Messages

31

Your Turn / Re: The alleged Norwegian attacker

« on: July 29, 2011, 12:15:29 PM »

Actually, there is a modern, self-styled "Knights Templar" organization, though it's mostly just a guy with a blog and a few loyal readers.

Huh?  There is a long-time, substantial organization, Knights Templar, that is a part of the Masonic structure known as the "York Rite Of Freemasonry." They claim to trace their origin to the original Knights Templar.

http://www.knightstemplar.org/

Recall that Ethan Allen Hawley, the main character in Steinbeck's novel The Winter of Our Discontent was a Knight Templar in that Masonic organization.

In that case, there are at least TWO organizations running around calling themselves "Knights Templar". There is the group within the Freemasons and there is that tiny little group I referred to that Breivik was inspired by. I wouldn't doubt if there might not also be a third and fourth such group using that name. It is, after all, in the public domain. The only thing needed to create a group that calls itself "Knights Templar" is a handful of people willing to call themselves by that name.

And you're right.  I believe there are several groups in the U.K. claiming descent from the original Knights Templar (not counting the York Rite group). 

32

Your Turn / Re: The alleged Norwegian attacker

« on: July 26, 2011, 04:30:28 PM »

Christians have much to answer for in the evil done by those who bear the name and claim to act in the Name of Christ.  But so do Muslims.

Dan

I agree that some Christians have much to answer for, but only those Christians who were alive at the time the evil was done. I was born in 1951. I refuse to accept blame for actions that took place before my birth. There's enough things I'm guilty of that I need to answer for. I don't need to borrow the offenses of others to pad my list.

So, if you were to join the KKK, you don't think that you should be criticized for the evils that organization committed in the past?

So the Church is like the KKK? 

33

Your Turn / Re: The alleged Norwegian attacker

« on: July 25, 2011, 09:14:37 PM »

Has anyone heard yet any explanation for why, if he was opposed to Muslims, chose to kill fellow Norwegians?

The explanation is that they were the youth segment of the Labor Party.  Further, I believe that he was actually targeting Gro Harlem Brundtland (3-time Norwegian Prime Minister, Labor Party) who had been out on Utøya earlier that day to deliver a speech.  So, both the bomb and the mass shooting were to hurt the Labor Party. 

The Labor Party has been very prominent in the past few decades in national Norwegian politics.  They are fairly leftist, and if you're a guy who doesn't like immigration of Muslims, then they're the ones who get blamed because they're the most prominent ones who made the immigration laws.  As for not targeting Muslims, he was fairly explicit that by attacking Muslims, you merely make them appear more persecuted.  He believes that the Democratic process cannot reverse what he describes as "Cultural Marxism", and therefore armed revolution needs to take place; and his actions were apparently supposed to be the opening salvo.

Also, just to note:  I in no way condone any of this--just have read a lot about it.  But I don't think we're dealing with just a "nut", but rather with somebody who is REALLY obsessive (I suppose that obsessiveness could be likened to nuttiness, but I don't think they're quite the same). 

34

Your Turn / Re: The alleged Norwegian attacker

« on: July 24, 2011, 10:10:00 PM »

In the case of this guy (Breivik), we aren't dealing with National Socialism or an equivalent to Christian Identity.  His beliefs, somewhat summarized, are that Islam has presented a risk to European civilization since its beginning, that Europe had turned back Islam's expansion for centuries, and that post WWII politics silenced nationalist voices in favor of "Marxist" policies that have allowed for relatively high levels of foreign immigration since the late 1960s.  Further, at least according to his manifesto, he doesn't have a big gripe with people of foreign origin who essentially completely conform to the culture.  He seems to believe that places like the U.S.A. can handle multiculturalism better because they are already based on a diverse population and because they aren't trying to maintain a social welfare system. 

As far as Christianity is concerned, it is a side note and something of a tool in his philosophy.  His ideal seems to be all European Christians rejoining the Roman Catholic Church, which can then in turn provide a greater buffer for Europeans against the immigration of Muslims.

35

Your Turn / Re: The alleged Norwegian attacker

« on: July 24, 2011, 06:20:09 PM »

I've been reading his "Manifesto", and the thing that I think he has in common with some of the other terrorists is that he strikes me as perfectly sane, but totally brainwashed by his own propaganda.  In the world that he has created, bombing downtown Oslo and shooting a bunch of teenagers at a Labor Party camp are means to forwarding his revolution. 

36

Your Turn / Re: George Erdner hits the bigtime.

« on: July 24, 2011, 06:12:24 PM »

Good job, George! 

37

Your Turn / Re: The alleged Norwegian attacker

« on: July 24, 2011, 01:20:21 AM »

We have to bear in mind that "Christian fundamentalist" holds a different meaning in this case than in the sense that we're used to it.  From what I've read of what he has written, he had the idea of trying to use the Church of Norway in the same way that he insisted that Marxists have used it since the end of WWII. 

I've read a bunch of the stuff that he wrote over the past two days.  The frightening thing is that it's not nonsensical ranting (like the VA Tech killer), but how thoroughly rationalized every point that he makes is. 

38

Your Turn / Re: Women's Ordination in the LCMS

« on: July 22, 2011, 12:38:28 AM »

Maybe somebody can print out this thread so that whenever anybody says "we never discuss this!!", you can just have them read through it. 

39

Your Turn / Re: A frivolous thread: Home Brewing

« on: July 20, 2011, 04:39:38 PM »

This thread + hot weather is making me frighteningly thirsty.

40

Your Turn / Re: A frivolous thread: Home Brewing

« on: July 20, 2011, 11:17:26 AM »

I haven't done it (kegging home brew), but I don't really think it's much more complicated (if at all, really).  It's more expensive, but I don't think it's anywhere near as time consuming as bottling. 

41

Your Turn / Re: A frivolous thread: Home Brewing

« on: July 20, 2011, 11:09:20 AM »

If you're going to deal with bottling, get a bench-mount capper.  It saves a ton of time and potential mess.  The only thing is that you'll want to save up a bunch of the same size of bottles (height, not volume). 

42

Your Turn / Re: A frivolous thread: Home Brewing

« on: July 20, 2011, 12:20:02 AM »

A buddy of mine and I have made a fair number of batches, but nothing for about a year now.  We typically brew closer to winter, when temperature is a bit more steady.  The best we've done so far is a Bass-type ale that came out remarkably clear and tasty. 

Now, if you're looking at just starting out, I'd recommend starting with a kit brew.  Basically, you choose your style of beer, and the kit consists of malt syrup (generally pre-hopped) and a yeast packet.  You provide the water, etc...

There are some non-essential but terribly useful bits of equipment that you can use.  A large propane turkey fryer becomes a fantastic outdoor boiler.  A wort cooling coil helps tons in getting the wort from boiling to pitching temp quickly (less time for molds and whatnot to populate the wort).  We found that brewing outside eliminates some of the contamination issues that you find in the average kitchen. 

The biggest factors in getting a decent beer brewed (aside from having a good recipe) are sanitation and ingredient quality--primarily water.  Beer generally only has about 4 ingredients (water, malt, hops, yeast), and water is the biggest component.  Good water = good beer.  Bad water = bad beer. 

43

Your Turn / Re: Women's Ordination in the LCMS

« on: July 19, 2011, 11:29:54 AM »

My point is this:  I have admittedly limited authority, but am not completely lacking in authority.  The individual has authority over those placed under their authority.  In relation to HerChurch, I have authority to keep my family from attending there.  I believe that in regard to Ebenezer (Herchurch), my opinion is in concord with that of the overwhelming majority of the rest of the Church Catholic (which also has limited temporal authority over what is done at Ebenezer).

When we start getting into the notion of ordaining women, I think the LCMS is right to try and distinguish between whether such a thing is a postmodern fad. 

 

44

Your Turn / Re: Women's Ordination in the LCMS

« on: July 19, 2011, 12:30:03 AM »

If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

Did the HERetics at HerChurch somehow meet the requirements for ordination, or did they become HERetics after ordination?

No one with any authority to do so have declared them heretics.

I did.

And how did your declaration affect the whole church, or even the ELCA?

How much did the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ affect the Roman Empire before 50 AD? 

45

Your Turn / Re: Women's Ordination in the LCMS

« on: July 19, 2011, 12:00:12 AM »

If one is a heretic, they will not meet our requirements for ordination. They will not be ordained. That is what I assume.

Did the HERetics at HerChurch somehow meet the requirements for ordination, or did they become HERetics after ordination?

No one with any authority to do so have declared them heretics.

I did.