Heteroromantic

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen persists his usual way:
Would you say that since some yahoos take any talk of sin and use it to justify violence, I should just shut up about homosexuality?
I comment:
No, but I might six just let you back off a little bit until you have had some considerable and personal experience with real life homosexuals. Especially with  those who profess the Christian faith.

Pastor Fienen:
Do you approve of burning and looting businesses, police precincts, court houses? Some have taken talk about the sin of racism as justification for violence and insurrection. Since some use that as a justification for violence, or because of the violence that has happened to them or people they know take any talk about the evil of racism as a prelude to violence, should we just not talk about racism?
Me:
No, I do not approve of such things. But that is an incredibly inapt attempt to change the focus, and I will not be deceived.

[Dan Fienen]

We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals.

Why?

Because we are not Pharisees. See my comment about logs and splinters.

You make a good point, but in talking about heterosexual sins, should we not also talk homosexual sins?

Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.

Who has suggested otherwise?

This whole discussion seems to be about their sin.

Must all types of sins be discussed whenever any type of sin is discussed. Much has been discussed here about the sin of racism. But rarely if ever when the sin of racism has been discussed did we also in the same discussion include a discussion of sexual sins, property sins, greed, slander, false testimony, and the whole myriad other sins that people commit.  Why must anytime homosexual sins be discussed we must also in that discussion discuss other sins?

And, again, you fail to properly distinguish Law and Gospel.

I don't think I have ever distinguished Law and Gospel in the Waltherian/LCMS way.

I don't doubt it. The Watherian distinction between Law and Gospel is an important part of LCMS theology. Walther in general I have observed you and Charles dismiss as unimportant and unworthy of consideration. Anyway way that our churches differ. Another reason that we have trouble discussing theology. We approach theology differently and you tend to simply dismiss what is important to us as frivolous. As usual, you two want to set the basis and terms of discussion and rule out anything that does not fit with your thinking.

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Fienen persists his usual way:
Would you say that since some yahoos take any talk of sin and use it to justify violence, I should just shut up about homosexuality?
I comment:
No, but I might six just let you back off a little bit until you have had some considerable and personal experience with real life homosexuals. Especially with  those who profess the Christian faith.

Pastor Fienen:
Do you approve of burning and looting businesses, police precincts, court houses? Some have taken talk about the sin of racism as justification for violence and insurrection. Since some use that as a justification for violence, or because of the violence that has happened to them or people they know take any talk about the evil of racism as a prelude to violence, should we just not talk about racism?
Me:
No, I do not approve of such things. But that is an incredibly inapt attempt to change the focus, and I will not be deceived.

You really object to people who after being admonished by you persist in disagreeing don't you? I persist in my usual way because you have not convinced me that you are correct and I and people like me are always wrong.


Are sexual sins so different than other sins, like violence or racism, that they must be discussed according to different rules of discourse that do not apply to other sins?


You want to set up, shall we say, guidelines for discussing homosexuality taking into account how some have abused positions that we have taken, and bad experiences that some have had because of that abuse of our positions.


My question is whether those same considerations should be taken into account when discussing, for example, racism. But you accuse me of changing focus and trying to deceive you. I am not deceived by your special pleading.

[Donald_Kirchner]

We address our sinfulness. If one is going to talk about sins of homosexuals, then there should also be talk about sins of heterosexuals.

Why?

Because we are not Pharisees. See my comment about logs and splinters.

Keeping focused without going off on tangents is not pharisaical. It's a good thing . You should work on it. Pulling a tu quoque on oneself is far from helpful.

Language that implies: "You are sinners (and I am not)," is the judgmentalism that does not help spread the gospel.

Who has suggested otherwise?

This whole discussion seems to be about their sin.

How does that imply that we are not sinners? You misconvert that particular proposition about their sin.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen goes on:
You really object to people who after being admonished by you persist in disagreeing don't you? I persist in my usual way because you have not convinced me that you are correct and I and people like me are always wrong.
I comment:
I am not trying to convince you of anything, having concluded that is an impossibility. I have never said you were always wrong. That is another way in which you like to construct your role as victim.

Pastor Fienen:
Are sexual sins so different than other sins, like violence or racism, that they must be discussed according to different rules of discourse that do not apply to other sins?
Me:
You tell me. It is your crowd that always raises the sexual sins.

Pastor Fienen:
You want to set up, shall we say, guidelines for discussing homosexuality taking into account how some have abused positions that we have taken, and bad experiences that some have had because of that abuse of our positions.
Me:
No, I do not want to set up any guidelines. And I do declare that some have taken your position to catastrophic extremes. But I simply state that. I don’t expect you to agree with it. Gave up on that sometime ago.

Pastor Fienen:
My question is whether those same considerations should be taken into account when discussing, for example, racism. But you accuse me of changing focus and trying to deceive you. I am not deceived by your special pleading.
Me:
We had that discussion on systemic racism sometime ago and in another thread of discussion. This is not that thread of discussion.
And discussing racism is not the same as discussing sexual morality. (Now you can make all your comparisons as to why it is. But I doubt that you will convince me.)

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Fienen goes on:
You really object to people who after being admonished by you persist in disagreeing don't you? I persist in my usual way because you have not convinced me that you are correct and I and people like me are always wrong.
I comment:
I am not trying to convince you of anything, having concluded that is an impossibility. I have never said you were always wrong. That is another way in which you like to construct your role as victim.

