Coronavirus news

[Steven W Bohler]

I've never asked anyone whether they are vaccinated or not.  Some relatives have asked and I have told them the truth - that I am vaccinated.  That sometimes sparks a discussion and sometimes does not.  I know of two relatives that are not vaccinated and sometimes spout some of the anti-COVID vaccine stuff.  Sometimes I am able to convince them about an untruth or two, but I have not yet convinced them to be vaccinated for COVID.  I really doubt that calling them fools or idiots as has been done by some media sources (traditional or new) will help.  Instead it will just drive them away from vaccination.

To be honest, Mr. Rustad, even saying things like "spout(ing) some of the anti-COVID vaccine stuff" might come across as judgmental.  To them, it not "stuff" but their belief -- and quite often, their well-considered belief.  And would you use the same language about the other side: would you say that those who have been vaccinated "spout" their position?  Would you call their arguments merely "stuff"?   But you are right -- the name-calling (either blatant or implied) in much of the media, as well as general vaccinated population, does no good but only serves to drive them deeper in their position.

You are correct.  I could have worded that far better.

Thank you for your graciousness!

[Brian Stoffregen]

Here's the article, and I include the abstract below:

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

Someone might want to let Yak know I'm responding to him.


Biblically, fetuses did not have the same moral status as actual persons. Exodus 21:22 indicates that causing the death of a fetus was not the same thing as killing a person. The woman is treated as a person. The fetus is treated as property.


The LXX on these verses about another distinction: whether or not the child is fully formed! The NETS translation of Exodus 21:22-25


Now if two men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her child comes forth not fully formed, he shall be punished with a fine. According as the husband of the woman might impose, he shall pay with judicial assessment. But if it is fully formed, he shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


When the fetus is not yet fully formed (ἐξεικονισμένον in both verses), it is not treated as a person. The punishment is not the same as taking a human life. If it is fully formed, then the lex talionis comes into play.

[DeHall1]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you'd see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or "soft science" about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as "science" by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life's origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

Really?  I think biologists know a little more about this subject than you. 

[Steven W Bohler]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you'd see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or "soft science" about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as "science" by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life's origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

Really?  I think biologists know a little more about this subject than you.

I guess Rev. Stoffregen is one of those science-denying Republicans we've been hearing about from Rev. Austin.

[Brian Stoffregen]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you'd see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or "soft science" about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as "science" by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life's origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

Really?  I think biologists know a little more about this subject than you.

I think I know a little more about biblical texts that biologists. What do you say? Does the Bible state that the human became alive when God breathed the breath of life into him?


The Bible creates some holes in biology. The DNA in a man's rib could not carry the DNA to create a woman. Something had to change in the DNA.


Many of us, for decades have stated that the Bible is not a science book.

[David Garner]

What is a "separate, whole and distinct human DNA?"  Is the human person somehow separable from the human body?  And what is a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby but a whole and distinct human body?

Yes, there is a distinction. A corpse is a human body with distinct human DNA, but it is no longer a person. In fact, a study and paper I wrote in college indicated that the origin of the Greek word, ψυχή, was over the difference between a corpse and a living body. ψυχή is breath, breathing, heart-beat, movement, thinking, personality, life-force. Essentially, it's everything about me that makes me me, which disappears at death; even though my DNA remains the same as it was created at conception. My body (for a time) remains the same as it was the last moments I was alive. There is a distinction between the human body, human DNA, and being a person.

The unborn are not dead. The unborn are alive.

[DeHall1]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you'd see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or "soft science" about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as "science" by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life's origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

Really?  I think biologists know a little more about this subject than you.

I think I know a little more about biblical texts that biologists. What do you say? Does the Bible state that the human became alive when God breathed the breath of life into him?


The Bible creates some holes in biology. The DNA in a man's rib could not carry the DNA to create a woman. Something had to change in the DNA.


Many of us, for decades have stated that the Bible is not a science book.

What are you even trying to say here? You state you know more about biblical texts than biologists (debatable) then you go on to state that the Bible is not a science book....Are you agreeing with the biologists now?

I'll also defer to the biologists in the room with regards to definitions of words like "viability".  I'm sure I'll get a something that is somewhat better defined.

[Dave Benke]

Today's state news here in NY is that even amidst the protests and lawsuits, the vaccine mandate for education and health workers is having a dramatic positive effect on the percentages of employees/staff in those enterprises who are vaccinated.  The deadline is tomorrow for first shot in the arm, but the percentage of those vaccinated has risen substantially.  To that point, an editorial appeared today in the NYT under the title "Why Can't America Learn from New York City?" 

I actually had to laugh out loud at that.  Because
a) that's not going to happen
b) what are we in NYC asking "them" in America to learn?

Yes, our way - kvetching, kibbitzing, kvelling, yelling and screaming, nanny-stating, tsk-tsking, finger-pointing, over-splaining, push-prodding, multi-hued in every possible manner -with a host of other descriptives, has worked and is working and will work.  Does anyone out there in America want to use us as the model?  Do "they" understand kvetching and kvelling and kibbitzing?  Do they want to?  Are those exercises necessary for salvation or sanity?

Yes  - we're better for it.  And - we embraced the heroism of health care workers, first responders, essential workers and caregivers.  And - Broadway is back.

Still, we were anxious back in the day, and we're more anxious now; we were lonely and isolated before, and more so now.  We had and have and almost certainly will have the greatest disparities in income and opportunity in one little patch of land anywhere on the planet. 

Meaning it's the best place to be, especially now, with the Gospel.  That's about all I've learned.

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

Brian's beginning assumption is that abortion must be permissible. He then simply scouts around for room within definitions that allow for that possibility. He rarely looks for what words actually say in context. Rather, he looks to expand the possibilities of meaning in order to create space for doubts. He doesn't need to find anywhere that says or implies abortion is good, right, or in any way Christian behavior. He simply needs to cast doubt on the actual meaning of all the condemnations that people apply to the killing of the unborn. Barring that, he'll argue that everyone is a murderer according to the Sermon on the Mt so it is self-righteous and judgmental to condemn the murder of the unborn. Fifteen years ago I always referred to this approach as the acid drip of constant questioning. The whole goal is to undermine, deconstruct, and weaken the supports undergirding traditional morality and doctrine.

Brian is also not nearly the linguist he appears to be because he doesn't understand the nature and purpose of language in relation to reality and truth and how (and what) words communicate. He knows all the cases and endings and has lexicons galore, so he seems like a real expert, but he mostly deals in nonsense, then says "Yup," and justifies it by saying that is just how his Myer-Briggs personality type does things.   

As for various responses to the virus, I think urban centers tended to react the same way as New York, though each with its own signature style. In Chicago, as usual, it just went to Mayor-Daley-esque orders and controversies surrounding the pubic schools and teachers union. Where people live on top of each other and most transportation and recreational space is shared, everyone is used to thinking in terms of how everything I do affects everyone else. Whether they're polite about it or obnoxious about it, they daily experience the interdependence of people in matters like this. Where people live with more personal space, visible separation from other people, and private transportation and recreational space, the possibility of minding your own business becomes more important because one's business can more be one's own and not a matter of peeing in the pool everyone else is swimming in. It usually gets painted as a matter of race or economics, but the fact is that urban centers are always going to be more progressive because progressivism operates on the assumptions of mutual dependence, top-down regulation, and forced cooperation that urban centers perforce rely on, while libertarianism relies on open space and clearer distinction between individuals.   

[Matt Hummel]

Reading this thread and the thoughts of the Arizona Exegete, I am reminded of the apothegm that, "Knowledge is understanding that a tomato is in fact fruit. Wisdom is not serving it in your fruit salad." He has a great deal of knowledge, but I suspect that I would forgo dessert at his house.

[Charles Austin]

Bishop Benke, Your most recent post gets my nomination for "post of the year." Maybe "post of the decade." Right on target.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

"Brian is also not nearly the linguist he appears to be because he doesn't understand the nature and purpose of language in relation to reality and truth..."

Careful, the next question will be, "What is truth?"

Peter (When WHO is the Truth is right before you) Garrison

[James S. Rustad]

An interesting sidelight to the pandemic.

A sheriff violated a teen's First Amendment rights when his department threatened her with jail if she didn't remove an Instagram post about becoming infected with COVID-19, a federal judge has ruled.

[peter_speckhard]

An interesting sidelight to the pandemic.

A sheriff violated a teen's First Amendment rights when his department threatened her with jail if she didn't remove an Instagram post about becoming infected with COVID-19, a federal judge has ruled.

That is outrageous behavior by the police, and what happens when an atmosphere of panic is encouraged. If saying, "I have the virus" is like shouting fire in the proverbial crowded theater, then suddenly even the most basic of human rights are put at risk. From day one I've been arguing that the government's role in a pandemic should be on the side of calming people, not hyping up their fears and concerns to the point of irrational terror and panic.

Now, another way of looking at basic human rights violations is that they are incredibly effective and successful at attaining practical results. If you kill the unemployed, you do reduce unemployment and can claim that your methods are more successful at getting measurable results than the methods of those who are all bogged down in individual rights discussions. And if you inject people with vaccines against their will, you do increase your vaccination rate. The question is whether the vaccine success is worth the tyranny cost. If you can have a 90% vaccinated rate with mandates or a 70% rate without mandates, the argument is which state of things is better. Some will want the vaccination rate increased at all costs. Others will want mandates reduced at all costs. There is a high cost either way. But for people who naturally look to centralized authority and collective action, the "costs" of the mandates are, as a they, a feature, not a bug.

[Randy Bosch]

Today's state news here in NY is that even amidst the protests and lawsuits, the vaccine mandate for education and health workers is having a dramatic positive effect on the percentages of employees/staff in those enterprises who are vaccinated.  The deadline is tomorrow for first shot in the arm, but the percentage of those vaccinated has risen substantially.  To that point, an editorial appeared today in the NYT under the title "Why Can't America Learn from New York City?" 

I actually had to laugh out loud at that.  Because
a) that's not going to happen
b) what are we in NYC asking "them" in America to learn?

Yes, our way - kvetching, kibbitzing, kvelling, yelling and screaming, nanny-stating, tsk-tsking, finger-pointing, over-splaining, push-prodding, multi-hued in every possible manner -with a host of other descriptives, has worked and is working and will work.  Does anyone out there in America want to use us as the model?  Do "they" understand kvetching and kvelling and kibbitzing?  Do they want to?  Are those exercises necessary for salvation or sanity?

Yes  - we're better for it.  And - we embraced the heroism of health care workers, first responders, essential workers and caregivers.  And - Broadway is back.

Still, we were anxious back in the day, and we're more anxious now; we were lonely and isolated before, and more so now.  We had and have and almost certainly will have the greatest disparities in income and opportunity in one little patch of land anywhere on the planet. 

Meaning it's the best place to be, especially now, with the Gospel.  That's about all I've learned.

Dave Benke

Great opportunities to share the Gospel in New York City, and throughout the non-urban areas of the planet as well.  Those heroes, that loneliness, those disparities exist everywhere.  Blessings on helping the people and helping to solve the problems where you have been called.

As you have demonstrated significant work in tying through the Gospel to improve the quality of life for the peoples of the City, you might find interest in the linked article from "Inkcap Journal".  It's English, heavily ties to City of London issues because like New York City, that megalopolis impacts nature and people far beyond its core:

https://www.inkcapjournal.co.uk/in-grey-city-spaces-a-greener-future-is-growing/

Please particularly think about how it addresses London by example - and clearly New York as well - as it subtitles the article with the first heading, "Modern cities act as ecological vampires, drawing life from the land beyond their bounds."
Little grows in the "big cities" except pollution and waste - which are exported to more formerly pristine lands.
Little water supply, energy, almost no food, wildlife, etc.  New York City while being a great place full of opportunity for the Gospel and for improving lives also sucks its life out of the countryside while many (not you, of course) often impugn the character, intelligence and value of the areas it has economically and culturally colonized (and more Nehemiah projects, please - even in fly-over country...)!