ELCA PB weighs in on Trayvon Martin case

Started by A Catholic Lutheran, March 27, 2012, 05:22:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dan Fienen on August 05, 2013, 05:39:09 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 05, 2013, 05:23:19 PM
I would not go so far to say that the Pharisees abandoned the truth of God's Word. They were certain of the truth of God's Word. In fact, Mark Allen Powell suggests that it was their certainty that got them in trouble. What they abandoned, was God. They trusted their certainty rather than being a bit uncertain and trust God. Trusting certainty turns the trust to self rather than outside of self to God.

How would one tell if one were too certain and so trusting their certainty rather than God. 


As Mark Allen Powell points out, the disciples believed and doubted in Matthew 28. (Belief and doubt also occur in Matthew 14.) Matthew also indicates that the disciples were frequently men of little faith. (Some parallels in Mark state that they have no faith.)


Disciples of Jesus are people who believe and doubt. They have little faiths, but trust Jesus' great faith. Their repentance is confessing, "I can't," rather than "I can." They believe and pray for help in believing. They've been given the miracle of sight, but only see dimly. They, like Peter, can confess that Jesus is the Messiah, and then rebuke him for being the wrong kind of Messiah.


And yes, Pharisaic certainty can afflict liberals and well as conservatives.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dan Fienen on August 05, 2013, 05:45:29 PM
How certain are those who have decided that the Biblical passages dealing with homosexuality are only about homosexual rape and exploitation?  Are they perhaps too certain?  What happens if somewhere down the line they or God changes his mind again?


Yup, they can be too certain. A phrase I often use is, "This interpretation is what makes the most sense to me now."


It also makes sense to me now that the passage in Genesis about it not being good for the human to be alone and that God would provide a helper fit for the human can apply to homosexuals, too. For whatever reason, an opposite gender person doesn't fit them. In a similar way, there are thousands of women who would not be a good fit as my helper in life. Why I was attracted to the one I married and she is a good fit is a good fit (and we will celebrate our 42 anniversary this week) is a mystery.


And it makes sense to me now that Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians that it is better to marry than be promiscuous applies also to homosexuals. If they cannot control their sexual passions, then get married.


I have never argued that these are the only ways that these passages can be interpreted. Whatever certainty I have is always tentative. God is bigger than my understanding. They have gone through many changes in the past, and I expect more to happen in the future.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Pastor Ted Crandall

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 05, 2013, 07:29:38 PM
Whatever certainty I have is always tentative. God is bigger than my understanding.

How certain are you that God is bigger than your understanding? 


Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Pastor Ted Crandall on August 05, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 05, 2013, 07:29:38 PM
Whatever certainty I have is always tentative. God is bigger than my understanding.

How certain are you that God is bigger than your understanding?


As certain as I am that God exists.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Pastor Ted Crandall

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 05, 2013, 09:46:22 PM
Quote from: Pastor Ted Crandall on August 05, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 05, 2013, 07:29:38 PM
Whatever certainty I have is always tentative. God is bigger than my understanding.

How certain are you that God is bigger than your understanding?


As certain as I am that God exists.

Not too, eh? 

;D

Michael Slusser

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-florida-20131030,0,494439.story

The new rules, to be released at a community meeting on November 5 in Sanford, Florida, will state explicitly that residents acting under the authority of neighborhood watch may not carry a firearm or pursue someone they deem suspicious.

"Neighborhood watch was always intended to be a program where you observe what is going on and report it to police. In light of everything that has gone on, that's what we're really going to go back and push. That's what this program is and that's all it is," said Shannon Cordingly, spokeswoman for the Sanford Police Department.


Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

swbohler

I believe the article is incorrect when it says that Florida's Stand Your Ground law was the basis for Zimmerman's acquittal; my understanding was that both sides agreed that law had nothing to do with this case but rather the question was one of simple self-defense.  I am no lawyer, but I also wonder how the city police can, in effect, try to suspend a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights by requiring members of these neighbor watch groups to not carry a firearm - I know that the article says that members who do carry will not be charged with a crime, but the obvious intent is to prevent citizens from carrying a weapon for self-defense when they are engaging in what may certainly prove to be a dangerous, but legal, activity.

Michael Slusser

Quote from: swbohler on October 30, 2013, 07:38:12 PM
I believe the article is incorrect when it says that Florida's Stand Your Ground law was the basis for Zimmerman's acquittal; my understanding was that both sides agreed that law had nothing to do with this case but rather the question was one of simple self-defense.  I am no lawyer, but I also wonder how the city police can, in effect, try to suspend a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights by requiring members of these neighbor watch groups to not carry a firearm - I know that the article says that members who do carry will not be charged with a crime, but the obvious intent is to prevent citizens from carrying a weapon for self-defense when they are engaging in what may certainly prove to be a dangerous, but legal, activity.

Well said. This does make the cross-purposes involved in protecting public safety very apparent.

Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk