Christian Nationalism? No

[Brian Stoffregen]

Please stop transgressing the 8th commandment, ignoring your duty not to willfully misconstrue what another has said.  You know perfectly well what he meant.  He (and I) used polyamory so as to avoid the word trap of a sexist term.  Polyamorous marriage is a commonly understood term.  I keep forgetting you're so much smarter than the rest of us because you know how to use a dictionary.

You ought to be embarrassed, but you're incapable of it apparently.

I knew perfectly well what he meant and his logic was wrong and his use of language incorrect. Had I wanted to break the 8th commandment (and perhaps a few others,) I wouldn't have responded as nicely as I did.

Google will even help someone find the differences between polyamory and polygamy. Polyamory does not involve marriages. What is sexist about polygamy (if that's what you want to object to)?

[Charles Austin]

From The NYT
The Senate on Wednesday took a crucial step toward passing landmark legislation to provide federal protections for same-sex marriages, as 12 Republicans joined Democrats to advance the Respect for Marriage Act, putting it on track to become law in the twilight of the Democratic-held Congress.
   The 62-37 vote, which came only days after the midterm elections in which Democrats retained control of the Senate but were on track to lose the House to Republicans, was a rare and notable last gasp of bipartisanship by a lame duck Congress as lawmakers looked toward an era of political gridlock in a divided Washington.
   It also signaled a remarkable shift in American politics and culture, demonstrating how same-sex marriage, once a politically divisive issue, has been so widely accepted in society that a law to protect the rights of same-sex couples across the country could gain decisive, bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House. Last summer, 47 House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a version of the bill.

[RDPreus]

From The NYT
The Senate on Wednesday took a crucial step toward passing landmark legislation to provide federal protections for same-sex marriages, as 12 Republicans joined Democrats to advance the Respect for Marriage Act, putting it on track to become law in the twilight of the Democratic-held Congress.
   The 62-37 vote, which came only days after the midterm elections in which Democrats retained control of the Senate but were on track to lose the House to Republicans, was a rare and notable last gasp of bipartisanship by a lame duck Congress as lawmakers looked toward an era of political gridlock in a divided Washington.
   It also signaled a remarkable shift in American politics and culture, demonstrating how same-sex marriage, once a politically divisive issue, has been so widely accepted in society that a law to protect the rights of same-sex couples across the country could gain decisive, bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House. Last summer, 47 House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a version of the bill.

May God have mercy on our country and deliver us from this evil that has befallen us!

[Charles Austin]

How many people engaged in same-sex marriages do you know, Pastor Preus?
How has what you call “this evil” affected you? You may readily deliver the unrepentant “them” to Lucifer, but precisely how has their marriage “befallen” you?
Maybe you have had to give up shopping at Ikea? Or stopped playing Judy Garland recordings?

[Donald_Kirchner]

How many people engaged in same-sex marriages do you know, Pastor Preus?
How has what you call “this evil” affected you? You may readily deliver the unrepentant “them” to Lucifer, but precisely how has their marriage “befallen” you?
Maybe you have had to give up shopping at Ikea? Or stopped playing Judy Garland recordings?

I think you already quoted the answer to your question.

   It also signaled a remarkable shift in American politics and culture, demonstrating how same-sex marriage, once a politically divisive issue, has been so widely accepted in society that a law to protect the rights of same-sex couples across the country could gain decisive, bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House. Last summer, 47 House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a version of the bill.

When such rampant sin becomes the norm, it affects all of society. Come on, Charles, you were an English major. John Donne...

Furthermore, due to your duplicity, ignorant comments, etc today, you really are not in a position to abuse others with snarky comments. But yeah, u be u.

[Matt Hummel]

Rev. Austin, do you believe it is wack-a-doodle to claim that one's religion forbids him from making a wedding cake designed specifically to celebrate a same sex "marriage"?

Not wack-a-doodle, but contrary to laws against discrimination. Also, baking cakes is not a religious activity.

That a Lutheran has a poor understanding of the vocation of the laity is sort of sad, actually.

[James S. Rustad]

Peter:
…being forced to participate in gay weddings on religious freedom grounds.

