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 - Matt Hummel

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 173
1
Your Turn / Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« on: Yesterday at 08:44:54 PM »
Father Hummel:
with rather little respect, I suggest that your comments are extremely destructive of our effort to find some kind of inter-Lutheran association here. You left the ELCA and now you are elsewhere. Coming back here to vent your resentment and bile does not help us and I doubt you’re convincing anybody.
Do you enjoy pouring burning oil on our already troubled times?
Trying to run off Father Hummel, Pastor Austin?  Similar to your responses to our Orthodox brethren posting here.   So much for your "ecumenism."   As far as inter-Lutheran, you have followed the same MO towards NALC and LCMC posters.  Similarly towards conservative LCMS folks, including your regular antagonism toward Pastor Speckhard and your thinly veiled (well okay actually pretty open) calls for his removal as moderator.  I suspect I could find (if I wished to waste my time) similar sentiments by you towards Pastor Culler and the Lutheran body to which he belongs. And you haven't been very welcoming to those ELCA pastors and posters of a more traditional or conservative bent, e.g. Pastor Charlton.  It seems to me that you narrowly define "inter-Lutheran" by the main-stream of the shrinking and progressively dominated ELCA.  You do realize there are already such forums for the ELCA on facebook and other places.  If you don't you should check them out--seems they should be more amenable to the positions you assert but don't want to have to defend against those who hold different positions from yourself.  Yes I know there's a thread for this but you keep trying to drive off others (and try to undermine Pastor Speckhard and influence ALPB leadership to remove him as moderator) across a variety of threads.  With Pastor Preuss, though perhaps not as often, I appreciate at least some of your posts, respecting them even if disagreeing, when you actually attempt to make substantive points.  Those posts are in sharp contrast to posts like this response to Father Hummel where you simply resort to bullying and try to drive others off this Forum.

Pastor Kimball,

I thank you for coming to my defense. But the thing about bullies is that they actually have to be strong and scary and be able to threaten effectively. Mr. Austin’s fumings are, in fact, a source of amusement to me and to others. I always know when I have made a point when he refuses to engage the point and show me where I am wrong, and instead basically tells me I’m ugly and my mommy dresses me funny and no one wants me in the schoolyard.

In what way is the ELCA’s stance on capital punishment (with which, as a Catholic, I agree) NOT hypocritical when coupled with the support of the murder of a child conceived as part of a crime that earned the death sentence?

The issue is that he and Brian, and others of their ilk, and their use of fetus, as if it made a metaphysical difference. To deny the full humanity of an unborn child
1) denies basic science.
2) veers towards serious Christological error.

So, reason and faith lead me to by staunchly pro-life

2
Your Turn / Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« on: Yesterday at 08:31:02 PM »
So you say nothing of “killing the life growing in the mother.”

It’s just that you use “viability” (a moving standard and one that makes no logical sense) to set the line for when abortion is allowed.

What does abortion do again?

You’re smarter than this. And your bigger problem is this — we are too.


The recent thread is about "life," not about abortion. Abortion kills a living fetus. Happy now?


A poll I just read indicated that a majority of Americas are in the messy middle of this debate. As I recall the number 50% thought that abortions should be legal, but limited. Fewer thought they should all be illegal or open to anyone who wanted.


I've stated and copied our church's position that an abortion may be a responsible choice for three reasons:
1. to save the life of the mother
2. when the mother had not choice in the pregnancy, i.e., through rape or incest
3. a fetal abnormality that will result in severe suffering and very early death


Do you disagree that an abortion may be a responsible choice in these circumstances?

1) I have seen sloppy medicine because the OBs can always kill the kid, instead of dealing with the mother’s health issue, so… No

2) I was unaware that we got to kill the children of criminals for the crime/sin of being the children of criminals, so… No

3) I have experienced counseling a family towards Life when the doctors said “horrible defect/early death/all that garbage you spewed. They chose life. Baby’s Apgars were like 8.5 and 9.5. Doctors response? “Oops. We were wrong.” If the ELCA opposes the death penalty because innocent people may be killed, why would anyone support this ? So,… No.

There was a time when pretty much all Americans thought it was OK to own [terrible racial epithet]s as property. Do you REALLY want to argue for morality by majority?

3
Your Turn / Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« on: Yesterday at 10:37:29 AM »
And I’m saying that Brian’s grasp of biology is no so much in question as his grasp of the nature and purpose of language. He is like a blind man analyzing paintings by running chemical tests on the pigment— a true expert on paint who knows nothing of whatever painting he is talking about. Yes, the word “life” has many applications and facets. But that doesn’t all of them are valid interpretations of what was written.

It is a good cautionary example. When Brian opines about this or that interpretation of a Bible verse and breaks out his lexicons and word counts, remember that he thinks his toe being cut off is a relevant example in a discussion of abortion because both topics involve the word “life”.


You said that the discussion was about "life". That's what I'm discussing. Abortion is taking away a life, but so does butchering livestock; so does amputating a limb (usually done in order to save the person's life, but the life in the limb dies).

Do you know anyone that’s lost a child?  Did you tell them it was like losing a toe?


Yes, I've known parents who have lost children? Even parents when one child caused an accident that killed a sibling. No, it's not like losing a toe.


The topic was "life". What makes something alive? For about the first 20 weeks of a fetus, it is alive because it is attached to the mother; in a similar way my little toe is alive because it is attached to the rest of me. If the fertilized egg (yes, it is living,) but if it does not attach to the mother, it will die. If it is disconnected from the mother through natural or artificial means, it will die. For those 20 weeks, it cannot sustain life for itself separated from the mother.

You're smarter than this, which is why most of us consider you a sophist.

At some point in time, does your toe become capable of sustaining life as a separate, distinct and whole organism?

At about 20 weeks, does the "fetus" change into something else substantively, or is it the same organism it was for approximately the first 20 weeks?

What you are advocating is killing people based on their age.  You couch it as if it is dependency that is at issue, but the truth is if you remove the "fetus" from its mother at 21 weeks, and do nothing else, the "fetus" will die.  So it isn't dependency that is at issue.  You've simply adopted that arbitrary standard because the Supreme Court was damn fool enough to endorse it and it's what allows you to continue to advocate for the legality of child killing.


Where have I said anything about killing the life growing in the mother? The discussion is life. I believe that from the beginning of the abortion discussions and decisions, there was a distinction between viable and non-viable. There are at least these two different types of lives of the fetus. "Viability" and "viable" are words used in our Social Statement on Abortion. It defines it: The fetus becomes viable when it is capable of surviving disconnected from the placenta.

They are both used in a summary statement of our church's position:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.

The ELCA is condemned by its own stance. If a man were convicted of a series of crimes that included a rape leading to impregnating, and found guilty and sentenced to death, the ELCA would bring its resources to bear to fight against the execution of that criminal. But it has no problem whatsoever in killing a child, one of whose parents is a criminal. That is disgustingly hypocritical.

4
Your Turn / Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« on: October 26, 2021, 06:38:37 PM »
One of my favorite organizations, Secular Pro-Life, is looking at some signage that knocks holes in the toe argument.

Abort Roe v. Wade
It’s just a clump of words.

Interesting organization. Pro-Life based on real science and biology.

5
Your Turn / Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« on: October 25, 2021, 09:24:33 AM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.


Not only did I receive an "A" in my college biology class, I had the highest point total in the class. I'm not making an analogy, but illustrating the complexities of talking about "life" - the topic of discussion, according to Peter.


Is my toe alive when attached to my body and dead should it be disconnected?


Consider also Ezekiel 37


4 He said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, Dry bones, hear the Lord’s word! 5 The Lord God proclaims to these bones: I am about to put breath in you, and you will live again. 6 I will put sinews on you, place flesh on you, and cover you with skin. When I put breath in you, and you come to life, you will know that I am the Lord.”


It is clear in these verses that it is having breath that makes the bones live again. It is not bones, sinews, flesh, or even DNA, that determines life in this picture, but breath.

You went where? Some pissant Bible college, right?

You took an intro course and scored high on multiple guess. So what?

I have watched you make idiotic statements on various topics where I have a modicum of competency. And so I am going to be like Enrico Fermi who in reading newspapers came to realize that since they wrote with authority but no accuracy on matters where he knew them to be wrong, began to ask why would they be any more correct in other matters.

