Are Most Lutherans Conservatives Or Liberals?

[PACKY]

Out of Curiosity I was wondering if the majority of Lutherans lean one way or another in the political spectrum of America?
Please post what synod you belong too...
THANKS :wave:

[RedneckAnglican]

actually I'm a Libertarian...although some of the folks in this room would say I'm not conservative enough... I am pretty conservative...I'm ELCA...and a member of the WordAlone Network...

[GlowingFirefly]

I'm mostly a liberal. Also ELCA. :)

[Zoomer]

I am conservative but do not align myself with a polictical party. I am LCMS.

[PACKY]

Very Conservative Libertarian/republican

[Protoevangel]

I am conservative, but I am not a republican. I used to be a card-carying Libertarian, but no more.

[KagomeShuko]

I'm apolitical, but probably liberal. . .you won't see me really agreeing with Democrats or Republicans - or affliating myself with any political party. I don't care if others do or not, my main concern is my faith and theology. . .and I tend to vote based on issues, not on the people running.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[SPALATIN]

I am conservative, but I am not a republican. I used to be a card-carying Libertarian, but no more.

ChiRho will be disappointed. ;)

[Lutherrunner]

yes

[AngelusSax]

I am pretty conservative. I'm ELCA, due to the fact that one of my very few liberal traits is, to me, a pretty big deal, and it involves women in a pulpit.

[Phoebe]

yes


I concur.

[CSMR]

gtsecc I see you've voted on the poll. Are you a Lutheran now? Good for you! :D

[PACKY]

yes

yes..what? :scratch:

[Lutherrunner]

yes..what? :scratch:

Yes, most Lutherans are conservatives or liberals......silly......;)

Well, some could be moderates though.....I don't think there are any radicals, although there could be some.....hmmm....what would a radical, militant Lutheran be like?.....the official Lutheran republic would be sure to have plenty of Pabst, Polka and keilbasa though.....

[AquariusWolf]

I am very liberal and a registered Democrat. I am a member of the ELCiC.

[Treestand]

I have a t-shirt that says: Christian
American
Heterosexual
Pro-gun
Conservative
Any questions?
I am a USMC veteran of the Viet Nam war. I am a member of the WELS.
I tend to vote issues and not individuals. I pray before every election for the Lord's guidance. Have I voted for a liberal democrat? If they are the right person for the job. Have I voted for a Republican? If they are the right person for the job. This , of course, depends on how they address the issues and what their track record has been.
First and foremost, I am a child of the Lord. All else takes a distant second place.

[PACKY]

Yes, most Lutherans are conservatives or liberals......silly......;)

Well, some could be moderates though.....I don't think there are any radicals, although there could be some.....hmmm....what would a radical, militant Lutheran be like?.....the official Lutheran republic would be sure to have plenty of Pabst, Polka and keilbasa though.....

The official Lutheran Republic..LOL I live In Wisconsin, I think that is the official Lutheran republic :eek: We have plenty of Beer, Polka is the state dance and Keilbasa is a part of the food groups along with cheese. :P

[SPALATIN]

The official Lutheran Republic..LOL I live In Wisconsin, I think that is the official Lutheran republic :eek: We have plenty of Beer, Polka is the state dance and Keilbasa is a part of the food groups along with cheese. :P

Yeah but your football choices are too liberal in that you probably root for dem Packers.;)

[ChiRho]

See Signature Below.

[RedneckAnglican]

The official Lutheran Republic..LOL I live In Wisconsin, I think that is the official Lutheran republic :eek: We have plenty of Beer, Polka is the state dance and Keilbasa is a part of the food groups along with cheese. :P

I would love to live in the "offical Lutheran Republic", but I live in Texas...I haven't seen 2 snow-flakes glued together in about 20 years...when we see that much Ice...we start looking for tequilla and lime...

Yeah but your football choices are too liberal in that you probably root for dem Packers.;)

Then I'm REALLY not moving there...I'm not giving up my Saints for anybody...Who Dat?...

[PACKY]

See Signature Below.

I am a Very conservative Libertarian, ( hence the elephant by my name) I voted for numerous libby's in local elections, and helped with their campaigns.

www.lp.org (http://www.lp.org)

nuff said...!

[Flipper]

yes

Yeppers

[revjpw]

Politically, I myself am a registered member of the Conservative party.

Someone on here said that they vote for issues instead of persons. As do I, which is why I will never vote for a democrat. Our political system has become so polarized. To be a Democrat or Republican means that you hold to the party lines. The Democratic party line is pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-gay, and puts the "rights" of animals ahead of human infants. The Republican party line places more emphasis on big business and the wealthiest percentage of the population, sometimes to the detriment of the working class.

The perfect political position is somewhere in the middle. Socially conservative, anti-abortion, pro-life, an advocate for small business and entrepeneurial enterprises (which employs nearly 80% of all workers in America), an advocate for the poor, working poor, and middle class, giving tax breaks to the ones who work the most, not the ones who make the most.
Unfortunately, such an animal does not exist (at least not yet, anyway).

Theologically, I am very conservative. I hold to the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God and the only source and norm of teaching in the Church. I also hold that everything in Scripture is just as relevant today as when it was written. I am a strong advocate of the historical liturgy :liturgy: and hymnody of the Church. (Blame that on my RCC upbringing:eek: .)

Lutherans by nature are conservative. "Liberal" Lutherans are an odd breed.

[PACKY]

If You Voted Can You Please Make Sure To Include Your Synod Affliation...

Thanks!!!!

[BigNorsk]

I find the question a bit twisted because Republicans and Democrats do not equal Conservatives and Liberals.

To be conservative is to favor less government, to be liberal, more. Since I favor the historic programs of the Democrats I am Democrat. I believe Social Security is a good thing, should be changed somewhat to reduce it's size, but not private accounts, I believe we should fully socialize medicine instead of the 70 to 80% we currently have.

I do not favor the bloated government that results when we give the wealthy more welfare than the poor. I do not favor most of the deregulation policies that have come up which have mostly been proposals for government to get out of the way of crooks.

I favor criminal laws to protect people from other people. I do not favor laws attempting to control people's thoughts. I also favor laws protecting people from the government and from corporations.

Historically, I am a member of the Non-Partisan League. Due to the way things are locally here, I am active in the Democratic-NPL to the point of being party secretary. I am active with the intention of influencing decisions early on in the hope that elections would not give the people the choice of voting for our crook or their crook. I have not always been successful in that desire.

Marv

[alabaster jar]

I would say I live rather 'conservatively' but have some 'liberal' ideas. Politically, I'm somewhere between Repulican and Libertarian. LCMS

[PACKY]

I find the question a bit twisted because Republicans and Democrats do not equal Conservatives and Liberals.

To be conservative is to favor less government, to be liberal, more. Since I favor the historic programs of the Democrats I am Democrat. I believe Social Security is a good thing, should be changed somewhat to reduce it's size, but not private accounts, I believe we should fully socialize medicine instead of the 70 to 80% we currently have.

I do not favor the bloated government that results when we give the wealthy more welfare than the poor. I do not favor most of the deregulation policies that have come up which have mostly been proposals for government to get out of the way of crooks.

I favor criminal laws to protect people from other people. I do not favor laws attempting to control people's thoughts. I also favor laws protecting people from the government and from corporations.

Historically, I am a member of the Non-Partisan League. Due to the way things are locally here, I am active in the Democratic-NPL to the point of being party secretary. I am active with the intention of influencing decisions early on in the hope that elections would not give the people the choice of voting for our crook or their crook. I have not always been successful in that desire.

Marv

I wanted to see where people stand on the political spectrum, be it Liberal or conservative, I didnt include a Indy or other option as I wanted the Poll to be more or less cut and dry. As far as Including political parties and political affiliations so be it.

