Author Topic: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.  (Read 2028 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2021, 07:12:15 PM »
Why was it necessary to remove them from the garden? It was an arbitrary decision on God's part. God makes the rules. God could have allowed them to stay and live forever. God could have created the garden without the forbidden tree and removed the possibility of a wrong choice.


When parents are not attentive enough and their infant child falls into a swimming pool and dies, should it be the infant's fault for making the wrong choice; or the parent's fault for not providing enough protection for the wrong choices they know the infant will make?
So, the fall into sin was all God's fault? Adam and Eve were just innocent victims of God's carelessness? Or what are you saying here?


I raised questions. I didn't make statements; and neither did you. You respond to my questions with more questions. (You might becoming Jewish. :) ) Adam and Eve were not innocent victims; but God put them in a situation where God knew they would fail. Y'know that omniscient stuff we say about God. Jesus was God's plan from before the beginning of time. Similarly, God needed Judas to betray Jesus for God's salvation plan to work.
"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]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2021, 07:15:35 PM »
Brian's endless theological justifications for abortion are well-worn, tired, and vacuous as ever. Please don't let this thread go down that rabbit hole.


Again you put your own (anti-Brian) spin on my posts. Where am I justifying abortion? I'm anti-abortion. I'm seeking to justify choice. I believe it's a woman's choice (with sound advice from others,) and in nearly all cases, the choice should be to give birth to the child within her.

"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]

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2021, 07:22:15 PM »
I believe God was "pro-choice" when he gave the first humans the option to choose the forbidden fruit. His hope is that they wouldn't choose it, but he didn't take away their option to choose wrongly.

Though unlike those who celebrate "pro-choice" as a sacred right, God did not choose death.  He chose life.


Tell that to the people in Noah's day; or the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. God chose death.


God could have allowed the humans to live forever. God could have given them access to the Tree of Life; but their choice resulted in death.

If God allows someone to make a choice that results in death, does that mean "God chooses death"? No.  Even you note of Adam and Even that "their choice resulted in death."  And in terms of the death and resurrection of Christ, God did allow that humans might live forever. He has given us access to the Tree of Life in Christ.  In Eden, after the Fall, it was necessary to remove them from the garden and the tree lest they eat of it and live forever in a state of sin.  God wished instead to make all things new.


Why was it necessary to remove them from the garden? It was an arbitrary decision on God's part. God makes the rules. God could have allowed them to stay and live forever. God could have created the garden without the forbidden tree and removed the possibility of a wrong choice.


When parents are not attentive enough and their infant child falls into a swimming pool and dies, should it be the infant's fault for making the wrong choice; or the parent's fault for not providing enough protection for the wrong choices they know the infant will make?

I realize you often like to play the role of "devil's advocate," so I wonder at times if the questions you raise are for the sake of just a challenge, or you really believe it.  The dictionary says that arbitrary means "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle." I have a hard time thinking you believe that God does what He does simply on a "whim" or "impulse" without any "necessity, reason, or principle."  But maybe you do.  I'm not going to argue that.  God being God does not make that tenable. 

So, where are you going with the above questions?
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2021, 07:25:48 PM »
Death is not insignificant. Usually in our society we have a stake in preventing people from causing the death of another. I have not heard of anyone suggesting that the Pro-Choice position would suggest removing laws against murder so as to preserve everyone's choice to murder. A mother chooses to kill her baby, that is tragic. The Pro-Choice position is that nothing should be done to legally discourage her from doing so - rather hiring it done - thus making it safe and convenient to do so, aside from the death of the baby and apparently little care is to be expended about that.


Among nearly all my friends, pro-choice means allowing a woman the right to say no to an abortion; rather than have a law or insurance companies tell her what she must do.

Quote
In a case I've mentioned before, an illegal, and probably unsafe abortion over 70 years ago left the woman unable to have children. That was not insignificant. She was a friend of my mother.
No, that was not insignificant. There were two tragedies, a baby died and the woman was maimed. Should we sacrifice the lives of many unborn babies so that some women may not be harmed? It seems likely that at least half if not more of the unborn killed in abortion (accounting for those who abort for sex selection, having wanted a boy) were women. Do their lives count for nothing? Apparently.


Yes, the babies' lives count for something; but so do the mothers' lives. Aborting for sex selection is not an appropriate reason to choose an abortion.

Quote
Should we consider those at nudist colonies to be less sinful than the rest of us because they run around naked and are not ashamed of it?

I also note that Gen 3:21 it is God who provides clothing for the man and woman.
I can't tell if you are trying to be funny, willfully obtuse, or just clueless. My point was not their nudity but that it seems to me that intent of the Pro-Choice position is to remove any adverse consequences for the woman from her choice to kill her child. The death of the unborn being implicit and desired in the choice to abort. The intent is to make it easier to choose abortion by removing as much as is possible adverse consequences of that choice.

Nope. The pro-choice position of the ELCA is no more about removing adverse consequences than forgiving sinners. Our forgiveness doesn't remove consequences. Thieves should still make restitution. Should forgiven sinners continue to feel guilty, or weighed down by their sins? Does that promise of forgiveness make it easier for people to commit sins? I hope not.

Quote
If you wish to point to Bible passages, may I suggest Romans 6:1-2a "1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means!" Abortion is forgivable so why not remove all restriction?


The ELCA pro-choice position does not remove all restrictions because abortion is the ending of a life. There are certain circumstances where the ending of the life in the womb can be a responsible choice.
"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]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2021, 07:27:15 PM »
I believe God was "pro-choice" when he gave the first humans the option to choose the forbidden fruit. His hope is that they wouldn't choose it, but he didn't take away their option to choose wrongly.

Though unlike those who celebrate "pro-choice" as a sacred right, God did not choose death.  He chose life.


Tell that to the people in Noah's day; or the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. God chose death.


God could have allowed the humans to live forever. God could have given them access to the Tree of Life; but their choice resulted in death.

If God allows someone to make a choice that results in death, does that mean "God chooses death"? No.  Even you note of Adam and Even that "their choice resulted in death."  And in terms of the death and resurrection of Christ, God did allow that humans might live forever. He has given us access to the Tree of Life in Christ.  In Eden, after the Fall, it was necessary to remove them from the garden and the tree lest they eat of it and live forever in a state of sin.  God wished instead to make all things new.


Why was it necessary to remove them from the garden? It was an arbitrary decision on God's part. God makes the rules. God could have allowed them to stay and live forever. God could have created the garden without the forbidden tree and removed the possibility of a wrong choice.


When parents are not attentive enough and their infant child falls into a swimming pool and dies, should it be the infant's fault for making the wrong choice; or the parent's fault for not providing enough protection for the wrong choices they know the infant will make?

I realize you often like to play the role of "devil's advocate," so I wonder at times if the questions you raise are for the sake of just a challenge, or you really believe it.  The dictionary says that arbitrary means "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle." I have a hard time thinking you believe that God does what He does simply on a "whim" or "impulse" without any "necessity, reason, or principle."  But maybe you do.  I'm not going to argue that.  God being God does not make that tenable. 

So, where are you going with the above questions?


The point was in my first statement: God is pro-choice.
"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]

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2021, 07:31:28 PM »
I believe God was "pro-choice" when he gave the first humans the option to choose the forbidden fruit. His hope is that they wouldn't choose it, but he didn't take away their option to choose wrongly.

Though unlike those who celebrate "pro-choice" as a sacred right, God did not choose death.  He chose life.


Tell that to the people in Noah's day; or the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. God chose death.


God could have allowed the humans to live forever. God could have given them access to the Tree of Life; but their choice resulted in death.

If God allows someone to make a choice that results in death, does that mean "God chooses death"? No.  Even you note of Adam and Even that "their choice resulted in death."  And in terms of the death and resurrection of Christ, God did allow that humans might live forever. He has given us access to the Tree of Life in Christ.  In Eden, after the Fall, it was necessary to remove them from the garden and the tree lest they eat of it and live forever in a state of sin.  God wished instead to make all things new.


Why was it necessary to remove them from the garden? It was an arbitrary decision on God's part. God makes the rules. God could have allowed them to stay and live forever. God could have created the garden without the forbidden tree and removed the possibility of a wrong choice.


When parents are not attentive enough and their infant child falls into a swimming pool and dies, should it be the infant's fault for making the wrong choice; or the parent's fault for not providing enough protection for the wrong choices they know the infant will make?

I realize you often like to play the role of "devil's advocate," so I wonder at times if the questions you raise are for the sake of just a challenge, or you really believe it.  The dictionary says that arbitrary means "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle." I have a hard time thinking you believe that God does what He does simply on a "whim" or "impulse" without any "necessity, reason, or principle."  But maybe you do.  I'm not going to argue that.  God being God does not make that tenable. 

