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 - peter_speckhard

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1190
1
Your Turn / Re: Lutherans and Socialism
« on: Today at 08:29:57 AM »
School are not a necessary function of government. Listing all the branches of the military separately indeed gives you a longer list, but is still just defense. Many fire departments are volunteer. Some of things on your list, like the EPA, didn’t exist for a good deal of our history, so they cannot be said to be necessary functions of government other than that if you’re going to have one, it has to be government. Why? Because without coercive power it can’t do its job.

There are a lot of good things government can do. But they all require coerced participation. Therefore, those who value liberty tend to prefer the government forgo doing unnecessary things even if they are in general beneficial. People who value material security tend to want the government to do more even at the cost of liberty.


2
Your Turn / Re: Lutherans and Socialism
« on: Yesterday at 10:54:04 PM »
Peter:
That’s why the state should be kept strictly to it’s necessary functions. Coercion is a necessary evil that is best minimized, not maximized.
Me:
Can you explain the “necessary functions” of a state, preferably our Constitutionally governed state?
Yes. The state necessarily defends the nation, protects individual rights, regulates international trade, etc.. Your problem is that you make everything all or nothing. If the state legitimately does x, then y is a legitimate function of the state. To argue against y is to argue against x. Either statist totalitarian rule is theoretically acceptable or else pure anarchy is necessary. The idea that the government must govern, but that a government governs best that governs least is lost on you. We should be trying to minimize forcing anyone to do anything while doing so firmly when absolutely necessary.

3
Your Turn / Re: Lutherans and Socialism
« on: Yesterday at 08:33:29 PM »
Peter writes:
If you can’t tell the difference between voluntary and coerced, you have a serious problem. I can quit the church, or a club, and stop contributing. I can’t do that with the state. That means the former is voluntary, the latter is coerced.

I comment:
No, you are wrong. You could emmigrate to a state where conditions are more to your liking.  You could move. People do it all the time, I hear. Nothing forces us to continue as citizens of the United States. But so long as we are citizens, we are obligated to obey its laws and we owe it our proper loyalty.
Do you honestly see no difference between the coercive power of the state and voluntary collective action? You genuinely can’t tell whether you’re making a voluntary donation or paying mandatory taxes? If so, you are a nincompoop. The fact that you say I am obligated to follow the laws gets at the truth. I am obligated, and they will coerce me into prison if I don’t. The state coerces obedience. Nothing else can. That’s every state, by definition. That’s why the state should be kept strictly to it’s necessary functions. Coercion is a necessary evil that is best minimized, not maximized.


4
Your Turn / Re: Lutherans and Socialism
« on: Yesterday at 07:40:00 PM »
Peter’s phrase:
‘…imposed by the coercive power of state that is contrary to liberty.”

I ponder:
And just what is this “coercive power”? Passing laws? Federal regulations on such things as safety and health? Any kind of taxation, especially on businesses and industries? Exactly how is this “coercive power” exercise?
And “contrary to liberty”. What kind of liberty? To whose liberty, the liberty of people with money? We all want some “liberties”that are not good or healthy for our neighbors.
If one chooses to reside in this country, is one not voluntarily accepting how this country decides it will order itself?
If you can’t tell the difference between voluntary and coerced, you have a serious problem. I can quit the church, or a club, and stop contributing. I can’t do that with the state. That means the former is voluntary, the latter is coerced.

5
Your Turn / Re: Lutherans and Socialism
« on: Yesterday at 01:23:50 PM »
Brian, by your definitions every government is by definition socialists, as is every family, church, and club. Everybody is in favor of voluntary socialism. It is involuntary socialism, I.e. imposed by the coercive power of state that is contrary to liberty. 

6
Your Turn / Re: Lutherans and Socialism
« on: Yesterday at 12:33:26 PM »
The Scandinavian countries seem to be doing fine with their type of Socialism.

Which ones?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/?sh=71c5715b74ad

"To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."

But hey, if you don't believe me, ask former Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

The bolded phrase is where the rubber hits the road. 

Dave Benke


Perhaps where the rubber hits another road is:


The happiest countries:
1. Finland
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Iceland
5. Netherlands
6. Switzerland
7. Sweden
8. New Zealand
9. Canada
10. Australia


https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/ten-happiest-countries-in-the-world/?utm_source=paidsearch&utm_medium=usgrant&utm_campaign=verizon&gclid=Cj0KCQjwkbuKBhDRARIsAALysV6oNj70IaVxyNd2O8BzlA5GNQXrxsMJHWL6ExBZsdgTsfaV4nmz6egaApGBEALw_wcB
Hmmmm. I’m wondering how that list could be any more lilly white. You may as well rank nations by percentage of the populace with blond hair.

7
Your Turn / Re: Heteroromantic
« 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.

8
Your Turn / Re: Heteroromantic
« 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.

9
Your Turn / Re: Heteroromantic
« 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.

10
Your Turn / Re: Heteroromantic
« 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.”

11
Your Turn / Re: Heteroromantic
« 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.

12
Your Turn / Re: Heteroromantic
« 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. 

13
Your Turn / Re: The Ghost of the former pastor/Bishop
« on: September 23, 2021, 02:39:59 PM »
The change agent thing can happen with "missional" guys wanting to stir things up or with confessional guys wanting to tighten things up. And some congregations do in fact need unwelcome change.

It is incumbent upon pastors and congregations to stay within synodical norms themselves but then also to tolerate things they don't like that are within synodical norms. So, for example, I've heard of pastors who forbid on doctrinal grounds certain hymns that are in LSB. The problem with that is that the same synod that taught doctrine to the pastor also published LSB. The pastor is imposing a private test of orthodoxy on his congregation rather than using the public boundaries by which he and the congregation are part of the same church. The congregation in calling from the synodical roster has every right and reason to expect to be getting someone who operates within synodical norms. And a pastor (especially right out of seminary) has every right and even obligation to expect to be supported when he "enforces" the boundaries of synodical norms.

   

14
Your Turn / Re: The Ghost of the former pastor/Bishop
« on: September 23, 2021, 12:50:49 PM »
Peter:
It is a tough spot to be in. Let's say you serve someplace thirty years and retire. But your kids all grew up there, the town is where all their high school friends are and where they think of as "going home," your marriage/family history is now there. All your friends are there. And if you are the widow of a former long time pastor, this is where your life is.
Me:
But this is the life we chose. And probably 2/3 of the workers in North America move several times during their careers. The idea of being in one place for 25 or 30 years and one job for 25 or 30 years is increasingly rare.
“Home” is not necessarily the place you grew up.
True, mobility is more common. But the retired guy and/or his wife being a problem tends to happen where there is some serious longevity. If a pastor comes at age 58 and stays several years and then retires, he isn't likely to be the legend or the old friend of everyone in the congregation or the one every little girl grew up wanting him to do her wedding. Plus, the guys with some history of mobility have connections in more places and are experienced in relocating and starting over, so the thought of doing so again in retirement is less daunting.

When the pastor who baptized me retired, he stayed in the congregation and his associate took over as senior pastor. When that new senior pastor retired, he stayed on in the congregation and his associate took over as senior pastor. That took them from 1968 up to last year, when the senior pastor took a call rather than retiring from there. I'm sure they had their issues, but in general it worked very well. And as I said, my predecessor here remains a member of this congregation.

It is a good policy to leave when you retire as senior pastor, but it can and often does work just fine to stay, too, under the right circumstances. The onus is on the retiree to make that possible. 

15
Your Turn / Re: LifeSiteNews and Project Veritas
« on: September 23, 2021, 10:48:09 AM »
Mr. Garner
It's why Pastor Austin can defend the outright lies printed in The NY Times.
Me:
Here’s a serious challenge, Mr. Garner.
Name me 10, ok name  nine, eight, or five “outright lies“ published in a  New York Times news story. Not op-Ed articles or guest essays or editorials, but in news stories.
Don’t give me the usual hum-hum about “slant” or bias, but tell me the “outright lies.” I mean things the editors knew not to be true when they published them.
Otherwise, please stop slandering members of my profession.
I think he said, "printed in the NYT" without all your caveats. The issue is that you defend them. That having been said, what are the lies put out by FOX News. Not editorial, etc. and not just instances of bias or slant, but outright lies?

Usually the NYT lies are simple asides, like referring to an allegation as "discredited" when it hasn't been discredited in any meaningful sense other than that they found someone to say it isn't true.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1190