If I cannot trust you to get right a matter of fact self evident to a HS graduate, why would I believe you on matters like the Scriptures and biblical languages?

6
Your Turn / Re: Reflections of a pro-life Democrat
« on: October 24, 2021, 10:00:06 PM »
No, Peter. What is under debate is “life,” and what constitutes life, and what constitutes human life. What is under debate is when one assigns “human rights“ or “right to life“.
Rhetorically, what is also under discussion, or ought to be, is Terminology used by various sides. “Murder.” Is capital punishment murder? “Baby killers.” Do those of us who believe in our current laws deserve that title? It is every abortion under every condition “murder”?
But there are many ruts in this road, and I’m turning off.
Agreed. What is under debate is life. Which shouldn’t be under debate, but lamentably is.


My little toe is alive. It contains my human DNA. Should it be amputated, it would die, but we don't say that the surgeon has committed murder or is a "little toe killer."
We don’t say that because we aren’t stupid. This is again the kind of clarification that adds nothing to the discussion but is simply designed to muddy the waters and equivocate in order to justify indefensible support for legal abortion.


You said that the discussion was about "life." I'm discussing life. "Life" is not as clearcut as you want to make it. Just as my little toe cannot stay alive if separated from my body, neither can a fetus stay alive if separated from the mother during about the first half of its "life."

Your alleged analogy is just plain stupid. Anyone with a HS level of biology sees the flaws in your argument.

A child in utero is a total organism. A toe is not. Leave the science to the grownups.

7
Your Turn / Re: Halloween and All Hallows' Eve
« on: October 22, 2021, 12:49:26 PM »
The worst thing about Halloween is its appropriation by adults. It should be a time for children. Our household rule- you may not glorify evil.

But trick or treat for little ones, and no sexy  fill in the blank costumes. In fact, no adult Halloween parties, unless they are families doing something together for kids. Grow up and clear the space for children.

8
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: October 11, 2021, 06:41:55 PM »
So you think the Bible says I cannot call anyone foolish?

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Well…


"And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand." (Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 7:26.)


"You blind fools." (Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 23:17.)


Is Jesus liable to the hell of fire?

No.


So, sometimes it is permitted to call someone a fool and not be liable to the hell of fire.

Brian- you ain’t  Jesus.

9
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: October 11, 2021, 06:11:35 AM »
So you think the Bible says I cannot call anyone foolish?

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Well…


"And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand." (Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 7:26.)


"You blind fools." (Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 23:17.)


Is Jesus liable to the hell of fire?

No.

10
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: October 10, 2021, 09:08:13 PM »
So you think the Bible says I cannot call anyone foolish?

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Well…

11
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: October 03, 2021, 08:01:50 AM »
Because if you don’t smoke in public, you aren’t hurting other people.
In most places, you gun  people can’t shoot squirrels in your backyard if you live in an urban area.

Nice… “you gun people.”

12
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: October 02, 2021, 09:26:07 PM »
Hospitals, like other businesses, have a right to require certain things of their workers. This time what they require is that the workers be vaccinated against Covid.  And since it is 100% clear that vaccinations help against the disease, I do not see why one would refuse to take it, but one may make that choice. And as we are learning in various places, it may cost you your job. But that’s the way it works

It’s not the hospitals that have made this requirement.  The state made the requirement, taking that decision away from hospital.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Impressive, but ... ?

I suspect he prefers to live freely, and in danger, than quietl.y as a slave

13
Your Turn / Re: Education polarization
« on: October 01, 2021, 10:33:41 AM »
Ph.D's as a percentage of the population have gone up over 600% since the 1950's. The problem is that advanced degrees don't relate to actual expertise, they relate the the status of expert. In the discussion of Jill Biden's use of the honorific "Dr." we talked about this. She said she pursued her doctorate precisely because of the status it conferred, which is why she insists on the title. She was tired of simply being known as a politician's wife without some sort of professional identity of her own.

Status attaches to some earned designation. But the attributes of having attained that status go with the earning of it, not the designation. But people who want to skip straight to the status without the earning can always find shortcuts. Today it is to the point that some school districts give high school diplomas to people who cannot pass high school classes because the they think the social status of being considered educated matters more than being educated. The diplomas confer value precisely robbing everyone else's diploma of a fraction of its significance. Eventually the leechlike, meaningless diplomas kill off the value of a high school diploma altogether because people cannot count on it to mean anything.

Education pursued for reasons of social class and status isn't even real education. An old test I used to use was giving people a choice between the right to audit an unlimited number of college classes without ever getting credit for taking them or getting a college degree without ever having taken a class. The former is about education. The latter is about social status.


I received 10 college credits without ever attending a class. One was an independent study class the college offered. I read a book, took a test, passed the test, and received credit. Another class I challenged, which meant I read a book, took a test, passed the test, and received credit. Was that about education or social status? (Because of those extra credits, I was able to get my BA in three years.)


I also took as many classes as possible with just a pass/fail grade (which was all my seminary classes - and all were passes). I was pursuing an education, not grades.

I don't think that the point Peter was bringing up was about taking independent study classes or taking classes Pass/Fail.  Those are different ways of holding classes.  There is no difference between having four 50 minute classes a week or having one 3 hour and 20 minute class or two 1 hour and 40 minute classes. 

To David's original post, the division along status lines has long been alarming.  I'm not certain what to do about that other than trying to operate on an 'equality by order of personhood' rather than 'equality based on status.'  I certainly think that the Christian church has much to offer from that perspective.

Jeremy

WRT to my brother Jeremy, there is a HELL of a difference between four 50 minute classes, and one 3 hour 20 minute class and two 1 hour 40 minute classes. How you prep, what objectives can be reasonably set, how you test, and how you maintain discipline are all dependent upon class length. I taught sacramental classes in the parish, and I homeschooled my children. They were of little value for dealing with a class room of 30 students of divergent education levels, abilities, and life situations.

Love you Bro.

14
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: September 30, 2021, 06:20:56 AM »
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/29/youtube-purges-accounts-videos-casting-any-doubt-on-covid-vaccines/

This is the worst response to the vaccination problem. It actually exacerbates the central trust issues and validates every conspiracy theorist in his own mind.

Way to get people thinking that “They” must be afraid of the truth.
Not only that, but game theory as I understand it says that the society as a whole acts in ways closer to the truth when every kook and crackpot’s opinions are factored in, however slightly. Telling people they’re only allowed to look at the educated, reasonable opinions reduces the effectiveness of the whole.

I’m in a NFL pool picking all the games against the spread. It is spooky how accurate the spreads tend to be. But a top expert analyst does not tend to be more accurate than the aggregate of non-expert bets. And I think game theory would postulate that insisting the bettors had some minimum degree of expertise would not make the spreads more accurate.

Societies engage in all kinds of complex actions that amount to the aggregate of millions of little decisions. I think those societal actions end up being better when those millions of decisions are made freely however people want to make them, with their various trust levels, biases, hunches, etc. free to roam. Information has to be free. The one refusing to get vaccinated because his horoscope said not to or the one getting vaccinated due to sexual fantasies about nurses are nevertheless contributors to aggregate effectiveness of societal action. Informing people is good, but trying to forcibly prevent other, more stupid sources like horoscopes from informing them is counter-productive.

I can see censorship on slander and pornography grounds. But censorship of viewpoints, opinions, and even fake “facts” makes any society weaker.


So, according to your logic, the church fathers shouldn't have silenced the heretics. Censorship of their viewpoints, opinions, and even fake "facts" made the church weaker.


And, the LCMS shouldn't have been afraid of some of the "moderate" professors at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis in the early 70s. Censorship of their viewpoints, opinions, and even fake "facts" made the denomination weaker.

And once again your patented comparison of apples to orangutans  (at least oranges are fruits. You know, like tomatoes, but we digress.)

Anyone who wanted to follow the “moderates” did. No one stopped the formation of Seminex or forbade publication, etc. There is a difference between “not under my roof” and “not at all.” And like it or not YouTube has become a public space. There is no real alternative to which one can easily turn.

15
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: September 29, 2021, 04:41:54 PM »
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/29/youtube-purges-accounts-videos-casting-any-doubt-on-covid-vaccines/

This is the worst response to the vaccination problem. It actually exacerbates the central trust issues and validates every conspiracy theorist in his own mind.

Way to get people thinking that “They” must be afraid of the truth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 173