deem appropriate) type people were his neighbors, so that when he "loved his neighbor" he had an appropriate definition. A whole lot changes when we see "neighbors" the way Our Lord wants us to see them. Our neighbors are the folks in the ELCA trying to destroy the idea of family. Our neighbors are foolish people in the LCMS who think that six 24 hour days wrought all we see. Our neighbors are Catholics who refuse to see the wisdom of Law & Gospel as the one size fits all hermeneutic. Our neighbors the Syrian Moslem refugees as well as the the Christians facing martyrdom.

Ever stop to wonder if the fact that the young man said, "the one who helped..." had less to do with his approval of the actions and more to do with the fact that he didn't want to say the S word?

Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 11:49:09 AM

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."


So you (and the Lutheran Study Bible) do not see this parable also falling under first use of the law? Do you conclude that since we cannot perfectly fulfill the laws, we shouldn't even try to love God or do loving deeds for our neighbors because they will be tainted by sin?


I have often preached that we are the man half-dead in the ditch and God is the Samaritan who gets in the ditch with us to restore us to life. This also can imply that at other times we may also be the innkeeper to whom God turns over the care of the needy. ἐπιμελέομαι ("take care of") is used of what the Samaritan/God/Jesus does for the man in the inn in v. 34, and also what the innkeeper is to continue to do for the man in v. 35 after the Samaritan leaves. The only other time this word is used in the NT is 1 Tim 3:5 where bishops are told to "take care" of the church of God (like they "manage" (προΐστημι - lit. "stand before" = "have authority over") their own households. Should pastors stop trying to "take care" of their flocks because we can't do it perfectly? We do the best we can, repenting all the way for the many times we fail.


"Do this and live" and "go and do likewise" need to be seen as 1st use laws (as well as 2nd use).
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 11:49:24 AM
Yes, that would be Jesus, who became all of that and more, for us.

From notes in The Lutheran Study Bible: Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31):

"10:28 do this, and you will live. Jesus affirms that if a person perfectly fulfills the Law of God, that individual will receive eternal life on Judgment Day. However, this is impossible for sinners...

10:25–37 Jesus tells the famous parable of the Good Samaritan to clarify that He expects His followers to do good to all people. However, His concluding exhortation, “Go, and do likewise,” reminds us just how far we are from the loving, self-sacrificing behaviors the Lord expects. So it was that Jesus became the Good Samaritan for us. He laid down His life, befriended us while we were yet His enemies. He promises us full restoration and life everlasting."

Similarly, Matt. 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

I agree with the comments from the study notes and I suspect that others who are in this conversation also would. Certainly, the Good Samaritan understood that the man in the ditch was his neighbor and he sacrificed on the man's behalf.  He did not die for him.   So, I'm not convinced that the notes necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jesus is the Good Samaritan.  I'm not sure what is to be accomplished debating that point.

Regardless, I referenced the parable in the context of this conversation because, even if we cannot keep the commandment, how are people who know the parable and who accept the "third use" to respond to the commandment to go and do likewise?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 12:00:13 PM
Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Personally, I think Franzmann's notes on the parable are more helpful:

"The Law is clear and the imperative of love is inescapable; even a Samaritan could hear and heed it.  In the last analysis, the question is not one of mind (who is?) but of will - how can I prove neighbor to the man across my path?  Five men are confronted by the Law.  The lawyer, the priest and the Levite evaded it.  The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 02, 2016, 12:05:49 PM
John Mundinger, you have also stated that you don't have a specific solution, more recently than your specific proposal, and that you were proposing a methodology or process, not specific solutions.

The "specific proposal" is not a "specific solution" because the latter requires our society working together to 1) acknowledge the reality of the problem; 2) accepting responsibility for it; and, 3) work together to resolve it. 

Were we to do #3, it would result in a comprehensive overhaul of our social services program; health care; and, public education.  It might include public works projects to both address our failing infrastructure and to provide employment and employment training opportunities (I don't think I said that in the previous post - I should have).  I also noted a personal preference for public-private partnerships for delivering social services (I referenced "Reinventing Government") - i.e. government defines minimum standards and provides some of the funding/private organizations deliver the services with accountability.  It might require additional revenue, especially if we are unwilling to reduce spending on defense. 

It is my observation that we do not want to do either #1 or #2 so we cannot even begin to have the dialog necessary to make #3 a possibility.  And, were we to actually have that conversation, it would be exceedingly difficult to control the influence who think profits are a higher priority than actually serving the people who need the service (e.g. note the influence the pharmaceutical industry had in developing Medicare Part D).


1) "Acknowledge the reality of the problem"--


     We are all sinners curved in upon ourselves.


2)"Accept responsibility for the problem"--


     I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by        what I have done and by what I have left undone.


3)"Work together to resolve the problem"--


     Preach Christ and Him crucified, the rest will follow.


So we are in agreement, right?


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Do you conclude that since we cannot perfectly fulfill the laws, we shouldn't even try to love God or do loving deeds for our neighbors because they will be tainted by sin?

That is simply silly, BPS.

The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 12:10:14 PM
Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Personally, I think Franzmann's notes on the parable are more helpful:

"The Law is clear and the imperative of love is inescapable; even a Samaritan could hear and heed it.  In the last analysis, the question is not one of mind (who is?) but of will - how can I prove neighbor to the man across my path?  Five men are confronted by the Law.  The lawyer, the priest and the Levite evaded it.  The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it.

Sounds like Franzmann is stating, as in TLSB note, in the end Jesus is the Good Samaritan.

In the end, do you want Jesus as the Lawgiver, a new Moses, or Jesus as Savior?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 12:25:12 PM
I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.


How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 12:27:05 PM


1) "Acknowledge the reality of the problem"--


     We are all sinners curved in upon ourselves.


2)"Accept responsibility for the problem"--


     I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by        what I have done and by what I have left undone.


3)"Work together to resolve the problem"--


     Preach Christ and Him crucified, the rest will follow.


So we are in agreement, right?


How does that sermonette then apply to the reality that multi-generational disenfranchisement exists in our society?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 12:28:12 PM
Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Thank you for that nice manifestation of the 3rd use of the Law.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 12:29:45 PM
Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Personally, I think Franzmann's notes on the parable are more helpful:

"The Law is clear and the imperative of love is inescapable; even a Samaritan could hear and heed it.  In the last analysis, the question is not one of mind (who is?) but of will - how can I prove neighbor to the man across my path?  Five men are confronted by the Law.  The lawyer, the priest and the Levite evaded it.  The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it.

Sounds like Franzmann is stating, as in TLSB note, in the end Jesus is the Good Samaritan.

In the end, do you want Jesus as the Lawgiver, a new Moses, or Jesus as Savior?


First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."


Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 12:30:53 PM
Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Thank you for that nice manifestation of the 3rd use of the Law.


1st use in my understanding. They are not rules that only Christians should be doing, but all people for the good of society.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 12:33:07 PM
Personally, I think Franzmann's notes on the parable are more helpful:

"The Law is clear and the imperative of love is inescapable; even a Samaritan could hear and heed it.  In the last analysis, the question is not one of mind (who is?) but of will - how can I prove neighbor to the man across my path?  Five men are confronted by the Law.  The lawyer, the priest and the Levite evaded it.  The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it.

Sounds like Franzmann is stating, as in TLSB note, in the end Jesus is the Good Samaritan.

In the end, do you want Jesus as the Lawgiver, a new Moses, or Jesus as Savior?

Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 12:39:23 PM
Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Personally, I think Franzmann's notes on the parable are more helpful:

"The Law is clear and the imperative of love is inescapable; even a Samaritan could hear and heed it.  In the last analysis, the question is not one of mind (who is?) but of will - how can I prove neighbor to the man across my path?  Five men are confronted by the Law.  The lawyer, the priest and the Levite evaded it.  The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it.

Sounds like Franzmann is stating, as in TLSB note, in the end Jesus is the Good Samaritan.

In the end, do you want Jesus as the Lawgiver, a new Moses, or Jesus as Savior?


First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."


Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.

Which is why I stated, in the end. If you want Him as Lawgiver, that IS what you will get. Irresistible law, BPS, not irresistible grace.

Jeff Gibbs would simply roll his eyes with your characterization of Matthew. As would Matthew and the Lord. But then you've not shown a lot of respect for Matthew and fulfillment of the messianic prophecies of a Savior. as well as overlooking the following:

"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ..."

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way."

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

"And he called his name Jesus."

That's in only the first chapter.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 12:41:12 PM
Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law.

Which is exactly what I have done in my comments as well as in the notes from TLSB.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 12:48:00 PM
Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law.

Which is exactly what I have done in my comments as well as in the notes from TLSB.

Except that you merged two different men into one to come up with four.  The Good Samaritan may demonstrate a level of obedience that is beyond our capacity but he is not a metaphor for fulfillment of the Law and there is nothing in Franzmann's notes to suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 01:02:46 PM
Franzmann mentioned 5 men, not 4.  Franzmann also clearly distinguished between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law.

Which is exactly what I have done in my comments as well as in the notes from TLSB.

Except that you merged two different men into one to come up with four.  The Good Samaritan may demonstrate a level of obedience that is beyond our capacity but he is not a metaphor for fulfillment of the Law and there is nothing in Franzmann's notes to suggest otherwise.

Which is what Jesus did, merging two into one. That's exactly what the Good Samaritan is which is what Franzmann concludes.

" The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it."

In the end, the Good Samaritan is Jesus.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 01:13:16 PM
Which is what Jesus did, merging two into one. That's exactly what the Good Samaritan is which is what Franzmann concludes.

" The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it."

In the end, the Good Samaritan is Jesus.

There is a clear difference between the Samaritan and Jesus and between obeying the Law and fulfilling the Law in Franzmann's note.  Had Franzmann agreed with your conclusion, he would have said so, explicitly.  He didn't.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 01:14:31 PM
Yes to this post.  The first sentence in the Lutheran Study Bible quote inverts the process.  "We," the Jews of that time or the Christians of ours, are by nature inclined to put ourselves in the position of the helpers of the helpless, when all too often we stand idly by.  And "they," those we objectify as on the outside, are (uh-oh) able to carry out righteousness in God's realm of the left as neighbors.  That is not the aim of the Study Bible, because the second sentence taken from the Lutheran Study Bible spiritualizes the parable eisegetically in a way not stated in the text at all.

Personally, I think Franzmann's notes on the parable are more helpful:

"The Law is clear and the imperative of love is inescapable; even a Samaritan could hear and heed it.  In the last analysis, the question is not one of mind (who is?) but of will - how can I prove neighbor to the man across my path?  Five men are confronted by the Law.  The lawyer, the priest and the Levite evaded it.  The Samaritan in the simplicity of his heart obeyed it.  Jesus went on to the cross in an unbroken unity of love for God and all His half-dead neighbors and fulfilled it.

Sounds like Franzmann is stating, as in TLSB note, in the end Jesus is the Good Samaritan.

In the end, do you want Jesus as the Lawgiver, a new Moses, or Jesus as Savior?


First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."


Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.

Which is why I stated, in the end. If you want Him as Lawgiver, that IS what you will get. Irresistible law, BPS, not irresistible grace.


What do you see Jesus doing in Matthew 5? Is he just blowing smoke or redefining the Law?

Quote
Jeff Gibbs would simply roll his eyes with your characterization of Matthew. As would Matthew and the Lord. But then you've not shown a lot of respect for Matthew and fulfillment of the messianic prophecies of a Savior. as well as overlooking the following:

"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ..."

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way."

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

"And he called his name Jesus."

That's in only the first chapter.


Matthew never uses the noun "Savior" in his Gospel. He does use the verb "save". Sometimes in specific instances, e.g., saving the disciples from the storm at sea, saving Peter from sinking in the sea, saving/healing the woman from her bleeding, but he does not save himself from the cross.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 02, 2016, 01:42:54 PM


1) "Acknowledge the reality of the problem"--


     We are all sinners curved in upon ourselves.


2)"Accept responsibility for the problem"--


     I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by        what I have done and by what I have left undone.


3)"Work together to resolve the problem"--


     Preach Christ and Him crucified, the rest will follow.


So we are in agreement, right?


How does that sermonette then apply to the reality that multi-generational disenfranchisement exists in our society?


The application of the sermon is always in the hands of the Holy Spirit who, according to our common confession, "works where and when He chooses." He may trigger some to a specific action, others He will trigger to other specific action, and some He may not trigger at all. Not everyone responded the same to Jesus.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 02, 2016, 01:48:34 PM
I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.


How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.


Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 01:49:08 PM
He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."

Then, when pointed out that Matthew indeed refers to Jesus as Savior...

Matthew never uses the noun "Savior" in his Gospel.

That's so cute! 

He does use the verb "save". Sometimes in specific instances, e.g., saving the disciples from the storm at sea, saving Peter from sinking in the sea, saving/healing the woman from her bleeding, but he does not save himself from the cross.

No, BPS, He does not save Himself from the cross. As Matthew clearly tells us, He saves us. Matthew is referring to Him as Savior.

"She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 02:04:39 PM
What do you see Jesus doing in Matthew 5? Is he just blowing smoke or redefining the Law?

Whoever said that Jesus did not preach the Law?! What I said was that, in the end, if you want Jesus as Lawgiver or a new Moses, that IS what you will get. Irresistible law, not irresistible grace.

Besides, I already answered your Matthew 5 inquiry above.  Compare, "Go and do likewise" with "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48

Note on 5:43-48 from TLSB:

"Some people, when confronted with the strict demands of the Law, will whittle off a point here, another there. [Just as the lawyer tried to do in Luke 10] They suggest that we do the best we can, and God will be satisfied. But God demands perfection, which sinners cannot achieve (cf Rm 7:21–25; 1Tm 1:15). Our perfection is in Christ alone. As God’s redeemed people, Jesus declares that we are salt of the earth and light of the world."
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 02:47:39 PM
First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."

Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.

What Walther had to say about such a view...

"Thesis V.

The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized — and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists, Socinians, and Rationalists, and consists in this, that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver..."

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/theses.html

"In Canon 21 [of the Council of Trent], adopted at its sixth session, this synagog of Satan decrees:'If any one says that Christ Jesus has been given by God to men that He should be their Redeemer, in whom they are to trust, and not also their Lawgiver, whom they are to obey, let him be anathema.' This decree overthrows the Christian religion completely. If Christ came into the world to publish new laws to us, we should feel like saying that He might as well have stayed in heaven. Moses had already given us so perfect a Law that we could not fulfil it. Now, if Christ had given us additional laws, that would have had to drive us to despair. [emphasis added]

The very term Gospel contradicts this view of the papists. We know that Christ Himself has called His Word Gospel; for He says in Mark 16, 15: “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” In order that the meaning which He connected with the word Gospel might be understood, He states the contents of the Gospel in these concrete terms: “He that believeth and is baptized,” etc. If the teaching of Christ were a law, it would not be an eujaggevlion (sic), a glad tiding, but a sad tiding...

All the apostles corroborate His teaching. John says in his gospel, chap. 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He places the Law over against grace and truth...

In chap. 3, 17 the same apostle says: God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Quite plainly the thought that Christ came into the world to proclaim a new law is barred here. Had that been His object, He would have come to judge the world. For the Law passes judgment on sinners. However, God did not send his Son to pass judgment on the world, but to save the world through Him. By the term world the Lord refers to mankind in its apostate and lost condition, to the lost, accursed, and condemned sinners that make up the world. To these the Savior brings this blessed doctrine: “Though You have broken every commandment of God, do not despair; I am bringing you forgiveness and salvation here and hereafter.”

In language so plain that it requires no comment the apostle states in Romans, chap. 1, 16. 17: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the Just shall live by faith.

1 Tim. 1, 15 we read: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. In view of these plain passages, is it not a horrible teaching of the papists that what is called Gospel in the Scriptures according to them is nothing else than a new law?"

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-09.html#thesis_five
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 04:28:01 PM
I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.


How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.


Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.


I have argued for the necessity of the law repeatedly in this forum. My opponents accuse me if disregarding the law. Don't confuse what they accuse me of saying with what I actually write. While the law doesn't save us, it has its godly uses and purposes. The law is necessary. It is beneficial.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 04:37:33 PM
First of all, Jesus isn't what we want him to be. He is what God called him to be. He is a lawgiver and presented as a new Moses in Matthew - and Matthew never refers to him as "Savior."

Secondly, "or" is the wrong connection. Jesus is lawgiver, a new Moses, and our Savior.

What Walther had to say about such a view...

"Thesis V.

The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized — and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists, Socinians, and Rationalists, and consists in this, that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver..."

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/theses.html (http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/theses.html)

"In Canon 21 [of the Council of Trent], adopted at its sixth session, this synagog of Satan decrees:'If any one says that Christ Jesus has been given by God to men that He should be their Redeemer, in whom they are to trust, and not also their Lawgiver, whom they are to obey, let him be anathema.' This decree overthrows the Christian religion completely. If Christ came into the world to publish new laws to us, we should feel like saying that He might as well have stayed in heaven. Moses had already given us so perfect a Law that we could not fulfil it. Now, if Christ had given us additional laws, that would have had to drive us to despair. [emphasis added]

The very term Gospel contradicts this view of the papists. We know that Christ Himself has called His Word Gospel; for He says in Mark 16, 15: “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” In order that the meaning which He connected with the word Gospel might be understood, He states the contents of the Gospel in these concrete terms: “He that believeth and is baptized,” etc. If the teaching of Christ were a law, it would not be an eujaggevlion (sic), a glad tiding, but a sad tiding...

All the apostles corroborate His teaching. John says in his gospel, chap. 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He places the Law over against grace and truth...

