An Exception to the Rule

[Diego]

It would behoove the so-called "humble correspondent" to refrain from discussing psychology and history, and perhaps contain himself to his liberal theology, and try to defend that mush (which admittedly cannot be defended). But he could at LEAST, by so doing, refrain from making himself look quite so silly.

I haven't found liberal theology compelling.  However, I would say there's a substantial number of people who have, so I would definitely say that it can be defended.  Same thing for Orthodox, Calvinist, Roman Catholic, WELS, etc.  There was a time I never thought I'd be atheist.  I ask honestly, was there a time when you were Jewish when never thought you would be a Christian?

Well, in order to have a 24 hour day, you have to have a star so the planet can spin on its axis every 24 hours thus giving light to itself from the star every 24 hours.

Given MY history, NOTHING surprises me, although I admit that Lutheranism was something I never thought would have been a consideration. And that is by NO means an insult to Luther himself, or Lutheranism as a system of thought. It is merely that the concept was so outside my realm of thought pattern that I never really considered it an option. My choices in Christianity, were I to re-embrace it, were always Roman (which wasn't an option), Anglican, or perhaps some variety of Orthodoxy.

But you must remember that my experience with religion before 29 May was purely intellectual. There was NEVER an emotional response to it. And that emotional response happened in an LCMS Church. Christ literally reached out and touched my soul. And I had no choice but to respond.

Well, you must have a star for the planet's spinning on its axis every 24 hours to be relevant, no?

[Donald_Kirchner]

Well, you must have a star for the planet's spinning on its axis every 24 hours to be relevant, no?

No.

[Diego]

Ah, why not?

[SomeoneWrites]

It would behoove the so-called "humble correspondent" to refrain from discussing psychology and history, and perhaps contain himself to his liberal theology, and try to defend that mush (which admittedly cannot be defended). But he could at LEAST, by so doing, refrain from making himself look quite so silly.

I haven't found liberal theology compelling.  However, I would say there's a substantial number of people who have, so I would definitely say that it can be defended.  Same thing for Orthodox, Calvinist, Roman Catholic, WELS, etc.  There was a time I never thought I'd be atheist.  I ask honestly, was there a time when you were Jewish when never thought you would be a Christian?

Well, in order to have a 24 hour day, you have to have a star so the planet can spin on its axis every 24 hours thus giving light to itself from the star every 24 hours.

Given MY history, NOTHING surprises me, although I admit that Lutheranism was something I never thought would have been a consideration. And that is by NO means an insult to Luther himself, or Lutheranism as a system of thought. It is merely that the concept was so outside my realm of thought pattern that I never really considered it an option. My choices in Christianity, were I to re-embrace it, were always Roman (which wasn't an option), Anglican, or perhaps some variety of Orthodoxy.

But you must remember that my experience with religion before 29 May was purely intellectual. There was NEVER an emotional response to it. And that emotional response happened in an LCMS Church. Christ literally reached out and touched my soul. And I had no choice but to respond.

Well, you must have a star for the planet's spinning on its axis every 24 hours to be relevant, no?

Thank you for your response.  And I'm happy for your experience.  I never had anything like that.

As for the 24 hours, you just need God to declare day and night.   

[Donald_Kirchner]

Ah, why not?

Why? What is the definition of a day?

"day: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis."

[Fletch]

Ah, why not?

Consider three ways we may gain knowledge (which can then become understanding if the knowledge is rightly processed):  cognitive, experiential, revelatory

... Fletch

[Diego]

I gotta catch a bus. I shall be back later this afternoon.

PEACE OUT, DUDES!

[Brian Stoffregen]

Last time I checked, LCMS was not Young Earth Creationist. Literalist, yes. But not Young Earth Creationist. Even I am literalist. But one thing I learned from the Rabbis was the following. The Earth was made BEFORE the Sun and the Moon and the Stars also. YOU CAN'T HAVE 24 HOUR DAYS WITHOUT THE SUN!

I accept that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Days were 24 hours in length. But the First, Second, and Third could have been of any length. I am not sure where ELS is on that. Their Statement of Belief is the one I more or less accept, but I reserve for myself the right to differ from it if I so need to in certain aspects.

As far as the Light that shined on the Earth before the Sun was made, the Rabbis teach that it was shining forth from the Glory of the Throne of God. Obviously they weren't referring to a literal chair, but rather, simply the Glory of God. This is not in Scripture, but it makes as much sense as any other explanation.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

There was light (day 1) before there was the sun (day 4). Unless that light came from a single point, like the sun, there wouldn't be daylight on one side of the earth and darkness on the other - and it shifting as the earth rotated on its axis.

[Diego]

Last time I checked, LCMS was not Young Earth Creationist. Literalist, yes. But not Young Earth Creationist. Even I am literalist. But one thing I learned from the Rabbis was the following. The Earth was made BEFORE the Sun and the Moon and the Stars also. YOU CAN'T HAVE 24 HOUR DAYS WITHOUT THE SUN!

I accept that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Days were 24 hours in length. But the First, Second, and Third could have been of any length. I am not sure where ELS is on that. Their Statement of Belief is the one I more or less accept, but I reserve for myself the right to differ from it if I so need to in certain aspects.

As far as the Light that shined on the Earth before the Sun was made, the Rabbis teach that it was shining forth from the Glory of the Throne of God. Obviously they weren't referring to a literal chair, but rather, simply the Glory of God. This is not in Scripture, but it makes as much sense as any other explanation.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

There was light (day 1) before there was the sun (day 4). Unless that light came from a single point, like the sun, there wouldn't be daylight on one side of the earth and darkness on the other - and it shifting as the earth rotated on its axis.

Well, all it says is that there was evening, and there was morning, One day, or the second day, or whatever. God could have brought about evening and morning over that particular part of the Earth any way he chose.

[Steven Tibbetts]

You might not realize that it pains me to post this, but it does....

2. This resentment-flavored re-hash of events at ELCA assemblies a decade or more ago is sadly beginning to sound like the obsession some in the LCMS have with a Yankee Stadium event that followed the attacks of 9/11. I do not want to contribute to this unhealthy mania, so I will not comment.

You are pained?

I first highlighted this from the ELCA Social Statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust just before Holy Week 2009:

Trust, as used in this statement, is a fundamental characteristic of right relationship. God is unfailingly trustworthy to us and all of creation. Just as we learn by faith that a right relationship with God is a relationship of trust rather than rebellious self-assertion, a right relationship with the neighbor is one in which each seeks to be truly worthy of the other’s trust. The trustworthiness that both fosters and can bear the weight of the other’s trust emerges as a central value to cherish and promote. Broken promises and betrayed trust through lies, exploitation, and manipulative behavior are exposed, not just as an individual failing, but as an attack on the foundations of our lives as social beings. Trust is misunderstood if reduced to an emotion, an abstract principle, or a virtue of one’s disposition, although these all suggest its multidimensional role as an axis in human life.

In The Responsible Self (1963), H. Richard Niebuhr set Christian ethical reflection on a new course by treating trust as the center of Christian thinking based on the question of trust or distrust of God as the fundamental option in human existence. In terms of human relationships, he wrote, “Faith as trust or distrust accompanies all our encounters with others and qualifies all our responses” (118). Philosophers and theorists such as Hannah Arendt (The Human Condition, 1958), and Michael Polanyi (Personal Knowledge, 1958) have advanced reflection on the centrality of promise and networks of trusting reliance in human affairs and knowledge. Some social scientists have begun to identify social trust as an indispensable feature of healthy organizations, institutions, and whole societies, and social distrust as one of the destructive forces at work in the breakdown and dissolution of organized social arrangements. Such reflections operate in the background of this statement.

The chief problem with this footnote: this church has treated it as an abstract principle -- when it was first written and throughout the 7 years that have followed.  This church still sees it as an abstraction. 

But it is not an abstraction.  It is the ELCA's lived history.  And then I open up Living Lutheran, or read the latest message from the Presiding Bishop, or read another one of your dismissals, and we are still living it.

You are pained?