So, where are you going with the above questions?


The point was in my first statement: God is pro-choice.

Okay.  I'll bite again.  Are you therefore saying that God is "pro-choice" in the same way that people describe themselves as "pro-choice"?

And as a followup, do you really believe that God's actions are "arbitrary"?
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12583
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2021, 07:35:13 PM »
I believe God was "pro-choice" when he gave the first humans the option to choose the forbidden fruit. His hope is that they wouldn't choose it, but he didn't take away their option to choose wrongly.

Though unlike those who celebrate "pro-choice" as a sacred right, God did not choose death.  He chose life.


Tell that to the people in Noah's day; or the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. God chose death.


God could have allowed the humans to live forever. God could have given them access to the Tree of Life; but their choice resulted in death.

If God allows someone to make a choice that results in death, does that mean "God chooses death"? No.  Even you note of Adam and Even that "their choice resulted in death."  And in terms of the death and resurrection of Christ, God did allow that humans might live forever. He has given us access to the Tree of Life in Christ.  In Eden, after the Fall, it was necessary to remove them from the garden and the tree lest they eat of it and live forever in a state of sin.  God wished instead to make all things new.


Why was it necessary to remove them from the garden? It was an arbitrary decision on God's part. God makes the rules. God could have allowed them to stay and live forever. God could have created the garden without the forbidden tree and removed the possibility of a wrong choice.


When parents are not attentive enough and their infant child falls into a swimming pool and dies, should it be the infant's fault for making the wrong choice; or the parent's fault for not providing enough protection for the wrong choices they know the infant will make?

I realize you often like to play the role of "devil's advocate," so I wonder at times if the questions you raise are for the sake of just a challenge, or you really believe it.  The dictionary says that arbitrary means "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle." I have a hard time thinking you believe that God does what He does simply on a "whim" or "impulse" without any "necessity, reason, or principle."  But maybe you do.  I'm not going to argue that.  God being God does not make that tenable. 

So, where are you going with the above questions?


The point was in my first statement: God is pro-choice.
Then shouldn't we be Pro-Choice on discrimination so that people have the right to choose not to discriminate rather than having the law choose for them?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

George Rahn

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2021, 07:48:31 PM »
It is interesting that this conversation exists as somebody coming to a conclusion that the issue of abortion is right or wrong.  Sinners cannot escape being sinners.  Justifying our behaviors presupposes our guilt inherited from Adam and Eve.  Whether God is pro-choice or not is a silly matter to consider seeing as we sinners are pondering the right and wrongness of it all.  God is not happy. 

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2021, 08:03:39 PM »
Okay.  I'll bite again.  Are you therefore saying that God is "pro-choice" in the same way that people describe themselves as "pro-choice"?


 I think it's the same as the ELCA folks I know use "pro-choice." (Not quite the same as Peter tries to describe it.)


It's giving people the freedom to choose even when we know that some might choose poorly.

Quote
And as a followup, do you really believe that God's actions are "arbitrary"?


Yes. The sub-definition in my dictionary is (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority. God is autocratic in his rule, power, and authority. God doesn't take a vote of the people. They would still vote, "Crucify him."
"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]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2021, 08:08:19 PM »
Then shouldn't we be Pro-Choice on discrimination so that people have the right to choose not to discriminate rather than having the law choose for them?


We choose to discriminate all the time. LCMS congregations can only call LCMS pastors. Some may even have rules that all employees need to be Lutherans. ELCA congregations are to call ELCA clergy.


If we want to be a public business or receive government funding, then there are some other rules we'd have to follow; but the choice to enter the public sphere is one we can freely make or refuse.
"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]

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
    • View Profile
Re: Tribalism and Lutheran in the U.S.
« Reply #40 on: May 11, 2021, 08:17:05 PM »
I think it's the same as the ELCA folks I know use "pro-choice." (Not quite the same as Peter tries to describe it.)


It's giving people the freedom to choose even when we know that some might choose poorly.

But to be specific, "pro-choice" for many people who support this 'right' is generally not along the lines of "go ahead and do it, even if it's a bad choice."  They defend it precisely because they believe its a choice that can be defended as good and necessary and even championed. 

God allows man to make sinful choices.  But He does not champion them.  He does not defend them. And He certainly does not support the choice to terminate unborn life as a celebration of a woman's freedom. 

Overall I think it a poor 'choice' to describe God as "pro-choice."
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI