ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: peter_speckhard on August 22, 2021, 01:36:09 PM

Title: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 22, 2021, 01:36:09 PM
https://www.thecollegefix.com/james-madison-u-labels-heteroromantic-christian-men-oppressor-group/

This university chart for students employees has categories for gender, sexual orientation, and romantic orientation, with heteroromantic people listed as oppressors and everyone else listed as oppressed. I'm assuming we have broad agreement in this forum that such a category and chart is ridiculous. My question is at what point would people in this forum recommend that someone subjected to this kind of training stop pretending to take it seriously and make it known that they don't accept it? When ought Christians stop going along to get along on these matters?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 22, 2021, 01:45:19 PM
We do not have to take every aspect of such training seriously, but…
We do have to try to understand what sexual minorities have experienced for the previous 10 or 12 decades. We listen to them. We think carefully about our own prejudices and what we might’ve said or done. We try, and this is a hard part, to understand that their experiences with people like us may have turned them off because they think, incorrectly, that we all share the same kind of attitudes which brought them a considerable amount of pain and suffering.
And, even if we disagree with their understanding of sexuality, we stand with them in efforts to eliminate discrimination and persecution.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 22, 2021, 02:11:04 PM
We do not have to take every aspect of such training seriously, but…
We do have to try to understand what sexual minorities have experienced for the previous 10 or 12 decades. We listen to them. We think carefully about our own prejudices and what we might’ve said or done. We try, and this is a hard part, to understand that their experiences with people like us may have turned them off because they think, incorrectly, that we all share the same kind of attitudes which brought them a considerable amount of pain and suffering.
And, even if we disagree with their understanding of sexuality, we stand with them in efforts to eliminate discrimination and persecution.
So if you were required to take this training, would you let it be known which parts you refused to take seriously or just go along to get along?

Typically I have done the latter. I’ve had any amount of such training in the foster system, and I just sit there and listen and leave when it is over. But I’m rethinking that approach, because the whole agenda just gets more and more aggressive, assertive, and intrusive and never meets any pushback. So my real question is would this training meet with pushback from you while it was happening? Afterward? Or not at all?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 22, 2021, 02:17:35 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 22, 2021, 02:30:13 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 22, 2021, 02:49:16 PM
By the by, since identifying personal pronouns has become de rigueur my pronouns are er, ihn, seiner.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 22, 2021, 02:55:48 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.
How exactly does one repent of being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc.? You have not actually turned from any of those things except Christianity in any meaningful sense. Repent in your sense of the word doesn't refer to anything.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 22, 2021, 03:21:05 PM
By the by, since identifying personal pronouns has become de rigueur my pronouns are er, ihn, seiner.
If you get the electronic version of FL you should soon have my article in the September issue about my refusal to offer my pronouns. But I'm come to a compromise. Since people really only need to know my pronouns when they're talking to me, I'll be glad to provide non-gendered pronouns that work for that purpose. Pete Speckhard (you, your)
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Richard Johnson on August 22, 2021, 03:50:39 PM
By the by, since identifying personal pronouns has become de rigueur my pronouns are er, ihn, seiner.

Mine are I, me, mine.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Jim Butler on August 22, 2021, 04:40:22 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.

You repent for being Christian?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 22, 2021, 05:22:21 PM
Peter:
So if you were required to take this training, would you let it be known which parts you refused to take seriously or just go along to get along?
Me:
I don’t know. I do know that I probably do not have the exact same objections to this “training“ as you might.

Peter:
Typically I have done the latter. I’ve had any amount of such training in the foster system, and I just sit there and listen and leave when it is over. But I’m rethinking that approach, because the whole agenda just gets more and more aggressive, assertive, and intrusive and never meets any pushback. So my real question is would this training meet with pushback from you while it was happening? Afterward? Or not at all?
Me:
See above. Dunno.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 22, 2021, 06:00:53 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?
I comment:
Yes, I am part of an “oppressor group,” even though I may not have been as directly involved in the oppression as some. As a man entering the professional world in the early 1960s, I have had access, “boosts,” and perks that were not available to women. Furthermore, the people running (“ruling”?) my professional worlds of church and journalism were largely males of an earlier generation with restrictive views on what women could or should do.
   In journalism, I was lucky enough to have some top, tough, and extremely helpful women editors. A woman was editor of the suburban weekly where I began. She could swear like a sailor and barked orders like a drill sergeant. (And this indicated that in order to "make it" those days, a woman had to act like a man. Another sign of the oppression.)
   The late, great Lillian Ross of Religion News Service was an amazing combination of Jewish mother, 1930’s “Front Page” style editor, and your favorite English teacher. I learned a lot from her.
   At The New York Times for a while my editor was the remarkable Anna Quindlen, who later became one of the finest writers of our time. (She was actually too nice a person to be a good editor, so her time at the City Desk was brief.) A coalition of women reporters at The Times actually sued for better treatment and won.
   During my four-month “fill-in” gig with the Lutheran World Federation, my boss was Karin Achtelstetter, a German pastor who cared about professional communications and was smart, savvy and knew how to create and inspire a team.
   Meanwhile, I have heard from women journalists what they have experienced in the last 40 years – discrimination, sexism, condescension, and a stone wall to hit when trying to move up the ladder. This has changed a lot in the last 15 years.
   Ditto for the church, at least for the ELCA part of it. In the church I grew up in there was absolutely no female leadership above the congregational level and darn little there, save for the women's circles. Today we have numerous women bishops, a female presiding bishop, and ordained women on the staff of many synods.
   Like with systemic racism, Pastor Fienen, males of our generation have to recognize and admit that we have had advantages. We did not create them, and we might even have resented them, but we did benefit.

Peter writes:
How exactly does one repent of being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc.?
I comment:
See above. Admit the reality of the last 100 or more years. Argue for the balance which can say that not everything male, white, heterosexual, Western European or Christian is terrible.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: D. Engebretson on August 22, 2021, 06:45:28 PM
....not everything male, white, heterosexual, Western European or Christian is terrible.

I'll go with that.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dave Benke on August 22, 2021, 06:50:09 PM
By the by, since identifying personal pronouns has become de rigueur my pronouns are er, ihn, seiner.

All the missives received from those in various levels of NYC government include the preferred personal pronoun for whoever wrote the letter/email.  It's been helpful in many cases to me, because the first names (and last names) are remarkably global, and not so easily parsed by yours truly.  Also, if you are interacting with, say, Sonia Ramirez at the Department of X, there may be 35 SRamirez@xxx.  So they're numbered - SRamirez35@xxx.  The most notable phenomenon to me, as a fan of golf, is the domination of the South Korean women golfers, so that the woman who was in the running for a recent major was YLee6.  There are at least 6 women named, Lee - Young Sil.  In the LCMS there were/maybe are a ton of Schmidts, many of whom I knew, but we didn't know enough to number them.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 22, 2021, 07:14:36 PM
Having an advantage or an opportunity not everybody has is not a sin. To be able-bodied, for example, is a first article gift. To repent of it is silly. If you oppress the disabled, you repent. But if you got a job because you aren't disabled that a disabled person couldn't get, that doesn't have anything to do with anything needing repentance. Most of the criteria are simply an unavoidable function of being in the majority in a given context, which is what determines what "normal" means. Thus, being "heteroromantic" in no way oppresses people who aren't heteroromantic. It is simply stupid to repent, apologize, or otherwise work for change based on the unfair privileges that accrue to the heteroromantic.

At any of these universities, the "oppression" is all in the other direction. Ask yourself: if you were seeking admission to this university, submitting an article for publication, applying for a grant, running for office, seeking an internship, or really doing just about anything with limited positions available, which attributes on your application would give you a better chance of getting a positive outcome, the "oppressed" column attributes or the "oppressor" column attributes? In every single case, your odds go way up if you can claim membership in the oppressed column.   
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 22, 2021, 07:23:59 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.
How exactly does one repent of being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc.? You have not actually turned from any of those things except Christianity in any meaningful sense. Repent in your sense of the word doesn't refer to anything.


Look up the meaning of μετανοέω. I'll help you. Liddell & Scott offer these definitions in their Greek-English Lexicon:
1. to perceive afterwards or too late
2. to change one's mind or opinion
3. to repent


The first definition in BDAG: change one's mind


Lowe & Nida's definition: to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness


Over my 71 years, I certainly have changed my mind about being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian. A key change is recognizing that I was privileged and oppressive in my thinking and sometimes words and actions towards people in other categories.


Another note: "turn away from" is not listed in any of those definitions. If you haven't changed your thinking about yourself being being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc., perhaps you haven't been listening very well to those who have been oppressed.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 22, 2021, 07:26:21 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.

You repent for being Christian?

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.


Certainly, my mind is continually being changed as God continues to teach me through the study of scripture, through the wisdom of others, etc.


Are you claiming that your understanding of Christianity has changed since your earliest days of Sunday school?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 22, 2021, 07:57:04 PM
Charles, I can understand what you are saying and actually agree with much of it. People who are in some ways much like me have done bad, even terrible things. I have in many ways been fortunate. Do you take responsibility for those who oppressed Blacks in slavery, Jim Crow, and continued racism? Are you guilty of their sins? What form should your repentance take? If you benefited unjustly from benefits granted to because of your color, gender, religion, orientation, what do you think that you should do about that? What should others, like me? Has your having benefited unjustly stopped you for enjoying those benefits? Have you compensated those whose your unjust perks deprived?


You said, "Yes, I am part of an 'oppressor group,' even though I may not have been as directly involved in the oppression as some." Pin on a gold star for your virtue. At least you are not as those others who set up your benefits.


I have another issue with the schema from James Madison University, and their chart is by no means unique. I am to be judged not so much on what I have done, am doing or even will do. I am to be judged on the basis of what I am. My religion is simply labeled as oppressive. Perhaps I should have simply chosen a different religion, although my impression is that the Christian God chose me rather than the other way around. As I understand it, things like sexual orientation, what gender I perceive myself to be (perhaps a woman who happens to be in a man's body or such), to be not a choice but what I have been born to be. Because I have not been afflicted with a handicap, I am an oppressor. I suppose if I would be righteous I would take steps to become handicapped. Do I get to choose whether I blind myself, deafen my ears, or maybe cut off a limb. Could chronic diabetes and depression count?


The adage, "God doesn't make junk" is wrong. God does make junk, He made me as I am by birth an oppressor.   
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 22, 2021, 08:30:26 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.
How exactly does one repent of being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc.? You have not actually turned from any of those things except Christianity in any meaningful sense. Repent in your sense of the word doesn't refer to anything.


Look up the meaning of μετανοέω. I'll help you. Liddell & Scott offer these definitions in their Greek-English Lexicon:
1. to perceive afterwards or too late
2. to change one's mind or opinion
3. to repent


The first definition in BDAG: change one's mind


Lowe & Nida's definition: to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness


Over my 71 years, I certainly have changed my mind about being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian. A key change is recognizing that I was privileged and oppressive in my thinking and sometimes words and actions towards people in other categories.


Another note: "turn away from" is not listed in any of those definitions. If you haven't changed your thinking about yourself being being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc., perhaps you haven't been listening very well to those who have been oppressed.
How did you change your mind about being heterosexual? I thought that was impossible.

People who are pretty have advantages over people who are ugly. People who are tall have advantages over those who are short. People with deep, resonant voices have advantages over those tinny, shrill voices. People with great hair have advantages over people who are bald. So? None of that has anything to do with repentance.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 22, 2021, 08:36:59 PM
In this discussion In the real world, Peter, “repentance“ is not being used in the theological sense.
I think some would like to hear us say we are sorry for what they experienced at the hands of, let us say, the white males who preceded us.
We can do that without all of the theological baggage carried by the word “repentance.”
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: David Garner on August 23, 2021, 09:05:27 AM
Yes, I am part of an “oppressor group,” even though I may not have been as directly involved in the oppression as some. As a man entering the professional world in the early 1960s, I have had access, “boosts,” and perks that were not available to women. Furthermore, the people running (“ruling”?) my professional worlds of church and journalism were largely males of an earlier generation with restrictive views on what women could or should do.

This is you simply trying to work a sleight of hand.

Yes, you are part of the "oppressor group" (because if you acknowledge that the entire group was not in on the oppression, then the entire idea of an "oppressor group" goes away and we're back to dealing with individuals, and politically speaking, that is less advantageous to your side).  But no, you were not "as directly involved in the oppression as some" (because you want to have your cake and eat it too).

I was neither directly nor indirectly involved in oppression.  To the extent there was oppression that did not find me, I had no part in it.  That's the inconvenient part of this whole move toward setting up oppressor and oppressed classes.  It drags in people who had absolutely nothing to do with the oppression.  And one day, perhaps when you are gone, but perhaps when you are still with us and no longer useful to those to whom you cowtow today, it will drag you in as well.  You want to be part of the solution, a member of the oppressor class who helps to right wrongs.  People love to be heroes.  But the truth is, the very system you set up to wail against others, will eventually eat you too.

I told Pastor Stoffregen this weeks ago.  The people you are cuddling with hate you too.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 23, 2021, 09:48:27 AM
A phrase familiar in Russian folklore and literature is "lighten the troika." A troika in this case is a sled or wagon being drawn by three horses. The image here is that of such a troika being beset by wolves. In order to get to safety before being overwhelmed by the wolves something, or someone will be thrown off the troika to the wolves to lighten the load and distract the wolves so that the rest could perhaps get to safety. Similar phrases in English are "thrown to the wolves" or "thrown under the bus."


The problem is that just throwing someone to the wolves does not guarantee success for the rest. The wolves, not satisfied with the sacrifice may well continue to harry the troika until they take them all down.


Charles pointed out, after being pressed on how one is supposed to repent of being born male, able bodied, with heterosexual orientation, or repent of being Christian that the repentance called for may not be what we theologically call repentance but simple regret that people like us did bad things to people like them.


Well and good, but will that really satisfy those who want to divide us into privileged and oppressor vs. oppressed not on the basis of what we have done or what has personally been done to us, but on the color of our skin, our birth gender especially if we do not later correct that birth gender (being the oppressive cis-gendered), where we were born, if we have had the bad grace to be born able bodied and didn't subsequently correct that, and the like. It is not the content of your character or what you have done that classifies you, but the color of your skin and the like. I really doubt that expressions of sympathy or regret that others did bad things is going to satisfy the wolves harrying our troika.


The call is to radically deconstruct and tear down western culture and rebuild it along other lines. Marxism is often invoked here but that is not necessarily the objective. Whiteness is being portrayed as the enemy to be destroyed. Anything that can in any way be associated with Whiteness is evil and must be eradicated. Even so far as changing how mathematics is taught and practiced with the "White" emphasis on getting the correct answer. Are we still being paranoid if some are really out to get us?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: JEdwards on August 23, 2021, 09:53:14 AM
In this discussion In the real world, Peter, “repentance“ is not being used in the theological sense.
I think some would like to hear us say we are sorry for what they experienced at the hands of, let us say, the white males who preceded us.
We can do that without all of the theological baggage carried by the word “repentance.”
Then why not simply say that?  I cannot think of a single participant in this forum who would be unwilling to do so.  "Repentance" is a word that is rarely used outside of a theological context, so it seems only natural that choosing to use that specific word would invite theological analysis.

I realize that sometimes one must be provocative in order to attract attention and highlight real problems, but in addressing the real and painful legacy of racial discrimination in our country, there is also the risk that using unnecessarily provocative language can derail discussion that might otherwise yield broad consensus.

Peace,
Jon

Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 23, 2021, 10:04:52 AM
In this discussion In the real world, Peter, “repentance“ is not being used in the theological sense.
I think some would like to hear us say we are sorry for what they experienced at the hands of, let us say, the white males who preceded us.
We can do that without all of the theological baggage carried by the word “repentance.”
Then why not simply say that?  I cannot think of a single participant in this forum who would be unwilling to do so.  "Repentance" is a word that is rarely used outside of a theological context, so it seems only natural that choosing to use that specific word would invite theological analysis.

I realize that sometimes one must be provocative in order to attract attention and highlight real problems, but in addressing the real and painful legacy of racial discrimination in our country, there is also the risk that using unnecessarily provocative language can derail discussion that might otherwise yield broad consensus.

Peace,
Jon
But to continue to use the term repentance opens up so many possibilities for word slight of tongue. We begin by saying that here "repentance" means saying that we are sorry for what people who are in some ways like us (especially gender or skin color or religion, etc.) but not us did to them. From there it is just a short step to asserting that repentance that is just saying "Sorry" isn't enough. If one is truly repentant, then one needs to take responsibility for what was wrong and step up with compensation and change. And so repentance that started out meaning one thing shifts in meaning toward a more usual meaning that carries more freight.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2021, 11:18:51 AM
But to continue to use the term repentance opens up so many possibilities for word slight of tongue. We begin by saying that here "repentance" means saying that we are sorry for what people who are in some ways like us (especially gender or skin color or religion, etc.) but not us did to them. From there it is just a short step to asserting that repentance that is just saying "Sorry" isn't enough. If one is truly repentant, then one needs to take responsibility for what was wrong and step up with compensation and change. And so repentance that started out meaning one thing shifts in meaning toward a more usual meaning that carries more freight.


Biblically, "repentance" (μετάνοια) is about a "changing in thinking" that should result in changes in behaviors. Has this discussion caused no changes in your thinking?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on August 23, 2021, 11:25:17 AM
In this discussion In the real world, Peter, “repentance“ is not being used in the theological sense.
I think some would like to hear us say we are sorry for what they experienced at the hands of, let us say, the white males who preceded us.
We can do that without all of the theological baggage carried by the word “repentance.”

Then what's this all about?

You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.
How exactly does one repent of being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc.? You have not actually turned from any of those things except Christianity in any meaningful sense. Repent in your sense of the word doesn't refer to anything.


Look up the meaning of μετανοέω. I'll help you. Liddell & Scott offer these definitions in their Greek-English Lexicon:
1. to perceive afterwards or too late
2. to change one's mind or opinion
3. to repent


The first definition in BDAG: change one's mind


Lowe & Nida's definition: to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness


Over my 71 years, I certainly have changed my mind about being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian. A key change is recognizing that I was privileged and oppressive in my thinking and sometimes words and actions towards people in other categories.


Another note: "turn away from" is not listed in any of those definitions. If you haven't changed your thinking about yourself being being able-bodied, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, white, Western European descent, Christian, etc., perhaps you haven't been listening very well to those who have been oppressed.

I don't think Brian got your board directive.

But to continue to use the term repentance opens up so many possibilities for word slight of tongue. We begin by saying that here "repentance" means saying that we are sorry for what people who are in some ways like us (especially gender or skin color or religion, etc.) but not us did to them. From there it is just a short step to asserting that repentance that is just saying "Sorry" isn't enough. If one is truly repentant, then one needs to take responsibility for what was wrong and step up with compensation and change. And so repentance that started out meaning one thing shifts in meaning toward a more usual meaning that carries more freight.

Biblically, "repentance" (μετάνοια) is about a "changing in thinking" that should result in changes in behaviors. Has this discussion caused no changes in your thinking?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: David Garner on August 23, 2021, 11:28:44 AM
But to continue to use the term repentance opens up so many possibilities for word slight of tongue. We begin by saying that here "repentance" means saying that we are sorry for what people who are in some ways like us (especially gender or skin color or religion, etc.) but not us did to them. From there it is just a short step to asserting that repentance that is just saying "Sorry" isn't enough. If one is truly repentant, then one needs to take responsibility for what was wrong and step up with compensation and change. And so repentance that started out meaning one thing shifts in meaning toward a more usual meaning that carries more freight.


Biblically, "repentance" (μετάνοια) is about a "changing in thinking" that should result in changes in behaviors. Has this discussion caused no changes in your thinking?

I don't think "nous" has in mind primarily "thinking."  "Mind" is generally how I've seen it translated, but the Fathers tend to view it more as the "window to the soul" or the "eyes of the soul."  Which has, obviously, a much deeper meaning. 
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 23, 2021, 12:25:26 PM
People outside this tightly wrapped theological community use “repentance“ in a different way. That’s all I am saying.
Let’s talk about repentance as saying “I’m sorry that my father‘s generation and my grandfather’s generation held these attitudes that did things to you.“
That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and “intrinsically evil.”
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: George Rahn on August 23, 2021, 12:41:52 PM
But to continue to use the term repentance opens up so many possibilities for word slight of tongue. We begin by saying that here "repentance" means saying that we are sorry for what people who are in some ways like us (especially gender or skin color or religion, etc.) but not us did to them. From there it is just a short step to asserting that repentance that is just saying "Sorry" isn't enough. If one is truly repentant, then one needs to take responsibility for what was wrong and step up with compensation and change. And so repentance that started out meaning one thing shifts in meaning toward a more usual meaning that carries more freight.


Biblically, "repentance" (μετάνοια) is about a "changing in thinking" that should result in changes in behaviors. Has this discussion caused no changes in your thinking?

Repentance in general is far different from Christian repentance.  The opening chapters of Jesus’ ministry indicate that John the Baptist’s style of calling folks to repentance is different from Christ’s call to repent.  Calling to repentance has a different outcome between the two types of repentance “callers.”
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 23, 2021, 12:44:22 PM
People outside this tightly wrapped theological community use “repentance“ in a different way. That’s all I am saying.
Let’s talk about repentance as saying “I’m sorry that my father‘s generation and my grandfather’s generation held these attitudes that did things to you.“
That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and “intrinsically evil.”
Note the emphasis. What are you suggesting? What sort of things are you saying the people on this board are saying should be done to sexual minorities? Are you suggesting that some of us advocate violence against sexual minorities? Please give evidence of such.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 23, 2021, 12:44:53 PM
People outside this tightly wrapped theological community use “repentance“ in a different way. That’s all I am saying.
Let’s talk about repentance as saying “I’m sorry that my father‘s generation and my grandfather’s generation held these attitudes that did things to you.“
That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and “intrinsically evil.”
To do that, you must ascribe moral agency to identity groups and treat individuals according to their identity group membership. That is dehumanizing even as it tries to be nice.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: George Rahn on August 23, 2021, 12:50:27 PM
People outside this tightly wrapped theological community use “repentance“ in a different way. That’s all I am saying.
Let’s talk about repentance as saying “I’m sorry that my father‘s generation and my grandfather’s generation held these attitudes that did things to you.“
That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and “intrinsically evil.”
To do that, you must ascribe moral agency to identity groups and treat individuals according to their identity group membership. That is dehumanizing even as it tries to be nice.

Very true.  Shouldn’t legislate morality.  We’ll end up like the Taliban.  Not good in any way.  Lol
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: RevG on August 23, 2021, 01:01:30 PM
You do realize, Charles, that except for your age, you are squarely a part of the oppressor group. You are as much of an oppressor as I am. Do you enjoy being an oppressor?


While I'm not quite as old as Charles, I think I'm closer than most on this forum, I certainly recognize that I have been part of the (privileged and) oppressor group. For that I repent and continually seek not only to do better, but to go overboard it seeking to help those who are oppressed.

The oppressed/oppressor distinction has become an overused distinction of sorts. It is mostly derived from the work of Paulo Freire who I am very familiar as he is one of the main interlocutors in my dissertation.  There is much good to be gleaned from his work but this binary approach to human beings is certainly problematic, especially when transferred over into our context today.  Human beings are much more varied, complex, and nuanced than such a simple distinction.  One of the critiques I offer is informed by Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning where he writes about a fellow prisoner being more harsh than an S.S. camp commander.  Here's the quote:

“It is apparent that the mere knowledge that a man was either a camp guard or a prisoner tells us almost nothing. Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a whole it would be easy to condemn” (Frankl 2006, 86). 

Peace,
Scott+
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: David Garner on August 27, 2021, 11:48:48 PM
People outside this tightly wrapped theological community use “repentance“ in a different way. That’s all I am saying.
Let’s talk about repentance as saying “I’m sorry that my father‘s generation and my grandfather’s generation held these attitudes that did things to you.“
That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and “intrinsically evil.”
Note the emphasis. What are you suggesting? What sort of things are you saying the people on this board are saying should be done to sexual minorities? Are you suggesting that some of us advocate violence against sexual minorities? Please give evidence of such.

Telling there was no response to this.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: D. Engebretson on August 28, 2021, 09:07:14 AM
People outside this tightly wrapped theological community use “repentance“ in a different way. That’s all I am saying.
Let’s talk about repentance as saying “I’m sorry that my father‘s generation and my grandfather’s generation held these attitudes that did things to you.“
That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and “intrinsically evil.”
Note the emphasis. What are you suggesting? What sort of things are you saying the people on this board are saying should be done to sexual minorities? Are you suggesting that some of us advocate violence against sexual minorities? Please give evidence of such.

Telling there was no response to this.

Perhaps this could be clarified.  What is implied here?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 10:05:32 AM
People outside this tightly wrapped theological community use “repentance“ in a different way. That’s all I am saying.
Let’s talk about repentance as saying “I’m sorry that my father‘s generation and my grandfather’s generation held these attitudes that did things to you.“
That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and “intrinsically evil.”
Note the emphasis. What are you suggesting? What sort of things are you saying the people on this board are saying should be done to sexual minorities? Are you suggesting that some of us advocate violence against sexual minorities? Please give evidence of such.

Telling there was no response to this.

Perhaps this could be clarified.  What is implied here?
That was my question. Charles wrote, "That of course does not solve the problem posed by other views present on this board, views held by people who believe that certain folks, especially sexual minorities, should have things done to them, because after all, the way they express their sexuality is sinful and 'intrinsically evil.' ”

Now, it is true that there have been violent acts perpetrated against sexual minorities. (I take it that by sexual minorities Charles means homosexuals, the transgendered, and the like rather than males which at 49.2% of the population make them the minority gender compared to female at 50.8%.) Some people have used the judgement that some of the sexual activities of these minorities to justify violence against them. From there the point that Charles is making becomes murkier. To my knowledge, nobody, not even those who have been rather impolite in talking about sexual minorities and their activities, have advocated violence against them. So, I asked Charles to clarify just what he meant.

Is he accusing those who consider homosexual sexual activities sinful of advocating violence towards such people? If so I wanted evidence of that advocacy.

Is he asserting that to call certain behaviors done by sexual minorities sinful is itself violence and those statements should be considered violent acts?

Is he asserting that because some people have used the traditional Christian moral judgement that homosexual sexual behavior is sinful and intrinsically disordered as justification for violence that therefore everybody who shares that moral judgement is guilty of the violence?

Just what does he mean?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 28, 2021, 11:32:27 AM
PastorvFienen:
Is he accusing those who consider homosexual sexual activities sinful of advocating violence towards such people? If so I wanted evidence of that advocacy.
Me:
I am not.

Pastor Fienen:
Is he asserting that to call certain behaviors done by sexual minorities sinful is itself violence and those statements should be considered violent acts?
Me:
No.

Pastor Fienen:
Is he asserting that because some people have used the traditional Christian moral judgement that homosexual sexual behavior is sinful and intrinsically disordered as justification for violence that therefore everybody who shares that moral judgement is guilty of the violence?
Me:
No again. But you must understand that some of those affected see the language as contributing to the violence of others. Some of those affected see certain language itself as deeply hurtful. And even if no one here, or no one in our genteel circles advocate violence or takes part in violence, we need to understand how our language is heard by others. To sum, agreed this is the wrong interpretation, but to some, it seems to almost encourages violence.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Terry W Culler on August 28, 2021, 11:48:07 AM
Charles: Just how would you have us speak of the sinfulness of these behaviors if we cannot use the words of Scripture and tradition.  It seems to me that anything but open acceptance is considered by some to be the cause of violence.  Indeed, it's looking more and more like acceptance isn't going to be enough, what's sought now is celebration.  So Charles, do we address sin or do we simply ignore it?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 11:51:22 AM
PastorvFienen:
Is he accusing those who consider homosexual sexual activities sinful of advocating violence towards such people? If so I wanted evidence of that advocacy.
Me:
I am not.

Pastor Fienen:
Is he asserting that to call certain behaviors done by sexual minorities sinful is itself violence and those statements should be considered violent acts?
Me:
No.

Pastor Fienen:
Is he asserting that because some people have used the traditional Christian moral judgement that homosexual sexual behavior is sinful and intrinsically disordered as justification for violence that therefore everybody who shares that moral judgement is guilty of the violence?
Me:
No again. But you must understand that some of those affected see the language as contributing to the violence of others. Some of those affected see certain language itself as deeply hurtful. And even if no one here, or no one in our genteel circles advocate violence or takes part in violence, we need to understand how our language is heard by others. To sum, agreed this is the wrong interpretation, but to some, it seems to almost encourages violence.
OK, thank you for clarifying the intent of your post. It was open to the interpretation that you have now rejected.


So, if your point is that some see the language used in our genteel circles as reminiscent of the language used to incite violence, then what do you suggest? How can we do a better job of proclaiming the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) which includes what God has declared about homosexual sexual activity?


If we have the obligation (which we do) to very carefully proclaim what God has said about how He wants His redeemed to live, do the people to whom we speak have any obligation to carefully listen to what we say and not simply accuse us and in their minds convict us of saying things that we did not say because it "kinda sounds like" what others who are hateful and hurtful have said?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 28, 2021, 11:56:52 AM
It’s not the words about sin. It’s where the yahoos take those words. “Intrinsically evil”? Roman Catholic theology, but could lead to unintended consequences.
Pastor Fienen, I’m not going to try and tell you how you should proclaim your view of homosexuality. There’s no way in which I could be effective in an enterprise like that.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 12:06:48 PM
It’s not the words about sin. It’s where the yahoos take those words. “Intrinsically evil”? Roman Catholic theology, but could lead to unintended consequences.
Pastor Fienen, I’m not going to try and tell you how you should proclaim your view of homosexuality. There’s no way in which I could be effective in an enterprise like that.
Would you say that since some yahoos take any talk of sin and use it to justify violence, I should just shut up about homosexuality?


Do you approve of burning and looting businesses, police precincts, court houses? Some have taken talk about the sin of racism as justification for violence and insurrection. Since some use that as a justification for violence, or because of the violence that has happened to them or people they know take any talk about the evil of racism as a prelude to violence, should we just not talk about racism?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 28, 2021, 12:44:44 PM
Charles: Just how would you have us speak of the sinfulness of these behaviors if we cannot use the words of Scripture and tradition.  It seems to me that anything but open acceptance is considered by some to be the cause of violence.  Indeed, it's looking more and more like acceptance isn't going to be enough, what's sought now is celebration.  So Charles, do we address sin or do we simply ignore it?


We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals. Only after recognizing the logs in our own eyes can we hope to see splinters in others.


Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: DeHall1 on August 28, 2021, 01:05:19 PM
Charles: Just how would you have us speak of the sinfulness of these behaviors if we cannot use the words of Scripture and tradition.  It seems to me that anything but open acceptance is considered by some to be the cause of violence.  Indeed, it's looking more and more like acceptance isn't going to be enough, what's sought now is celebration.  So Charles, do we address sin or do we simply ignore it?


We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals. Only after recognizing the logs in our own eyes can we hope to see splinters in others.


Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.

Yes!  Like Pastors sleeping with their boyfriends.  Oh wait….
The ELCA promote those Pastors to “Pastor of Public Witness”.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on August 28, 2021, 01:13:03 PM

We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals.

Why?

Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.

Who has suggested otherwise?

And, again, you fail to properly distinguish Law and Gospel.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 28, 2021, 01:34:42 PM

We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals.

Why?


Because we are not Pharisees. See my comment about logs and splinters.

Quote
Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.

Who has suggested otherwise?


This whole discussion seems to be about their sin.


Quote
And, again, you fail to properly distinguish Law and Gospel.


I don't think I have ever distinguished Law and Gospel in the Waltherian/LCMS way.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 28, 2021, 02:01:34 PM
Pastor Fienen persists his usual way:
Would you say that since some yahoos take any talk of sin and use it to justify violence, I should just shut up about homosexuality?
I comment:
No, but I might six just let you back off a little bit until you have had some considerable and personal experience with real life homosexuals. Especially with  those who profess the Christian faith.

Pastor Fienen:
Do you approve of burning and looting businesses, police precincts, court houses? Some have taken talk about the sin of racism as justification for violence and insurrection. Since some use that as a justification for violence, or because of the violence that has happened to them or people they know take any talk about the evil of racism as a prelude to violence, should we just not talk about racism?
Me:
No, I do not approve of such things. But that is an incredibly inapt attempt to change the focus, and I will not be deceived.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 02:10:23 PM

We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals.

Why?


Because we are not Pharisees. See my comment about logs and splinters.
You make a good point, but in talking about heterosexual sins, should we not also talk homosexual sins?

Quote
Quote
Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.

Who has suggested otherwise?


This whole discussion seems to be about their sin.
Must all types of sins be discussed whenever any type of sin is discussed. Much has been discussed here about the sin of racism. But rarely if ever when the sin of racism has been discussed did we also in the same discussion include a discussion of sexual sins, property sins, greed, slander, false testimony, and the whole myriad other sins that people commit.  Why must anytime homosexual sins be discussed we must also in that discussion discuss other sins?


Quote
And, again, you fail to properly distinguish Law and Gospel.


I don't think I have ever distinguished Law and Gospel in the Waltherian/LCMS way.

I don't doubt it. The Watherian distinction between Law and Gospel is an important part of LCMS theology. Walther in general I have observed you and Charles dismiss as unimportant and unworthy of consideration. Anyway way that our churches differ. Another reason that we have trouble discussing theology. We approach theology differently and you tend to simply dismiss what is important to us as frivolous. As usual, you two want to set the basis and terms of discussion and rule out anything that does not fit with your thinking.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 02:17:52 PM
Pastor Fienen persists his usual way:
Would you say that since some yahoos take any talk of sin and use it to justify violence, I should just shut up about homosexuality?
I comment:
No, but I might six just let you back off a little bit until you have had some considerable and personal experience with real life homosexuals. Especially with  those who profess the Christian faith.

Pastor Fienen:
Do you approve of burning and looting businesses, police precincts, court houses? Some have taken talk about the sin of racism as justification for violence and insurrection. Since some use that as a justification for violence, or because of the violence that has happened to them or people they know take any talk about the evil of racism as a prelude to violence, should we just not talk about racism?
Me:
No, I do not approve of such things. But that is an incredibly inapt attempt to change the focus, and I will not be deceived.
You really object to people who after being admonished by you persist in disagreeing don't you? I persist in my usual way because you have not convinced me that you are correct and I and people like me are always wrong.


Are sexual sins so different than other sins, like violence or racism, that they must be discussed according to different rules of discourse that do not apply to other sins?


You want to set up, shall we say, guidelines for discussing homosexuality taking into account how some have abused positions that we have taken, and bad experiences that some have had because of that abuse of our positions.


My question is whether those same considerations should be taken into account when discussing, for example, racism. But you accuse me of changing focus and trying to deceive you. I am not deceived by your special pleading.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on August 28, 2021, 02:35:54 PM

We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals.

Why?

Because we are not Pharisees. See my comment about logs and splinters.

Keeping focused without going off on tangents is not pharisaical. It's a good thing . You should work on it. Pulling a tu quoque on oneself is far from helpful.

Quote
Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.

Who has suggested otherwise?

This whole discussion seems to be about their sin.

How does that imply that we are not sinners? You misconvert that particular proposition about their sin.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 28, 2021, 04:01:06 PM
Pastor Fienen goes on:
You really object to people who after being admonished by you persist in disagreeing don't you? I persist in my usual way because you have not convinced me that you are correct and I and people like me are always wrong.
I comment:
I am not trying to convince you of anything, having concluded that is an impossibility. I have never said you were always wrong. That is another way in which you like to construct your role as victim.

Pastor Fienen:
Are sexual sins so different than other sins, like violence or racism, that they must be discussed according to different rules of discourse that do not apply to other sins?
Me:
You tell me. It is your crowd that always raises the sexual sins.

