1
Your Turn / Re: Valpo mascot task force
« on: March 02, 2021, 09:55:35 PM »
The students at the University of California San Diego are the Tritons. It makes sense living alongside the Pacific Ocean.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing
« on: January 14, 2021, 02:21:53 PM »At our circuit pastor's meeting (winkel) we discussed marriage and the role of the state in weddings. Over the last few years I have heard discussion, on an off, about whether churches and pastors should discontinue doing weddings in the sense of signing the official license from the county clerk's office. With the pending approval of the Equality Act I can only imagine that the state will take much more interest in the church's official willingness or unwillingness to bless same-sex marriages. Although we can protest any pressure for this to happen, it might be easier and even better to simply step away from it all together, especially since we can recognize the licensing of marriage as a responsibility of the Kingdom of the Left. I think that this is one area where pastors become agents of the state and it would behoove us to reconsider our role as those agents.
I've been thinking that the US should move to a model where the government does the legal part and the church does the religious part. Don't want a religious part? You're still married under the law. Church doesn't want to perform a religious ceremony for you? You're still married under the law.
When I was a pastor at a church in Mexico City, Mexico, ex-pats living in Mexico wanted their children who were living in the US to come to their home in Mexico to get married at the parents' home church. Could they get a wedding license in Mexico? Well, yes, but it would take considerable time and expense. Then, whenever there was a legal question of marriage, the ones getting married would have to send off to Mexico to get an official copy of their marriage license (which was only legal when signed by a Mexican judge). I always counseled the couple to get married at a civil ceremony in the US a few days before traveling to Mexico, and then we would bless their marriage in church. This two part system separated by a couple of days worked out for the best. The newly married couple could celebrate in church with their parents and friends in Mexico having been already officially married by the state in the US. Then, the couple could easily get to Mexican beaches for their honeymoon before returning to the US.
3
Your Turn / Re: Valpo mascot task force
« on: January 13, 2021, 02:21:18 PM »
Koalas are sedentary because they are drugged. Eucalyptus leaves are narcotic. How much better to be named after a mighty hunter? Go Nimrods!
4
Your Turn / Re: Civil unrest and Christian witness
« on: January 07, 2021, 06:31:54 PM »
I just received an email sermon reprinted from Ed Schroeder in 1990. The opening paragraph regarding Epiphany seems to speak to the topic at hand:
"The Magi are not the main characters in the drama of Matthew 2. No, the main characters are the two people in the text who have the same title, King of the Jews— Jesus, called the Christ, and Herod, called the Great. In Matthew’s gospel we quickly learn what to ask to find out who is the genuine one: who dies and who lies? The genuine King of the Jews never lies and himself dies for God’s people. The phony one regularly lies and makes others do the dying for him. That’s true in leadership and authority positions throughout the world. Who dies and who lies—that is the question."
"The Magi are not the main characters in the drama of Matthew 2. No, the main characters are the two people in the text who have the same title, King of the Jews— Jesus, called the Christ, and Herod, called the Great. In Matthew’s gospel we quickly learn what to ask to find out who is the genuine one: who dies and who lies? The genuine King of the Jews never lies and himself dies for God’s people. The phony one regularly lies and makes others do the dying for him. That’s true in leadership and authority positions throughout the world. Who dies and who lies—that is the question."
5
Your Turn / Re: Civil unrest and Christian witness
« on: January 07, 2021, 06:13:37 PM »I do not support those who incited violence and invaded the capital building yesterday. Not at all. That said, I wonder exactly what the motivation was and the desired end result. I don't think the group was of one single mind and purpose, even though they are generally labeled as Trump supporters. Part of it was the usual mob-induced rush where you are caught up in something and you are pushed along by the excitement of the moment. Part of it may have been to stop the electoral vote. But did they really think they could do more than postpone it? Were many naïve enough to think that they would not be met with great force from law enforcement? Were there people involved in this that identified as Christians? Undoubtedly. What biblical rationale did they use to justify their actions? That for me is the most perplexing. We might all become upset by perceived injustices. Look at the riots earlier last year. But what motivates one who identifies as a Christian to not only become destructive and violent (assuming they were), but to oppose the very government they are called to support to pray for? Or do they see it all as godless and evil with a divine mandate to attack it at all costs? So many questions....
Here are some thoughts about the motivation of the woman who was killed:
"Prominent figures in the QAnon conspiracy theory movement, including L. Lin Wood, the pro-Trump lawyer behind several failed lawsuits to overturn the election results, have also been behind many of the wildest claims, parroted by the president, that the election was somehow stolen.
Babbitt’s [the woman who was killed] final tweets included a retweet of Wood, in a call that “Mike Pence@vp @Mike_Pence must resign & thereafter be charged with TREASON,” and, “Chief Justice John Roberts must RESIGN.” Wood was suspended from Twitter on Wednesday." --By Brandy Zadrozny and Mosheh Gains, NBC news
6
Your Turn / Re: A Few Gaudete Reflections
« on: December 14, 2020, 05:48:46 PM »
Yes, in western art, Mary is usually in blue, but even then her blouse is often red. Up until the beginning of the 16th century, artists had difficulty making a suitable red paint. Red paint was mostly derived from rust, but then an amazing item arrived from the new world: cochineal. Now artists could make a true red paint, and particularly the Italian artists went wild with it. What is cochineal? It's an insect found on cactus in Mexico. Pre-conquest natives used cochineal to paint their buildings.
7
Your Turn / Re: Lutheran ethnic origins
« on: November 26, 2020, 01:39:12 PM »Professor Edmund Smits at Luther Seminary belonged to a Latvian congregation in Minneapolis.
There is a Slovak Synod in the ELCA, if I am not mistaken.
Peace,
Michael
There is the Slovak district in the LCMS and a Finnish group merged into the LCMS in the 1950s as well.
The NELC (Finnish) merged with the LCMS in 1964. Since their pastors were being trained at Springfield Seminary, it was JAO Preus who welcomed them.
8
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 23, 2020, 10:52:31 PM »
Bob Woodward Predicts How Historians Will Look Back On The Trump Era
HuffPostTue, September 22, 2020, 4:43 PM PDT
Journalist Bob Woodward said Tuesday that he believes future historians will be scratching their heads over what happened to America during President Donald Trump’s time in office.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter was interviewed at the Citizen by CNN conference by the network’s president, Jeff Zucker, as part of his ongoing media blitz to promote his new book about Trump, “Rage.” The president admitted in taped interviews for the book that he was well aware of the deadly nature of the coronavirus in February, yet he continued to mislead the public that it would magically disappear.
Tuesday’s interview took place on a day when the U.S. passed the tragic milestone of 200,000 COVID-19 deaths.
Bob Woodward Predicts How Historians Will Look Back On The Trump Era
HuffPostTue, September 22, 2020, 4:43 PM PDT
The veteran journalist, whose reporting with Carl Bernstein on the Watergate scandal led to the 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon, said he’d never seen anything akin to Trump’s administration in his coverage of nine presidents.
“This impulse decision-making, I’ve never seen anything like it in the presidency or any other institution, where it’s this one-man band, and he’s going to say and do exactly what he wants, often giving no warning to his closest aides,” he said, according to CNN.
Despite granting him 19 interviews, Trump has trashed Woodward since the release of unflattering details from the book. Woodward concluded at the end of the book, based on interviews with senior government officials and Trump himself, that Trump was the wrong man for the presidency.
He said Tuesday that Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic was a “monumental failure,”
HuffPostTue, September 22, 2020, 4:43 PM PDT
Journalist Bob Woodward said Tuesday that he believes future historians will be scratching their heads over what happened to America during President Donald Trump’s time in office.
The Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter was interviewed at the Citizen by CNN conference by the network’s president, Jeff Zucker, as part of his ongoing media blitz to promote his new book about Trump, “Rage.” The president admitted in taped interviews for the book that he was well aware of the deadly nature of the coronavirus in February, yet he continued to mislead the public that it would magically disappear.
Tuesday’s interview took place on a day when the U.S. passed the tragic milestone of 200,000 COVID-19 deaths.
Bob Woodward Predicts How Historians Will Look Back On The Trump Era
HuffPostTue, September 22, 2020, 4:43 PM PDT
The veteran journalist, whose reporting with Carl Bernstein on the Watergate scandal led to the 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon, said he’d never seen anything akin to Trump’s administration in his coverage of nine presidents.
“This impulse decision-making, I’ve never seen anything like it in the presidency or any other institution, where it’s this one-man band, and he’s going to say and do exactly what he wants, often giving no warning to his closest aides,” he said, according to CNN.
Despite granting him 19 interviews, Trump has trashed Woodward since the release of unflattering details from the book. Woodward concluded at the end of the book, based on interviews with senior government officials and Trump himself, that Trump was the wrong man for the presidency.
He said Tuesday that Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic was a “monumental failure,”
9
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 23, 2020, 10:50:42 PM »
Go back and read it. Don't be ignorant Pr. Bohler.
10
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 23, 2020, 10:28:06 PM »"As one who views most of his rallies/media events, I..." Why on earth would you write "learn to make I statements" in response to an I statement?Trump is now saying that he will NOT commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. This is a dictatorship in the making. This doesn't scare any of you? How many times has he "joked" about continuing his presidency in 2024? He doesn't joke.Perhaps you should cite a specific link substantiating your claim. have NEVER heard the president say he would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power ... perhaps we should accuse Hillary of the same thing since she is discouraging Biden from conceding the election.
Without a link to this alleged statement, you sir are nothing but a bogus prevaricating fear monger.
What do you intend to convey by writing "Perhaps you should cite...." and "As one who views...." Learn to make "I" statements. That way you can apologize to Roger.
Because it's better as a compound statement: "I view most of his rallies, and I...." Also, I think clear "I" statements will help James when he enters counseling.
In the meantime, I want you to begin citing links for James. I think he might believe you.
11
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 23, 2020, 10:05:19 PM »Trump is now saying that he will NOT commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election. This is a dictatorship in the making. This doesn't scare any of you? How many times has he "joked" about continuing his presidency in 2024? He doesn't joke.Perhaps you should cite a specific link substantiating your claim. As one who views most of his rallies/media events, I have NEVER heard the president say he would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power ... perhaps we should accuse Hillary of the same thing since she is discouraging Biden from conceding the election.
Without a link to this alleged statement, you sir are nothing but a bogus prevaricating fear monger.
What do you intend to convey by writing "Perhaps you should cite...." and "As one who views...." Learn to make "I" statements. That way you can apologize to Roger.
12
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 23, 2020, 01:43:50 AM »
"Your creditability is completely shot simply because you are bias and partisan to a fault ... with all your credit ability gone, your continued droning simply fails to strike a cord of anything approaching reasonableness." --James
Please don't have your breakdown here. Get some help.
Please don't have your breakdown here. Get some help.
13
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 23, 2020, 01:33:47 AM »
Cindy McCain rebukes Trump and publicly endorses Joe Biden for president
McCain was motivated in part by Trump’s recent comments on the military, where he called war heroes ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’
Cindy McCain has endorsed Joe Biden for president, a stunning rebuke of Donald Trump by the widow of the Republican party’s 2008 nominee.
Cindy McCain tweeted on Tuesday: “My husband John lived by a code: country first. We are Republicans, yes, but Americans foremost. There’s only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is Joe Biden.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/22/cindy-mccain-rebukes-trump-and-publicly-endorses-joe-biden?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
McCain was motivated in part by Trump’s recent comments on the military, where he called war heroes ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’
Cindy McCain has endorsed Joe Biden for president, a stunning rebuke of Donald Trump by the widow of the Republican party’s 2008 nominee.
Cindy McCain tweeted on Tuesday: “My husband John lived by a code: country first. We are Republicans, yes, but Americans foremost. There’s only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is Joe Biden.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/22/cindy-mccain-rebukes-trump-and-publicly-endorses-joe-biden?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
14
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 23, 2020, 12:05:17 AM »
Republican Party lies, cheats, breaks the rules. We really want it running our country? | Opinion
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami HeraldSeptember 22, 2020, 1:59 PM
Ultimately, it comes down to a set of rules.
Meaning norms, practices, guidelines — some written as law, some just respected as customs — to which we all adhere, even when that gives advantage to those with whom we disagree. It’s a covenant pluralistic self-government demands. And it’s one America is in the process of shredding — as seen anew in the Republican Party’s response to the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Understand: That response tells us nothing about the GOP we did not already know. That it is one part thugocracy, one part kleptocracy and all hypocrisy unencumbered by principle has long been clear to any honest observer. But the events of the past few days offer vivid evidence of just how deep the rot extends.
Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, you will recall, gnashed their teeth and rent their garments in 2016 when President Obama put forth a nominee to replace conservative icon Antonin Scalia on the top court. Too close to the election, they said. Let the people decide, they said. It was then eight months until Election Day.
Four years later, the liberal icon Ginsburg dies just 46 days short of the election, and the same people who thought eight months was too close, the same McConnell who denied Obama’s choice the courtesy of a hearing, now rush to install a Donald Trump nominee. Again, the hypocrisy does not surprise. But the brazenness of it, the absence of even a fig leaf of principle, the plain contempt it embodies, is breathtaking nevertheless.
Once again, the political party whose views on hot-button social issues like guns and reproductive rights are shared by a minority of the electorate seeks to win power over the majority in the only way it can. By lying. By cheating. By breaking the rules. In this case, the unwritten rule of simple fairness.
This time, though, their shamelessness has ignited visceral fury. Ginsburg’s death has led to a record-breaking spike in donations to liberal groups and candidates. And serious people are talking seriously about packing the court — increasing the number of justices to 11 to enable a presumed President Biden to craft the liberal majority that Republicans have connived to forestall.
Granted, equally serious people have warned that this is an arduous and unlikely course, but to focus on the difficulty is to miss the point. Which is that angry Democrats now seem ready to abandon the rules — starting with the one that says packing the court is an abuse of power that ultimately undermines its legitimacy. Franklin Roosevelt’s failed attempt to do so is the exception that, well . . . proves the rule.
Still, one can hardly blame the Democrats. Having watched the GOP snub the emoluments clause, ignore the extortion of a foreign government, brush aside the Hatch Act and, now, conspire to steal the court, who can be shocked that they refuse to be bound by rules the other side ignores?
If two teams cannot agree on the rules, they cannot play the game. Similarly, if Republicans and Democrats cannot agree to be bound by the same principles and norms, they cannot effectively govern a country. Or even be a country. That’s the threat this behavior poses.
It is yet another reason it’s imperative the Republicans be not just defeated, but emphatically crushed in November. It can’t be close. It has to be a political massacre, leaving absolutely no doubt America rejects what these people stand for. Until and unless that happens, it is an open question whether we can still be a country.
And, indeed, whether we should.
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami HeraldSeptember 22, 2020, 1:59 PM
Ultimately, it comes down to a set of rules.
Meaning norms, practices, guidelines — some written as law, some just respected as customs — to which we all adhere, even when that gives advantage to those with whom we disagree. It’s a covenant pluralistic self-government demands. And it’s one America is in the process of shredding — as seen anew in the Republican Party’s response to the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Understand: That response tells us nothing about the GOP we did not already know. That it is one part thugocracy, one part kleptocracy and all hypocrisy unencumbered by principle has long been clear to any honest observer. But the events of the past few days offer vivid evidence of just how deep the rot extends.
Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, you will recall, gnashed their teeth and rent their garments in 2016 when President Obama put forth a nominee to replace conservative icon Antonin Scalia on the top court. Too close to the election, they said. Let the people decide, they said. It was then eight months until Election Day.
Four years later, the liberal icon Ginsburg dies just 46 days short of the election, and the same people who thought eight months was too close, the same McConnell who denied Obama’s choice the courtesy of a hearing, now rush to install a Donald Trump nominee. Again, the hypocrisy does not surprise. But the brazenness of it, the absence of even a fig leaf of principle, the plain contempt it embodies, is breathtaking nevertheless.
Once again, the political party whose views on hot-button social issues like guns and reproductive rights are shared by a minority of the electorate seeks to win power over the majority in the only way it can. By lying. By cheating. By breaking the rules. In this case, the unwritten rule of simple fairness.
This time, though, their shamelessness has ignited visceral fury. Ginsburg’s death has led to a record-breaking spike in donations to liberal groups and candidates. And serious people are talking seriously about packing the court — increasing the number of justices to 11 to enable a presumed President Biden to craft the liberal majority that Republicans have connived to forestall.
Granted, equally serious people have warned that this is an arduous and unlikely course, but to focus on the difficulty is to miss the point. Which is that angry Democrats now seem ready to abandon the rules — starting with the one that says packing the court is an abuse of power that ultimately undermines its legitimacy. Franklin Roosevelt’s failed attempt to do so is the exception that, well . . . proves the rule.
Still, one can hardly blame the Democrats. Having watched the GOP snub the emoluments clause, ignore the extortion of a foreign government, brush aside the Hatch Act and, now, conspire to steal the court, who can be shocked that they refuse to be bound by rules the other side ignores?
If two teams cannot agree on the rules, they cannot play the game. Similarly, if Republicans and Democrats cannot agree to be bound by the same principles and norms, they cannot effectively govern a country. Or even be a country. That’s the threat this behavior poses.
It is yet another reason it’s imperative the Republicans be not just defeated, but emphatically crushed in November. It can’t be close. It has to be a political massacre, leaving absolutely no doubt America rejects what these people stand for. Until and unless that happens, it is an open question whether we can still be a country.
And, indeed, whether we should.
15
Your Turn / Re: Election 2020
« on: September 21, 2020, 07:12:16 PM »I have noted twice up stream that I made an error with numbers...once directly to you. Should I know stand in the snow of Canossa for you?
Losing the pious prayer attached to a nasty political attack might be a nice gesture.
What political attack? Noting that the president is guilty of violating the emoluments clause? When was the last time you paid $650 a night for a hotel room? We all are now.