Messages

106

Your Turn / Re: Can Someone Wrong about a Teaching Still Be Christian?

« on: December 02, 2019, 08:19:10 PM »

Pastor Bohler, anyone who Has read anything about witchcraft in former times knows that having red hair made some suspect that one was a witch.

Which is irrelevant to the question of whether every witch burned had hair. The real question us what makes the dark arts so irresistible to red heads?

I had to admit that the claim was so unbelievable that I didn't believe it. 

So I looked for the quote online, found it on multiple clickbait websites without any sourcing, and just smiled to see how "facts" get spread.  I honestly thought that it was shared tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps not.

107

Your Turn / Re: Can Someone Wrong about a Teaching Still Be Christian?

« on: November 27, 2019, 12:39:28 PM »

Here is a great video detailing the experiences of gay Christian young people growing up in the church.  It's very much worth the watch all the way through, and it forms a great way to begin group discussions of how Christians have historically treated gay people in the church.

108

Your Turn / Re: Impeachment Hearings

« on: November 18, 2019, 07:17:33 PM »

https://babylonbee.com/news/in-genius-move-trump-supports-impeachment-forcing-democrats-to-oppose-it

109

Your Turn / Re: Meanwhile, the Church Goes about Her Business

« on: November 18, 2019, 12:03:18 PM »

This report recently came across my FB timeline.  It came from my alma mater (well, one of them at least) Luther Seminary.  It certainly seems to be about the church's business and worthy of discussion regarding what her business actually is.

110

Your Turn / Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

« on: November 06, 2019, 11:21:06 AM »

But even with his changed testimony, if I heard the NBC Nightly News correctly, he still did not tie the quid pro quo back to Trump.

He tied it back to exactly what Biden did when he asked for a quid pro quo by withholding $1 billion in aid -- reducing corruption in Ukraine, and making a public statement to that effect.

This is, btw, exactly one of the three reasons that the White House has articulated for holding up aid in the first place: a) Trump not liking foreign aid in general; b) wanting European nations to do their part; and c) combating corruption in Ukraine.

There's nothing new here, and there never has been anything wrong in desiring and working towards any of these as foreign policy positions and doing so by withholding aid.  Using quid pro quos have always been a part of diplomacy.

Even what Biden did in taking actions to pressure Ukraine that enriched his son could be fine, though it's so fishy that it certainly merits a real in-depth investigation.  And certainly naming names of possible sources of corruption that need to be investigated as part of an anti-corruption drive is also fine, assuming that there is sufficient cause to do so.  The action of Joe that enriched Hunter certainly smell fishy, and fishy stuff should be looked into.  Again, just because Joe is running for president doesn't put him off limits; in fact, it is for just these types of reasons where the politically powerful are treated by a different set of rules that got Trump elected in the first place.

Of course, the aid was released on 9/11, and a statement that an investigation into Burisma was made on 10/4, so even there, stuff doesn't add up even if it were inappropriate to hold up aid to make sure folks in Ukraine don't steal it wasn't a good idea in the first place.

EDIT: As I've said from the beginning of this kerfuffle and see no reason to change now -- the real issue is whether or not there is proper predication for an investigation into the Bidens.  All else is smoke and mirrors.

111

Your Turn / Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

« on: November 06, 2019, 11:03:35 AM »

A crucial witness in the impeachment inquiry reversed himself this week and acknowledged to investigators that he had told a top Ukrainian official that the country would most likely have to give President Trump what he wanted — a public pledge for investigations — in order to unlock military aid.

The bolded and underlined is the NYTimes editorializing again, rather than reporting.  What Sondland actually said was that they had to make "a public anti-corruption statement."  He did not say anything about a public pledge for investigations.

112

Your Turn / Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

« on: November 06, 2019, 10:58:28 AM »

I understand and in some ways agree with the original ideas of the electoral college.
And I believe it would be too much trouble and almost impossible to amend the constitution to remove it.
But it does skew things in ways in which I think our founders could not have anticipated.
Ditto for “social media“, one of the most antisocial things around today.

They not only could have anticipated it, they did.  The entire point of our federal system is to take account both for the will of the population and the regional interests of each state.  That's why we have a House of Representatives that is popularly elected according to population and a Senate that is (now) popularly elected with equal division among the states.

It's also why we have our name: The United States of America.

113

Your Turn / Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

« on: November 06, 2019, 07:44:32 AM »

One man (in the old days), one vote.

Are you referring to back when the US didn't have the electoral college?