Pastor Fienen:
You want to set up, shall we say, guidelines for discussing homosexuality taking into account how some have abused positions that we have taken, and bad experiences that some have had because of that abuse of our positions.
Me:
No, I do not want to set up any guidelines. And I do declare that some have taken your position to catastrophic extremes. But I simply state that. I don’t expect you to agree with it. Gave up on that sometime ago.

Pastor Fienen:
My question is whether those same considerations should be taken into account when discussing, for example, racism. But you accuse me of changing focus and trying to deceive you. I am not deceived by your special pleading.
Me:
We had that discussion on systemic racism sometime ago and in another thread of discussion. This is not that thread of discussion.
And discussing racism is not the same as discussing sexual morality. (Now you can make all your comparisons as to why it is. But I doubt that you will convince me.)
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 04:13:10 PM
Pastor Fienen goes on:
You really object to people who after being admonished by you persist in disagreeing don't you? I persist in my usual way because you have not convinced me that you are correct and I and people like me are always wrong.
I comment:
I am not trying to convince you of anything, having concluded that is an impossibility. I have never said you were always wrong. That is another way in which you like to construct your role as victim.


A small point, you have on several occasions accused me of holding that if you said that the sky was blue or that the sun would rise in the East I would consider you wrong. Has that been another way in which you like to construct your role as a victim?

Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 28, 2021, 04:20:22 PM
And I have always said that you will take the last word. So here you have it. A gift from me.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 04:29:19 PM
Pastor Fienen:
You want to set up, shall we say, guidelines for discussing homosexuality taking into account how some have abused positions that we have taken, and bad experiences that some have had because of that abuse of our positions.
Me:
No, I do not want to set up any guidelines. And I do declare that some have taken your position to catastrophic extremes. But I simply state that. I don’t expect you to agree with it. Gave up on that sometime ago.


Oh, I fully agree that some have taken a portion of the same position that I take and pushed it to catastrophic extremes. That happens to just about every position that any reasonable person takes on any topic. Some have even taken some positions that you would agree to and pushed them to catastrophic extremes. Those who are looking for an excuse for violence or extremism do not necessarily invalidate the basic and reasonable position they have distorted.


Again, looking at another area of society. You have stated, and quite correctly, that racial minorities have been treated in America very badly, that much resentment has understandably resulted, and especially when a current event looks to be just more of the same bad old stuff, it is reasonable that people will be angry and resentful. All that I understand and agree with. Some have taken that and pushed it to the extreme of justifying rioting, looting, destruction of property (even property belonging to members of the oppressed group), assault and killing. You have stated that you deplore the violence. But would you agree that extreme behavior does not delegitimize the basic understandable and necessary call for justice. Do you agree that the basic call for justice is not nullified by the extreme behavior that some have taken in its name?   

Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 04:35:55 PM
And I have always said that you will take the last word. So here you have it. A gift from me.
The last word is neither yours to give or mine to take. We are in a discussion, a give and take. If you choose to respond to something I say, that is your choice. If you choose to end your participation, that is your choice. The same for me. If the moderators decide that one or the other is to make the last post on a subject and close the thread, that is their gift and prerogative.


Your post here, as you have posted before is no gift, though you claim the ability to make it a gift. Rather it is a rather transparent attempt on you part to be manipulative, and denigrate what I say. You imply that I do not know when I am beaten and so grimly continue to beat a dead horse and respond even when I have clearly lost. 


As to who won, I am still waiting to see the score posted by the East German judge.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 28, 2021, 04:40:41 PM
And I have always said that you will take the last word. So here you have it. A gift from me.
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 04:48:28 PM
By the by, not that anybody asked, I cannot remember the last time that I preached on the sin of homosexuality. I don't necessarily even include it when I talk about a laundry list of sins that some people commit. In my congregation that consists almost entirely of retirees, I rarely bring sex into my sermons.


If we are going to talk about people who are always talking about sexual sins, how about people who are always on the look out for people who don't use the properly self-designated pronouns in their speech, are quick to point out the evils of heteronormativity and see its expression every where, or scorn those who are so gauche as to be cis-gendered.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on August 28, 2021, 06:14:16 PM
Peter writes, somewhat off topic but he is the moderator:
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
I say:
Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 28, 2021, 06:20:07 PM
Peter writes, somewhat off topic but he is the moderator:
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
I say:
Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?
Not really. Just pointing out that I notice it to head off all the reported posts and private messages from people in the ELCA who can’t believe the forum still tolerates your presence and think I must not be paying attention. I do pay attention.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 28, 2021, 07:17:12 PM
You make a good point, but in talking about heterosexual sins, should we not also talk homosexual sins?


Well, if there are no homosexuals in the congregation; why would you need to talk about homosexual sins?

Quote
Must all types of sins be discussed whenever any type of sin is discussed. Much has been discussed here about the sin of racism. But rarely if ever when the sin of racism has been discussed did we also in the same discussion include a discussion of sexual sins, property sins, greed, slander, false testimony, and the whole myriad other sins that people commit.  Why must anytime homosexual sins be discussed we must also in that discussion discuss other sins?


If there are no homosexuals in the congregation, why bring up sins related to homosexual behaviors. Or, do you just comment about specific sins that don't really apply to the people in the pews. (Granted, it's much safer to talk about the sins of those other people.)

Quote
I don't doubt it. The Watherian distinction between Law and Gospel is an important part of LCMS theology. Walther in general I have observed you and Charles dismiss as unimportant and unworthy of consideration. Anyway way that our churches differ. Another reason that we have trouble discussing theology. We approach theology differently and you tend to simply dismiss what is important to us as frivolous. As usual, you two want to set the basis and terms of discussion and rule out anything that does not fit with your thinking.


Granted. We have different approaches to scriptures, to the Confessions, to ecumenism, to ordination, etc. Another difference is that I will talk about such things as "differences," rather than stating, "we're right and you're wrong."
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on August 28, 2021, 07:48:45 PM
Peter writes, somewhat off topic but he is the moderator:
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
I say:
Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?

No, Charles, it doesn't. You simply pride yourself at being the proverbial pain in the tuchus, whining to Dick whenever you demand that threads be closed down, want a post(s) deleted because you think you were treated without the respect you think you deserve,  demean those with whom you disagree, and continually call people stupid. And Dick appears to accommodate you.

It is what it is.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 28, 2021, 08:04:10 PM
You make a good point, but in talking about heterosexual sins, should we not also talk homosexual sins?


Well, if there are no homosexuals in the congregation; why would you need to talk about homosexual sins?

Quote
Must all types of sins be discussed whenever any type of sin is discussed. Much has been discussed here about the sin of racism. But rarely if ever when the sin of racism has been discussed did we also in the same discussion include a discussion of sexual sins, property sins, greed, slander, false testimony, and the whole myriad other sins that people commit.  Why must anytime homosexual sins be discussed we must also in that discussion discuss other sins?


If there are no homosexuals in the congregation, why bring up sins related to homosexual behaviors. Or, do you just comment about specific sins that don't really apply to the people in the pews. (Granted, it's much safer to talk about the sins of those other people.)

Quote
I don't doubt it. The Watherian distinction between Law and Gospel is an important part of LCMS theology. Walther in general I have observed you and Charles dismiss as unimportant and unworthy of consideration. Anyway way that our churches differ. Another reason that we have trouble discussing theology. We approach theology differently and you tend to simply dismiss what is important to us as frivolous. As usual, you two want to set the basis and terms of discussion and rule out anything that does not fit with your thinking.


Granted. We have different approaches to scriptures, to the Confessions, to ecumenism, to ordination, etc. Another difference is that I will talk about such things as "differences," rather than stating, "we're right and you're wrong."
Actually, I can't remember the last time I preached about homosexuality.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Richard Johnson on August 29, 2021, 06:58:45 PM
Peter writes, somewhat off topic but he is the moderator:
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
I say:
Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?

No, Charles, it doesn't. You simply pride yourself at being the proverbial pain in the tuchus, whining to Dick whenever you demand that threads be closed down, want a post(s) deleted because you think you were treated without the respect you think you deserve,  demean those with whom you disagree, and continually call people stupid. And Dick appears to accommodate you.

It is what it is.

Actually, the percentage of posts deleted or threads closed because of a complaint from Charles is fairly small.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on August 29, 2021, 09:14:41 PM
Then why did you close down the Glenn Beck thread? And why did you leave Mr Martim's rude diss on Trump and Pompeo, calling them liars on the shut-down Afghanistan thread, and, OTOH, remove my entire chain of comments a while ago because I called my governor "Comrade Walz" for valid reasons in my opinion, to Austin's and Teigen's outrage?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2021, 02:49:15 PM
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/23/the-aclu-morphs-into-the-ministry-of-truth/

Came across this article online. It highlights an ACLU tweet in support of abortion rights with a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But they removed the word "women" and all gendered pronouns in order to make RBG's words less transphobic. It was wrong of RBG to imply that only women get pregnant.

The ACLU is officially in the Monty Python sketch giving men the right to have babies. The only issue left is whether that is symbolic of their struggle with the Romans or with reality. 
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on September 23, 2021, 04:29:32 PM
Oh, come on! The ACLU did not change the justice’s words, because they clearly put the alternate words in brackets.
“Spiked” goes goofy and nutty in phony outrage.
Now, we know that concerning pronouns, your knickers are so twisted they could lash Odysseus to the mast, but you need to let an independent media use its own dumbass language (the way some of your people have a media where the ELCA is E*CA, and Lutherans Immigration and Refugee Services is “LIARS”).
The “meaning” has nothing to do with who can have babies.
Personally, I’m not keen on messing with pronouns. (But then, there was a time when I thought “thee” and “thine” when addressing God.)
And don’t you already have enough reasons to dislike the ACLU?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2021, 04:56:51 PM
Oh, come on! The ACLU did not change the justice’s words, because they clearly put the alternate words in brackets.
“Spiked” goes goofy and nutty in phony outrage.
Now, we know that concerning pronouns, your knickers are so twisted they could lash Odysseus to the mast, but you need to let an independent media use its own dumbass language (the way some of your people have a media where the ELCA is E*CA, and Lutherans Immigration and Refugee Services is “LIARS”).
The “meaning” has nothing to do with who can have babies.
Personally, I’m not keen on messing with pronouns. (But then, there was a time when I thought “thee” and “thine” when addressing God.)
And don’t you already have enough reasons to dislike the ACLU?
So you agree that messing with pronouns is dumb. Good. A flicker of intellectual life. Now, if you ever become capable of discernment, you’ll discover that what I am bothered by is the expectation that I designate my pronouns. This isn’t an instance of that. It is an instance, as we agree, of sheer stupidity. But it matters because it is simply designed to create familiarity. You say, “O come on…” now because it is just stupid. Next year you’ll say “O come on…” to any objection because it is a perfectly normal way of speaking. Then you’ll get irate with anyone who refuses to use “standard” language.

You bothered to respond. With an exclamation point even. It mattered enough to you to do that. I just linked to an article and made a fairly straightforward joke about it. You think major institutions editing famous quotes to account for the new “fact” that men can get pregnant is not worth commenting on. So don’t comment on it.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on September 23, 2021, 05:21:02 PM
It’s always nice, Peter, to have your instructions on when I may or may not comment.
I wonder who’s giving you instructions.
Peter:
You think major institutions editing famous quotes to account for the new “fact” that men can get pregnant is not worth commenting on. So don’t comment on it.
Me:
I wasn’t commenting on what the ACLU said. I was commenting on your (looking for an adjective here) response.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2021, 05:32:09 PM
It’s always nice, Peter, to have your instructions on when I may or may not comment.
I wonder who’s giving you instructions.
I never said anything about when you may comment. You blathered falsely and irrelevantly about my knickers being in a twist, and I simply pointed out what pathetic projection of your problems that amounted to.

I linked to an article which pointed out that the ACLU altered its quote of RBG to reflect the possibility that men can be pregnant, and I made a joke about it. It goes with the thread topic of normalizing the perverse. Most people read it and maybe rolled their eyes or chuckled or thought nothing of it. You couldn’t help yourself. Even in agreeing that the pronoun thing is stupid you had to make an ass of yourself by posting something stupid rather than just not responding or saying something innocuous like, “Yeah, that tweet is a little over the top.”
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on September 23, 2021, 05:58:48 PM
Peter, you really need to get a life that doesn’t require you to psychoanalyze me. I’m not that important. But you keep at it.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2021, 07:12:38 PM
Peter, you really need to get a life that doesn’t require you to psychoanalyze me. I’m not that important. But you keep at it.
Why do you post things like this? I think I’ll just go back to deleting your posts unless they make some point about the topic.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on September 24, 2021, 10:43:05 AM
No. Say it’s not to be.
Pastor Austin is the hardest working blogger in show business. He rolls out of bed under fire, grabs his keyboard and returns fire to advance on the enemy. Really, what would these threads hold but a tangle of like-minded comments were it not for him?

He keeps us on our toes, listening for the cans banging on the barbed wire.

Peter (That said, still hating you Charles; respectfully yours.) Garrison
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2021, 11:51:51 AM
A linguistics professor at Columbia finds changes in language exciting. And points out why there is nothing new, language changes all the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/opinion/gender-pronouns-they.html
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 24, 2021, 12:34:05 PM
Of course language changes all the time. And of course people on board with eliminating traditional categories of sex and gender consider these changes good. Because the changes do not comport with Christianity, Christians tend to have a harder time getting all excited about overhauling the language’s pronoun chart to accommodate bogus anthropology.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 24, 2021, 01:15:00 PM
I'm just catching up here, but aside from the PC editing on RBG's quote, I would think that we owe the person who originally said something to quote them as they said it.  Otherwise, don't use the quote.  I would not like it if someone edited a quote from me to make it more PC.  If you don't like the way I said it, don't quote me. 
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2021, 01:22:49 PM
You are right, Pastor Engebretson.
If you’re sticking to the quote, use it the way it was said.
Choral groups sometimes have discussion about singing Stephen Foster Songs. Or about in the “battle hymn of the republc’s “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
I alway say, sing it the way the composer wrote it, say it the way The poet wrote it. And if you can’t do that, don’t sing it or say it.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2021, 06:10:25 PM
You are right, Pastor Engebretson.
If you’re sticking to the quote, use it the way it was said.
Choral groups sometimes have discussion about singing Stephen Foster Songs. Or about in the “battle hymn of the republc’s “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
I alway say, sing it the way the composer wrote it, say it the way The poet wrote it. And if you can’t do that, don’t sing it or say it.


Should that also apply to the Pledge of Allegiance? We should recite it as Francis Bellamy wrote it in 1892:


"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 24, 2021, 08:50:56 PM
You are right, Pastor Engebretson.
If you’re sticking to the quote, use it the way it was said.
Choral groups sometimes have discussion about singing Stephen Foster Songs. Or about in the “battle hymn of the republc’s “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
I alway say, sing it the way the composer wrote it, say it the way The poet wrote it. And if you can’t do that, don’t sing it or say it.


Should that also apply to the Pledge of Allegiance? We should recite it as Francis Bellamy wrote it in 1892:


"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
No. The change was voted on. It is like an amendment to the Constitution, which becomes part of the Constitution. That’s totally different from identifying an original quote by author and then updating the language.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Jim Butler on September 28, 2021, 02:46:43 PM
Oh, come on! The ACLU did not change the justice’s words, because they clearly put the alternate words in brackets.

The ACLU has issued an apology for changing Justice Ginsburg's quote. “We won’t be altering people’s quotes,” Mr. Romero said in an interview on Monday evening. “It was a mistake among the digital team. Changing quotes is not something we ever did.”

So, Humble Correspondent, who is correct: those who say the ACLU changed the justice's words or those who said they didn't? The ACLU seems to be...not on your side. Perhaps you would like contact the ACLU and tell them that they did not really change the quote and find out why their "knickers are so twisted they could lash Odysseus to the mast." Let me know how that phone call goes.

“Spiked” goes goofy and nutty in phony outrage.

The NYT article also notes that "The tweet by the A.C.L.U. occasioned mockery and some anger on social media from feminists and others."

So, HC Austin, were the feminists upset by the ACLU's changing of the quote also guilty of "goofy and nutty in phony outrage"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/aclu-apologizes-ginsburg-quote.html
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Charles Austin on September 28, 2021, 04:22:31 PM
It is a storm in a soup bowl, Pastor Butler. But if it gives you a chance to mock me, I suppose it made your day.
I’m glad the ACLU repented and amended its life. Now will you give them a contribution? Join in supporting their important work?
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Jim Butler on September 29, 2021, 11:35:28 AM
It is a storm in a soup bowl, Pastor Butler. But if it gives you a chance to mock me, I suppose it made your day.

Uhhh. you were the one who got all bent out of shape, arguing that altering a quote by putting words in brackets means they didn't really alter the quote and who accused people who found it offensive of being "goofy and nutty" and "getting their knickers in a twist." I just wondered if those same appellations applied to others.

I did not mock you. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your statements by applying them in other contexts. Perhaps you should refrain from saying silly things in the future.

I’m glad the ACLU repented and amended its life. Now will you give them a contribution? Join in supporting their important work?

What did they have to repent of? According to you, they did nothing wrong. So why be "glad" that they repented? That doesn't make any sense.

Now, I'm happy they saw their error and corrected it. But I've always argued that they erred in deliberately altering Justice Ginsburg's quote. I'm actually a bit surprised that they didn't just write off the complaints of feminists as the carping of a bunch of TERFs.

As for donations, I support my congregation, two missionaries, and the occasional released inmate who needs help with food or clothing. Tell you what. Why don't you take the cost of the steak dinner you still owe me and donate it in my name? $300 should cover it. That way money will be donated and we'll be square.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 29, 2021, 11:40:00 AM
https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=18221

This argument linked here misses the point a little bit. How can the campus force anyone to use these made up pronouns when, to my knowledge, made up pronouns are always in the third person, which is the only case of gendered pronouns in English? In talking to a trans person, one would use second person pronouns to refer to that person anyway. It would only be when talking about a trans person to some other person that the bogus pronouns would come into play. And in that case, the policy wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on; nobody can demand that I refer to them the way they want to be referred to when I'm not with them.

The really telling thing is the text of the silly petition, which says that no "moral correct person" can possibly not use people's preferred pronouns, and that those who don't are the scum of the earth. Not only is grammar in general on the decline, but progressive Puritanical stridency is on the rise. But hundreds of people at this little school essentially think that a university campus must exclude those who don't accept trans ideology. 

In my FL article on pronouns I draw the line at being forced to tell people my preferred pronouns. I won't do that.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 21, 2021, 02:20:48 PM
https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/1450854328189718530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1450854328189718530%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalinsurrection.com%2F2021%2F10%2Fstate-dept-celebrates-international-pronouns-day-as-china-and-russia-increase-their-strength%2F

The State Department tweeted out their celebration of International Pronouns Day today. Bunch of Anglophiles, they probably forgot that the international community already has hundreds and hundreds of pronouns in countless languages.

Personally, I can't wait for International Adjectives Day. Actually, the whole adjective season fills me with cheer.
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: Mark Brown on October 21, 2021, 04:59:50 PM
I went to a happy place,

I unpack, my adjectives....

https://www.bing.com/search?q=School+house+rock%2C+adjectives&form=ANNTH1&refig=81492494fd5b41c18de7d73344049e43&shtp=GetUrl&shid=d716cbd1-b3d3-44f9-8189-720eff2ff63e&shtk=R3JhbW1hciAtIFVucGFjayBZb3VyIEFkamVjdGl2ZXMgLSBTY2hvb2xob3VzZSBSb2Nr&shdk=WW91IGNhbiBkZXNjcmliZSBwZW9wbGUgYW5kIHBsYWNlcyBhbmQgdGhpbmdzLSBqdXN0IHVucGFjayB5b3VyIGFkamVjdGl2ZXMu&shhk=FRaF8tHvU%2FxBrBrJOFDZPFkkU8KvLpM1YSYWAUTdI1Q%3D&shth=OVP.lMUEfyZzP151j6uOMBpFzAHgFo (https://www.bing.com/search?q=School+house+rock%2C+adjectives&form=ANNTH1&refig=81492494fd5b41c18de7d73344049e43&shtp=GetUrl&shid=d716cbd1-b3d3-44f9-8189-720eff2ff63e&shtk=R3JhbW1hciAtIFVucGFjayBZb3VyIEFkamVjdGl2ZXMgLSBTY2hvb2xob3VzZSBSb2Nr&shdk=WW91IGNhbiBkZXNjcmliZSBwZW9wbGUgYW5kIHBsYWNlcyBhbmQgdGhpbmdzLSBqdXN0IHVucGFjayB5b3VyIGFkamVjdGl2ZXMu&shhk=FRaF8tHvU%2FxBrBrJOFDZPFkkU8KvLpM1YSYWAUTdI1Q%3D&shth=OVP.lMUEfyZzP151j6uOMBpFzAHgFo)
Title: Re: Heteroromantic
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 27, 2021, 02:39:19 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/state-department-issues-first-gender-neutral-passport/

This article does not claim any particular national interesting being served by this change except that people live their lives more fully if their official documents acknowledge their preferred gender identity. But we have to ask-- why does a passport denote the holder's sex at all? If it is not an objective piece of biological information, it serves no purpose related to the purpose of a passport. Can I list my preferred height? If so, then it would make sense to stop listing the passport holder's height, because who cares? My preferred birthdate? Of course not. If it really were true that sex/gender is a construct and people should go by their preferences, then the obvious goal for the trans community would eliminating the designation on passports altogether. But adding a non-binary designation accomplishes other than to insist that everyone else officially acknowledge that "male and female He created them" is a false view of humanity according to the United States of America.