1
Your Turn / Re: LCMS Inc 2020 Report
« on: Yesterday at 09:10:04 PM »
Our congregation voted and we have registered our vote, to delay.
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.
Pastor Fienen:Majority or minority, I know what I believe is right or wrong, although I might become convinced that I was mistaken about that, but not just by having it pointed out that the opinion on right and wrong that I hold is the minority position. And yes, I do realize that just because I think a position is right, if it is a minority position, it likely will not be enshrined in laws and regulations. Our political system is set up so that the majority position prevails. It is also set up to protect minority positions from the tyranny of the majority. There are certain rights baked into our Constitution that give some protection to those holding minority positions from being run roughshod over merely because the position they hold is unpopular.
I am troubled by your assertion that when those of us on the conservative/traditional side of issues are in a minority somehow we should accept that as making us wrong.
Me:
The issue has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong. It has to do with whether or not your particular set of convictions prevail when it comes to laws and regulations.
Everyone in public office might have to make decisions that impact their church. That possible impact cannot be their main concern. The president has said he will be the president of all of us. If he acts only in accord with the teachings of his own church, he will not be that.
Peter writes:It is emphatically not for me to opine as to Pres. Biden's credentials as a Roman Catholic or the sincerity of his Catholic faith or his sincerity as a Catholic. If anyone is in a position to do so it would be his priest or his priest's ecclesiastical superiors in the diocese in which he holds membership. (I could point out that you, Charles, have questioned the Christian sincerity of those who voted for or in any way supported President Trump, but I digress.)
Judgmental and mean words about the president? Questioning his sincerity? What is the forum coming to? Please stay on topic and not let this degenerate into another locked thread.
I muse:
Someone raised the issue of President Biden's "credentials" as a Roman Catholic; and it seems clear that at least one, possibly two or three people here believe that he cannot be truly Roman Catholic and hold the views he holds on laws and regulations relating to abortions. They therefore question his references to his faith as insincere, cynical or lacking proper "credentials."
Hard reality, folks. Millions and millions of active, practicing, Roman Catholics, people who go to mass regularly, have their children baptized and confirmed, respect their priests and love watching the Christmas Eve mass from the Vatican hold "pro choice" views on abortion legislation. Who are we to make that one issue a test of one's "credentials" as a Roman Catholic?
President Biden's Roman Catholic faith was referenced in the inauguration, and clergy from other parts of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church also took part. Let it go at that.
Hard reality, folks. Millions and millions of active, practicing, Roman Catholics, people who go to mass regularly, have their children baptized and confirmed, respect their priests and love watching the Christmas Eve mass from the Vatican hold "pro choice" views on abortion legislation. Who are we to make that one issue a test of one's "credentials" as a Roman Catholic? President Biden's Roman Catholic faith was referenced in the inauguration, and clergy from other parts of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church also took part.
Point taken, but what is the significance of that point? Whenever Genesis was written, in it was written about God's creation of humanity and in that creation was God establishing the basis for what became marriage. Even though marriage was a part of many ancient cultures other than the Jewish culture, that may simply mean that God's establishment of the basis for marriage was passed along even among those cultures that had forgotten God. It does not indicate that marriage came into existence apart from God.The question was about the origin of "marriage." They existed before scriptures were written. They exist in cultures that have no contact with Jews or Christians. One could argue that marriage is part of the nature that God built into humans, but that would also be before scriptures talked about marriages.
Sigh. There absolute exists a biblical answer that says otherwise, if you were only willing to listen to what others tell you. It's an odd thing to suggest that the creator of all things could not have acted before "scripture were written", when the first book of the Bible begins with the creation story. I continue to reject your idiosyncratic definition of marriage which has no foundation beyond your personal scholarship.
Please share your biblical scholarship that supports your understanding.
Yes, the first book of the Bible begins with creation; but that's not when it was written. Writing didn't begin until about 1000 BC. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are usually called "prehistory." They are stories about life before written history began.
Peter writes:Could you point out where in his speech, President Trump told the people to violently break into the Capitol? Staging peaceful protests are a protected form of speech even if you do not agree with the cause that is being protested. Encouraging protests is not the same as encouraging insurrection, even if you disagree with the protests complaint.
I would not have condoned breaching the Capitol even for symbolic reasons, but I would advice treading lightly with the assumptions about who was justified in doing what at a time of great cultural division.
I comment:
You would not have condoned breaching the Capitol, Peter, but I sense you believe that others might validly condone doing that.
As for “assumptions about who was justified“, here’s my assumption. Nothing in today’s situation justified the attack on our capital. Nothing. Nothing at all.I assume that those who attacked our Capitol were intent on stopping the Congress from doing its job of certifying the election. That makes them and anyone who supports them or goes easy on them insurrectionists, possibly guilty of sedition, and serious threats to our democracy.
Does anyone here assume these people were acting in good faith, that they had a good cause? And does anyone here believe that something other than the words of the president inspired them to do this?
Check the book “one nation under God: how corporate America invented Christian America“ by Kevin Kruse.From what little I've read on the subject, there were a number of people and organizations involved in putting "under God" in the pledge from the Sons of the American Revolution to the sinister and disreputable Knights of Columbus, to the American Legion. Dwight David Eisenhower was also involved. Was he just a shill for the sinister forces of corporate America? Were some of those involved self-serving? Most likely. Was it all a right wing plot to foment trouble in the world and serve certain special interests? Well, I'll let you tell us all about the conspiracy to thereby subvert the very foundations of our democracy.
Or see what other historians have written about adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.
It’s not always a pretty, pious, sincerely Christian story.
Or the addition of “under God“ to the pledge was a cynical attempt by the Knights of Columbus and their allies to sneak a Christian claim into the pledge and to make a geo-political statement that would help stir up animosity towards other parts of the world during the heat of the cold war.The Knights of Columbus was not the only organization to adopt the "under God" addition to the pledge, and they were not the first. It is not at all unlikely the at least some of the impetus behind the addition was to distinguish the United States from the official atheism of the Soviet Block.