In chap. 3, 17 the same apostle says: God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Quite plainly the thought that Christ came into the world to proclaim a new law is barred here. Had that been His object, He would have come to judge the world. For the Law passes judgment on sinners. However, God did not send his Son to pass judgment on the world, but to save the world through Him. By the term world the Lord refers to mankind in its apostate and lost condition, to the lost, accursed, and condemned sinners that make up the world. To these the Savior brings this blessed doctrine: “Though You have broken every commandment of God, do not despair; I am bringing you forgiveness and salvation here and hereafter.”

In language so plain that it requires no comment the apostle states in Romans, chap. 1, 16. 17: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the Just shall live by faith.

1 Tim. 1, 15 we read: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. In view of these plain passages, is it not a horrible teaching of the papists that what is called Gospel in the Scriptures according to them is nothing else than a new law?"

http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-09.html#thesis_five (http://lutherantheology.com/uploads/works/walther/LG/lecture-09.html#thesis_five)


Walther had little to no authority for me. I don't recall reading anything from him in seminary.


Jesus, (a higher authority than Walther,) commanded us to teach all nations to obey everything that he commanded. I don't know about you, but "commands" are equivalent to the law. The same word used of Jesus commanding in Mt 28:20 (also 17:9) is used of Moses commanding in Mt 19:7. Jesus gave commands. Jesus expects us to obey them. We will fail, but that doesn't change Jesus' expectations.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 05:20:02 PM
Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Thank you for that nice manifestation of the 3rd use of the Law.

I'll ask a question that I asked you earlier, only slightly differently.  Irrespective of whether the Samaritan is a metaphor for Jesus, what does the Law, in the 3rd use, tell us about our obligations to our neighbors - especially those less fortunate than ourselves?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 02, 2016, 05:38:56 PM
I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.


How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.


Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.


I have argued for the necessity of the law repeatedly in this forum. My opponents accuse me if disregarding the law. Don't confuse what they accuse me of saying with what I actually write. While the law doesn't save us, it has its godly uses and purposes. The law is necessary. It is beneficial.


Yes, you have so argued. I have never denied that. I have never accused you of being antinomian (I don't believe in antinomianism). What I have never been able to figure is where you derive your "law" from. My strongest impression is that the main source of your law teaching is ELCA social statements, like documents, and your own reason. You regularly skewer and deride most of the narratival historic Christian sources (the "great cloud of witnesses") that many of us here derive our notions of law from. (Witness your comments concerning Walther among others).

The key phrase for me in the post above is "the law as given in scripture". That seems to be highly malleable if not simply outdated to you.

Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 02, 2016, 05:47:44 PM
Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.

Thank you for that nice manifestation of the 3rd use of the Law.

I'll ask a question that I asked you earlier, only slightly differently.  Irrespective of whether the Samaritan is a metaphor for Jesus, what does the Law, in the 3rd use, tell us about our obligations to our neighbors - especially those less fortunate than ourselves?

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say, I have no OBLIGATIONS to my neighbor if I'm a Christian re. the third use.  Everything I do for them in my various vocations will be out of love, not obligation, when I'm guided by the third use of the law.  I would not even think of the word obligation in that context.  Let the fireworks begin.   8)

Edit to add:  I do not do guilt.  Guilt to me is not a good motivation.  2 Corinthians 9:7  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

... F
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 02, 2016, 06:16:59 PM
I confess I am in bondage to sin and unable to free myself. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; by what I have done and by what I have left undone.


How does the first use of the law fit into this confession? Is "go and sin no more" a meaningless statement? What about "go and do likewise"? Why did Luther tell us things we should be doing in his explanations to the Ten Commandments? I don't think he did it just so that we might recognize our sins, but also to guide our behaviors towards greater civil righteousness, or greater love towards neighbors.


Very good, Brian, we may yet get you to admit that the law as given in scripture has a salutary purpose in human life this side of the eschaton-- curb, guide, and drive us to Christ.


I have argued for the necessity of the law repeatedly in this forum. My opponents accuse me if disregarding the law. Don't confuse what they accuse me of saying with what I actually write. While the law doesn't save us, it has its godly uses and purposes. The law is necessary. It is beneficial.


Yes, you have so argued. I have never denied that. I have never accused you of being antinomian (I don't believe in antinomianism). What I have never been able to figure is where you derive your "law" from. My strongest impression is that the main source of your law teaching is ELCA social statements, like documents, and your own reason. You regularly skewer and deride most of the narratival historic Christian sources (the "great cloud of witnesses") that many of us here derive our notions of law from. (Witness your comments concerning Walther among others).

The key phrase for me in the post above is "the law as given in scripture". That seems to be highly malleable if not simply outdated to you.


That is a fair question. The Law, as I use the term, is anything that tells us what we are to do (or not do). Certainly there are laws in scriptures. Many are still reasonable for us to obey, e.g., don't murder. Some not so much, e.g., don't eat bacon. Civil laws are also laws that tell us what we are to do. I believe God uses them just as much as God uses the biblical mandates to curb, guide, and pound us to our knees before Jesus. When my parents had their household rules, e.g., taking out the garbage, washing the dishes, cleaning our rooms, etc., such rules are also Law. God uses them to keep order in the household. God uses them to convict me when I had "sinned" against my parents by disobeying them. (Of course, there is also the biblical command about honoring parents.) There are Laws at places of work, the ELCA has its "Vision and Expectations" for clergy and rostered leaders, there are society's rules, like proper manners, e.g., don't speak with a mouth full of food; or speaking with proper grammar.


Essentially, it is discerning through all the commands thrown at us, which ones accomplish God's will for a more just and peaceful society; and which ones expose our sinfulness and our need for salvation in Jesus. I don't see the commands about kosher foods fitting either of those criteria so they are "out-dated" to use your term. Commands about murder, stealing, adultery, greed/coveting are needed to curb our behaviors that would bring harm to neighbor or self; such behaviors work against a more just and peaceful society.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 07:15:50 PM
Walther had little to no authority for me. I don't recall reading anything from him in seminary.

'Tis a shame.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: RDPreus on January 02, 2016, 07:17:47 PM
It was after reading Walther's Law and Gospel that I decided to go to the seminary.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 07:40:03 PM
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say, I have no OBLIGATIONS to my neighbor if I'm a Christian re. the third use.  Everything I do for them in my various vocations will be out of love, not obligation, when I'm guided by the third use of the law.  I would not even think of the word obligation in that context.  Let the fireworks begin.

I won't put the match to that cherry bomb Fletch because I don't disagree with you.  But, I'll note that your response is incomplete.  If you fail to response to your neighbor out of love, the 1st and 2nd then apply because, by those uses, you do have the obligation.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 02, 2016, 07:42:24 PM
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say, I have no OBLIGATIONS to my neighbor if I'm a Christian re. the third use.  Everything I do for them in my various vocations will be out of love, not obligation, when I'm guided by the third use of the law.  I would not even think of the word obligation in that context.  Let the fireworks begin.

I won't put the match to that cherry bomb Fletch because I don't disagree with you.  But, I'll note that your response is incomplete.  If you fail to response to your neighbor out of love, the 1st and 2nd then apply because, by those uses, you do have the obligation.

What obligation under 1st use is that, Mr. Mundinger? As I stated in #347:

"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 02, 2016, 07:45:09 PM
During the late fifties Valpo deaconess students were requited to take a two credit course devoted to Walther's Law and Gospel [/i.] The professors who established the curriculum, Robert C. Schultz, Edward Schroeder and Robert Bertram, were later labeled  "Valpo theologians" who introduced "Gospel Reductionism" in the LCMS.  (See Murray's Law, Life and the Living God.)

I never could understand how the professors who told Valpo deaconess students to re-read Walther's Law and Gospel every year once they were in the parish were Gospel Reductionists.  They all seemed to hold Walther in high regard.

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on January 02, 2016, 08:04:23 PM
I know somebody who knows Donald Trump pretty well.  I'm going to ask her to have him read this thread, with his very own name at the top.  My belief is that if he can follow the dips and curves in this thread, all of which lead away from him, he can be the President of the United States.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 02, 2016, 08:33:47 PM
"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."

They kept the civil use.  Civil use that does not serve neighbor is not really first use.

What about your duty under 2nd use?

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 06:25:00 AM
"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."

They kept the civil use.  Civil use that does not serve neighbor is not really first use.

What about your duty under 2nd use?

Mr. Mundinger,

1st use:  curb.  Are you saying that if a non-believer obeys the highway speed limit or stays on the right side of a yellow line, it is NOT useful in serving his neighbor?

2nd use: mirror.  Duty under 2nd use - I don't understand what you are driving at?  Please explain.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.  What is your understanding?

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 03, 2016, 08:03:47 AM
1st use:  curb.  Are you saying that if a non-believer obeys the highway speed limit or stays on the right side of a yellow line, it is NOT useful in serving his neighbor?

"Use" is about how God uses God's Law, not how we use God's Law.

1st use is a curb.  But, if the Laws enacted by men to curb behavior fail to serve the neighbor, it is not God using the Law.

2nd use: mirror.  Duty under 2nd use - I don't understand what you are driving at?  Please explain.

2nd use is a mirror or a rule.  It is how God uses the Law to show us our sins.  It is the use of the Law which "crushes" us.  As it relates to this conversation, it is the use of the Law which which tells us that the priest and the Levite sinned by obeying existing law and ignoring the man in the ditch.  It is the use of the Law that tells us it is sinful to tolerate our nation's failure to serve the needs of our disenfranchised population. 

Certainly, we are called to support local initiatives and I presume that most/all of the participants in this forum do that.  But, the need is greater and there is significant resistance to the idea that government (1st use) has a role to play in addressing that need.  I'd suggest that supporting policies and politicians contrary to the best interests of those with the need is failure to love the neighbor and sinful under 2nd use.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.  What is your understanding?

That is basically how I was taught and how I believe, except I am not comfortable with the notion of the Law being "for" people.  As I noted above, it is how God uses God's Law on people. 

This conversation has helped me to better understand the "dispute" about whether there are two or three uses of the Law.  Are there really three uses or is "third use" just a way to think about how first and second use function differently in the lives of believers.  I have concluded that there is not a lot of substance to that particular disagreement.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 03, 2016, 09:35:42 AM
  I'd suggest that supporting policies and politicians contrary to the best interests of those with the need is failure to love the neighbor and sinful under 2nd use.




Very telling comment demonstrating how low we have fallen....There was a time when private foundations, institutions, and even corporations were the means of addressing perceived needs. People would band together to work together on projects they agreed were pressing. But we have become so used to "Big Brother" addressing needs that the only way some feel needs will be addressed is through the coercive powers of a nanny state. When one can only accomplish good by being coerced into it....it is no longer good. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, do I hear Jesus or the Apostles advocating a role for government in social service ministry.


I repeat my original assertion: to invite or encourage a larger role for government in society indicates society is becoming more wicked.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 03, 2016, 09:54:54 AM
Very telling comment demonstrating how low we have fallen....There was a time when private foundations, institutions, and even corporations were the means of addressing perceived needs. People would band together to work together on projects they agreed were pressing.

They still do and please note that the solution I suggested includes a significant role for the private sector.  But, when has the private response ever been comparable to the level of need?

I repeat my original assertion: to invite or encourage a larger role for government in society indicates society is becoming more wicked.

Society is wicked because we expect government to serve our selfish interests, without regard for the legitimate needs of our neighbors.  It likewise is wicked to support policies and politicians that will perpetuate that model.  Good government is ordained by God and an instrument in His left hand.  I am not necessarily inviting a large role for government in society.  I am advocating a better role for government in our society - a role that better serves the interests of our neighbors in need.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 10:39:02 AM
Very telling comment demonstrating how low we have fallen....There was a time when private foundations, institutions, and even corporations were the means of addressing perceived needs. People would band together to work together on projects they agreed were pressing.

They still do and please note that the solution I suggested includes a significant role for the private sector.  But, when has the private response ever been comparable to the level of need?

I repeat my original assertion: to invite or encourage a larger role for government in society indicates society is becoming more wicked.

Society is wicked because we expect government to serve our selfish interests, without regard for the legitimate needs of our neighbors.  It likewise is wicked to support policies and politicians that will perpetuate that model.  Good government is ordained by God and an instrument in His left hand.  I am not necessarily inviting a large role for government in society.  I am advocating a better role for government in our society - a role that better serves the interests of our neighbors in need.

Mr. Mundinger,

Where do you see the modifier good directed toward government in Scripture?  Are you saying bad government is not ordained by God?  Who gets to define what good means?  What legitimate means?  What better means?  God or man?

I thought governments were to reduce chaos and provide order so that people were free in the kindom of the left to worship God.  I do not see social justice as being a role of government as described in Scripture.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on January 03, 2016, 12:27:05 PM
Very telling comment demonstrating how low we have fallen....There was a time when private foundations, institutions, and even corporations were the means of addressing perceived needs. People would band together to work together on projects they agreed were pressing.

They still do and please note that the solution I suggested includes a significant role for the private sector.  But, when has the private response ever been comparable to the level of need?

I repeat my original assertion: to invite or encourage a larger role for government in society indicates society is becoming more wicked.

Society is wicked because we expect government to serve our selfish interests, without regard for the legitimate needs of our neighbors.  It likewise is wicked to support policies and politicians that will perpetuate that model.  Good government is ordained by God and an instrument in His left hand.  I am not necessarily inviting a large role for government in society.  I am advocating a better role for government in our society - a role that better serves the interests of our neighbors in need.

Mr. Mundinger,

Where do you see the modifier good directed toward government in Scripture?  Are you saying bad government is not ordained by God?  Who gets to define what good means?  What legitimate means?  What better means?  God or man?

I thought governments were to reduce chaos and provide order so that people were free in the kindom of the left to worship God.  I do not see social justice as being a role of government as described in Scripture.

... Fletch

Confessional Lutherans note Luther's Small Catechism on "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread:"

What is meant by daily bread?--Answer.

Everything that belongs to the support and wants of the body, such as meat, drink, clothing, shoes, house, homestead, field, cattle, money, goods, a pious spouse, pious children, pious servants, pious and faithful magistrates, good government, good weather, peace, health, discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.


At the very least it is our intention to pray to God for good government.  And pious children.  And good friends and faithful neighbors.  And the like.


Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 03, 2016, 12:38:47 PM
"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."

They kept the civil use.  Civil use that does not serve neighbor is not really first use.

What about your duty under 2nd use?

Mr. Mundinger,

1st use:  curb.  Are you saying that if a non-believer obeys the highway speed limit or stays on the right side of a yellow line, it is NOT useful in serving his neighbor?

2nd use: mirror.  Duty under 2nd use - I don't understand what you are driving at?  Please explain.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.  What is your understanding?

... Fletch

What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 12:42:58 PM
Very telling comment demonstrating how low we have fallen....There was a time when private foundations, institutions, and even corporations were the means of addressing perceived needs. People would band together to work together on projects they agreed were pressing.

They still do and please note that the solution I suggested includes a significant role for the private sector.  But, when has the private response ever been comparable to the level of need?

I repeat my original assertion: to invite or encourage a larger role for government in society indicates society is becoming more wicked.

Society is wicked because we expect government to serve our selfish interests, without regard for the legitimate needs of our neighbors.  It likewise is wicked to support policies and politicians that will perpetuate that model.  Good government is ordained by God and an instrument in His left hand.  I am not necessarily inviting a large role for government in society.  I am advocating a better role for government in our society - a role that better serves the interests of our neighbors in need.

Mr. Mundinger,

Where do you see the modifier good directed toward government in Scripture?  Are you saying bad government is not ordained by God?  Who gets to define what good means?  What legitimate means?  What better means?  God or man?

I thought governments were to reduce chaos and provide order so that people were free in the kindom of the left to worship God.  I do not see social justice as being a role of government as described in Scripture.

... Fletch

Confessional Lutherans note Luther's Small Catechism on "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread:"

What is meant by daily bread?--Answer.

Everything that belongs to the support and wants of the body, such as meat, drink, clothing, shoes, house, homestead, field, cattle, money, goods, a pious spouse, pious children, pious servants, pious and faithful magistrates, good government, good weather, peace, health, discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.


At the very least it is our intention to pray to God for good government.  And pious children.  And good friends and faithful neighbors.  And the like.


Dave Benke

Of course I agree with all that, just as I agree with the statements about not stealing from another (LC 6th) to better your circumstances.  I see a difference between praying for God's mercy, relying that He will give it to us, even if comes after my physical death, versus expecting the government exacting from one to give it to another - i.e. social justice politics (or religion).

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 12:50:37 PM
"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."

They kept the civil use.  Civil use that does not serve neighbor is not really first use.

What about your duty under 2nd use?

Mr. Mundinger,

1st use:  curb.  Are you saying that if a non-believer obeys the highway speed limit or stays on the right side of a yellow line, it is NOT useful in serving his neighbor?

2nd use: mirror.  Duty under 2nd use - I don't understand what you are driving at?  Please explain.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.  What is your understanding?

... Fletch

What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?

Marie Meyer

I take it you are not a fan of the 3rd use of the Law as a guide for Christians (e.g. as described by Dr. Joel Biermann, Concordia Seminary, recorded for the iTunes University series on Christian Doctrine).  Your question above does not seem to be directed toward the three uses of the law - it seems directed more toward why the law; I expect you already know the answer to that.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on January 03, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
Very telling comment demonstrating how low we have fallen....There was a time when private foundations, institutions, and even corporations were the means of addressing perceived needs. People would band together to work together on projects they agreed were pressing.

They still do and please note that the solution I suggested includes a significant role for the private sector.  But, when has the private response ever been comparable to the level of need?

I repeat my original assertion: to invite or encourage a larger role for government in society indicates society is becoming more wicked.

Society is wicked because we expect government to serve our selfish interests, without regard for the legitimate needs of our neighbors.  It likewise is wicked to support policies and politicians that will perpetuate that model.  Good government is ordained by God and an instrument in His left hand.  I am not necessarily inviting a large role for government in society.  I am advocating a better role for government in our society - a role that better serves the interests of our neighbors in need.

Mr. Mundinger,

Where do you see the modifier good directed toward government in Scripture?  Are you saying bad government is not ordained by God?  Who gets to define what good means?  What legitimate means?  What better means?  God or man?

I thought governments were to reduce chaos and provide order so that people were free in the kindom of the left to worship God.  I do not see social justice as being a role of government as described in Scripture.

... Fletch

Confessional Lutherans note Luther's Small Catechism on "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread:"

What is meant by daily bread?--Answer.

Everything that belongs to the support and wants of the body, such as meat, drink, clothing, shoes, house, homestead, field, cattle, money, goods, a pious spouse, pious children, pious servants, pious and faithful magistrates, good government, good weather, peace, health, discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.


At the very least it is our intention to pray to God for good government.  And pious children.  And good friends and faithful neighbors.  And the like.


Dave Benke

Of course I agree with all that, just as I agree with the statements about not stealing from another (LC 6th) to better your circumstances.  I see a difference between praying for God's mercy, relying that He will give it to us, even if comes after my physical death, versus expecting the government exacting from one to give it to another - i.e. social justice politics (or religion).

... Fletch

What you're doing is describing what you mean by "good government," as opposed to what someone else might mean by the same.  I guess the expectation is that your prayers cancel out the other Christian's, then.  The point was that "good government" is included in the table of prayer duties, not just "government."  Luther includes the word "good."  This must mean that there is such a thing as "bad" government, unfaithful magistrates and the like, which is to be prayed against.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 01:54:51 PM
Very telling comment demonstrating how low we have fallen....There was a time when private foundations, institutions, and even corporations were the means of addressing perceived needs. People would band together to work together on projects they agreed were pressing.

They still do and please note that the solution I suggested includes a significant role for the private sector.  But, when has the private response ever been comparable to the level of need?

I repeat my original assertion: to invite or encourage a larger role for government in society indicates society is becoming more wicked.

Society is wicked because we expect government to serve our selfish interests, without regard for the legitimate needs of our neighbors.  It likewise is wicked to support policies and politicians that will perpetuate that model.  Good government is ordained by God and an instrument in His left hand.  I am not necessarily inviting a large role for government in society.  I am advocating a better role for government in our society - a role that better serves the interests of our neighbors in need.

Mr. Mundinger,

Where do you see the modifier good directed toward government in Scripture?  Are you saying bad government is not ordained by God?  Who gets to define what good means?  What legitimate means?  What better means?  God or man?

I thought governments were to reduce chaos and provide order so that people were free in the kindom of the left to worship God.  I do not see social justice as being a role of government as described in Scripture.

... Fletch

Confessional Lutherans note Luther's Small Catechism on "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread:"

What is meant by daily bread?--Answer.

Everything that belongs to the support and wants of the body, such as meat, drink, clothing, shoes, house, homestead, field, cattle, money, goods, a pious spouse, pious children, pious servants, pious and faithful magistrates, good government, good weather, peace, health, discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.


At the very least it is our intention to pray to God for good government.  And pious children.  And good friends and faithful neighbors.  And the like.


Dave Benke

Of course I agree with all that, just as I agree with the statements about not stealing from another (LC 6th) to better your circumstances.  I see a difference between praying for God's mercy, relying that He will give it to us, even if comes after my physical death, versus expecting the government exacting from one to give it to another - i.e. social justice politics (or religion).

... Fletch

What you're doing is describing what you mean by "good government," as opposed to what someone else might mean by the same.  I guess the expectation is that your prayers cancel out the other Christian's, then.  The point was that "good government" is included in the table of prayer duties, not just "government."  Luther includes the word "good."  This must mean that there is such a thing as "bad" government, unfaithful magistrates and the like, which is to be prayed against.

Dave Benke

Point taken.  But I am more inclined to say "God is in charge of how and when and if prayers are answered" regardless of who is praying for what; that was the intent of my statement when I mentioned relying on God's mercy.  I see the social justice movement as just another way of man wanting to be in charge and, as Sinatra says, have it my way. 

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 03, 2016, 03:45:19 PM
"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."

They kept the civil use.  Civil use that does not serve neighbor is not really first use.

What about your duty under 2nd use?

Mr. Mundinger,

1st use:  curb.  Are you saying that if a non-believer obeys the highway speed limit or stays on the right side of a yellow line, it is NOT useful in serving his neighbor?

2nd use: mirror.  Duty under 2nd use - I don't understand what you are driving at?  Please explain.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.  What is your understanding?

... Fletch

What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?

Marie Meyer

I take it you are not a fan of the 3rd use of the Law as a guide for Christians (e.g. as described by Dr. Joel Biermann, Concordia Seminary, recorded for the iTunes University series on Christian Doctrine).  Your question above does not seem to be directed toward the three uses of the law - it seems directed more toward why the law; I expect you already know the answer to that.

... Fletch

Please answer my question...  I did not ask why the Law. I know the answer to that question.   My request is quite simple. Please provide examples of laws that are directed to Christians only.   Where in Scripture might I find them?

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 03, 2016, 04:12:22 PM
Point taken.  But I am more inclined to say "God is in charge of how and when and if prayers are answered" regardless of who is praying for what; that was the intent of my statement when I mentioned relying on God's mercy.  I see the social justice movement as just another way of man wanting to be in charge and, as Sinatra says, have it my way. 

I'm inclined to say that, if we are praying for good government, it makes no sense for us to be supporting policies and politicians based on our selfish interests at the expense of our neighbors.  And, fwiw, there is a lot of "have it my way" in the resistance to the social justice movement.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 04:26:48 PM

Please answer my question...  I did not ask why the Law. I know the answer to that question.   My request is quite simple. Please provide examples of laws that are directed to Christians only.   Where in Scripture might I find them?

Marie Meyer


Mrs. Meyer, you may enjoy this article:  https://www.gci.org/law/lawtoday  You may wish to read the entire article so you get the context.  Note, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the GCI - just addressing your question; the short answer is "in the law of Christ".

An excerpt follows.

Edit to add:  I think you would enjoy Dr. Biermann's sessions on Christian Doctrine that I mentioned earlier.  Much of what he teaches is similar to Dr. Robert Kolb's book, The Christian Faith; it is excellent in my opinion - I've read it several times.

... Fletch

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.



Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 03, 2016, 04:43:26 PM

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


I'm curious how it is possible to both embrace that understanding of the Law of Love and also be opposed to social justice.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 03, 2016, 04:59:51 PM

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


I'm curious how it is possible to both embrace that understanding of the Law of Love and also be opposed to social justice.

The term "social justice" has now been hijacked or nuanced to unintelligibility by every state, group, religion and "leader" on earth, none any less than in America.

Please reference your specific definition (or the closest acceptable one that you have found, preferably in Scripture) in order for a socially just conversation to ensue  ;)

(Edited to correct error in quote function usage)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 05:19:55 PM

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


I'm curious how it is possible to both embrace that understanding of the Law of Love and also be opposed to social justice.

In my opinion, we confessional Lutherans will meet our neighbor's needs as best we can as a thankful response for what Christ has done for us.  I think a strong focus on the social justice movement has a high potential for diverting us from all of Christ's teachings and what is of ultimate importance.  Movements require leaders; focus on a leader instead of the message of Christ and what he has done is dangerous.

All sorts of organizations can provide for the physical needs of others; good for them.  Support them as you like, I do.  Vote for whom you like, I do.  But remember which realm you are dealing with.  Christians are told by Jesus:  Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”  I think far to many people think this passage means "go do" rather than "go make disciples".  I think far to many people muddle Law and Gospel, and far more people have little understanding of the two realms and vocation.   I perceive the social justice movement appeals to our sinful man self, causes us to turn inward, and think that we are "doing" something while forgetting that everything comes from Christ.  I certainly support loving neighbor, meeting his expressed needs, and telling him about Jesus.  My concern with the social justice movement is all the unintended consequences that come along with it.  It does little good to fill your belly if you lose your eternal life (Esau).  I see the social justice movement as just one more instant gratification quest by sinful man, that old Adam is powerful in believing it is he that is in charge.  Let's not purposefully reinforce what is already a huge problem - in the individual and in our society. 

As for your curiosity question, would that not be better addressed to the author of what I posted?

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 03, 2016, 05:40:31 PM

Please answer my question...  I did not ask why the Law. I know the answer to that question.   My request is quite simple. Please provide examples of laws that are directed to Christians only.   Where in Scripture might I find them?

Marie Meyer


Mrs. Meyer, you may enjoy this article:  https://www.gci.org/law/lawtoday  You may wish to read the entire article so you get the context.  Note, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the GCI - just addressing your question; the short answer is "in the law of Christ".

An excerpt follows.

Edit to add:  I think you would enjoy Dr. Biermann's sessions on Christian Doctrine that I mentioned earlier.  Much of what he teaches is similar to Dr. Robert Kolb's book, The Christian Faith; it is excellent in my opinion - I've read it several times.

... Fletch

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


Is the conclusion you quote by Dr. Kolb or Dr. Biermann?

In any event, I do not understand how or when "the law of Christ" would conflict with laws and principles in the Old Testament because the law of Christ "more fully expresses the will of God?" 

The will of God is that all people every where know, fear, love and trust in the Triune God as the One God by Whom, for Whom in Whom they have their being.

What laws in the OT or what "law of Christ" are not in keeping with the will of God?

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Eileen Smith on January 03, 2016, 05:53:00 PM
When I began serving at MNYS, Bishop Stephen Bouman had as our focus, "Repairers of the Breach."  This was his - and thus our synod's - definition of social justice. And it remains, for me, a good definition of social justice.  Under this banner, monies were raised to build a school in Tanzania and fund other projects in Tanzania -- not only with dollars, but people as well.  Congregations were helped, the poor were served in many ways.  Stephen had a real heart for the poor and was a wonderful teacher and example of ministry.  I agree with Randy Bosch, this phrase has been hijacked to mean all sorts of things.   When I thin of social justice, I do think of these words of Isaiah.   Citing the Great Commission is fine, but just what does it mean to make disciples and teach?  Does it mean evangelism?  Does it mean social ministry?  Can one always separate the two?  In a phrase from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, "God uses us in his dealing with others."  I don't think God intended a society breached by those who have and those who do not.  But as that is the make-up of the world, I believe that God would have us share what we have - and, yes, that does mean income redistribution.  As we are also told in Scripture, Jesus is the one who is thirsty, hungry, in prison, without clothes.  In those who are considered the least of society we see Jesus.  And it is in the church's ministry that they they, too, see Jesus. 

As an aside, a wish for 2016:  could we call ourselves Christmas, baptized Christmas, Lutherans, anything but confessional Lutherans.   It has truly come to be so subjective on this site. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 06:32:39 PM

Please answer my question...  I did not ask why the Law. I know the answer to that question.   My request is quite simple. Please provide examples of laws that are directed to Christians only.   Where in Scripture might I find them?

Marie Meyer


Mrs. Meyer, you may enjoy this article:  https://www.gci.org/law/lawtoday  You may wish to read the entire article so you get the context.  Note, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the GCI - just addressing your question; the short answer is "in the law of Christ".

An excerpt follows.

Edit to add:  I think you would enjoy Dr. Biermann's sessions on Christian Doctrine that I mentioned earlier.  Much of what he teaches is similar to Dr. Robert Kolb's book, The Christian Faith; it is excellent in my opinion - I've read it several times.

... Fletch

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


Is the conclusion you quote by Dr. Kolb or Dr. Biermann?

In any event, I do not understand how or when "the law of Christ" would conflict with laws and principles in the Old Testament because the law of Christ "more fully expresses the will of God?" 

The will of God is that all people every where know, fear, love and trust in the Triune God as the One God by Whom, for Whom in Whom they have their being.

What laws in the OT or what "law of Christ" are not in keeping with the will of God?

Marie Meyer

As I mentioned in my earlier quote of the italicised material, it is from the link I provided - GCI - not from Dr. Kolb or Dr. Biermann; my earlier post must not have been clear.  I have not studied GCI theology.  I may be totally wrong, but I perceive your question "What laws in the OT or what "law of Christ" are not in keeping with the will of God?" as not serious, or as one you really know the answer to already.  I am choosing not to get into a big brouhaha over eating or touching pork or washing hands before eating or a debate of which of the 800+ "rules" do not apply to Christians today.  If you do not support the 3rd use of the law as a guide, that is fine.  It is controversial among Lutherans and you are free to see it however you like from my standpoint.  There has been much ink spilled on the topic over the years.  I do think Dr. Biermann gives a good discussion on the 3rd use.  I enjoyed Dr. Kolb's book.  I offered that in case you have interest and have not read/heard it.  If not, no big deal.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 03, 2016, 07:42:31 PM

Please answer my question...  I did not ask why the Law. I know the answer to that question.   My request is quite simple. Please provide examples of laws that are directed to Christians only.   Where in Scripture might I find them?

Marie Meyer


Mrs. Meyer, you may enjoy this article:  https://www.gci.org/law/lawtoday  You may wish to read the entire article so you get the context.  Note, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the GCI - just addressing your question; the short answer is "in the law of Christ".

An excerpt follows.

Edit to add:  I think you would enjoy Dr. Biermann's sessions on Christian Doctrine that I mentioned earlier.  Much of what he teaches is similar to Dr. Robert Kolb's book, The Christian Faith; it is excellent in my opinion - I've read it several times.

... Fletch

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


Is the conclusion you quote by Dr. Kolb or Dr. Biermann?

In any event, I do not understand how or when "the law of Christ" would conflict with laws and principles in the Old Testament because the law of Christ "more fully expresses the will of God?" 

The will of God is that all people every where know, fear, love and trust in the Triune God as the One God by Whom, for Whom in Whom they have their being.

What laws in the OT or what "law of Christ" are not in keeping with the will of God?

Marie Meyer

As I mentioned in my earlier quote of the italicised material, it is from the link I provided - GCI - not from Dr. Kolb or Dr. Biermann; my earlier post must not have been clear.  I have not studied GCI theology.  I may be totally wrong, but I perceive your question "What laws in the OT or what "law of Christ" are not in keeping with the will of God?" as not serious, or as one you really know the answer to already.  I am choosing not to get into a big brouhaha over eating or touching pork or washing hands before eating or a debate of which of the 800+ "rules" do not apply to Christians today.  If you do not support the 3rd use of the law as a guide, that is fine.  It is controversial among Lutherans and you are free to see it however you like from my standpoint.  There has been much ink spilled on the topic over the years.  I do think Dr. Biermann gives a good discussion on the 3rd use.  I enjoyed Dr. Kolb's book.  I offered that in case you have interest and have not read/heard it.  If not, no big deal.

... Fletch


Suggest the need for clarity.  The reference to Douglas Moo was somewhat misleading.  He happens to be a Reformed theologian whose understanding of the Law in the life of the Christian is closer to Calvin than Luther. 
 
Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2016, 08:01:14 PM

Please answer my question...  I did not ask why the Law. I know the answer to that question.   My request is quite simple. Please provide examples of laws that are directed to Christians only.   Where in Scripture might I find them?

Marie Meyer


Mrs. Meyer, you may enjoy this article:  https://www.gci.org/law/lawtoday (https://www.gci.org/law/lawtoday)  You may wish to read the entire article so you get the context.  Note, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the GCI - just addressing your question; the short answer is "in the law of Christ".

An excerpt follows.

Edit to add:  I think you would enjoy Dr. Biermann's sessions on Christian Doctrine that I mentioned earlier.  Much of what he teaches is similar to Dr. Robert Kolb's book, The Christian Faith; it is excellent in my opinion - I've read it several times.

... Fletch

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only? If there are no laws directed to Christians only, then how can there be a third use as you defined it?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on January 03, 2016, 08:27:49 PM
What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?
Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only?
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where in this thread Fletch claimed that there are laws that are for Christians only.  As Lutherans, we believe, teach, and confess that there are three different uses of the Law, not that there are three different sets of laws.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 03, 2016, 08:28:23 PM
Hopeless  :-X  Perhaps Jon will get through.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 03, 2016, 09:17:48 PM
What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?
Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only?
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where in this thread Fletch claimed that there are laws that are for Christians only.  As Lutherans, we believe, teach, and confess that there are three different uses of the Law, not that there are three different sets of laws.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.

How gracious of you to confirm Jon Schmidt's observation, BPS, that Fletch never stated that there are laws for Christians only.  The 3rd use, however, is by definition for Christians only as Lutherans confess: "... also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning this third and last use of the Law." [FC SD VI 1]

BTW, if you are going to change another's statement in quoting it let the reader know you've done so.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on January 03, 2016, 09:58:04 PM
What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?
Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only?
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where in this thread Fletch claimed that there are laws that are for Christians only.  As Lutherans, we believe, teach, and confess that there are three different uses of the Law, not that there are three different sets of laws.
This ought to be a matter of "Duh." But I guess not.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 03, 2016, 10:26:22 PM
What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?
Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only?
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where in this thread Fletch claimed that there are laws that are for Christians only.  As Lutherans, we believe, teach, and confess that there are three different uses of the Law, not that there are three different sets of laws.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.

How gracious of you to confirm Jon Schmidt's observation, BPS, that Fletch never stated that there are laws for Christians only.  The 3rd use, however, is by definition for Christians only as Lutherans confess: "... also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning this third and last use of the Law." [FC SD VI 1]

BTW, if you are going to change another's statement in quoting it let the reader know you've done so.


OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 03, 2016, 10:38:26 PM
What laws are for Christians only?  IOW, what in the God's Holy Law was given for believers only?
Marie asked the same question I have - which you still have not answered. Please give examples of laws that are directed to Christians only?
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see where in this thread Fletch claimed that there are laws that are for Christians only.  As Lutherans, we believe, teach, and confess that there are three different uses of the Law, not that there are three different sets of laws.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.

How gracious of you to confirm Jon Schmidt's observation, BPS, that Fletch never stated that there are laws for Christians only.  The 3rd use, however, is by definition for Christians only as Lutherans confess: "... also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning this third and last use of the Law." [FC SD VI 1]

BTW, if you are going to change another's statement in quoting it let the reader know you've done so.


OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on January 03, 2016, 11:43:46 PM
The third use is the law as spiritual gift. It is like wanting to buy a gift for someone and finding out what they really like. It has nothing to do with averting God's wrath or earning salvation. It is the "love" motive in, "We should fear and love God so that..."

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 04, 2016, 02:08:44 AM
The third use is the law as spiritual gift. It is like wanting to buy a gift for someone and finding out what they really like. It has nothing to do with averting God's wrath or earning salvation. It is the "love" motive in, "We should fear and love God so that..."


Why isn't "loving our neighbor as Christ has loved us" not a 1st use? We don't love them to avoid God's wrath. We don't love them to gain anything from God. We do loving acts for others because they need them and for the sake of justice, peace, and harmony in the world. To me, that's first use stuff.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 07:23:54 AM
OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 07:35:28 AM
The third use is the law as spiritual gift. It is like wanting to buy a gift for someone and finding out what they really like. It has nothing to do with averting God's wrath or earning salvation. It is the "love" motive in, "We should fear and love God so that..."

That's pretty much the way I understand third use.  Although, as a side note, I recall being told by a person who has chosen to no longer post here that, with that kind of thinking, I had swallowed the Holy Spirit - feathers and all.

Although I understand "third use" as guidance/instruction in righteousness, I also acknowledge a difficulty with it.  How do we deal with the reality that we are still sinners and, thus, unlikely to earn passing grades in the instruction.  If we accept third use, we also have to confess a plethora of sins of omission and, when we do, the Law is functioning in "second use". 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 04, 2016, 07:37:46 AM
OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.

Because, Mr. Mundinger, one has to get the question right before it needs an answer.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 07:50:18 AM
OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.

Because, Mr. Mundinger, one has to get the question right before it needs an answer.

In "conversations" with you, the only way to get the question right is to ask it in a way that you can repeat the memorized "correct" answer.  The difficulty is that this forum is not catechism instruction all over again.  It is conversation about the challenges of actually living the faith that we confess and, most of the time, life in the fallen world happens at the margins of the "formulas" articulated in the Confessions.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 04, 2016, 07:50:42 AM
Although I understand "third use" as guidance/instruction in righteousness, I also acknowledge a difficulty with it.  How do we deal with the reality that we are still sinners and, thus, unlikely to earn passing grades in the instruction.  If we accept third use, we also have to confess a plethora of sins of omission and, when we do, the Law is functioning in "second use".

Of course. So, your point is...?  Oh right, you have a confusion with repentance and Luther's first thesis in the 95.

Dr. Kolb made this point in his Confessions class. We were discussing this subject ,and students gave a series of examples of a rule and guide of what God would have the regenerate do and asked Kolb what "use" it was. To each one he replied, "Second."
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 07:53:36 AM
Of course. So, your point is...?  Oh right, you have a confusion with repentance and Luther's first thesis in the 95.

Of myself, I am incapable of living a life of repentance.  Are you?

Dr. Kolb made this point in his Confessions class. We were discussing this subject ,and students gave a series of examples of a rule and guide of what God would have the regenerate do and asked Kolb what "use" it was. To each one he replied, "Second."

And your point is...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 04, 2016, 07:57:32 AM
OK, illustrate how the third use in your life is different from the first or second use? If, the new man doesn't require the law because our natures have changed, how can we even talk about a use of the Law if there is no necessity of the Law?

You have many previous pages to review, BPS, to show you your false analysis. In fact, FC SD VI isn't that long. It will show you your error, which was discussed on this thread with another ad nauseam.

I thought he asked for a personal example - something specific - not just another reference to an article from the confessions.

Because, Mr. Mundinger, one has to get the question right before it needs an answer.

In "conversations" with you, the only way to get the question right is to ask it in a way that you can repeat the memorized "correct" answer.  The difficulty is that this forum is not catechism instruction all over again. 

Applied to your failure to learn/memorize basic Lutheran definitions and concepts, yes it needs to be catechetical instruction, Mr. Mundinger. And that gets tiring because you refuse to go back and learn these basic concepts. Good grief, a couple of days ago you denied that the Holy Spirit uses the Law to bring to contrition!

Of myself, I am incapable of living a life of repentance.  Are you?

Read the "book," Mr. Mundinger. For that statement manifests a complete lack of knowledge of what repentance is, resulting in a rejection of the Gospel and despair.

Please talk to your pastor, and try to have e a good day.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 08:05:05 AM
Applied to your failure to learn/memorize basic Lutheran definitions and concepts, yes it needs to be catechetical instruction, Mr. Mundinger.

All I have demonstrated is my unwillingness to embrace the legalism that you keep trying to re-write into the catechism.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 10:06:37 AM
Shhhhh.  Don't poke the Mormons, they are busy working on social justice issues.

It is quite possible to do social justice for the wrong reasons.  But, refusing to do social justice for the "right reasons" is still a sin of omission. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 04, 2016, 10:14:17 AM
Shhhhh.  Don't poke the Mormons, they are busy working on social justice issues.

It is quite possible to do social justice for the wrong reasons.


Amen! and it is possible to do social justice through the wrong means...which, more often than not, further more social injustice as many of the government efforts to date have done. (greater wealth inequality, less stable family life, greater incidence of single-parent family life, ad infinitum)


Lou



Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 04, 2016, 10:26:19 AM

Conclusion
Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians now is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God’s living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus’ teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.


I'm curious how it is possible to both embrace that understanding of the Law of Love and also be opposed to social justice.

The term "social justice" has now been hijacked or nuanced to unintelligibility by every state, group, religion and "leader" on earth, none any less than in America.

Please reference your specific definition (or the closest acceptable one that you have found, preferably in Scripture) in order for a socially just conversation to ensue  ;)

(Edited to correct error in quote function usage)

John Mundinger , you must have missed my request.  It still stands.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 11:05:20 AM
Of myself, I am incapable of living a life of repentance.  Are you?

Read the "book," Mr. Mundinger. For that statement manifests a complete lack of knowledge of what repentance is, resulting in a rejection of the Gospel and despair.

Does that mean your answer to the question I asked is "yes".
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on January 04, 2016, 11:13:51 AM
The term "social justice" has now been hijacked or nuanced to unintelligibility by every state, group, religion and "leader" on earth, none any less than in America.

Please reference your specific definition (or the closest acceptable one that you have found, preferably in Scripture) in order for a socially just conversation to ensue  ;)

(Edited to correct error in quote function usage)

John Mundinger , you must have missed my request.  It still stands.

My apologies, Randy.  I did miss it.

I'm not convinced that the term "social justice" has been hi-jacked as much as it has been negatively nuanced by those who are not compelled to support it.  That said, I used the term because it is established in the vernacular.

It should be apparent by now that I perceive "social justice" is responding positively to the Lord's command to go and do likewise.  And, in my opinion, going and doing likewise informs both how I function, as an individual, in society and how I think our society ought to function.  From that perspective, I do not understand a perspective that, although perhaps willing to make some personal sacrifice on behalf of neighbor yet vigorously defends public policy that perpetuates poverty and all of the indignity that comes with it.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 04, 2016, 11:18:37 AM
"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."

They kept the civil use.  Civil use that does not serve neighbor is not really first use.

What about your duty under 2nd use?

Mr. Mundinger,

1st use:  curb.  Are you saying that if a non-believer obeys the highway speed limit or stays on the right side of a yellow line, it is NOT useful in serving his neighbor?

2nd use: mirror.  Duty under 2nd use - I don't understand what you are driving at?  Please explain.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.  What is your understanding?

... Fletch

Please note the underlined by Fletch.  The statement,  "The 3rd use is for believers only,"  clearly suggests their are laws that apply only to believers.   Earlier on this thread it was also stated the 3rd use is a guide for Christians.  Again the implication is that the Law or specific NT laws apply to the Christian in ways the 1st and 2nd do not.

I submit this is an incorrect understanding of what the Confessions say in the one brief mention of a 3rd use of the Law. The Confessions make no mention of laws that apply to believers only.

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 04, 2016, 11:26:37 AM
"The irony in the arguments here is that the Pharisee and the Levite kept the first use of the law. Even today, in most states and certainly under the common law, they would be keeping the 1st use, if seen as civil use."

They kept the civil use.  Civil use that does not serve neighbor is not really first use.

What about your duty under 2nd use?

Mr. Mundinger,

1st use:  curb.  Are you saying that if a non-believer obeys the highway speed limit or stays on the right side of a yellow line, it is NOT useful in serving his neighbor?

2nd use: mirror.  Duty under 2nd use - I don't understand what you are driving at?  Please explain.

Edit:  I was taught the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law are for both believers and non-believers.  The 3rd use is for believers only.  What is your understanding?

... Fletch

Please note the underlined by Fletch.  The statement,  "The 3rd use is for believers only,"  clearly suggests their are laws that apply only to believers.   Earlier on this thread it was also stated the 3rd use is a guide for Christians.  Again the implication is that the Law or specific NT laws apply to the Christian in ways the 1st and 2nd do not.

I submit this is an incorrect understanding of what the Confessions say in the one brief mention of a 3rd use of the Law. The Confessions make no mention of laws that apply to believers only.

Marie Meyer

Mrs. Meyer,

Perhaps you could read the thread again and come up with a perspective that some of us think there is law and there is use of law - two different things.  Multiple uses does not have to imply different laws for different people (in my opinion).  There is only God's law in the context we are speaking within but multiple uses, e.g. three, that can have different audiences.

Edit:  Perhaps this will explain why the 3rd use, guide, could be important for Christians.  1 Cor 6 will not be much of a guide for how God prefers us to live for non-Christians, but it will be a great guide for Christians who believe in the authority of God's Word.  (It will also not be much of a curb or mirror for our secular culture as much of it is not against civil law.)

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 04, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
Mrs. Meyer,

Perhaps you could read the thread again and come up with a perspective that some of us think there is law and there is use of law - two different things.  Multiple uses does not have to imply different laws for different people (in my opinion).  There is only God's law in the context we are speaking within but multiple uses, e.g. three, that can have different audiences.

... Fletch

What are the audiences for God's Law? 

I understand the audience for the law to be sinners, those  who are redeemed and those who do not know Christ as the Son of God who gave His life for them and rose from the dead so that they might again be true children of God.

How preciously do you understand the "third use" of the Law?

I understand the third use of the Law to be the Law as applied to the redeemed who still harbor the old Adam/Eve. The Old Adam/Eve can and will tempt sinners to search the Scriptures for something about self that God has to honor. They are also tempted to misappropriate to self what belongs to God alone.  They are also tempted to misplace their trust in the gifts of God rather than the Giver.

In short, you and I as redeemed children of God do not need more information about the Law or specific laws that apply to different audiences, we need the Law to keep the old Adam/Eve in check. 

Marie 

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on January 04, 2016, 12:03:30 PM
I understand the third use of the Law to be the Law as applied to the redeemed who still harbor the old Adam/Eve ... In short, you and I as redeemed children of God do not need more information about the Law or specific laws that apply to different audiences, we need the Law to keep the old Adam/Eve in check.
Where exactly has Fletch--or anyone else in this thread--defined the third use of the Law in any other way?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Michael Slusser on January 04, 2016, 12:05:37 PM
According to Gallup, The Donald is neck-and-neck with Pope Francis, tied for second Most Admired Man for Americans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles (http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles)

Peace,

Michael
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 04, 2016, 12:05:55 PM
Please note the underlined by Fletch.  The statement,  "The 3rd use is for believers only,"  clearly suggests their are laws that apply only to believers.

No, it does not.

Earlier on this thread it was also stated the 3rd use is a guide for Christians.

So?

Again the implication is that the Law or specific NT laws apply to the Christian in ways the 1st and 2nd do not.

No, it is not.

I submit this is an incorrect understanding of what the Confessions say in the one brief mention of a 3rd use

Gotta let go of the straw man, Mrs. Meyer, especially in manufactured gotcha cases.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on January 04, 2016, 12:15:02 PM
I submit this is an incorrect understanding of what the Confessions say in the one brief mention of a 3rd use of the Law.
One brief mention?  Two entire articles are explicitly devoted to it (FC Ep VI and FC SD VI), and it is also implicit throughout the rest of the Book of Concord.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 04, 2016, 12:19:00 PM
I understand the third use of the Law to be the Law as applied to the redeemed who still harbor the old Adam/Eve ... In short, you and I as redeemed children of God do not need more information about the Law or specific laws that apply to different audiences, we need the Law to keep the old Adam/Eve in check.
Where exactly has Fletch--or anyone else in this thread--defined the third use of the Law in any other way?


Keeping the old Adam in check is 1st Use and it is needed for all people not just believers. Thus, the understanding of some confessional Lutherans is that the 3rd use says that the first and second uses apply to believers just as they do to unbelievers. Just because we are forgiven sinners doesn't mean that the law is no longer necessary in our lives.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 04, 2016, 12:46:33 PM
I submit this is an incorrect understanding of what the Confessions say in the one brief mention of a 3rd use of the Law.
One brief mention?  Two entire articles are explicitly devoted to it (FC Ep VI and FC SD VI), and it is also implicit throughout the rest of the Book of Concord.

FC Ep VI  - The Afirmative Theses of FC Ep VI specifically mention the 3rd use in regard to the Old Adam.  The Solid Declaration makes no mention of laws that are directed to a Christian audience. The reference again is to the Old Adam that still clings to our nature, thus Paul writes, "I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do."  Paul knew what was good and what was evil... he did not need information about more laws, he needed the Law to keep the old Adam in check.

So much for my erecting a straw man - the old Adam is not made of straw...His power in like that of an old tyrant. 

I still do not know what laws are directed toward a Christian audience.  They are not explicit in FC EpVI or FC SD VI.   If these laws are implicit in the Book of Concord, I have missed them.  Please instruct me as to where I might find them.

Marie

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steverem on January 04, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
Uneducated rube here - isn't the Great Commission an example of law specific to believers?  We don't expect non-Christians to follow Jesus' command here, but we do expect Christians to go and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Seems to me to be exactly the kind of "third use" that Fletch suggests - it's pro-active, a call to disciples to follow in the steps of the Rabbi.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Fletch on January 04, 2016, 12:54:37 PM
I submit this is an incorrect understanding of what the Confessions say in the one brief mention of a 3rd use of the Law.
One brief mention?  Two entire articles are explicitly devoted to it (FC Ep VI and FC SD VI), and it is also implicit throughout the rest of the Book of Concord.

FC Ep VI  - The Afirmative Theses of FC Ep VI specifically mention the 3rd use in regard to the Old Adam.  The Solid Declaration makes no mention of laws that are directed to a Christian audience. The reference again is to the Old Adam that still clings to our nature, thus Paul writes, "I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do."  Paul knew what was good and what was evil... he did not need information about more laws, he needed the Law to keep the old Adam in check.

So much for my erecting a straw man - the old Adam is not made of straw...His power in like that of an old tyrant. 

I still do not know what laws are directed toward a Christian audience.  They are not explicit in FC EpVI or FC SD VI.   If these laws are implicit in the Book of Concord, I have missed them.  Please instruct me as to where I might find them.

Marie

Mrs. Meyer,

Flip that around.  They will find you if God wants them to, just like everything else God wants you to have or know will find you.  Many are written on your heart, many are written in the Holy Scriptures.  Many will find you via the Pastor's proclamations.  Pray they will find you.

... Fletch
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 04, 2016, 01:09:54 PM
the old Adam is not made of straw...His power in like that of an old tyrant... 

I still do not know what laws are directed toward a Christian audience. 

And there's your straw man again, Mrs. Meyer. And he's rapidly becoming old.

But now he's got a new straw man who's already old.   ::)

Or is the new old man the same as the old man? Won't get fooled again, Mrs. Meyer.  :o



Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on January 04, 2016, 01:28:09 PM
I submit this is an incorrect understanding of what the Confessions say in the one brief mention of a 3rd use of the Law.
One brief mention?  Two entire articles are explicitly devoted to it (FC Ep VI and FC SD VI), and it is also implicit throughout the rest of the Book of Concord.
I still do not know what laws are directed toward a Christian audience.  They are not explicit in FC EpVI or FC SD VI.   If these laws are implicit in the Book of Concord, I have missed them.  Please instruct me as to where I might find them.
Please show me where I have claimed that there are laws directed toward a Christian audience.  As quoted above, you incorrectly stated that the Confessions only include "one brief mention of a 3rd use of the Law."  I simply pointed out that this is not the case.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: mariemeyer on January 04, 2016, 01:36:56 PM
the old Adam is not made of straw...His power in like that of an old tyrant... 

I still do not know what laws are directed toward a Christian audience. 

And there's your straw man again, Mrs. Meyer. And he's rapidly becoming old.

But now he's got a new straw man who's already old.   ::)

Or is the new old man the same as the old man? Won't get fooled again, Mrs. Meyer.  :o

 ???

Back to Donald Trump and the mystery of why he has captured the attention of an incredible number of Americans.

Marie 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 04, 2016, 01:39:14 PM
According to Gallup, The Donald is neck-and-neck with Pope Francis, tied for second Most Admired Man for Americans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles (http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles)

Peace,

Michael
Thanks for this, FR. S...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 04, 2016, 02:02:15 PM
Trump’s first TV ad very Trumpy indeed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itsSDhgKwhw
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on January 04, 2016, 02:16:08 PM
the old Adam is not made of straw...His power in like that of an old tyrant... 

I still do not know what laws are directed toward a Christian audience. 

And there's your straw man again, Mrs. Meyer. And he's rapidly becoming old.

But now he's got a new straw man who's already old.   ::)

Or is the new old man the same as the old man? Won't get fooled again, Mrs. Meyer.  :o

 ???

Back to Donald Trump and the mystery of why he has captured the attention of an incredible number of Americans.

Marie

Excellent idea!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 19, 2016, 04:18:00 PM
Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Rallying Conservatives

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Michael Slusser on January 19, 2016, 04:30:21 PM
http://bizarro.com/comics/january-18-2016/ (http://bizarro.com/comics/january-18-2016/)
Another viewpoint on The Donald.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 19, 2016, 05:02:42 PM
Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Rallying Conservatives

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/donald-trump-sarah-palin.html?_r=0

Those who never liked Trump in the first place still won't like him. Those who already liked him will continue to like him. But, a few fence-sitters might have their minds made up by this turn of events.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 19, 2016, 05:29:24 PM
http://bizarro.com/comics/january-18-2016/ (http://bizarro.com/comics/january-18-2016/)
Another viewpoint on The Donald.

Peace,
Michael

  😄
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on January 19, 2016, 06:33:52 PM
I seriously doubt there are 10 people in the country whose votes will be determined by Sarah Palin.  She had her 15 minutes and any respect I might have had for her went away when she resigned as governor so she could be a celebrity--someone that everyone knows (quoting Roxie in Chicago)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 19, 2016, 07:12:23 PM
I seriously doubt there are 10 people in the country whose votes will be determined by Sarah Palin.  She had her 15 minutes and any respect I might have had for her went away when she resigned as governor so she could be a celebrity--someone that everyone knows (quoting Roxie in Chicago)


I think that the endorsement might be of limited but real value to Trump.  Cruz in the past has said glowing things about Palin and gave her credit for helping him gain election to the Senate.  Once word came out that Palin was likely to endorse Trump, Cruz went after her a bit.  I'll bet that Trump uses this whole package to try to chip away some of Cruz's Iowa support.  Moving just a few percent of the GOP caucus goers might well matter in terms of the post-caucus media spin.


After Iowa, I don't think that the Palin endorsement will matter.  Trump will either be done.  Or breaking away from the pack.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 20, 2016, 10:08:39 AM
Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:

Quote
    “Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He’s heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state,” Branstad said.

    Branstad added that Cruz “hasn’t supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.”

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said “yes.”
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 20, 2016, 10:53:02 AM
Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:

Quote
    “Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He’s heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state,” Branstad said.

    Branstad added that Cruz “hasn’t supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.”

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said “yes.”

As Sioux County, Iowa goes, so goes the Republican caucus. At least, that is the pattern.

And I haven't seen any Cruz lawn signs come down yet.

(Of course, they may be frozen into place!)   ;D
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 20, 2016, 11:27:39 AM
I have heard that IA is a do or die state for Cruz...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on January 20, 2016, 12:09:55 PM
Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:

Quote
    “Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He’s heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state,” Branstad said.

    Branstad added that Cruz “hasn’t supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.”

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said “yes.”

As Sioux County, Iowa goes, so goes the Republican caucus. At least, that is the pattern.

And I haven't seen any Cruz lawn signs come down yet.

(Of course, they may be frozen into place!)   ;D

Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn?  Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on January 20, 2016, 12:59:36 PM
Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:
They were blows, but I doubt that they will end up being "huge" (said in the much-imitated Trump way).  Palin will now be able to take some legitimate credit if Trump ends up winning Iowa; Cruz was on track to win it without her.  Gov. Branstad (and others) oppose Cruz mainly because they are (rightly) terrified of the possibility that someone could (finally) win Iowa without kowtowing to the ethanol lobby.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 20, 2016, 01:00:35 PM
Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:

Quote
    “Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He’s heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state,” Branstad said.

    Branstad added that Cruz “hasn’t supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.”

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said “yes.”

As Sioux County, Iowa goes, so goes the Republican caucus. At least, that is the pattern.

And I haven't seen any Cruz lawn signs come down yet.

(Of course, they may be frozen into place!)   ;D

Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn?  Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.

Dave Benke


Ethanol from corn has become a huge business in Iowa and some of the rest of the major corn producing states. Biodiesel from soybean production also falls under the "blanket" term "renewable fuels."


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 20, 2016, 01:07:50 PM
Don’t want or need no corn squeezin’s in my cars…
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 20, 2016, 01:38:19 PM
Don’t want or need no corn squeezin’s in my cars…
Good luck finding gas stations that sell non ethanol gas, they're around but not plentiful.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 20, 2016, 02:10:15 PM
Cruz suffered two huge blows in IA yesterday, Palin's endorsement of Trump, and this from Gov. Branstad:

Quote
    “Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels. He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He’s heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive but he could be very damaging to our state,” Branstad said.

    Branstad added that Cruz “hasn’t supported renewable fuels, and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him.”

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said “yes.”

As Sioux County, Iowa goes, so goes the Republican caucus. At least, that is the pattern.

And I haven't seen any Cruz lawn signs come down yet.

(Of course, they may be frozen into place!)   ;D

Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn?  Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.

Dave Benke


Ethanol from corn has become a huge business in Iowa and some of the rest of the major corn producing states. Biodiesel from soybean production also falls under the "blanket" term "renewable fuels."


Lou


You know more about this than I do, so please do correct me if I'm wrong. 


But as I understand it, ethanol from corn has become a big business in Iowa principally because of the federal law requiring that fuel companies include in their product a mix a specified percentage of "renewable" fuels.  Debates rage as to whether the production and use of ethanol in gasoline is on balance of any environmental value.  There can be no debate, however, over the impact of the renewable fuel standard on the corn market.  The demand and price both are much higher as a result.  If the renewable fuel standard were eliminated, ethanol use would assuredly fall, dragging down the demand and corn prices.  Iowa corn farmers, therefore, are as a group huge fans of the renewable fuel standard.


Who pays a price?  The consumers of corn for purposes other than ethanol.  For the most part, this means food consumers.  Corn is eaten directly by people and is used as feed for livestock.  The price of corn and of corn-fed animals used for meat both are higher as a result of the mandate.


Moreover, the market for corn to some extent is global.  Thus, poor nations and poor people are affected by the elevated prices.


Political conservatives (see. e.g., the Heritage Foundation) tend to oppose the ethanol requirement and other agricultural subsidies because they distort the market to the benefit of corn producers and ethanol sellers but to the detriment of everyone else.  Some of the farmers who support the fuel mandate no doubt are generally conservative politically.  But when one's livelihood is at issue, economic interests sometimes trump political ideology. 


On this particular issue, I think that Cruz is right.  I also think that he'll pay a price in Iowa. 


Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.



Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on January 20, 2016, 03:01:57 PM

On this particular issue, I think that Cruz is right.  I also think that he'll pay a price in Iowa. 


The fuel mileage on my diesel Golf is down a good 10-15% because the diesel fuel here in Centrsl Illinois is a bio-blend.  That's part of the price I pay.

As for the price Sen. Cruz might pay, remember that 70-75% or (perhaps) more of the Republican voters attending the caucuses will stand for one of the "losers."  Supporting ethanol subsidies is not, even in Iowa, the make-or-break issue.

Pax, Steven+

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 20, 2016, 03:19:25 PM

On this particular issue, I think that Cruz is right.  I also think that he'll pay a price in Iowa. 


The fuel mileage on my diesel Golf is down a good 10-15% because the diesel fuel here in Centrsl Illinois is a bio-blend.  That's part of the price I pay.

As for the price Sen. Cruz might pay, remember that 70-75% or (perhaps) more of the Republican voters attending the caucuses will stand for one of the "losers."  Supporting ethanol subsidies is not, even in Iowa, the make-or-break issue.

Pax, Steven+


I agree.  Of course, each of the candidates has a different notion regarding what constitutes a win and what constitutes a loss.  The number of delegates at stake as small enough not really to matter.  What might matter is the impact of the result on the race going forward.


My sense is that Iowa might be more important for Cruz than for the other candidates.  His targeted base includes the kind of evangelical Christians (over represented in Iowa's GOP caucuses when compared to Republican votes in elections).  I don't know if he needs to beat Trump in Iowa.  But a loss puts him in a challenging position.  Donors and other may start asking if he can win anywhere if he can't win in an Iowa caucus. 


Given all this, losing a few farmers might actually matter to Cruz a great deal.  We shall see soon enough.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 20, 2016, 04:09:16 PM
Just to be clear, "renewable fuels" has something to do with corn?  Here in NYC we are of the belief that milk comes from a carton, not a cow.

Dave Benke

"Renewable fuels" includes ethanol made from corn, as well as other combustible liquids made from other crops. Used frying oil can be easily converted to diesel fuel. Other sources of "biodiesel" include crops of plants with oil-bearing seeds that can be grown in soils and climates where  food crops cannot be grown. There is also research being conducted in obtaining methanol (wood alcohol) from things like lawn clippings. The problem with making ethanol (grain alcohol) from corn is that every bushel of corn used to make alcohol is a bushel not available for use as food. Corn is not only food, it's what food eats. Chickens, pigs, and cattle are fed corn to produce meat.

Ethanol has fewer BTUs available than gasoline, so gasoline/alcohol blended fuels provide fewer miles per gallon. Vehicles that burn E-85, a common "gasohol" blend, cost more to run on E-85 than they do on regular grade gasoline, even though E-85 is much cheaper per gallon. And, since burning "renewable" biofuels is still the combustion of hydrocarbons and oxygen, use of "renewable fuels" won't stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

So far, unless there are some really major scientific breakthroughs, government programs about "renewable fuels" are pretty much a waste of resources. And, James Gale is 100% correct about renewable fuels in Iowa. Though ethanol fuels are nothing more than a boondoggle and "pork barrel politics", the only segment of America that benefits from the "renewable fuels" scam is Iowa corn farmers. 

Don’t want or need no corn squeezin’s in my cars…
Good luck finding gas stations that sell non ethanol gas, they're around but not plentiful.

A very small amount of ethanol prevents water from condensing in the fuel tank. It's only when the percentage gets too high that it renders the gasoline less useful.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 21, 2016, 12:30:15 AM

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.


Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on January 21, 2016, 05:15:41 AM
This is very useful information, Lou. Thanks.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: David Garner on January 21, 2016, 07:35:01 AM

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.


Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

My bigger concern is the fact that, at least in the past, we were told ethanol is net energy negative, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it yields.

Has that also changed?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 21, 2016, 08:56:32 AM

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.


Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

My bigger concern is the fact that, at least in the past, we were told ethanol is net energy negative, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it yields.

Has that also changed?


Not to my knowledge. But that is also true of nearly every process that involves energy conversion unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed. Point being, there seems to be a use of the product now that justifies a demand that did not exist until society decided it is a priority to reduce carbon monoxide pollution from the burning of gasoline. The alternate oxygenates necessary to meet EPA regulations for the reduction of carbon monoxide have created large groundwater pollution problems in California and other places where oil refining is important. If people want cleaner burning gasoline, it appears there will be an ongoing demand for ethanol. At least that is the thinking of CHS management. With the problems in Flint, Michigan now in the headlines, I see no change in the drive for cleaner water. Ethanol production, oddly enough, is one part of the equation, at least for now, in the desire for a cleaner environment.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 21, 2016, 09:22:57 AM

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.


Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

My bigger concern is the fact that, at least in the past, we were told ethanol is net energy negative, meaning it takes more energy to produce than it yields.

Has that also changed?


Not to my knowledge. But that is also true of nearly every process that involves energy conversion unless the laws of thermodynamics have changed. Point being, there seems to be a use of the product now that justifies a demand that did not exist until society decided it is a priority to reduce carbon monoxide pollution from the burning of gasoline. The alternate oxygenates necessary to meet EPA regulations for the reduction of carbon monoxide have created large groundwater pollution problems in California and other places where oil refining is important. If people want cleaner burning gasoline, it appears there will be an ongoing demand for ethanol. At least that is the thinking of CHS management. With the problems in Flint, Michigan now in the headlines, I see no change in the drive for cleaner water. Ethanol production, oddly enough, is one part of the equation, at least for now, in the desire for a cleaner environment.


Lou

The major consumers of energy (electricity and fuel) are citizens and businesses in major cities - concentrations.  Some of those cities, like New York, proudly claim to be environmentally friendly, "sustainable", etc.,  Yet, such claims never take into account that they export their pollution to the areas of energy production, and by extension their demand for those areas to stop polluting.
   
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 21, 2016, 10:21:31 AM
Something to consider about "pollution free" electric cars. If you live in an area where most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, when you recharge an electric car, you're just transferring the pollution from your tail pipe to the electricity generation plant's smokestack.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 21, 2016, 11:01:42 AM
Something to consider about "pollution free" electric cars. If you live in an area where most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, when you recharge an electric car, you're just transferring the pollution from your tail pipe to the electricity generation plant's smokestack.
Yet often the electric power plants usually have higher efficiency than does the internal combustion engine automobile.  To make an accurate comparison between an electric car and internal combustion car one would have to take into account any difference in manufacturing and the energy consumption in manufacturing as well as the relative efficiency of the two in turning fossil fuel into miles driven. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on January 21, 2016, 04:46:37 PM
Donald Trump has made a Populist Appeal to the American
people that the politicians in Washington D.C. are incapable of
properly governing our nation.  He has aimed at the career
politicians who simply have the goal of getting re-elected term
after term and do not solve the problems of America.

It is a tossup if Trump can win the caucus system in Iowa. However,
he has big leads in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primary
polls. This next month will be interesting to see if Americans are
upset and angry enough to vote for the Donald.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 21, 2016, 05:23:17 PM
Something to consider about "pollution free" electric cars. If you live in an area where most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, when you recharge an electric car, you're just transferring the pollution from your tail pipe to the electricity generation plant's smokestack.
Yet often the electric power plants usually have higher efficiency than does the internal combustion engine automobile.  To make an accurate comparison between an electric car and internal combustion car one would have to take into account any difference in manufacturing and the energy consumption in manufacturing as well as the relative efficiency of the two in turning fossil fuel into miles driven.

Well, if you want to get really nitpicky, throw in the costs of disposing of used electrical storage batteries. And throw in the dangers of an accident in a vehicle full of storage batteries that are (1) full of high amperage electricity, and (2) toxic materials.

Granted, some hydrocarbon burning power plants are less polluting than others. But every time any hydrocarbon is burned, the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form hydrogen hydroxide, and the carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. The goal of any "clean burning" process that involved combustion is to limit the output to only water vapor and CO2. So, even a totally "pure", clean burning facility is still emitting tons of CO2. Personally, I see CO2 as what plants need to breathe, but then I'm not prone to jump on any of the latest pseudo-scientific fad bandwagons.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Benke on January 21, 2016, 06:12:53 PM

Again, Lou, I'd welcome your insights.


Ethanol is a more complex issue than many realize. It seems to be a boondoggle for corn farmers and arguably bad policy to take corn from the food production chain and turn it into fuel. However, the nation's largest Ag Coop, CHS, recently entered the ethanol business after initially not entering it. Initial entry was not promoted by management because "if ethanol is viable as a fuel we will be buried in ethanol by international sugarcane production because sugarcane is a much more efficient seedstock for ethanol" and "the only thing making corn based ethanol viable is the government tax incentives," at least so we were told initially. When CHS entered the business I went to an open mic at the annual meeting in Minneapolis and asked the blunt question, "what has changed?" The answer I received was that ethanol has become the oxygenate additive of choice for gasoline because of the environmental problems associated with the previously used oxygenate (something like MTBE, or some such acronym which escapes me right now). In short, the product when blended with gasoline helps gasoline be more environmentally benign by reducing carbon monoxide in the exhaust, so the demand for ethanol will continue as long as there is demand for gasoline. The loss of corn for animal feeding due to ethanol production is somewhat overblown--Distiller's dried grains, a by product of ethanol production, is an excellent ruminant feed stuff with nearly as much feed value as the whole corn kernel, when fed to ruminants.


I am still skeptical of the long term usage of corn for ethanol but corn is used for a host of non-food/feed uses already. It is a very versatile plant which is quite good at capturing solar power and converting that energy to a form with a multiplicity of uses. Only the sugarcane family in the plant kingdom is more efficient.... and sugarcane requires a frost free production zone.


Lou

Super information, helpful on many levels!

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 21, 2016, 06:37:30 PM
Trump leads Cruz by 11 in IA...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 21, 2016, 09:05:20 PM
Trump's 'USA Freedom Kids' sing at rally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT2oAYGkB3c
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on January 21, 2016, 11:26:56 PM
I will be caucusing on Feb 1 in Iowa--and for the first time in my life as a Republican (I am previously a life-long registered Democrat, growing up DFL in Minnesota, and going to the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008).  I have not always voted for the Democratic candidate (I voted for Reagan in 1980, for H.W. Bush in 1988, for Dole in 1996, for G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012).  Since 1996, I have refused to vote for any candidate who is pro-choice and not supportive of traditional marriage.  At this point I intend to caucus for Rubio.  If the G.O.P. nominates Trump, for the first time in my life, I will not cast a vote for president.  If the G.O.P. "establishment" moves to endorse and support Trump, I will simply not go to the polls--refusing to cast a vote for any candidate.  Trump is an opportunist who cannot genuinely account for how he has changed from his pro-choice et al progressive Democrat positions--at least he has not to my knowledge.  I think voting for him is as bad as voting for Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, or Biden. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 22, 2016, 10:03:29 AM
I will be caucusing on Feb 1 in Iowa--and for the first time in my life as a Republican (I am previously a life-long registered Democrat, growing up DFL in Minnesota, and going to the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008).  I have not always voted for the Democratic candidate (I voted for Reagan in 1980, for H.W. Bush in 1988, for Dole in 1996, for G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012).  Since 1996, I have refused to vote for any candidate who is pro-choice and not supportive of traditional marriage.  At this point I intend to caucus for Rubio.  If the G.O.P. nominates Trump, for the first time in my life, I will not cast a vote for president.  If the G.O.P. "establishment" moves to endorse and support Trump, I will simply not go to the polls--refusing to cast a vote for any candidate. Trump is an opportunist who cannot genuinely account for how he has changed from his pro-choice et al progressive Democrat positions--at least he has not to my knowledge.  I think voting for him is as bad as voting for Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, or Biden.

The Nov 2016 Ballot will have a lot more contested elections on it than that for President(Vice-President), and depending upon your home precinct may include the equivalent of bond measures, propositions, state constitution amendments, etc., etc., all the way to school and special district boards.  Don't stay away even if you decide that you cannot vote for any of the President(Vice-President) choices on the ballot.  In the short and long runs, the rest of the ballot may be even more critical to good governance, however you choose to select.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 22, 2016, 10:25:04 AM
I will be caucusing on Feb 1 in Iowa--and for the first time in my life as a Republican (I am previously a life-long registered Democrat, growing up DFL in Minnesota, and going to the Democratic caucuses in Iowa in 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008).  I have not always voted for the Democratic candidate (I voted for Reagan in 1980, for H.W. Bush in 1988, for Dole in 1996, for G.W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012).  Since 1996, I have refused to vote for any candidate who is pro-choice and not supportive of traditional marriage.  At this point I intend to caucus for Rubio.  If the G.O.P. nominates Trump, for the first time in my life, I will not cast a vote for president.  If the G.O.P. "establishment" moves to endorse and support Trump, I will simply not go to the polls--refusing to cast a vote for any candidate.  Trump is an opportunist who cannot genuinely account for how he has changed from his pro-choice et al progressive Democrat positions--at least he has not to my knowledge.  I think voting for him is as bad as voting for Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, or Biden.

Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them.  >:(
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Mike in Pennsylvania on January 22, 2016, 10:31:56 AM
Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them.  >:(

I don't know about that, Erma.  My prayer at every election is "Lord, give us the government we need, not the government we deserve."
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Keith Falk on January 22, 2016, 10:32:17 AM
I'll second the "still vote!"


I know it's true in Oklahoma, and likely true in every state: you can leave a category blank on your ballot and your ballot will still count and is valid.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 22, 2016, 10:40:37 AM
Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them.  >:(

I don't know about that, Erma.  My prayer at every election is "Lord, give us the government we need, not the government we deserve."

Well, I don't think either Trump or Sanders would give us the government we need, either.

I don't wish either man ill. (In fact, I have recently begun praying for Donald Trump, for his soul. Seriously.) And there are things I like about Bernie Sanders. But I don't want to see either man taking the oath of office for the presidency of the United States.

But even then, even if that becomes our choice in November, I will still go to the polls. I will vote for someone. And whoever gets elected, I will then pray for them, for the sake of the office.

But I really hope our choices are between two other candidates.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 22, 2016, 10:51:17 AM
I think the nominee will be settled by the time our primaries in May roll around...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 22, 2016, 11:01:59 AM
Honestly, Ken, if it wasn't for the damage either of them would do to the country as President, I'd say let's just go ahead and have a Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders race in the fall. They deserve each other.

But this country doesn't deserve either of them.  >:(

I don't know about that, Erma.  My prayer at every election is "Lord, give us the government we need, not the government we deserve."

Well, I don't think either Trump or Sanders would give us the government we need, either.

I don't wish either man ill. (In fact, I have recently begun praying for Donald Trump, for his soul. Seriously.) And there are things I like about Bernie Sanders. But I don't want to see either man taking the oath of office for the presidency of the United States.

But even then, even if that becomes our choice in November, I will still go to the polls. I will vote for someone. And whoever gets elected, I will then pray for them, for the sake of the office.

But I really hope our choices are between two other candidates.


I'd still go to the polls.  And I'd still vote for someone.  That "someone" would not be either Trump or Sanders.  Maybe I'd write in "Erma Wolf."  She may not be the most qualified person for the presidency.  But she'd be eager to admit this and would govern accordingly.  That alone puts her above Trump and Sanders in my book.  (I'd consider voting for Keith.  But his religion (Buckeyeism) is a problem.)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 22, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
Why Trump Is Winning Over Christian Conservatives

http://time.com/4189587/donald-trump-christian-conservatives/
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 22, 2016, 12:40:16 PM
Why Trump Is Winning Over Christian Conservatives

http://time.com/4189587/donald-trump-christian-conservatives/

I'll see your Time, and raise you a National Review.   :o

  http://c7.nrostatic.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on January 22, 2016, 12:43:11 PM
A rule I've heard that applies: If you didn't vote for a president, you can't complain about the one who was elected.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 22, 2016, 01:55:58 PM
Say what you will about the positions that Bernie Sanders takes,  I'm not a big fan,  but I like his taste in music as in a recent commercial.   I'm a Simon and Garfunkel fan from way back.  But I  wonder if that'll be a problem for Bernie?  He is trying to appeal to the young idealistic vote.   Aren't they likely to ask Simon and Garfunkel who?  Doesn't using their song,  no matter how iconic, immediately nominate Bernie for geezer hood?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 22, 2016, 02:10:39 PM
Say what you will about the positions that Bernie Sanders takes,  I'm not a big fan,  but I like his taste in music as in a recent commercial.   I'm a Simon and Garfunkel fan from way back.  But I  wonder if that'll be a problem for Bernie?  He is trying to appeal to the young idealistic vote.   Aren't they likely to ask Simon and Garfunkel who?  Doesn't using their song,  no matter how iconic, immediately nominate Bernie for geezer hood?


That music keeps the old hippie vote locked down for Bernie.  On election day, Trump will be 70, Clinton will be 69, and Sanders will be 75.  Age for me is not quite a absolute disqualifier.  But close.  My father is 79 and in great shape.  He skis, led the family up a 14er in Colorado this summer and is still sharp as ever.  But he doesn't have the energy or focus he once did.  In 2008, he said that he didn't support McCain's decision to run because McCain was too old.  McCain is 6 months younger than my father.


The presidency is a heavier burden than any of us can imagine.  Age obviously affects different people differently.  But it does matter.  To me, at least.  The voters as a whole don't seem to care.


(For context, Reagan was 69 when elected.  Age was an issue in 1984, although he still won 49 states.  Can you imagine any candidate of any party winning an LBJ/Reagan magnitude landslide today?  I can't.)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 22, 2016, 02:14:33 PM
Why Trump Is Winning Over Christian Conservatives

http://time.com/4189587/donald-trump-christian-conservatives/

I'll see your Time, and raise you a National Review.   :o

  http://c7.nrostatic.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination
RNC boots National Review from co-hosting debate after “Against Trump” issue
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/22/rnc-boots-national-review-from-co-hosting-debate-after-against-trump-issue/
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 22, 2016, 02:52:12 PM
Why Trump Is Winning Over Christian Conservatives

http://time.com/4189587/donald-trump-christian-conservatives/ (http://time.com/4189587/donald-trump-christian-conservatives/)

I'll see your Time, and raise you a National Review.   :o

  http://c7.nrostatic.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination (http://c7.nrostatic.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination)
RNC boots National Review from co-hosting debate after “Against Trump” issue
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/22/rnc-boots-national-review-from-co-hosting-debate-after-against-trump-issue/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/22/rnc-boots-national-review-from-co-hosting-debate-after-against-trump-issue/)


The RNC obviously had no choice.  I'm surprised that the National Review didn't withdraw on its own.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on January 22, 2016, 03:20:45 PM
The RNC obviously had no choice.  I'm surprised that the National Review didn't withdraw on its own.
Maybe, maybe not.  They did make their disdain more explicit than NBC, but I'm not sure their partisanship is much different than Fox News kind of being in the tank for Trump.

It is somewhat relevant to question his Republican sincerity, since he apparently never voted in a Republican primary before.  (Not that that should be a candidate requirement, but the fact doesn't exist in a vacuum.)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dana Lockhart on January 22, 2016, 04:38:23 PM
Say what you will about the positions that Bernie Sanders takes,  I'm not a big fan,  but I like his taste in music as in a recent commercial.   I'm a Simon and Garfunkel fan from way back.  But I  wonder if that'll be a problem for Bernie?  He is trying to appeal to the young idealistic vote.   Aren't they likely to ask Simon and Garfunkel who?  Doesn't using their song,  no matter how iconic, immediately nominate Bernie for geezer hood?

I think this is one of the areas where millennials think differently than boomers...

The ad works on its own without any need to think about who is performing the background music. It's like sampling in rap or pop music: incorporating a chunk of existing music into a new song/video. So there are people who know who Simon and Garfunkel are and who may appreciate knowing the original context of the song. But those who don't aren't likely to care. I myself had never heard the song before seeing the video: what I saw was an ad that is hopeful, upbeat, and speaks to the support Bernie has across the country.  In other words, (almost) nobody is going to ask "Simon and Garfunkel who?"

As to Bernie being a "geezer"... I just don't see that becoming an issue. He incredibly popular with young democrats (polls suggest far more popular than Hillary with those under 45). I'm 33 and I serve a campus ministry, and the sense I am getting from (left-leaning) students and others under 40  is that Bernie is popular because he is speaking directly to issues that are at the top of the list of concerns for young adults. Moreover, millenials tend to be concerned first and foremost with authenticity... and Bernie is certainly authentic. I think it's better for a candidate to own who they really are (e.g. aging 60's activist) than to try to construct an identity/image to appeal to a younger demographic.

Btw. There's a lesson in that for the church too. Any church that asks "how can we be more appealing to young people" is asking a counterproductive question.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Richard Johnson on January 22, 2016, 04:55:00 PM

The presidency is a heavier burden than any of us can imagine.  Age obviously affects different people differently.  But it does matter.  To me, at least.  The voters as a whole don't seem to care.

Yeah, I'm with you. I'm 66, and the thought of taking on the presidency (not that anyone has asked me to) is just appalling to me. At my age, I wouldn't be up to it--and I'm in good health. I look at Hillary and the rest and think, "WHY on earth, at your age, would you even consider this?"

Except on the days when I think, "Who are these young whippersnappers who think they're ready to be President? They're younger than I am!"  8)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 22, 2016, 06:23:05 PM
Bernie Sanders is popular with everyone who wants lots of free stuff and doesn't begin to understand simple arithmetic.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Keith Falk on January 22, 2016, 06:44:05 PM
Donald Trump is popular with raging racists who don't understand limited government.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Richard Johnson on January 22, 2016, 08:16:03 PM
Now fellas . . .
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on January 23, 2016, 05:26:06 AM
For those not inclined to read through the National Review critique of Trump, this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE#action=share) may help illustrate why many conservatives are suspicious of what Trump might actually do as president.   
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on January 23, 2016, 08:16:01 AM
Donald Trump is popular with raging racists who don't understand limited government.


"Limited government" has become an oxymoron on all sides of the aisle.....


Lou (wants to read more Burke)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Michael Slusser on January 23, 2016, 08:29:09 AM
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2016/01/22/A-Squirrel-Hill-man-s-obituary-offers-one-unusual-request-pittsburgh-cohen/stories/201601220219 (http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2016/01/22/A-Squirrel-Hill-man-s-obituary-offers-one-unusual-request-pittsburgh-cohen/stories/201601220219)

Quote
“Jeffrey would ask that in lieu of flowers, please do not vote for Donald Trump,” said the newspaper obituary that began appearing in the Post-Gazette Wednesday, three days after Mr. Cohen’s unexpected death from an apparent heart attack at age 70.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Matt Hummel on January 23, 2016, 08:29:24 AM
Now fellas . . .

Richard- I see your point, but both Keith & George aren't exactly stretching the truth.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 23, 2016, 09:07:05 AM
Donald Trump is popular with raging racists who don't understand limited government.


"Limited government" has become an oxymoron on all sides of the aisle.....


Lou (wants to read more Burke)

Only politics has exceeded organized Protestant denominations in the adoption of ridiculous euphemisms and buzzwords. Take "racism". It used to mean something. Now it is a catch-all phrase used to describe any antipathy towards any group of people for any reason, totally unrelated to the races of any of the people involved. It's one of those knee-jerk, automatic epithets thrown around willy-nilly that sound especially damning but that have come to mean absolutely nothing. If one member of the Caucasian race can be called a "racist" because of his antipathy towards other Caucasians, then the word is meaningless. If someone is called a "racist" because of antipathy towards a group of people of mixed race that includes many members of his own race, and the only common thread linking the members of the group is engagement in a common, illegal action, then "racist" has no meaning.

"Limited Government" is another. Our nation was founded on a blueprint for governance that is based on a Federal system. According to the Constitution, there are government activities that are deemed appropriate for the central Federal government to be responsible for, and other activities that are to be handled by the States individually. And, there are activities that are not to be handled by the government at all, but left to the people. There is also a process listed in the Constitution for amending it should the people want to shift certain activities from the states to the central Federal government. It's all very clearly spelled out in plain English.

It seems almost every collection of people into any sort of special interest group wants their pet causes to be championed by "the government", while all other pet causes of other special interest groups that the government handles are "too much government". Almost no one is principled enough to advocate the Federal Government getting its nose out of issues that should be left to the states if that issue is something they feel strongly about. Murder is not listed by the Constitution as a Federal issue, and so there are 50 unique, individual laws in each state forbidding it. Abortion should also be a state issue. Someone who opposes abortion and who is also a true conservative who wants a strict following of the Constitution should be advocating 50 separate state laws banning the murder of babies in the womb. Yet no matter how conservative and strict-constitutionalist anyone is, it is extremely rare to see any conservative say that the position of a Presidential candidate on abortion is irrelevant because it is not a Federal issue.

There is also a serious separation of powers in a well crafted pattern of checks and balances between the three branches of government carefully outlined in the Constitution. How many activists, pundits, or bloggers have ever really condemned the way Presidents have usurped the powers that are supposed to belong to Congress, unless it's a Presidential action that they disagree with?

Finally, in fora such as this one, not ever post can be an entire book. That means that sometimes limited points will be made by posting pithy, "bumper sticker" style comments. One of the most churlish, unhelpful, and just plain annoying practices in fora like this is attacking those pithy comments for not including 47 different disclaimers, exceptions, and explanations.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Robert Johnson on January 24, 2016, 10:17:59 AM
The great Iowahawk twitter feed nailed the potential Trump-Sanders race perfectly:

"... we have a consensus. Americans want a Leviathan central govt run by a dictator. We're just arguing about which dictator."
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 26, 2016, 07:40:06 PM
Trump will ‘definitely not’ participate in Fox debate, campaign says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/26/trump-will-definitely-not-participate-in-fox-debate-campaign-says/?tid=sm_tw
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peterm on January 27, 2016, 10:30:23 AM
If Trump wants to be president he will need to recognize that folks just might perhaps be "meaner" to him than a fox news anchor
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 27, 2016, 01:42:46 PM
Anyone who complains that President Obama has been overreached his authority bypassing Congress and ruling by Executive Order, should be concerned about a Trump presidency.  His style is imperious and if he doesn't get his way, watch out.  No wonder he admires Putin.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 27, 2016, 09:05:33 PM
Anyone who complains that President Obama has been overreached his authority bypassing Congress and ruling by Executive Order, should be concerned about a Trump presidency.  His style is imperious and if he doesn't get his way, watch out.  No wonder he admires Putin.

I think you find that for every person who complains about Obama using Executive Orders, there are a dozen others complaining about the CONTENT of those orders. I am not saying that it is a good thing, but it is a REAL thing. It's a sad and sorry fact that most Americans are clueless when it comes to the nuts and bolts of how a President gets things done. What they care about is that things that they want done gets done.

They don't care how new good jobs get created, so long as they get created. They don't care how illegal aliens are sent back to where they belong, so long as they are sent there. They don't care how the government stops radical Muslims from committing acts of terror, so long as radical Muslims committing acts of terror are stopped. The entire history of the modern world has proven that in general, the people care much more about results than they do about methods.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Charles Austin on January 27, 2016, 11:24:08 PM
Mr. Erdner writes:
 The entire history of the modern world has proven that in general, the people care much more about results than they do about methods.

I comment:
And such attitudes brought us the Nazi horrors. People wanted the "greatness" of Germany restored and their enemies ("the Jews") taken down, and didn't care about how it was done... We in our country, with what we believe is best about our heritage, should care very much about how things are done. And if our people do not care, those with some concern for morality, ethics and humanity should be doing a lot of teaching.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on January 28, 2016, 07:11:22 AM
My wife's grandfather died in 1981.  He was a poor man who through sheer effort and native ability became a small businessman.  He believed in an America where such effort and willingness to sacrifice would be rewarded.  When I would complain about overreaching government, (I complained a lot back then) he would say to me, "you're talking about America, they took America away from us."

But how did "they" do it?  How did "they" take America away?  They did it by promising too much and expecting too little from people.  They did it by teaching us that safety is more important than liberty.  It took decades, indeed more than a century.  But today we are at a place where demagogues can manipulate not just a few people, but many people.  I used to worry about people turning to the proverbial man on a white horse.  Now I'm afraid we're all too willing to follow any jackass riding on same,
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: dkeener on January 28, 2016, 09:20:51 AM

Panem et Circenses

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” – Juvenal (Satire 10.77–81  A.D. 100)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 28, 2016, 09:41:02 AM
The too usual progression is Despair -> Demagogue -> Demigod -> Dictator.  See Bolivarian Venezuela, Fascist Italy, National Socialist Germany, Soviet Union, ... the list is endless and begins somewhere, I recall, in the Old Testament, and hasn't been completed yet.
It is a too easy road on any side of any political spectrum.

Sometimes, as many are concerned in the USA now - justifiably or not - a nation reaches the point where servile apologists for state power as supreme can lead to what Berchtold Brecht (a Marxist-Leninist to the end) wrote in 1953 in East Germany.  This is not sarcasm, it is a belief in the right of the State to eliminate those who disagree with it:

“After the uprising of the 17th June
 The Secretary of the Writers Union
 Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
 Stating that the people
 Had forfeited the confidence of the government

 And could win it back only
 By redoubled efforts.
 Would it not be easier
 In that case for the government
 To dissolve the people
And elect another?”

Whether the demagoguery disparages immigrants or bitter clingers in flyover country or Ivy League elitists, or ALPB commentors...beware.  Even petite-demagoguery can be identified by how the presenter belittles, denigrates -- pictures as less than sane or human -- those who oppose their tribe, office, thesis or opinion.  Some speak softly, some through surrogates, some through diletantes and sophists seeking gain.

Study everyone, every single flawed aspirant for any position, and select soberly when you vote - and do not turn away from voting.
With the wrong people selected, someday you won't get to vote again.




Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on January 29, 2016, 11:33:39 AM
The United States is a great nation.........

Only in America, could a billionaire business man like Donald Trump
with a huge ego, identify with the humble blue workers of our nation..

Only in America, could a Canadian Latino man like Ted Cruz
identify with Southern bigots who are against immigration.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on January 29, 2016, 11:52:06 AM
Only in America, could a Canadian Latino man like Ted Cruz identify with Southern bigots who are against immigration.
Is opposition to illegal immigration equivalent to being "against immigration"?  Does opposition to illegal immigration automatically make someone a bigot?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on January 29, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
Sorry, Mr. Jon Schmidt, that was suppose to be posted on
Lutheran Levity Thread.  The juxtaposition of a Canadian
Latino and a Southern protester on illegal immigration.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 29, 2016, 12:02:32 PM
Only in America, could a Canadian Latino man like Ted Cruz identify with Southern bigots who are against immigration.
Is opposition to illegal immigration equivalent to being "against immigration"?  Does opposition to illegal immigration automatically make someone a bigot?

Part of the liberal narrative is to always present conservatives in the worst possible way. Oppose illegal aliens and other lawbreakers, and you're both racist and against ALL immigration. Have the necessary confidence that's needed to be willing to pursue the highest office in the land, and you have a "huge ego". Oppose voting fraud, and you're a racist. Heck, oppose ANYTHING and you're called a racist. If a Caucasian opposes admitting Semitic people from the Middle East (who are also Caucasians) who have a high probability of being ISIS terrorists, he's a racist.

It seems that liberals, even liberal Lutherans, always grant themselves an exemption from the 8th Commandment when it comes to conservatives.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: aletheist on January 29, 2016, 12:07:56 PM
Sorry, Mr. Jon Schmidt, that was suppose to be posted on Lutheran Levity Thread.  The juxtaposition of a Canadian Latino and a Southern protester on illegal immigration.
With all due respect, it is never funny when someone refers to other people as "bigots."  If you really meant "protesters," why not just use that word in the first place?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 29, 2016, 12:30:50 PM
Sorry, Mr. Jon Schmidt, that was suppose to be posted on Lutheran Levity Thread.  The juxtaposition of a Canadian Latino and a Southern protester on illegal immigration.
With all due respect, it is never funny when someone refers to other people as "bigots."  If you really meant "protesters," why not just use that word in the first place?

When the people you support oppose something, they are "protestors". The people who support what you oppose are always "bigots", "racists", or some other epithet. See my post above.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 29, 2016, 12:37:21 PM
Donald Trump Is the Harbinger of the Republican Party Apocalypse
And the GOP paved the way for its own destruction.


http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/28/donald-trump-is-the-harbinger-of-the-rep
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on January 29, 2016, 08:46:31 PM
Donald Trump Is the Harbinger of the Republican Party Apocalypse
And the GOP paved the way for its own destruction.


http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/28/donald-trump-is-the-harbinger-of-the-rep

After years of on-and-off participation in this forum, I have come to the conclusion that the single most useless category of posts in here are links to some blog or op-ed piece with nothing more than a cut-and-paste title. If anyone can't take the time to add some sort of information or comment of their own, or at least even a "fair use" snippet of something important from the linked piece, why bother?

If you agree with what you're linking to, say so and explain why. If you disagree with what you're linking to, say so and explain why. Just don't waste everyone's time with nothing more than a link and a title.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Norman Teigen on January 30, 2016, 10:26:26 AM
I like reading many of the links posted here. I have posted and will continue to post links which I find interesting.   My  intention in so doing is not necessarily to persuade but to inform. 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on January 31, 2016, 04:25:02 PM
Cruz on Controversial Mailer: 'I Will Apologize to Nobody'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/cruz-on-controversial-mailer-i-will-apologize-to-nobody/article/2000837
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 31, 2016, 05:15:15 PM
Clinton Ominously Tells Iowan Supporters To Mark Front Doors With Campaign Logo Before Sundown
This doesn't sound very Lutheran to me.  I image it is to keep the Bern from entering the house.  Do you think it will fly in Iowa tonight?  It's almost too late.  Link: http://onion.com/1Suk8pu
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 31, 2016, 05:18:58 PM
Dazed Marco Rubio Wakes Up In Koch Compound To Find Cold Metal Device Installed Behind Ear
The Koch Brothers seem to be working even more nefariously than ever in Iowa.  Read the article and tell us what you think,
linked at http://onion.com/1SoT1Mw
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 31, 2016, 05:21:54 PM
My last two posts on this thread indicate what I think about every one of the bilous hit articles about any political candidate posted on any thread on this Forum.  I will henceforth consider, until proven otherwise, that Pastors who post such articles preach what they post from their pulpit, and that laypeople who post such articles have been led to the beliefs contained therein by the teaching of their church.   (Of course, I would pray that what I just wrote was satire; however, that does not appear to be the case   ::).  YMMV)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 01, 2016, 05:35:09 PM
I will work for Hillary Clinton in Minnesota on March 1st in the SD 46 caucus.  None of the Republican candidates would I ever consider as a valid vote in a Presidential election.  Of the three leaders in the Republican side I personally rate Cruz as absolutely awful and unqualified (too much of his Christian beliefs  are involved) and Rubio a non-entity, and Trump, bad, but not as bad as the other two.  Trump is no Christian and he deserves consideration for that.  The election is for "the people" not the Christians.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 01, 2016, 06:21:53 PM
President John Adams was a Unitarian, President Thomas Jefferson
was a Deist, President James Madison was a Deist.   President George
Washington was a nominal Episcopalian.   The Founding Fathers did
not have a strong Christian identity.  Yet, these men had strong moral
convictions and virtues. 

When we elect a President of the United States we are not electing a
Pastor.  We want a leader who has the best interests of our nation at
heart and is honest with the American people.   It has been said that
many Republicans stayed home four years ago and did not vote for
GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney because he was a Mormon.
The religious background of the Founding Fathers did not concern the
voters.  They wanted leadership and that is what they got.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on February 01, 2016, 06:29:51 PM
President John Adams was a Unitarian, President Thomas Jefferson
was a Deist, President James Madison was a Deist.   President George
Washington was a nominal Episcopalian.   The Founding Fathers did
not have a strong Christian identity.  Yet, these men had strong moral
convictions and virtues. 

When we elect a President of the United States we are not electing a
Pastor.  We want a leader who has the best interests of our nation at
heart and is honest with the American people.   It has been said that
many Republicans stayed home four years ago and did not vote for
GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney because he was a Mormon.
The religious background of the Founding Fathers did not concern the
voters.  They wanted leadership and that is what they got.


Leadership was probably not as high a priority back then as we believe. The constitutional convention briefly considered asking a son of the Royal House of Hesse-Kassel to come and serve as King..... on more careful consideration they opted for checks and balances and the limitation of power.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2016, 07:49:30 PM
President John Adams was a Unitarian, President Thomas Jefferson
was a Deist, President James Madison was a Deist.   President George
Washington was a nominal Episcopalian.   The Founding Fathers did
not have a strong Christian identity.  Yet, these men had strong moral
convictions and virtues. 

When we elect a President of the United States we are not electing a
Pastor.  We want a leader who has the best interests of our nation at
heart and is honest with the American people.   It has been said that
many Republicans stayed home four years ago and did not vote for
GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney because he was a Mormon.
The religious background of the Founding Fathers did not concern the
voters.  They wanted leadership and that is what they got.

I fear your qualifications leaves out an extremely important consideration. It's not enough that a candidate be sincere in his desire to do what he thinks is best for the people. He also needs to have at least a clue about practical matters. Far too many bad decisions and bad government policies have been the result of sincere intentions to do good but with a total lack of understanding of practical matters, with no attention paid to what works.

Did no one ever read the Aesop Fable about belling the cat? Sure, it was a good idea. The mice who thought of the idea were sincere in their desire to do what was best for all of the mice. But the idea simply couldn't be put into action.

Did no one ever hear of the time the Soviet Union tried to build a tourist resort on the Black Sea to attract European visitors who would spend hard currency, which the Soviets desperately needed. They tried their best. The commissars in charge put the needs of the project to benefit the people ahead of all other concerns. But the few tourists who did come left early, and then all the tourists stopped coming. As the Politburo reviewed things, and questioned the commissars, they went over every aspect of running a decadent, Western-style resort. The food was good. The liquor was good. Then the Politburo asked about the showgirls in the floor show. "Not to worry", said the commissars, "Every one of them has been a loyal party member for at least 50 years!"

In the Kingdom of the left, good intentions are useless unless coupled with good, solid, practical ideas.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 01, 2016, 09:49:42 PM
GE, your examples do not promote your contentions. Aesop's Fables?  Really.

Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 01, 2016, 09:51:05 PM
I will work for Hillary Clinton in Minnesota on March 1st in the SD 46 caucus.  None of the Republican candidates would I ever consider as a valid vote in a Presidential election.  Of the three leaders in the Republican side I personally rate Cruz as absolutely awful and unqualified (too much of his Christian beliefs  are involved) and Rubio a non-entity, and Trump, bad, but not as bad as the other two.  Trump is no Christian and he deserves consideration for that.  The election is for "the people" not the Christians.
Do you believe Jimmy Carter was qualified and a valid candidate?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2016, 11:06:42 PM
GE, your examples do not promote your contentions. Aesop's Fables?  Really.

My contention is that a well intentioned idea is useless unless it is practical enough to work. I believe my examples illustrated that contention.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 02, 2016, 07:24:52 AM
Interesting results in Iowa yesterday. Cruz won with 28%, Trump came in second with 24%. That means 52% of the vote in the Iowa Caucasus was for candidates outside of the Republican "mainstream". Over the next few weeks, we're going to start seeing the marginal GOP candidates drop out. As the field narrows, it will be interesting to see where the supporters of RINOs like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush move, or where supporters of other conservatives like Rand Paul move.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on February 02, 2016, 07:37:12 AM
It's always dangerous to predict but here goes.  Rubio's strong showing, if repeated in NH, will make him the candidate of the so-called Republican mainstream. Sen. Scott of SC has endorsed him and that will help going into the SC primary.  Trump will fall by the wayside and it will be a fight between Rubio and Cruz, the winner determined on Super Tuesday.  If I had to bet, I'd bet on Rubio.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on February 02, 2016, 08:06:52 AM
Interesting results in Iowa yesterday. Cruz won with 28%, Trump came in second with 24%. That means 52% of the vote in the Iowa Caucasus was for candidates outside of the Republican "mainstream". Over the next few weeks, we're going to start seeing the marginal GOP candidates drop out. As the field narrows, it will be interesting to see where the supporters of RINOs like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush move, or where supporters of other conservatives like Rand Paul move.

RINOism is in the eye of the beholder, dependent on a subjective definition of real Republicanism. I'd argue that if the term covers anyone, it's Trump, who holds some of the most left-leaning views in the field and just joined the party a few months ago. Cruz prides himself as standing outside the party.

You're right, though, that it will be interesting to see how voters distribute themselves as candidates drop out.

No Iowa, 60% of Republicans supported minority candidates. Close to 60% supported sitting senators. Governors did poorly. According to the entrance poll, Cruz won those calling themselves very conservative, Rubio won among somewhat conservative, and Trump won the self-described moderates. Rubio won the vote-rich suburbs and cities. Cruz and Trump split the rural counties.

The sense of invincibility surrounding Trump has taken a hit. I think that he needs a substantial victory margin in NH, or his hopes will be gone. Sooner or later, I think that this will come down to Cruz and Rubio.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on February 02, 2016, 08:08:46 AM
It's always dangerous to predict but here goes.  Rubio's strong showing, if repeated in NH, will make him the candidate of the so-called Republican mainstream. Sen. Scott of SC has endorsed him and that will help going into the SC primary.  Trump will fall by the wayside and it will be a fight between Rubio and Cruz, the winner determined on Super Tuesday.  If I had to bet, I'd bet on Rubio.

That's a reasonable prediction.  And, if it plays that way, don't discount the possibility that Trump runs as a third party candidate.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 02, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
Interesting results in Iowa yesterday. Cruz won with 28%, Trump came in second with 24%. That means 52% of the vote in the Iowa Caucasus was for candidates outside of the Republican "mainstream". Over the next few weeks, we're going to start seeing the marginal GOP candidates drop out. As the field narrows, it will be interesting to see where the supporters of RINOs like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush move, or where supporters of other conservatives like Rand Paul move.

RINOism is in the eye of the beholder, dependent on a subjective definition of real Republicanism. I'd argue that if the term covers anyone, it's Trump, who holds some of the most left-leaning views in the field and just joined the party a few months ago. Cruz prides himself as standing outside the party.

You're right, though, that it will be interesting to see how voters distribute themselves as candidates drop out.

No Iowa, 60% of Republicans supported minority candidates. Close to 60% supported sitting senators. Governors did poorly. According to the entrance poll, Cruz won those calling themselves very conservative, Rubio won among somewhat conservative, and Trump won the self-described moderates. Rubio won the vote-rich suburbs and cities. Cruz and Trump split the rural counties.

The sense of invincibility surrounding Trump has taken a hit. I think that he needs a substantial victory margin in NH, or his hopes will be gone. Sooner or later, I think that this will come down to Cruz and Rubio.

As I see it, a "Republican in Name Only" is someone who has long been affiliated with the Republican party, but whose record as a politician demonstrates that he is more of a Democrat than a Republican. John McCain comes to mind as a prime example. Though technically, anyone who simply joins the GOP at the last minute for the purpose of running for office (or considering it) might well be, grammatically speaking, a Republican in name only, I think most of us accept that "RINO" is a label, like many labels, that isn't necessarily literally true. Donald Trump this year, Colin Powell in the 90's, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, those were all people who picked a party banner to run under at the last minute. I'd categorize former Independent Bernie Casey similarly on the Democrat Party's side.

I'd also note that most of Trump's "left leaning" views are on issues that Constitutionally speaking, aren't the province of the Federal Government anyway.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: James_Gale on February 02, 2016, 09:05:59 AM
Interesting results in Iowa yesterday. Cruz won with 28%, Trump came in second with 24%. That means 52% of the vote in the Iowa Caucasus was for candidates outside of the Republican "mainstream". Over the next few weeks, we're going to start seeing the marginal GOP candidates drop out. As the field narrows, it will be interesting to see where the supporters of RINOs like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush move, or where supporters of other conservatives like Rand Paul move.

RINOism is in the eye of the beholder, dependent on a subjective definition of real Republicanism. I'd argue that if the term covers anyone, it's Trump, who holds some of the most left-leaning views in the field and just joined the party a few months ago. Cruz prides himself as standing outside the party.

You're right, though, that it will be interesting to see how voters distribute themselves as candidates drop out.

No Iowa, 60% of Republicans supported minority candidates. Close to 60% supported sitting senators. Governors did poorly. According to the entrance poll, Cruz won those calling themselves very conservative, Rubio won among somewhat conservative, and Trump won the self-described moderates. Rubio won the vote-rich suburbs and cities. Cruz and Trump split the rural counties.

The sense of invincibility surrounding Trump has taken a hit. I think that he needs a substantial victory margin in NH, or his hopes will be gone. Sooner or later, I think that this will come down to Cruz and Rubio.

As I see it, a "Republican in Name Only" is someone who has long been affiliated with the Republican party, but whose record as a politician demonstrates that he is more of a Democrat than a Republican. John McCain comes to mind as a prime example. Though technically, anyone who simply joins the GOP at the last minute for the purpose of running for office (or considering it) might well be, grammatically speaking, a Republican in name only, I think most of us accept that "RINO" is a label, like many labels, that isn't necessarily literally true. Donald Trump this year, Colin Powell in the 90's, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, those were all people who picked a party banner to run under at the last minute. I'd categorize former Independent Bernie Casey similarly on the Democrat Party's side.

I'd also note that most of Trump's "left leaning" views are on issues that Constitutionally speaking, aren't the province of the Federal Government anyway.

There's scant evidence that Trump cares much about the Constitution's limits on presidential or federal authority.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 02, 2016, 09:27:04 AM
It's always dangerous to predict but here goes.  Rubio's strong showing, if repeated in NH, will make him the candidate of the so-called Republican mainstream. Sen. Scott of SC has endorsed him and that will help going into the SC primary.  Trump will fall by the wayside and it will be a fight between Rubio and Cruz, the winner determined on Super Tuesday.  If I had to bet, I'd bet on Rubio.

That's a reasonable prediction.  And, if it plays that way, don't discount the possibility that Trump runs as a third party candidate.

John, can you really believe that Trump would go back on his word!!!   ;) (If so - I'm in agreement.)

Donald Trump says he won't run for president as a third-party candidate "no matter what" despite past flirtations with an independent bid.

Trump said he was "totally committed to the Republican party" during Tuesday night's GOP debate and repeated that vow in an interview immediately afterward.


 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on February 02, 2016, 09:33:53 AM
As I see it, a "Republican in Name Only" is someone who has long been affiliated with the Republican party, but whose record as a politician demonstrates that he is more of a Democrat than a Republican. John McCain comes to mind as a prime example.

As I see it, those who are quick to label politicians as "RINO" have little regard for fellow citizens who do not share their political perspectives.  And, the people who get the label tend to be politicians who put service of country on a higher plain than service to party; who have some understanding of the notion that public service is a public trust; and, those elected to high office are there as representatives of all their constituents, not just their political base.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: John Mundinger on February 02, 2016, 09:46:58 AM
John, can you really believe that Trump would go back on his word!!!   ;) (If so - I'm in agreement.)

Eileen - how is it possible for a person who talks in circles to go back on his word?  :D
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 02, 2016, 09:55:04 AM
I'd categorize former Independent Bernie Casey similarly on the Democrat Party's side.


You should strive, at least, to get his name right. This is your second post this morning with the wrong last name.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 02, 2016, 10:07:50 AM
Perhaps Brother Erdner was thinking of Dr. Ben Casey on the hit
TV series from 1961-1966.  Actor Vince Edwards had the role
of Ben Casey.  As America observes Ground Hog Day, it is easy
to start seeing shadows as we type on our computer keyboard.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 02, 2016, 03:29:38 PM
Interesting results in Iowa yesterday. Cruz won with 28%, Trump came in second with 24%. That means 52% of the vote in the Iowa Caucasus was for candidates outside of the Republican "mainstream". Over the next few weeks, we're going to start seeing the marginal GOP candidates drop out. As the field narrows, it will be interesting to see where the supporters of RINOs like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush move, or where supporters of other conservatives like Rand Paul move.

RINOism is in the eye of the beholder, dependent on a subjective definition of real Republicanism. I'd argue that if the term covers anyone, it's Trump, who holds some of the most left-leaning views in the field and just joined the party a few months ago. Cruz prides himself as standing outside the party.

You're right, though, that it will be interesting to see how voters distribute themselves as candidates drop out.

No Iowa, 60% of Republicans supported minority candidates. Close to 60% supported sitting senators. Governors did poorly. According to the entrance poll, Cruz won those calling themselves very conservative, Rubio won among somewhat conservative, and Trump won the self-described moderates. Rubio won the vote-rich suburbs and cities. Cruz and Trump split the rural counties.

The sense of invincibility surrounding Trump has taken a hit. I think that he needs a substantial victory margin in NH, or his hopes will be gone. Sooner or later, I think that this will come down to Cruz and Rubio.

As I see it, a "Republican in Name Only" is someone who has long been affiliated with the Republican party, but whose record as a politician demonstrates that he is more of a Democrat than a Republican. John McCain comes to mind as a prime example. Though technically, anyone who simply joins the GOP at the last minute for the purpose of running for office (or considering it) might well be, grammatically speaking, a Republican in name only, I think most of us accept that "RINO" is a label, like many labels, that isn't necessarily literally true. Donald Trump this year, Colin Powell in the 90's, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, those were all people who picked a party banner to run under at the last minute. I'd categorize former Independent Bernie Casey similarly on the Democrat Party's side.

I'd also note that most of Trump's "left leaning" views are on issues that Constitutionally speaking, aren't the province of the Federal Government anyway.

There's scant evidence that Trump cares much about the Constitution's limits on presidential or federal authority.

I never said that Trump would pay attention to Constitutional limits on Federal Authority because he is a doctrinaire constitutionalist. However, when it comes to setting his priorities over which issues to address and which to defer, I suspect he would defer the social issues that coincidentally happen to not be Federal issues. The issues he addresses in his campaign rhetoric are, for the most part, issues that are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Whether that is because he's a strict constitutionalist (which I doubt) or it's just a coincidence (which is far more likely) general speaking, conservatives are judging Presidential candidates in large measure because of the candidates' stand on non-Federal issues.

I'd categorize former Independent Bernie Casey similarly on the Democrat Party's side.


You should strive, at least, to get his name right. This is your second post this morning with the wrong last name.

You are correct. Bernie's last name is Sanders, not Casey. But then a Marxist by any other name would still be clueless when it came to how economics work.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on February 02, 2016, 07:29:50 PM

As I see it, those who are quick to label politicians as "RINO" have little regard for fellow citizens who do not share their political perspectives.  And, the people who get the label tend to be politicians who put service of country on a higher plain than service to party; who have some understanding of the notion that public service is a public trust; and, those elected to high office are there as representatives of all their constituents, not just their political base.

As I -- always an informed and sometimes a quite active Republican in California, Montana, and Illinois -- see it, you show no comprehension why someone would label (and rarely does it happen quickly) a Republican office holder (or candidate) a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only).  While granting that the art and practice of (American) politics is rarely pure in its application of political principles, indeed Republicans have had -- as a party -- principles, principles that those sometimes described as RINOs have show themselves willing to -- not compromise for political purposes but -- co-opt in order to exercise power in concert with those of opposing principles, some of which are found in the Democratic Party, and those in (both parties) with no political principles other than "what is practical" or pure power itself.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dana Lockhart on February 02, 2016, 10:01:05 PM
I'd categorize former Independent Bernie Casey similarly on the Democrat Party's side.


You should strive, at least, to get his name right. This is your second post this morning with the wrong last name.

Not only the candidate's name but also the name of the party whose nomination he is seeking. There is no "Democrat Party" in the United States... except in the rants of the ill-informed (or ill-intentioned).
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 02, 2016, 11:44:36 PM
I'd categorize former Independent Bernie Casey similarly on the Democrat Party's side.


You should strive, at least, to get his name right. This is your second post this morning with the wrong last name.

Not only the candidate's name but also the name of the party whose nomination he is seeking. There is no "Democrat Party" in the United States... except in the rants of the ill-informed (or ill-intentioned).

Considering that the party that calls itself "democratic" is anything but, I chose to not use that misnomer.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: RDPreus on February 03, 2016, 10:16:29 AM
Rand Paul has just quit the race.  Who do I support now?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 03, 2016, 10:51:14 AM
It might be a stretch, RDP, but I would like to invite you over to support Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: RDPreus on February 03, 2016, 11:15:10 AM
Well, America deserves her.    :)
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 03, 2016, 11:20:09 AM
It might be a stretch, RDP, but I would like to invite you over to support Hillary Clinton.
That would be quite a stretch since Rand Paul's positions on issues are mostly the opposite of those of Hillary Clinton, he leans Tea Party and Libertarian while Hillary Clinton is anything but.  But I suppose those who support Hillary Clinton need all the support they can get, particularly going into New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 03, 2016, 11:26:10 AM
I recommended Hillary Clinton to my old friend RDP because I thought that he would find Bernie Sanders a bit too liberal.  But Bernie is good, too.  I could vote for him but I am thinking that Hillary is more electable than Bernie.  But RDP you could 'feel the Bern.'
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 03, 2016, 11:27:23 AM
It might be a stretch, RDP, but I would like to invite you over to support Hillary Clinton.
Elsewhere on this board someone suggested that Hillary Clinton and the main Republican candidates are basically the same. Since Hillary is the choice of the DNC and Rubio is a choice of the RNC, how do you think Clinton would be different from Rubio?
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LCMS87 on February 03, 2016, 11:37:18 AM
Well, America deserves her.    :)

Thus my prayer, "Lord, have mercy on us.  Don't give us the president we deserve."
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: RDPreus on February 03, 2016, 11:41:20 AM
Norman, if Bernie will pay for the education of my youngest and pay off the education debt of all my other kids and give me a few more goodies while he's at it, I just might abandon my political principles and vote for him.  But what was it that Margaret Thatcher said about socialism?  The problem with it is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on February 03, 2016, 11:53:13 AM
The one thing that attracted me to Rand Paul was his distaste for foreign adventurism.  Ted Cruz's desire to carpet bomb ISIS makes me leery of him.  Rubio is just a young neo-con.  Kasich at least would like to balance the budget (although I fear that is too late, our debt is so big now and growing so much in the future that there is no long term hope for our economy) 

What we need is someone who thinks America's primary business is America, that working class Americans need a champion and that Washington not only lacks the answers, it's not even aware of the questions.  So I'm going to vote for Rolf Preus.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 03, 2016, 12:35:55 PM
...Rubio is just a young neo-con...
What exactly is a "neo-con"?  I ask because I somewhat regularly see people who have a "distaste for foreign adventurism" use this as an epithet.   And more specifically, why do you classify Rubio as one?  Thanks in advance.  Reminding everyone that we've been engaged in foreign adverturism on the Korean peninsula for 60 years...one of the reasons I'm able to own my smartphone.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Terry W Culler on February 03, 2016, 12:51:28 PM
...Rubio is just a young neo-con...
What exactly is a "neo-con"?  I ask because I somewhat regularly see people who have a "distaste for foreign adventurism" use this as an epithet.   And more specifically, why do you classify Rubio as one?  Thanks in advance.  Reminding everyone that we've been engaged in foreign adverturism on the Korean peninsula for 60 years...one of the reasons I'm able to own my smartphone.

Sterling Spatz


Someone once described neo-cons as liberals who were mugged by reality.  And that was true of the first generation of them, such as Norman Podhoretz and his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb.  When they abandoned what they felt was a failed world view they kept some views that were not part of conservative American thought--most particularly an interventionist view of American foreign policy.  As that view has evolved over time it has become not only interventionist in the sense of trying to create winners and losers in the world around us but also in trying to redefine how other nations should live and govern themselves.  One of the results of this desire to butt into other people's business is the state of seemingly perpetual warfare that we are not experiencing.  Another is their almost mystical attachment to free trade at the expense of American jobs.  Both have now become central fixtures in the Republican Party creed and both are anathema to paleo-conservatives (like me).  Marco Rubio is committed both to interventionism and to free trade.  While I will probably wind up voting for him, I will be holding my nose and wishing for the return of John Quincy Adams.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 03, 2016, 01:03:23 PM
Rand Paul has just quit the race.  Who do I support now?

Someone else.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on February 03, 2016, 01:21:13 PM
Mollie's analysis...

13 Quick Takeaways From The 2016 Iowa Caucuses

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/02/13-quick-takeaways-from-the-2016-iowa-caucuses/
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Randy Bosch on February 03, 2016, 02:57:28 PM
...Rubio is just a young neo-con...
What exactly is a "neo-con"?  I ask because I somewhat regularly see people who have a "distaste for foreign adventurism" use this as an epithet.   And more specifically, why do you classify Rubio as one?  Thanks in advance.  Reminding everyone that we've been engaged in foreign adverturism on the Korean peninsula for 60 years...one of the reasons I'm able to own my smartphone.

Sterling Spatz


Someone once described neo-cons as liberals who were mugged by reality.  And that was true of the first generation of them, such as Norman Podhoretz and his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb.  When they abandoned what they felt was a failed world view they kept some views that were not part of conservative American thought--most particularly an interventionist view of American foreign policy.  As that view has evolved over time it has become not only interventionist in the sense of trying to create winners and losers in the world around us but also in trying to redefine how other nations should live and govern themselves.  One of the results of this desire to butt into other people's business is the state of seemingly perpetual warfare that we are not experiencing.  Another is their almost mystical attachment to free trade at the expense of American jobs.  Both have now become central fixtures in the Republican Party creed and both are anathema to paleo-conservatives (like me).  Marco Rubio is committed both to interventionism and to free trade.  While I will probably wind up voting for him, I will be holding my nose and wishing for the return of John Quincy Adams.

"...trying to redefine how other nations should live and govern themselves" is also what the United Nations, the European Union, and several regional powergroups in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are undertaking (not with the same intended results). 
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Robert Johnson on February 03, 2016, 11:31:26 PM
I recommended Hillary Clinton to my old friend RDP because I thought that he would find Bernie Sanders a bit too liberal.  But Bernie is good, too.  I could vote for him but I am thinking that Hillary is more electable than Bernie.  But RDP you could 'feel the Bern.'

Sanders isn't a liberal; he's way to the left of that.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: LutherMan on February 09, 2016, 08:43:21 PM
Trump finished HUGE in NH tonight...
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: truthseeker on February 09, 2016, 10:02:27 PM
Well, America deserves her.    :)

Thus my prayer, "Lord, have mercy on us.  Don't give us the president we deserve."
The Chinese people have been deserving what they only deserve for many thousands of years and also for recent six decades. Can there be any changes in the future? Lord have mercy!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: truthseeker on February 09, 2016, 10:10:43 PM
The communists' favorite propaganda/brag is that "we are the choice of the people and the choice of history". The word is partially correct. OTH likewise King Saul or Obama is also "the choice of the people", and OTOH God allowed "the choice" and then the corresponding consequences will follow.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 09, 2016, 10:12:20 PM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 09, 2016, 10:20:00 PM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.

Huzzah!
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on February 11, 2016, 08:38:58 AM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.


Oh how we need more of Edmund Burke....


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Michael Slusser on February 11, 2016, 11:06:43 AM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.
Oh how we need more of Edmund Burke....
Lou
None of this would have happened under King George, except taxation without representation  ::)

Actually, I believe there are candidates for absolute monarchy around today. We could be more like the countries that have them.  >:(

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Team Hesse on February 11, 2016, 11:24:03 AM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.
Oh how we need more of Edmund Burke....
Lou
None of this would have happened under King George, except taxation without representation  ::)

Actually, I believe there are candidates for absolute monarchy around today. We could be more like the countries that have them.  >:(

Peace,
Michael
I'm all in when it comes to absolute monarchy--as long as the monarch is Jesus.....otherwise power has to be checked and balanced....limited.


Lou
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 11, 2016, 11:51:16 AM
I can think of one candidate today that, it seems to me, would be in favor of an absolute monarchy, except he would rather call it him being the country's CEO with unlimited authority over the company/country and the ability to tell anyone that displeases him, "You're Fired!"
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 11, 2016, 12:55:56 PM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.
Oh how we need more of Edmund Burke....
Lou
None of this would have happened under King George, except taxation without representation  ::)

Actually, I believe there are candidates for absolute monarchy around today. We could be more like the countries that have them.  >:(

Peace,
Michael

Taxation WITH representation ain't all that great.  ::)

And, we have a President at the moment who uses Executive Orders like he was a king. A huge segment of the population is totally OK with that.
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: RevG on February 11, 2016, 01:22:26 PM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.
Oh how we need more of Edmund Burke....
Lou
None of this would have happened under King George, except taxation without representation  ::)

Actually, I believe there are candidates for absolute monarchy around today. We could be more like the countries that have them.  >:(

Peace,
Michael

Taxation WITH representation ain't all that great.  ::)

And, we have a President at the moment who uses Executive Orders like he was a king. A huge segment of the population is totally OK with that.
 

He's not much different than other presidents.  He's still below George W., Clinton and Reagan when it comes to exec orders.  He may surpass George W but I doubt he'll surpass Reagan's 381 or Clinton's 364.   
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: Steven W Bohler on February 11, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.
Oh how we need more of Edmund Burke....
Lou
None of this would have happened under King George, except taxation without representation  ::)

Actually, I believe there are candidates for absolute monarchy around today. We could be more like the countries that have them.  >:(

Peace,
Michael

Taxation WITH representation ain't all that great.  ::)

And, we have a President at the moment who uses Executive Orders like he was a king. A huge segment of the population is totally OK with that.
 

He's not much different than other presidents.  He's still below George W., Clinton and Reagan when it comes to exec orders.  He may surpass George W but I doubt he'll surpass Reagan's 381 or Clinton's 364.

Well, it's not just the number of executive orders (or executive actions), but rather the content, that matters.  100 executive orders announcing "National Such and Such Day" hardly equals one that changes immigration policy or gun control.  Here's an article that attempts to look at content as well as number: http://mercatus.org/publication/measuring-content-not-just-number-executive-orders-and-proclamations
Title: Re: Donald Trump: The Man And The Myth
Post by: George Erdner on February 11, 2016, 03:18:49 PM
As a natural conservative I've decided I'm more of a Whig/loyalist. None of this would have happened under King George.
Oh how we need more of Edmund Burke....
Lou
None of this would have happened under King George, except taxation without representation  ::)

Actually, I believe there are candidates for absolute monarchy around today. We could be more like the countries that have them.  >:(

Peace,
Michael

Taxation WITH representation ain't all that great.  ::)

And, we have a President at the moment who uses Executive Orders like he was a king. A huge segment of the population is totally OK with that.
 

He's not much different than other presidents.  He's still below George W., Clinton and Reagan when it comes to