A small point, you have on several occasions accused me of holding that if you said that the sky was blue or that the sun would rise in the East I would consider you wrong. Has that been another way in which you like to construct your role as a victim?

[Charles Austin]

And I have always said that you will take the last word. So here you have it. A gift from me.

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Fienen:
You want to set up, shall we say, guidelines for discussing homosexuality taking into account how some have abused positions that we have taken, and bad experiences that some have had because of that abuse of our positions.
Me:
No, I do not want to set up any guidelines. And I do declare that some have taken your position to catastrophic extremes. But I simply state that. I don’t expect you to agree with it. Gave up on that sometime ago.

Oh, I fully agree that some have taken a portion of the same position that I take and pushed it to catastrophic extremes. That happens to just about every position that any reasonable person takes on any topic. Some have even taken some positions that you would agree to and pushed them to catastrophic extremes. Those who are looking for an excuse for violence or extremism do not necessarily invalidate the basic and reasonable position they have distorted.


Again, looking at another area of society. You have stated, and quite correctly, that racial minorities have been treated in America very badly, that much resentment has understandably resulted, and especially when a current event looks to be just more of the same bad old stuff, it is reasonable that people will be angry and resentful. All that I understand and agree with. Some have taken that and pushed it to the extreme of justifying rioting, looting, destruction of property (even property belonging to members of the oppressed group), assault and killing. You have stated that you deplore the violence. But would you agree that extreme behavior does not delegitimize the basic understandable and necessary call for justice. Do you agree that the basic call for justice is not nullified by the extreme behavior that some have taken in its name?   

[Dan Fienen]

And I have always said that you will take the last word. So here you have it. A gift from me.

The last word is neither yours to give or mine to take. We are in a discussion, a give and take. If you choose to respond to something I say, that is your choice. If you choose to end your participation, that is your choice. The same for me. If the moderators decide that one or the other is to make the last post on a subject and close the thread, that is their gift and prerogative.


Your post here, as you have posted before is no gift, though you claim the ability to make it a gift. Rather it is a rather transparent attempt on you part to be manipulative, and denigrate what I say. You imply that I do not know when I am beaten and so grimly continue to beat a dead horse and respond even when I have clearly lost. 


As to who won, I am still waiting to see the score posted by the East German judge.

[peter_speckhard]

And I have always said that you will take the last word. So here you have it. A gift from me.

When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”

[Dan Fienen]

By the by, not that anybody asked, I cannot remember the last time that I preached on the sin of homosexuality. I don't necessarily even include it when I talk about a laundry list of sins that some people commit. In my congregation that consists almost entirely of retirees, I rarely bring sex into my sermons.


If we are going to talk about people who are always talking about sexual sins, how about people who are always on the look out for people who don't use the properly self-designated pronouns in their speech, are quick to point out the evils of heteronormativity and see its expression every where, or scorn those who are so gauche as to be cis-gendered.

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes, somewhat off topic but he is the moderator:
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
I say:
Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes, somewhat off topic but he is the moderator:
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
I say:
Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?

Not really. Just pointing out that I notice it to head off all the reported posts and private messages from people in the ELCA who can’t believe the forum still tolerates your presence and think I must not be paying attention. I do pay attention.

[Brian Stoffregen]

You make a good point, but in talking about heterosexual sins, should we not also talk homosexual sins?

Well, if there are no homosexuals in the congregation; why would you need to talk about homosexual sins?

Must all types of sins be discussed whenever any type of sin is discussed. Much has been discussed here about the sin of racism. But rarely if ever when the sin of racism has been discussed did we also in the same discussion include a discussion of sexual sins, property sins, greed, slander, false testimony, and the whole myriad other sins that people commit.  Why must anytime homosexual sins be discussed we must also in that discussion discuss other sins?

If there are no homosexuals in the congregation, why bring up sins related to homosexual behaviors. Or, do you just comment about specific sins that don't really apply to the people in the pews. (Granted, it's much safer to talk about the sins of those other people.)

I don't doubt it. The Watherian distinction between Law and Gospel is an important part of LCMS theology. Walther in general I have observed you and Charles dismiss as unimportant and unworthy of consideration. Anyway way that our churches differ. Another reason that we have trouble discussing theology. We approach theology differently and you tend to simply dismiss what is important to us as frivolous. As usual, you two want to set the basis and terms of discussion and rule out anything that does not fit with your thinking.

Granted. We have different approaches to scriptures, to the Confessions, to ecumenism, to ordination, etc. Another difference is that I will talk about such things as "differences," rather than stating, "we're right and you're wrong."

[Donald_Kirchner]

Peter writes, somewhat off topic but he is the moderator:
When you give the gift of the last word, you don’t announce it. Announcing the gift is itself a refusal to give the gift. And you have never, ever let anyone else have the last word. You threaten to leave, you say you’re done here, etc. etc. but you never just ignore a thread or let something stand without comment from you. You can’t even have no comment without posting, “No comment.”
I say:
Drives you nuts, doesn’t it?

No, Charles, it doesn't. You simply pride yourself at being the proverbial pain in the tuchus, whining to Dick whenever you demand that threads be closed down, want a post(s) deleted because you think you were treated without the respect you think you deserve,  demean those with whom you disagree, and continually call people stupid. And Dick appears to accommodate you.

It is what it is.