Author Topic: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)  (Read 177027 times)

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile

The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your inability to seriously reflect on the situations people find themselves in our nation and your uncritical dependence upon gross stereotypes of those whose life experience is different from yours -- both keys to your numerous posts under this subject -- frighten me even more than your applications of scripture to this subject.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay cle
« Reply #541 on: July 07, 2019, 06:08:14 AM »
Just an observation, I draw no profound conclusions from it:
In 1971, when urban violence was certainly “a topic,” I moved from Iowa to New York/New Jersey.
   I had numerous occasions to be in Newark, Brooklyn, the Bronx and rough parts of Manhattan. Sometimes I would give a kid $5 to “watch my car” (or me) while I was on his street.
   Almost everyone I knew or met who lived in those areas told of hearing gunshots with what seemed to this immigrant from Iowa alarming frequency. (I heard a shot only once -three actually- 10 p.m. on a Summer night on 110th street, Manhattan.) Some people I knew had been mugged, occasionally more than once. Hospitals dealt with gunshot wounds every day.
   But back then, I never heard or read of anyone in those neighborhoods - except for gang members - talk about wanting a gun for “protection.”
   Some pastors I encountered worked to decrease the numbers of guns in their neighborhoods rather than add to those numbers by buying one.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 06:20:53 AM by Charles Austin »
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis.

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4337
    • View Profile
Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay cle
« Reply #542 on: July 07, 2019, 06:49:35 AM »
Just an observation, I draw no profound conclusions from it:
In 1971, when urban violence was certainly “a topic,” I moved from Iowa to New York/New Jersey.
   I had numerous occasions to be in Newark, Brooklyn, the Bronx and rough parts of Manhattan. Sometimes I would give a kid $5 to “watch my car” (or me) while I was on his street.
   Almost everyone I knew or met who lived in those areas told of hearing gunshots with what seemed to this immigrant from Iowa alarming frequency. (I heard a shot only once -three actually- 10 p.m. on a Summer night on 110th street, Manhattan.) Some people I knew had been mugged, occasionally more than once. Hospitals dealt with gunshot wounds every day.
   But back then, I never heard or read of anyone in those neighborhoods - except for gang members - talk about wanting a gun for “protection.”
   Some pastors I encountered worked to decrease the numbers of guns in their neighborhoods rather than add to those numbers by buying one.

So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 44904
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile

The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your inability to seriously reflect on the situations people find themselves in our nation and your uncritical dependence upon gross stereotypes of those whose life experience is different from yours -- both keys to your numerous posts under this subject -- frighten me even more than your applications of scripture to this subject.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+


We just had dinner with a long, long-time friend who interviews refugee children to see what benefits they can receive. She has numerous horror stories of what it's like for these children to live in constant fear; some have seen their parents executed by the gangs in Central America. She works with them to try to establish trust again. What you call a gross stereotype is the reality for some people.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1286
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile

The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your inability to seriously reflect on the situations people find themselves in our nation and your uncritical dependence upon gross stereotypes of those whose life experience is different from yours -- both keys to your numerous posts under this subject -- frighten me even more than your applications of scripture to this subject.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+


We just had dinner with a long, long-time friend who interviews refugee children to see what benefits they can receive. She has numerous horror stories of what it's like for these children to live in constant fear; some have seen their parents executed by the gangs in Central America. She works with them to try to establish trust again. What you call a gross stereotype is the reality for some people.

So we've been discussing gun ownership in the US and you describe a six-year-old who is frightened by combat gear in her school and at home, who is also scared by being made to wear body armor.  In the context of the discussion this is obviously ridiculous and you are called on it.  You then switch to your story about a refugee from Central America.  Yes, the gross stereotype is reality for some, but NOT in the US.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Pastor Bohler:
So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
Me:
If you’re referring to the five dollars, I guess so. But that was life in New York and Newark in those days. That kid on the street in the ironbound section of Newark was sort of a freelance “parking lot operator.”

Pastor Bohler;
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
Me:
Oh yeah, New Yorkers, particularly people in those parts of New York and New Jersey, never talk about the laws are breaking, no never. In truth, they are more likely to brag about the laws they are breaking than to be silent about them.

Pastor Bohler:
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.
Me:
You really don’t get it. Do you think that people casually carrying guns, even with a minimum of “training,” Are going to be any match for people who are likely to assault them? (For that matter, are you? )
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 04:31:59 PM by Charles Austin »
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis.

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4337
    • View Profile
Pastor Bohler:
So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
Me:
If you’re referring to the five dollars, I guess so. But that was life in New York and Newark in those days. That kid on the street in the ironbound section of Newark was sort of a freelance “parking lot operator.”

Pastor Bohler;
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
Me:
Oh yeah, New Yorkers, particularly people in those parts of New York and New Jersey, never talk about the laws are breaking, no never. In truth, they are more likely to brag about the laws they are breaking than to be silent about them.

Pastor Bohler:
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.
Me:
You really don’t get it. Do you think that people casually carrying guns, even with a minimum of “training,” Are going to be any match for people who are likely to assault them? (For that matter, are you? )

1. You make New York/New Jersey sound so attractive. 

2. You make New Yorkers and New Jerseyites sound so wonderful.

3. Yes.

Pilgrim

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1637
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.

Charles, Am I to assume the “you” is singular or plural? Otherwise your “that way” is arrogant and insulting and is slamming me into a large group of people and you don’t even know me. Shame on you. This is apparently the “who” you come across as in this forum that you are ardently blind to.
Pr. Tim Christ, STS

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
They are indeed wonderful people for the most part. Tough, know how to get things done, know how to live with others in difficult situations, most of the time.
And the variety! Walk the street you’ll hear six or seven different languages if you walk far enough and you don’t have to walk that far.
Elegant Fifth Avenue ladies on one block  and on another hardhat guys taking a lunch break and eating giant sandwiches.
Sometimes however these days in Manhattan, too many tourists.
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Sorry if I wasn’t precise enough, pilgrim. The “you” is plural and refers to gun enthusiasts in general.
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis.

Eileen Smith

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
    • View Profile
Pastor Bohler:
So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
Me:
If you’re referring to the five dollars, I guess so. But that was life in New York and Newark in those days. That kid on the street in the ironbound section of Newark was sort of a freelance “parking lot operator.”

Pastor Bohler;
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
Me:
Oh yeah, New Yorkers, particularly people in those parts of New York and New Jersey, never talk about the laws are breaking, no never. In truth, they are more likely to brag about the laws they are breaking than to be silent about them.

Pastor Bohler:
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.
Me:
You really don’t get it. Do you think that people casually carrying guns, even with a minimum of “training,” Are going to be any match for people who are likely to assault them? (For that matter, are you? )

1. You make New York/New Jersey sound so attractive. 

2. You make New Yorkers and New Jerseyites sound so wonderful.

3. Yes.

1.  it is!

2.  We are! 

 :)

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 8078
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Quote:
"Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her."

Protection is locked doors and folks looking out for her.  We were talking about arming folks during worship.  How many Christian Churches have been attacked during the last five years in the US during worship?  Attacked during worship with folks using guns or bombs?  Are Lutheran churches really under some new threat?  Give me stats, please.

I actually think this is a fine question, and it dovetails into an unpopular question, but one with equally true answers.  The answer is, not many.  Same as school shootings.  Not many schools have been targeted by school shooters.  And of those who have, not many have been committed with so-called "assault rifles." 

So yes, the "need" for parishioners and pastors to arm themselves is likely hyper-sensationalized.  Just like the "need" to ban under-powered rifles whose appearance scares ignorant people.  A dose of facts is usually helpful in situations like this.  Thank you for highlighting the need for perspective.

Now, someone here is going to get a case of the vapors and start breathlessly pretending to be ever so offended at me minimizing school shootings with some "one is too many" rhetoric, or some such.  Before they do, let me suggest that the same breathless pretense can be applied to church shootings, so please -- for the sake of us all -- just don't.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
One murderous shooting in any place is too many, indeed, but every shooting is not a “call to arms.”
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, Nw York and New Jersey. LCA and LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired, living in Minneapolis.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 8078
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
One murderous shooting in any place is too many, indeed, but every shooting is not a “call to arms.”

Nor a call to ban arms.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13570
    • View Profile
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.

Since the topic has been the carrying of concealed handguns for the purpose of protection, my comments are specifically directed at that.


I would say that that nobody should go armed without having had at least proper training in the proper use of firearms and specifically the use of firearms for protection. Nobody should think that a concealed carry permit is a license to take pot shots at people for the least provocation. Proper training should include the principle that use of deadly force is a last resort to be employed only where there is a clear and present imminent danger of serious injury or death being inflicted. When possible other, nonlethal action should be taken to defuse the situation.


With that understood, I have questions about Pr. Stoffregen's core statement:
Quote
I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


By this I take it Brian, that you considers taking a life, no matter what the situation or how clear the threat to oneself or others, is morally unjustifiable, that it is murder pure and simple. To be clear, is this a) your personal conclusion for yourself and how you would conduct yourself but not making an a priori judgement on others, or b) this is what you believe should be the Christian position and you believe that all Christians should conduct themselves this way, or c) this is what you believe should be enacted into laws concerning the ownership and use of firearms?


Might it be morally justifiable to use deadly force after the attacker has shot and possibly killed someone and continues to act in a way to endanger others to prevent further carnage or would that fall under retribution which you also (and I for that matter) consider immoral?


A further comments on guns. Guns are not toys, they are always serious, even when used for recreation (target practice, etc.). Even toy guns are not only toys. Those who would play with toy guns need to recognize that in ambiguous situations a toy (especially the current trend to make toys look realistic) can be mistaken for real and so ambiguous situations need to be avoided. There has also been incidents where toy guns have been altered (the orange tip usually put on otherwise realistic toy guns to mark them as toys being cut off for example) to make them more realistic looking such that play could be mistaken for a serious threat. Those who would use toy guns also have a responsibility to use the toys responsibly lest they be taken as a real threat.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 10:34:33 AM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS