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 - MaddogLutheran

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 237
1
Your Turn / Re: Guns? Why?
« on: May 25, 2022, 05:07:29 PM »
No, Pastor Fienen, we will not talk. And here’s why.
   There is not one ounce of sincerity or seriousness in your posting.
The moderators and the ALPB should be embarrassed that they give this man a platform and even publish him.

This is why I cannot give this organization one dime as long as this continues.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.

2
Your Turn / Re: Pelosi barred from taking communion
« on: May 23, 2022, 04:35:50 PM »
Let's see you try and claim that developing human being as a dependent on your taxes.

Once again the "legal = moral" gloss.  In which you argue (again) that slavery was a moral good.

Well, whether you're talking legal or moral, that's the stand-off here.  Both sides like the appeal to slavery.  For pro-life, Roe is Dred Scott.  For pro-abortion, they view the likely Dobbs decision as their Dred Scott.

Well, as long as what the government says is an unquestionable matter of fact, I suppose I can eagerly await Pastor Stoffregen's passionate moral defense of my AR-15.

It is what it is.  I agree that the challenge of morality informing the law is exactly the controversy here.  When you have the pro-life side talking about a genocide/holocaust, and the pro-choice side equating their diminished body autonomy to involuntary servitude forced on them by the state, it's basically impossible to have a rational conversation.  It's emotions turned up to 11.

It's almost like we need some kind of common moral framework to referee this discussion.  Except we don't have that, as I heard the hostile questioning this morning of the SF archbishop by an NPR anchor, who loaded her initial question to him with all the pro-abortion presumptions.  And so it goes.  (He handled it very well, all things considered, no pun intended.  Had to know what he would be getting.)

3
Your Turn / Re: Pelosi barred from taking communion
« on: May 23, 2022, 04:19:49 PM »
Let's see you try and claim that developing human being as a dependent on your taxes.

Once again the "legal = moral" gloss.  In which you argue (again) that slavery was a moral good.

Well, whether you're talking legal or moral, that's the stand-off here.  Both sides like the appeal to slavery.  For pro-life, Roe is Dred Scott.  For pro-abortion, they view the likely Dobbs decision as their Dred Scott.

4
Your Turn / Re: Pelosi barred from taking communion
« on: May 20, 2022, 04:40:53 PM »
Peter:
In response, their pastoral overseers point out that they have abandoned their church and are therefore no longer in communion with it.
Me:
So this is it. On this one issue. It’s the whole deal. Either you’re with the church on this issue or you are no longer Catholic.
Yep.  That’s it. Good luck with it.

Since you seem pretty invested in your narrative, let me share the thoughts of one Twitter user, his account name and handle ShamelessPapist/"The Papal Bull":

Barring Nancy Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion is a good thing.

Celebrating it like you somehow won the internet lottery because of it is a bad (and weird) thing to do, because it communicates clearly that you don't understand that this a call to conversion, not a dunk.


https://twitter.com/ShamelessPapist/status/1527741984915570691

I don't hear Pastor Speckhard celebrating this.



5
Your Turn / Re: Pelosi barred from taking communion
« on: May 20, 2022, 04:07:26 PM »
Peter:
I don't think any archbishop does this kind of thing lightly or gratuitously for political reasons.

Me:
Hogwash. Consider the timing of the archbishop’s declaration. Of course it was political. But it may backfire on the archbishop and his part of the Church.
It may very well backfire on the archbishop.  I fully expect the Vatican to countermand this, or worse.  But I think you are confused about who was the first to "politicize" abortion politics in the Roman church. 

I suspect, just like of those brave souls in the church who spoke out against the Vietnam War, the archbishop is fully prepared for the consequences.  The only question is whether he will continue to whine about having faced those consequences into his 9th decade.   I doubt he views the primary concern here as political, having read is notification.   Calling it political would be something someone who is uninterested in understanding his articulated motivation would say.

6
Your Turn / Re: Pelosi barred from taking communion
« on: May 20, 2022, 03:58:04 PM »
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-archbishop-pelosi-communion-abortion-support

I don't think any archbishop does this kind of thing lightly or gratuitously for political reasons.
Thanks for beating me to the punch on this, quite literally.  I saw this a few minutes ago (via Twitter) and was going to add it to the Roe thread.  But it deserves its own.  Another consequence of Roe making democratic government policy relevant.

I said I first saw this on Twitter (on my phone), and was going to provide the link to the archbishop's statement directly from the diocese website.  But it looks like, in those few minutes, their website is getting absolutely hammered (probably haven't subscribed for this amount of bandwidth service).

I see that the Catholic News Agency has an image of the official 2 page statement at this link:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251305/archbishop-cordileone-nancy-pelosi-communion-abortion

"...by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically [sic] repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance."  (Emphasis in original)

7
Your Turn / Re: Prayer service for Concordia University-Wisconsin
« on: May 19, 2022, 02:05:01 PM »
I think that's the point, Peter. 
Diversity
Equity
Inclusion

Are all fundamental theological propositions to the Christian message. Why would we not train and employ people to bring about greater diversity, equity and inclusion in our Lutheran schools according to the definitions of those words which we hold dear in our fellowship?

Fear and false narratives need not deter us, do they?  I don't find that the case where I serve.  How many are sinners?  All. How many sinners are welcome?  All.  How about backgrounds, skin color, social class, mode of dress?  Problematic for entrance? Not at all.   In terms of service in the church - are there avenues for all to be given opportunity?  Of course. 

Start with what you know and do.

Dave Benke

The trick in that trio is "equity".

Yes.  Equality is the same rules apply to everyone, now matter their standing in society.

Equity is using the power, either governmental or private, to favor certain individuals or groups who are judged to be currently disadvantaged because of prior history.  To right a historic wrong so to speak.  To fully achieve, this often requires a corresponding disadvantaging of other individual or groups to benefit the historically disfavored, supposedly for the greater good.

These two concepts conflict.  There's a reason DEI people use equity, not equality.

8
Your Turn / Re: Prayer service for Concordia University-Wisconsin
« on: May 19, 2022, 01:56:18 PM »
You're getting stuck in categories here, Peter.

To begin with your second point, "accepted by other DEI officers nationwide" is the category you're creating.  Why don't we just start with DEI officers in your/our own denomination, the LCMS.  We do have LCMS university system DEI officers and centers.  [snip]

No, you're the one creating the special category.  Pastor Speckhard is quite correct that any secular DEI officer (and perhaps most in liberal Christianity) would condemn the LCMS positions on homosexuality and marriage, i.e. would not tolerate it and would consider it a violation of foundational DEI principles.  This seems inherently self-evident and it really surprises me you would even suggest otherwise.

One need only look at the lawsuit where the Archdiocese of Philadelphia recently prevailed (for now) at the Supreme Court over the City of Philadelphia, allowing the diocese continued participation in the local foster care system, to learn what the current DEI standards are which traditional religious beliefs are sailing upstream against.

9
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: May 16, 2022, 01:26:29 PM »
"A woman is an adult female human being." How does that offend the so-called "trans lobby"? Don't they, by definition, insist that it is possible for someone born a male to "transition" and, in ontological fact, become "an adult female human being"?
“Female” refers to sex, not gender. According to the trans lobby and increasingly mainstream progressives, a male can be a woman, too. That is, a woman might be male, not female, which is why they would object to such a definition unless it included further caveats. They wouldn’t object to a definition of woman like, “An adult human being who self-identifies as female or as a woman.” But of course, everyone else objects to that definition.

I think it was a good question and a really, really stupid answer. If she didn’t want to fall into a gotcha trap, she should have said, “That is a question that is currently a matter of some dispute and likely to come before the court, so I would hate to prejudge the answer before hearing the arguments on both sides. After all, legal definitions often differ from how we use words conversationally.”

Your alternate suggested answer was excellent, and why I never viewed it as a gotcha question.  If anything, it shows the ineptitude of her White House handlers not to have anticipated such a question and prepared her for it.

Regarding your first paragraph explanation, you again remind me of my confusion with gender identity:  much of what ends up passing as identifying traits are things that the feminist movement complained about (and I agreed with them on this point) were gender stereotypes.  Women don't have to wear makeup or have long hair.  But to be a trans women seems to involve "feminizing" your appearance.  Yeah, I have no idea why the TERFs (specifically some lesbian women who do not go in for that stuff) might have issues there.

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.

10
[snip]
My objection is your statement that the body of Jesus who sitting at the right hand of the Father is just like your body. I don't think it is.

As I posted several days ago, it's extremely rude to engage with someone by misrepresenting their position.  Here are your words:

I fully expect that my body, after I'm dead, and buried or burned; will not be at all like it is right now.

Show me where I attempted to describe anything particular about my body after death.  Or specifically claimed my body would remain as it is now.  Obviously something will need to be done to it after I stop breathing to resurrect it.  You're not contradicting anything I said.  You're imposing what you imagined me saying.  I said that my hope for eternal life is my body being like Jesus, because we're both human.  He became like us so we that me might become like Him.  If Jesus body can be with the Father, then so can mine.  I want in on that action.



Show me where I attempted to describe anything particular about my body after death.  Or specifically claimed my body would remain as it is now.  Obviously something will need to be done to it after I stop breathing to resurrect it.  You're not contradicting anything I said.  You're imposing what you imagined me saying.  I said that my hope for eternal life is my body being like Jesus, because we're both humanHe became like us so we that me might become like Him.  If Jesus body can be with the Father, then so can mine.  I want in on that action.


Yes, Jesus' body is with the Father, and so will ours. You asserted (or seemed to assert that the body Jesus has now is exactly the same as the body he had here on earth. Paul strongly suggests that it isn't. I assumed (probably a dangerous thing to do) that when you said you would become like him, it was in reference to your future life in heaven - a life that happens after death.


Do you believe that Jesus resurrected and ascended and eternal body was exactly the same as his body that he had on earth?

I'm going to ask this a gently as I can, but of course there isn't any gentle way to ask this:  is there something wrong with you?  This must be what gaslighting feels like.  How can you possibly reply as you did, even quoting my own words, yet not understand them?  But here, let me repeat them yet again:

Show me where I attempted to describe anything particular about my body after death.  Or specifically claimed my body would remain as it is now.  Obviously something will need to be done to it after I stop breathing to resurrect it.  You're not contradicting anything I said.  You're imposing what you imagined me saying.  I said that my hope for eternal life is my body being like Jesus, because we're both human.  He became like us so we that me might become like Him.  If Jesus body can be with the Father, then so can mine.  I want in on that action.

Do you not understand that "we might become like Him" indicates a change?

What I'm dogmatically clinging to here, and it's why both Donald Kirchner and I have responded to you skeptically, is your lack of clarity (my best construction on your words) of Jesus retaining his human nature, specifically his body.  This new/transformed body does not cease being human.  It becomes something better, which is the promise in which we will share.  As I said previously, not unlike the mystery of the Eucharist, I am unwilling to speculate about the particulars of this transformation.  I just know that Jesus "new" body didn't stop being his "old" body, because he still bore the marks of the crucifixion.  Beyond that, I have no interest in you passing off your pseudo-Jesus-Seminar speculation as authentic/historic doctrine just because you're proof-texting scripture snippets to win an argument after you backed yourself into a corner.

Finally, for clarity:  I have never asserted that Jesus body was the same post resurrection.  I explained that in my prior reply to you, quoted above yet again.  And yet you responded again as if I hadn't.

11
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: May 16, 2022, 09:13:42 AM »
"A woman is an adult female human being." How does that offend the so-called "trans lobby"? Don't they, by definition, insist that it is possible for someone born a male to "transition" and, in ontological fact, become "an adult female human being"?

Yeah, we can parse semantics and use scare quotes all day.  But the simple fact is, the question was not a "gotcha" question because the answer is unknowable nor because the question is out of left field.  It's only a "gotcha" because her own side won't let her answer it as anyone would have 5 minutes ago before the "so-called 'trans lobby'" (LOL) came along and decided nobody knows who is really a man or a woman.  So sure, let's assume the trans lobby would be fine with that answer.  I think you know she'd have been pressed on it, and when pressed, she would eventually be required to do what she did and invite the ridicule of the right wing, or answer the question truthfully, and invite the ire of the left wing.  She chose the former.

Her answer is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.  For example, biologist you say?  I thought it wasn't a matter of biology at all, but rather social constructs and all that.  But leaving that aside, it is sufficient to say the question is hardly a tough one.  This pretense that Justice Jackson couldn't possibly have been expected to provide an answer because the question is just so out of left field ignores realpolitik in service to typical left wing gaslighting.  I'm not playing that game, and you shouldn't either.
Thank you for this, it saved me the trouble as I've been mulling this over since yesterday.  I was unsure how best to respond to the charge that it was a "gotcha" question and therefore unfair to her.  I've concluded the definition of such a question is whether answering it correctly damages your side.

Why it was particularly relevant to ask of a Supreme Court nominee is because of the tactics of the trans activists.  Unlikely to achieve any traction through the democratic process, they are trying to circumvent it by using the courts.  It's fundamentally antidemocratic and dare I say authoritarian.

I would say just like abortion rights activists, except that when Roe was decided the democratic process was moving in their direction and in hindsight it destroyed any chance of consensus.  Abortion supporters like to say "if you don't like abortion, don't have one".  That's certainly not trans activists messaging.  Women have to tolerate a biological man in private spaces heretofor sex segregated, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them.  If you don't recognize and support trans people, however they wish to be supported, you're a bigot at best or violating civil rights at worst.

The madness has reached my backyard, as my school district, facing a "gender expansive" controversy, chose to cancel its elementary level health sex education classes in one school, because they sex segregate the kids for what includes discussing their anatomy and how puberty will change it.  Like David, I'm confused about when biology is relevant.  I don't understand what a child's gender choice has to do with his/her/their biological/anatomical development.  What value is there to be in a classroom talking exclusively about anatomy you do not posses?

12
Similar to what you say, I need to believe that body now sitting at the right hand of the Father is just like mine...or I'm screwed.  He became like us so we that me might become like Him.


I think just the opposite. I do not expect to have this same body for eternity. If Jesus' body is just like mine, I would have no need to change to become like him. It's only because he is different than me that I can be changed to become like him.


I fully expect that my body, after I'm dead, and buried or burned; will not be at all like it is right now. I know that the ashes of my mother were not at all like her body that sat on my couch earlier this year. I expect that in the resurrection of the body, she will be given a new body that will not have any of the physical ailments she had during this life. That will require a different body.

That's nonresponsive, and frankly I'm offended that you're pretending it was.  You haven't said anything which justifies your claim I bolded, that you believe "just the opposite".

Just the opposite of what, exactly?  Do you think Jesus' body is not seated at the right hand of the Father?

As I posted several days ago, it's extremely rude to engage with someone by misrepresenting their position.  Here are your words:

I fully expect that my body, after I'm dead, and buried or burned; will not be at all like it is right now.

Show me where I attempted to describe anything particular about my body after death.  Or specifically claimed my body would remain as it is now.  Obviously something will need to be done to it after I stop breathing to resurrect it.  You're not contradicting anything I said.  You're imposing what you imagined me saying.  I said that my hope for eternal life is my body being like Jesus, because we're both humanHe became like us so we that me might become like Him.  If Jesus body can be with the Father, then so can mine.  I want in on that action.

Jeez.

UPDATE:  Further clarification, again thinking of your Christological confusing exchange with David...Jesus human body matters so much, because it is one of his two natures, the one he has in common with the rest of us.  It's certainly possible, given his other divine nature, that only that one could have returned to the Father without issue, being consubstantial.  Therefore it matters much whether His human nature also ascended, which is where I appreciate the Orthodox holistic perspective and all that it implies.  When people like you discount Jesus human nature, specifically his earthly resurrected body being different than ours, it undercuts all that.  We confess in our creeds the resurrection of the body, for all of us, not just Jesus.  But he went first/ahead for us and made it  possible, as he explained to the disciples.

13
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: May 12, 2022, 02:03:15 PM »
That's why the schools won't give a kid an aspirin but might give them birth control pills.

This is my biggest objection to the legal regime that Roe has given us, the massive distortion in the law that's been beyond the reach of any democratic remedy.

I may have said this before, from a legal perspective, I would take France's abortion rules, which I believe ban it and except for a true health issue after 14-18 weeks.

My daughter is no longer a minor, and I never had to worry about her in this regard when she was, but I have always strenuously objected to any legal scheme where some aspect of her life was beyond my control as her parent.  This legal fiction that somehow minor pregnant girls had a right to this medical procedure, without parental knowledge or consent, has always offended me.

14
Your Turn / Re: Roe v. Wade overturned?
« on: May 12, 2022, 01:50:43 PM »
Be warned — this is the dumbest thing you’ll read today.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/politics/alito-princeton-classmate-susan-squier-cnntv/index.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab
In today's world there is so much competition, but I agree you may have found today's winner.

I remain supremely puzzled particularly by accusations of "misogyny" that people like her throw around.  Such gnosticism is a powerful drug I guess.  Certainly MAGA types do similar motive projecting.  But it's all so thoughtlessly dumb.  Yes, Amy Coney Barret has been brainwashed by the patriarchy to be a self-hating misogynist, like all women who are pro-life.  Like you said recently David, pro-abortion types just cannot fathom how any woman could think otherwise.  Why some provocateurs are parading in front of her house in scarlet robes.  So edgy!

And yes, Clarence Thomas obviously wants to be rid of his troublesome (white) wife, so he's in this to restore bans on interracial marriage after Roe is overturned.  His motive is so transparent!

There's dumb all over the place, but I continue to be amazed by elites who put themselves out there trafficking in stuff like this.

This morning NPR was all about what can sort of executive action can the White House take in light of the leaked draft opinion?  As if there is only one correct answer here, and its uncontestable.  Here's a crazy thought:  maybe the president has no authority here, neither according to Roe or the draft opinion, and suggesting otherwise is just dumb.

15
I also want to touch on what Mr. Spatz said above.  We don't lead with neck-deep Christology, obviously.  I still remember when a friend of mine and someone who holds a clerical office in the church was at the table when someone asked "is Jesus a human person or a divine person?"  He quickly answered "both!"

Our deacon, a wise man, immediately said "no, He is a divine person."  Why?  His personhood precedes His assumption of our humanity in time.  His personhood pre-existed His humanity. That does not make Him less than human -- He also has a fully human nature and is thus fully human.  But when speaking of the distinction between person and nature, the person of Christ is divine.  It always will be.  The contrary is Nestorianism.

This friend was not excommunicated or made to feel bad. He was gently corrected and he accepted the correction.  That's how deep theology works. When it comes up, you politely correct the error.  You don't seek to beat people over the head with finer theological points.  But when errors are stated, they must be corrected.  Letting someone go on believing something that is damaging to the faith is not being kind.

Moving this here from my briefly updated P.S. addition to previous, because it dovetails perfectly...

P.S. I just spent 8 weeks in a pub theology small group, led by our young pastor, focusing on "unanswered questions" about faith.  A mix of people, including some very new not just to our church but also Christianity.  First week we wrote down our questions and that become the track for future week discussions. (Talk about a lesson plan that writes itself, our young guy is very efficient! And also sermon material to boot.)  We covered the kind of tough but meaningful questions about the Gospel that Pastor Austin seems to think we should be addressing.  These things are not either/or exclusive.  At the end the new people were very appreciative of the experience, and more importantly truly felt they belonged in our congregation, no longer outsiders.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 237