114

Your Turn / Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

« on: October 27, 2019, 03:22:28 PM »

Pastor Fienen writes:
Let's not forget that until the night of November 8, 2019 just about everyone figured that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in for the next president. It was so certain that she didn't bother to campaign much in several of the meaningless Midwest states that would have little or no effect on the election anyway. There was absolutely no way that buffoon Donald Trump could possibly win. Politics is unpredictable.
I comment:
The concern was not the candidate. Almost everyone knew he was an immoral, lying fool. Even many of those who voted for him knew that.
But we underestimated the hatred some have for the Clintons and/or “liberals.”
We who were disappointed Nov. 8 also over-estimated the common sense, intelligence and decency of the general population, and the power of a shameless demagogue to affect that population. We did not think we were 1930s Germans, falling victim to the blandishments of someone telling them how miserable they were, how bad their country was and picking someone to blame. Then there was the racism and sexism too.
But that was long ago.

When the Forum was being upgraded I took it as a sign that I needed a mental health break, quite honestly from this topic.  When someone told me it was back up resolved not look at this topic but in a weak moment I did.

Pastor Austin, this post is, for me, as unacceptable as Sam Donaldson's remarks citing that the 30% of Americans who backed Trump are ignorant.  According to Donaldson, they don't know or understand or even want to know the issues.   This is what the progressive edge of the Democratic party needs to understand:   they not any more intelligent than the rest of the country.   They're elitists who seem to think they're right and not only is everyone who disagrees wrong, but they're ignorant. 

We need a new ism in our vocabulary.   We need an ism to define those who are, perhaps, uneducated, who work in a blue collar job, who work in a mine, who enjoy all sorts of sports, who cling to guns and religion, who speak with a twang, who don't have the gift of living on one of the elite coasts of this country.  If among primarily conservative Republicans we have misogynism, racism, and the host of other isms, we need one to define progressive Democrats who seem to hold contempt for those who them deem inferior in intelligence.   

We also need an ism for what I see as hypocrisy of the left.  Hillary Clinton didn't win the election and the analysis of the left holds that while sexism apparently must have played a role so did the hatred of the Clintons. No!  It was Hillary who did this to herself.  A lackluster candidate who went in knowing this was her entitlement.  It was her casting aside the basket of deplorables.  It was her policies (or lack thereof).  It was her purely amoral character, the sense that she can do anything and get away with it.   Yet when we say that those who resist Trump hate Trump (and practically cite the same rationale) well, no, they simply see the light -- his policies, all that he's taken away from us, his brashness, his business dealings.  But no hate there.

I did vote for Trump in 2016 (and I’m not ignorant).  After the final debate I could not have cast a vote for Clinton.  About a year ago I told my husband that even thought I agreed with some of Trump’s policies I couldn't vote for him again in 2020.  Then came the field of Democratic hopefuls.  Once again, unless this changes, I will be voting for Trump.  I will, as my husband said in 2016, hold my nose and cast that vote.

This country and our legislators have spent almost four years doing absolutely nothing but hating Trump and resisting him.  In church terms it is extraordinarily poor stewardship of time and talents.  People weren't served.  Issues that needed addressing went by the wayside as the resist movement took hold of the House. 

Quite a few posts back we were derailed and moved back to issues of sexuality.  Pastor Austin you reminded us of the title of the thread and wrote "Focus!"  I'd say that was focused. Trump isn't going to undermine this country nor the fabric of our society.  The fate of our nation doesn’t lie in Trump’s hands. Nor will the right nor will the left.  We stand on our morality.   A society that turns its back on babies being aborted, that teaches children from pre-K on up the LBGTQ+ agenda as acceptable even holding up a transgendered child star as an icon of acceptance, that puts assigned gender aside to the point of allowing a child to take hormones to become the gender they wish, that seeks to undermine the role of parent in these issues, that has so little regard for marriage that the divorce rate is over 50%, where sexual immorality is portrayed in all forms of media as acceptable behavior so that we become inured to it -- that is where the fate of our  nation lies.  That is where we are unraveling.  Trump?   He'll be a figure in history some day just as other presidents and leaders are today - some of whom we thought would tear about our country and destroy it -- both on the right or the left.    We change our language to make life palatable in our never ending enforcement of politically correct speech and yet we cannot honor one another’s differences when they are in opposition of the progressive agenda.  A supporter of Trump may go against all that progressives hold dear, but that person is equally integral to the fabric of our society and the opinions of each of us holds worth and merit.

This forum needs a "Like" button.

115

Your Turn / Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

« on: October 25, 2019, 09:59:15 AM »

Now we know that the Durham investigation is a criminal investigation, but we don't know when it became one.  If Urkaine's involvement in the 2016 election along with the Bidens' activities in the same are parts of a criminal investigation, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the president requesting that the treaty with Ukraine regarding investigating possible criminal activity be honored.  There is nothing nefarious about introducing one's AG as the "central authority" doing the investigation to another head of state.

For those interested, here is the text of the treaty.