Me:
BS alert, unless you really think that selling a cake or renting a room makes one “participate” in a gay wedding.

I remember it said of Greg Boyington by those who served under him when asked if the stories really happened, "Pappy exaggerates."

Charles exaggerates.  The baker said repeatedly that he would sell a premade cake or other baked goods to a gay couple.  What he would not do was decorate a cake specifically for a same-sex wedding.

[James S. Rustad]

Rev. Austin, do you believe it is wack-a-doodle to claim that one's religion forbids him from making a wedding cake designed specifically to celebrate a same sex "marriage"?

Not wack-a-doodle, but contrary to laws against discrimination. Also, baking cakes is not a religious activity.

And there the other half of the tag team jumps in.

Hmm...  Maybe I should try to get a kosher butcher to cut me up some nice pork roasts.  After all, meat cutting is not a religious activity.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Rev. Austin, do you believe it is wack-a-doodle to claim that one's religion forbids him from making a wedding cake designed specifically to celebrate a same sex "marriage"?

Not wack-a-doodle, but contrary to laws against discrimination. Also, baking cakes is not a religious activity.

That a Lutheran has a poor understanding of the vocation of the laity is sort of sad, actually.

The vocation of believers includes loving our enemies. Many believers seem to forget that that's what sets us apart from the unbelievers. Even sinners can love those who love them back. Common people love neighbors and hate enemies. We are called to be different from the norm.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Rev. Austin, do you believe it is wack-a-doodle to claim that one's religion forbids him from making a wedding cake designed specifically to celebrate a same sex "marriage"?

Not wack-a-doodle, but contrary to laws against discrimination. Also, baking cakes is not a religious activity.

And there the other half of the tag team jumps in.

Hmm...  Maybe I should try to get a kosher butcher to cut me up some nice pork roasts.  After all, meat cutting is not a religious activity.

Well, if you can find a kosher butcher who has pork on hand, you might try that.

On the other hand, he just might; because according to the Orthodox understanding, Gentiles are not bound to the dietary laws; nor the Sabbath restrictions. Orthodox Jews readily let Gentiles do things for them that they can't do for themselves; like light the furnace on the Sabbath, or drive them to the hospital on the Sabbath. There are almost new butchers in our area - and I think that there are even fewer Orthodox Jews. (There is no synagogue in town.) So, I can't check if a kosher butcher would sell pork to a Gentile. Perhaps you could.

[MaddogLutheran]

Please stop transgressing the 8th commandment, ignoring your duty not to willfully misconstrue what another has said.  You know perfectly well what he meant.  He (and I) used polyamory so as to avoid the word trap of a sexist term.  Polyamorous marriage is a commonly understood term.  I keep forgetting you're so much smarter than the rest of us because you know how to use a dictionary.

You ought to be embarrassed, but you're incapable of it apparently.

I knew perfectly well what he meant and his logic was wrong and his use of language incorrect. Had I wanted to break the 8th commandment (and perhaps a few others,) I wouldn't have responded as nicely as I did.

Google will even help someone find the differences between polyamory and polygamy. Polyamory does not involve marriages. What is sexist about polygamy (if that's what you want to object to)?

Doubling down on ignoring your obligation under the 8th commandment.  As I said yesterday on another post, when you look around wondering who the Pharisee is...

But there it is:  once again, you make a claim of absolute truth, correct/incorrect definition (the dictionary again!) even though you periodically deny any such objective truth exists.  What right do you have to say someone else's "logic was wrong"?  "His use of language incorrect"?  You are breaking the 8th by not actually understanding the point being mode, even as you jump to correct it as wrong.

The deeper meaning (for me) of calling them legalized polyamorous marriage is the advocacy of the people who claim to believe in tolerance.  "Love is love" they tell us, nothing else matters.  That's why someone might choose to refer to that prospect as polyamorous marriage, because it's all about the love.  Except, as many of us having been saying for years, civil marriage was never about love.  And ecclesial marriage was about more than love (and certainly not eros).  It's why Justice Kennedy's judicial reasoning for legalizing same-sex marriage is a farce.  The dissents describe well that the justification given could also apply to plural marriage, no limiting principle beyond I say so.  Today you didn't, in a few years who knows?  Someday we may have to tolerate plural marriage, because the people who arbitrate tolerance say so, and they need the government to recognize their love because it's wrong to limit love you bigot.

As for the sexist terminology I mentioned before, you certainly would have jumped all over anyone who made the "mistake" of calling multiple partner marriage polygamy.  This is why the regular bad faith you exhibit here is obscene, not just pedantic.  You of all people have no standing to object to another person's supposedly incorrect logic.

[Charles Austin]

Once again, Mr. Spatz, you seem less concerned about what was said then who said it. Wouldn’t your days be nicer if you just ignored Brian’s postings?

[Dan Fienen]

Once again, Mr. Spatz, you seem less concerned about what was said then who said it. Wouldn’t your days be nicer if you just ignored Brian’s postings?

Perhaps he is simply following your example, you insist that know who posted something is of paramount importance.

[Fletch1]

Once again, Mr. Spatz, you seem less concerned about what was said then who said it. Wouldn’t your days be nicer if you just ignored Brian’s postings?

Perhaps Mr. Spatz, thinks a Diet of Worms is important.  Would not we all be much better off if all Christians were orthodox, as Mr. Spatz appears to be?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Please stop transgressing the 8th commandment, ignoring your duty not to willfully misconstrue what another has said.  You know perfectly well what he meant.  He (and I) used polyamory so as to avoid the word trap of a sexist term.  Polyamorous marriage is a commonly understood term.  I keep forgetting you're so much smarter than the rest of us because you know how to use a dictionary.

You ought to be embarrassed, but you're incapable of it apparently.

I knew perfectly well what he meant and his logic was wrong and his use of language incorrect. Had I wanted to break the 8th commandment (and perhaps a few others,) I wouldn't have responded as nicely as I did.

Google will even help someone find the differences between polyamory and polygamy. Polyamory does not involve marriages. What is sexist about polygamy (if that's what you want to object to)?

Doubling down on ignoring your obligation under the 8th commandment.  As I said yesterday on another post, when you look around wondering who the Pharisee is...

But there it is:  once again, you make a claim of absolute truth, correct/incorrect definition (the dictionary again!) even though you periodically deny any such objective truth exists.  What right do you have to say someone else's "logic was wrong"?  "His use of language incorrect"?  You are breaking the 8th by not actually understanding the point being mode, even as you jump to correct it as wrong.

So, when a member in a Bible study said that "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible; I should just let that mistake pass? Would you? (I didn't. I told her, "That's not in the Bible.")

When a speaker talked about reaching out and grabbing the salvation that Jesus offers us, should I correct that (semi-)Pelagianism? Would you?

The deeper meaning (for me) of calling them legalized polyamorous marriage is the advocacy of the people who claim to believe in tolerance.  "Love is love" they tell us, nothing else matters.  That's why someone might choose to refer to that prospect as polyamorous marriage, because it's all about the love.  Except, as many of us having been saying for years, civil marriage was never about love.  And ecclesial marriage was about more than love (and certainly not eros).  It's why Justice Kennedy's judicial reasoning for legalizing same-sex marriage is a farce.  The dissents describe well that the justification given could also apply to plural marriage, no limiting principle beyond I say so.  Today you didn't, in a few years who knows?  Someday we may have to tolerate plural marriage, because the people who arbitrate tolerance say so, and they need the government to recognize their love because it's wrong to limit love you bigot.

I have stated for all 43 years of my ordained ministry that marriages are not centered on love. Marriage is making a public (and legal) commitment to each other. That's why I make a clear distinction between polyamory and polygamy. (I also have stressed the distinction, as an author makes, between sex.love, and infatuation.)

As for the sexist terminology I mentioned before, you certainly would have jumped all over anyone who made the "mistake" of calling multiple partner marriage polygamy.  This is why the regular bad faith you exhibit here is obscene, not just pedantic.  You of all people have no standing to object to another person's supposedly incorrect logic.

Whatever gave you the idea that I would jump all over you for correctly using the word "polygamy"? I have advised some posters that what they are writing about is really polygyny. That is what was practiced in the Old Testament. Men (if they could afford it) could have multiple wives. In addition, they could also own and have sex with concubines and slaves.