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.


Messages - Steven W Bohler

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 290
1
Your Turn / Re: The culture war we should be fighting
« on: July 11, 2022, 12:42:54 PM »
The problem is that renting is not supposed to be a long term, rooted, multi-generational lifestyle. It is for people trying to get on their feet or who need mobility. If you want the stability of being in the same place for a long time, you need to invest all you have (including your long-term future) in that place, i.e. buy, not rent. Good neighborhoods generally have high percentages of owner-occupied dwellings. Bad neighborhoods or good neighborhoods with high volatility that could turn bad quickly are where most people rent.


Who says that renting is not supposed to be a long term life-style? Our sons have little to no interest in buying houses. One, with a roommate, is renting a four-bedroom house that they couldn't afford to buy … and they are not responsible for the upkeep. The other is renting a one-bedroom on the 23rd floor with a magnificent view, which he couldn't afford to buy.


My grandparents spent their working lives living in a rented house and farmed rented land. 

Quote
Why does anyone think it is a matter of justice for people to live in somebody else's house for drastically less than the fair market rental value of that house? If you're living for $2000/mo. in an apartment that could be renting for $5000/mo. are you paying income tax on that 3k of free benefits?


If renters are taxed on the rent they aren't paying, clergy had better watch out. They could be paying tax on the fair market rental value of parsonages.

I do pay taxes on the fair market value of the parsonage (and provided utilities).  Both income tax and social security (both ends).

2
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 27, 2022, 08:29:50 PM »
Don't fret, Rev. Austin, as usual your protector(s) have fixed it for you by deleting my post.  Again.  Why YOU are allowed to go on and on and on with your hysteria and unhinged comments -- despite the countless complaints against your posts, even by a moderator! -- I do not know.  But obviously I have been deemed expendable to this board.  Twitter and FaceBook ain't got nothin' on this site.  Adios.

I consider your input important, and I hope that you continue to provide it.  Please don't become yet another victim of our local version of Chucky.

In this case it was NOT Rev. Austin but the moderator(s) who have been deleting my responses to him about as fast as I post them.  Rev. Austin's hysteria I have come to expect.  But moderator(s) who run interference for him, I did not.

3
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 27, 2022, 04:03:07 PM »
And here we have Pastor Bohler again jumping in with his usual unproven allegations, carrying grudges and maligning people who are on the other side of the issue that he supports. (These people, by the way, having absolutely nothing to do with the terrible situation currently at hand.)

In Texas news today, it now appears that the “good guys with guns” weren’t much good as the school shooter continued his killing. Law enforcement officials can’t seem to explain why the “good guys with guns” stood outside rather than attacking the shooter.
The NRA begins its meeting in Texas today. That should be fun. And it’s an opportunity. I wonder who will take the opportunity and to what end.

Don't fret, Rev. Austin, as usual your protector(s) have fixed it for you by deleting my post.  Again.  Why YOU are allowed to go on and on and on with your hysteria and unhinged comments -- despite the countless complaints against your posts, even by a moderator! -- I do not know.  But obviously I have been deemed expendable to this board.  Twitter and FaceBook ain't got nothin' on this site.  Adios.

4
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 25, 2022, 09:19:00 PM »
Did you really mean to say this:

Quote
a fee of thousand dollars of anytime the car was driven by someone other than its owner?

Do you see that you've described something like a rental agreement rather than a purchase?

As far as costs are concerned, consumer pressure and learned efficiencies could reduce the costs over time.

Costs matter. Second Amendment rights matter. Lives and security matter. I'm praying we work through all that to make improvements. We can do better as a nation.

Several states have toyed with the idea of requiring an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder every time a gun is in possession of anyone not its owner.  That means if I took a friend to the gun range and he wanted to try my gun, I would be required to have an FFL holder involved.  And, as Mr. Rustad points out, that individual can charge significant rates.  Of course, if my friend, after trying it, was to return it to me then he would also have to go through an FFL holder and pay another fee. 

A couple of years ago, a young single lady in our church wanted to get her concealed-carry permit.  She had no guns and no experience with guns.  So my wife and I brought her to the local gun range, with an assortment of different weapons for her to try.  I had revolvers and semi-autos.  I had .22, .38 SPL, .357 magnum, 9mm, .40, .45 ACP and .45 LC -- not that she actually TRIED all of them, but they were there, in case she wished to do so.  I must have had 15-20 handguns for her to try.  Now, imagine the cost of the transfer fees that day had Minnesota had such a law!  $90/gun ($45 to transfer it to her and another $45 to transfer it back to me) x 15 guns=$1350.  For just that one day!  Not to mention the incredibly stupid idea of having to either go to an FFL holder or bring him out to the range! 

5
Your Turn / Re: Pelosi barred from taking communion
« on: May 23, 2022, 03:53:09 PM »
I have been impatiently waiting for about 30 years or so for one of the two political parties to champion the family as the foundational institution in society.  There have been glimpses -- Gingrich talked about it in the 1990s when he spoke of how all of the institutional qualifiers for welfare benefits were anti-family.  Get married?  You're cut off.  Get a job?  You're cut off.  Mainly if you were single and had more kids, that is where the money is, and so we get what we pay for.  For a while Rubio did the same.  But as respective political parties, Republicans are economically anti-family and Democrats are formally so.


A single mother told me that she really wanted to work, but she needed a job that would pay at least as much as she was getting on welfare and provide health insurance, especially for her child. Otherwise, she and her child were better off on welfare. It isn't just the welfare system that is the problem, but the lack of a livable minimum wage and benefits that support families with young children. (This lady was able to get a job that paid better than welfare and had benefits for her and her child.)

Way back in 1984, when I started working for the county administering welfare programs, an experienced case worker quit because she discovered that she was financially further ahead receiving welfare than administering it.  Admittedly, we were not paid a king's ransom in that job but there is a problem when it is more lucrative NOT to work than to work.


And for my friend, the bigger concern was the health care for her child.

As county employees, we had pretty decent health insurance.  But nowhere near as good as medical assistance.  Again, there is a problem when not working is rewarded with greater benefits than working.

6
Your Turn / Re: Pelosi barred from taking communion
« on: May 23, 2022, 03:09:11 PM »
I have been impatiently waiting for about 30 years or so for one of the two political parties to champion the family as the foundational institution in society.  There have been glimpses -- Gingrich talked about it in the 1990s when he spoke of how all of the institutional qualifiers for welfare benefits were anti-family.  Get married?  You're cut off.  Get a job?  You're cut off.  Mainly if you were single and had more kids, that is where the money is, and so we get what we pay for.  For a while Rubio did the same.  But as respective political parties, Republicans are economically anti-family and Democrats are formally so.


A single mother told me that she really wanted to work, but she needed a job that would pay at least as much as she was getting on welfare and provide health insurance, especially for her child. Otherwise, she and her child were better off on welfare. It isn't just the welfare system that is the problem, but the lack of a livable minimum wage and benefits that support families with young children. (This lady was able to get a job that paid better than welfare and had benefits for her and her child.)

Way back in 1984, when I started working for the county administering welfare programs, an experienced case worker quit because she discovered that she was financially further ahead receiving welfare than administering it.  Admittedly, we were not paid a king's ransom in that job but there is a problem when it is more lucrative NOT to work than to work. 

7
Your Turn / Re: ELCA Opposes Repeal of Roe v. Wade?
« on: May 19, 2022, 04:38:07 PM »
Pastor Charlton writes:
I might even be the case that the unceasing barrage of politically divisive rhetoric from Bishop Eaton is an indication that Higgins Road feels the battle is over.  Having weathered the storm, now is the time to drive out the remainder of the un-woke from the ELCA.  Sure, that will mean less "mission support", but with so many congregational closures, there will be plenty of revenue to fund political advocacy.  That's the churches real mission anyway.  Too many conservative congregations just slow the ELCA down.  The ELCA's better off without them.

I comment;
Even allowing for sarcasm or whimsy, Pastor Charlton, I find this post not typical of your usual more thoughtful criticism. And it is unlike you to attribute the most crass motives to our top leadership. If you were to look back over all of her statements and columns as presiding Bishop, I do not think you would find that kind of person you described here.

P.s. to Pastor Bohler:
Nowhere did Brian say he ever sought or went after those ELCA members. They came.  He and his congregation fed them.

And NONE of the LCMS participants here have said they would be going after ELCA members.  In fact, all of them that responded about the matter said they would not actively do so.  Yet you still brayed about sheep-stealing and rustling.

8
Your Turn / Re: ELCA Opposes Repeal of Roe v. Wade?
« on: May 19, 2022, 03:56:35 PM »
Mr. Hummel:
Is the NALC and/or LCMS looking at this latest statement as an opportunity to reach out to members of the ELCA who are going to feel disenfranchised by the ELCA showing its real ideological commitment to all abortion/all the time? Which, btw, puts it n company with TEC, PCUSA, and UCC.

Me:
Rustling. Sheep-stealing. Always nice things to consider.
But here’s some copy for the commercial. “Hey, members of the ELCA! Tired of liberalism? Tired of not having your voice carry the day? Tired of talking about gays and lesbians and all those other letters that people use for sexuality today? Tired of hearing in church about the troubles of society, the very things you try to escape when you go to sing the old hymns and doze through the sermons? Well, when you come to an XYZ or an XYZD church, you won’t have to worry about any of those things. We just preach the gospel. We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and forget about anyone else. We. leave politics to the politicians. Look us up. We promise you won’t go home from our services upset or mad.“

Of course, it is a totally different kettle of fish when someone leaves the LCMS because of its teaching on women's ordination (for example).  Or when Rev. Stoffregen crows, as he so often does here, about how the "best evangelist" he and his ELCA congregation ever had was the local LCMS pastor and his boorish and Neanderthal ways and views.  THAT is not rustling or sheep-stealing.  It is simply folks finding a more enlightened church or a better fit.

9
(the violinist is unviable due to a disease, while the baby is unviable due to being underdeveloped).

Advances in neonatal medicine have greatly contracted the window of alleged "unviability".

Glory to God for all things!
Don't  forget that one measure  of viability has become whether or not the mother wants the baby born. Being unwanted is a lethal adverse condition.


So, what steps should we take to help women want their babies? As I noted from a friend living in Germany: that government gave her a year of paid leave (and, I think, three months leave for the father). Zero medical expenses. Automatic insurance for the baby.

Are you suggesting that a woman would want her baby if the government paid for all expenses, but she would not if the government did not?  You seem to have a very low opinion of women...

10
Your Turn / Re: Prayer service for Concordia University-Wisconsin
« on: May 17, 2022, 10:40:38 AM »
There is an article by Dr. Schulz in this morning's "The Federalist", which covered his suspension in March.  He argues that his suspension is an attack on academic freedom.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/16/christian-university-still-hasnt-reinstated-professor-it-kicked-out-after-he-criticized-identity-politics/

Is academic freedom different in a religious school versus other places? If so, how?

Dr. Schulz's article expresses his dismay and disappointment that people have not joined his cry for academic freedom. I am not surprised. The cauldron of public opinion is not the place to toil and stew a recipe that is aimed toward reconciliation.

If I have trouble with another pastor or institution I am advised to seek counsel from my brothers in the ministry, work through the circuit winkel meetings, and do everything I can to drive toward walking together. Even if those steps feel futile, I still aim to be the peacekeeper.

The leaked letter to the regents is another example to me how our reconciliation process that asks for private conversations works best when both sides agree to the rules. When one side continually works to rile the riot, the other side feels like a punching bag.

Bingo.  I'd like to say there was always a movement by the various levels of supervisors of the ecclesiastical process to encourage to the maximum private conversation in the CUWAA situation, but to date the opposite has been taking place in plain sight.  Rostered clergy have been at the forefront of promoting Schulz's positions - Christian News is now edited by a rostered LCMS clergyman; a vice president of the LCMS connected folks to the Schulz reaction podcast on the site of a college being formed by LCMS clergy with an LCMS clergyman hosting the podcasts and an LCMS clergyman is listed as President of that college.  Professors at an LCMS seminary have been highly active in promoting the change.org sign-up to which Schulz refers. 

The leaked letter, on a site hosted by LCMS clergy (with the "encouraged to share" meme) is another indicator that the private conversational methodology encouraged in ecclesiastical supervision has a big "out of order" neon sign at the top.  The timing of the leaked letter coincided with the week not only of the graduation exercises of the school (which were of absolutely high quality, at least as viewed by me last weekend), but with the meeting of the Board of Regents. 

Meanwhile, the institution itself, its leadership and those specifically named have given base zero publicity to any of this.

It's the application of pressure from many directions by very public means performed by mostly clergy all from the Missouri Synod, some of whom are in positions of authority.

Does this mean there have been no efforts to tamp things down?  I would answer "No," but that's a guess, because the evidence is in the other direction.  The leaked letter points this out with repeated statements that the individuals named, the board, and anyone else in earshot at CUWAA has not been taking the advice of those viewed as "woke-knowledgeable" LCMS clergy and clergy leaders. 

Full disclosure is that I must have gone to school with the regent who received the Christo et Ecclesiae award, based on the info given on the CUW site.  I don't remember him at all, meaning he wasn't on the basketball team or an intramural sports devotee, which apparently means he was better suited for success in business.

Dave Benke

This feigned outrage is rich, considering how you and Dr. Kieschnick repeatedly violated the bylaw forbidding giving publicity to charges/investigations during the Yankee Stadium/Holy Trinity worship services.

11
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 17, 2022, 10:34:28 AM »
Pastor Fienen:
Labeling half of the nation as white supremacist racists does little but trivialize the problem. Labeling the Republican Party as all white supremacists ends up being simply a political ploy.
Me:
Nobody here is doing that. However, I personally do not hear enough voices from the Republican Party speaking against the Tucker Carlson diatribes, the bat-crap craziness of Ms. Greene, or some of the others blowing the whistles and whipping up ground-level troops. The Republican Party is not "all white supremacists," but sometimes you cannot tell that by listening to its leaders.
And candidates who have - in private - vigorously repudiated the garbage speak from The Ex, will not do so in public, seeking his endorsement and the votes from his cultists. Shame on them.

So, they aren't white supremacists.  But they might be.

12
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: May 17, 2022, 09:27:51 AM »
This is not to disparage the actual challenge of those with gender dysphoria.  I just think the activist politics around it trivializes the core individual issues.  There is no reasonable accommodation, only surrender.  I don't care how someone dresses or what their preferred pronouns are, happy to use them out of simple courtesy.  I object to authoritarian reordering of our society where past practice is rational, AKA justifiably discriminatory because of real physiological differences.

This is 100% my view as well.  I am perfectly willing and eager to be nice and politely call you whatever you wish.  I am not willing to have the thought police insist that I "admit" that dirt is really sponge cake.

"A free man must not be told how to think, either by the government or by social activists. He may certainly be shown the right way, but he must not accept being forced into it."
— Col. Jeff Cooper

Well, I will not call a person anything he wants.  Especially not if it means feeding a demonic idea.

13
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 16, 2022, 12:18:36 PM »
Speaking strictly as a citizen of a democratic republic, I insist on the same rights as politicians, celebrities, and the otherwise rich and powerful. As long as some actor or athlete can have bodyguards, and as long as some people get secret service protection in addition to local police protection, then I as a Christian do not really care that they are more protected than I am, but as a citizen I see that as a situation ripe for abuse and tiers of importance being introduced among equals. Gun control arguments always contain hidden exceptions for the sort of people who say, “But do you know who I am?”


Law enforcement folks I've known, had to periodically pass a shooting test to indicate to the "powers that be," that they still know how to properly use their firearm. Police stations may even have their own shooting ranges where officers can practice.

In Minnesota, where I live and hold a concealed carry permit, one must pass a shooting test (along with the classroom portion of the training) before receiving the permit.  And permits must be renewed (along with the class and shooting test) every 5 years.

14
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 16, 2022, 12:14:54 PM »
Did it occur to anybody here that the reason Chicago and New York have more homicides by gun than other places even though they have strong gun control laws is because those cities are bigger than, shall we say, St. Louis or Fort Wayne?
But I wish to make it clear that I did not expect any positive remarks in this forum concerning gun control. I wondered whether I should’ve even posted my comments, knowing that there would not be one sympathetic ear anywhere here for my concerns.
But I ask you again, what do you say to the family members and friends of those who die in these mass shootings? What do you say to the parents of the children who die in school shootings? What do you say about society’s responsibility to do something, anything, that might help the situation. Nobody thinks different gun control laws will solve all the problems. But maybe they will do something?

I believe one pastor here HAS had to speak to family members and friends of those who died in a mass shooting.  Perhaps he would care to answer your questions.

15
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:50:23 AM »

Own it, guys. If you want do enshrine the “right“ to own weaponry, OK. Build a shrine to that right. But alongside it, pile up some tombstones as well. Because you are going to need them.

Says the guy who favors the "right" to abortions.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 290