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.
Atmospheric Sciences really does not address the age of the earth. I was speaking more as a scientist on the issue of the CTCR report in general rather than the question of the age of the earth. My son would state that one interpretation the observations of astrophysics is a universe that is billions of years old. However, God could have created the universe much earlier than that, and the consistent physics would make it look older than it is due to its size.On their comment on science, the CTCR recently put out a study on the topic - "In Christ All Things Hold Together: The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology". I have a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, and my son has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. We have both read through the study and highly recommend it. However, I would guess the authors of "A Call for Discussion" have already rejected it.
Harry - what do the atmospheric sciences and astrophysics suggest about the age of the earth?
Logic failure.What would people say if went next door and shot my neighbor and then argued that what I did should be legal because--
That neighbor was about to kill or injure me…
Good point, it sure is a good thing the infant in the womb is never trying to kill or injure us, so therefore, being in no mortal danger, we do not have a right to take its life in our own self defense.
(I can see where this will lead. Yes there are very rare and tragic cases where the Mother's life is at risk, ectopic pregnancy, when neither the Mother nor the child can possibly live if the pregnancy is allowed to progress naturally. In this case, there is no possibility to save the child, and the morally right thing to do is to save the one life that can be saved, the Mother. This exceedingly rare case should in no way be used as generic justification for us to 'choose' to terminate a life, for any reason, at any time, before it draws its first breath, which you seem to be arguing as the point where life begins.)
There are other circumstances where pregnancies put the mother's life at risk. There are also times when a greater good, e.g., killing enemy combatants (who would kill our soldiers and civilians) means that "innocent" civilians might be killed as collateral damage. Consider the arguments for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Granted, a lot of this is speculation about what might happen if we do nothing, e.g., something like 9-11 could happen. So it is with the mental and emotional health of a mother who has been violently raped. Or, the mental and emotional health when parents know that their baby will live only a few hours after birth. To force all mothers/parents to suffer continued emotional trauma when it could be reduced seems as cruel as letting the Japanese continue to kill hundreds of Americans by sparing the 100,000's citizens in that country.
Correct.I agree."make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit" - what do you think the LCMS was doing in taking time to talk to Dr. Becker all those years? Synod was making the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with Dr. Becker. And in the end Dr. Becker was removed from the Synodical roster in order to "preserve the unity of the Spirit" within Synod. Note that it does not say "preserve the unity of the Spirit no matter what anyone says".
Unity of the Spirit is not synonymous with group think.
I'm glad to hear that we agree on that point. However, I suspect that you would not agree with the suggestion that group think, much more than unity of the spirit, influenced the manner in which Dr. Becker was disciplined and the ultimate outcome of the matter.
I agree."make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit" - what do you think the LCMS was doing in taking time to talk to Dr. Becker all those years? Synod was making the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with Dr. Becker. And in the end Dr. Becker was removed from the Synodical roster in order to "preserve the unity of the Spirit" within Synod. Note that it does not say "preserve the unity of the Spirit no matter what anyone says".
Unity of the Spirit is not synonymous with group think.
You read comments on this site the same way you read the Scriptures - you make them say what you want them to say. You are the ultimate postmodern American. Enjoy making my comments say whatever you want - but it is not what I said."make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit" - what do you think the LCMS was doing in taking time to talk to Dr. Becker all those years? Synod was making the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit with Dr. Becker. And in the end Dr. Becker was removed from the Synodical roster in order to "preserve the unity of the Spirit" within Synod. Note that it does not say "preserve the unity of the Spirit no matter what anyone says".
If you believe that the unity that the Spirit has given is only the LCMS, then by all means preserve that unity - and exclude all of us who are outside of those boundaries. Be honest about it. You are the saved. Those outside the LCMS are not.
Or as my pastor is found of saying - "Is it the Holy Spirit, or a bad can of chili you ate last night?" This is why we have the objective Word of God in the Scriptures. Otherwise we find ourselves exactly where Paul warns us we will be:We need to be very careful about what we say we see/sense/experience as the work of the Holy Spirit lest we fall into the trap of saying that whatever I feel is right is the work of the Spirit or whatever enthusiasm of the moment is working on me is the Spirit Himself. A few years ago another denomination tried to express their sense that the Word of God was shifting by saying that God is still speaking. To which I replied, yes He is, but He is still saying what He always said through the Canon. God is not telling us He changed His mind just because we wish He would.
"...God is still speaking." Coupled with the ole "Who are we to limit God?" Some years ago I read to my confirmands that The Lutheran magazine column in which the husband/wife team threw that out. I asked them what was wrong with that view. A confirmand immediately replied, "We're not limiting God. He's limited himself to us in his word." Quite proud of her.
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4, ESV).
The Task Force is not teaching anything. It was set up by a Synodical Convention to make recommendations to the next Synodical Convention. Their report has no authority until it is acted upon by the Synodical Convention. You are grasping at straws.QuoteThe Wichita resolution was not a doctrinal resolution (though doctrine was discussed). It does not have the status the Synod has defined for a doctrinal resolution. It was a departure from previous doctrine and practice. Fr. Peters
The Witchita resolution does indeed convey the "teaching" of the Synod on the matter of deacon ministries. It clearly accepts it. Therefore, if what the C.C.M. has stated about doctrinal resolutions is valid, the Witchita resolution conveys settled doctrine, regardless of what other previous statements have been. The new supersedes the old.
I think the point of discussing this matter is the rampant hypocrisy that can be seen n the Synod for having an SP approved task force teach against a Synodical resolution and get away with doing it (despite the C.C.M. opinion on how Synodical resolutions are now binding), while Matthew Becker was ostracized from the Synod for his various teachings that departed from various Synodical resolutions.
You didn't even read what I said above, did you? Let me reiterate it: "Or does he refuse to bake the cake because he loves his neighbor as himself and sees providing a cake as harming his neighbor?" That every well could be a way to love your enemy and die to self.That was my point. How do anyone know the person's motivations unless they state them? The catechism tells us to explain everything in the kindest way. A lesson I have to continually relearn.Beat me to it. The bolded text above indicates a bare assertion. Can one person dictate to another what the latter's religiously informed conscience "would have to" prohibit and allow? That sounds like the exact opposite of "freedom of conscience" to me.Or does he refuse to bake the cake because he loves his neighbor as himself and sees providing a cake as harming his neighbor?If THEY believe they are violating their own religiously informed conscience, that is enough for me, provided it is clear it is not a pretext.To what extent is "consistency" a legitimate test for pretext? As I have already noted, a Lutheran Christian whose religiously informed conscience would prohibit him from baking the cake would also have to conclude that his religiously informed conscience would prohibit him from refusing to bake the cake because that would mean that he did not love his neighbor as himself.
There's also Jesus' command to love our enemies. And another about dying to self. How might these commands from Jesus apply in this situation?