[Protoevangel]

I saw the Republican and Democrat as being examples of the choices, not necessarily as the choices themselves.

[SPALATIN]

I would love to live in the "offical Lutheran Republic", but I live in Texas...I haven't seen 2 snow-flakes glued together in about 20 years...when we see that much Ice...we start looking for tequilla and lime...



Then I'm REALLY not moving there...I'm not giving up my Saints for anybody...Who Dat?...

VIKINGS WILL RULE (someday);)

[IowaLutheran]

Someone on here said that they vote for issues instead of persons. As do I, which is why I will never vote for a democrat. Our political system has become so polarized. To be a Democrat or Republican means that you hold to the party lines. The Democratic party line is pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-gay, and puts the "rights" of animals ahead of human infants. The Republican party line places more emphasis on big business and the wealthiest percentage of the population, sometimes to the detriment of the working class.



Are you not aware that there are pro-life Democrats?

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050321a.asp

[SPALATIN]

Are you not aware that there are pro-life Democrats?

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050321a.asp

Have they got a different candidate than the other Democrats?

[Protoevangel]

Are you not aware that there are pro-life Democrats?

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050321a.aspHi Iowa,

:scratch: I don't think he said anything about individual Democrats.

The Democratic party line is pro-abortion...


Just like if I say the ELCA is pro-abortion, I do not make any statement about the individual members.

[PACKY]

If You Voted Can You Please Make Sure To Include Your Synod Affliation...

Thanks!!!!

THANKS

[Protoevangel]

THANKSE-L-C-A...
... It's fun to stay at the ... E-L-C-Aaaaaay!

:D

[IowaLutheran]

Have they got a different candidate than the other Democrats?

I don't think I understand your question - The article gives specific names of pro-life democrats who hold public office. What do you mean by "different candidate"?

[stlsweeti]

I couldn't vote because I'm a conservative democrat and that option wasn't listed.

Editing to add I'm LCMS

[stlsweeti]

Are you not aware that there are pro-life Democrats?

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050321a.asp

Ditto....I'm on of them and there many others. Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean they are soft on every issue. I personally hold conservative views on a few issues you listed.

[PACKY]

I couldn't vote because I'm a conservative democrat and that option wasn't listed.

Editing to add I'm LCMS

you say you are a conservative then vote as a conservative, I am not worried about political party affiliation.

[SPALATIN]

I don't think I understand your question - The article gives specific names of pro-life democrats who hold public office. What do you mean by "different candidate"?

What I mean is this when it comes time to select a leader for the next Presidential election in 2008 what will you do should your party nominate a "Pro-choice" candidate? Will you vote republican or will you and the party split and nominate a different candidate?

[revjpw]

Are you not aware that there are pro-life Democrats?

Then why are they Democrats?


BTW - LCMS

[revjpw]

I better cool it with the "Village Lutherans" thing.

Some people around here are very touchy.

[AngelusSax]

LOL... The Village Lutherans? Whoa!


Then why are they Democrats?

Maybe because they agree with Democratic party lines on most everything, but abortion is one of the very few they don't? And maybe they're hoping to change the party line from inside...?

[PACKY]

I dont want to start a argument between anyone by asking this question but which synod is viewed as being the most liberal and which one is viwed as being the most conservative?

[KagomeShuko]

ELCA is definitely viewed as the most liberal (and for reasons I'm ELCA, at that)

WELS/ELS are probably viewed as the most conservative with LCMS falling right in the middle.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[revjpw]

Maybe because they agree with Democratic party lines on most everything, but abortion is one of the very few they don't? And maybe they're hoping to change the party line from inside...?

Let's pray that they are successful.:prayer:

On the issue of abortion, I have to take my hat off to one Roman Catholic priest who recently stated during a homily that there is no issue more important than abortion right now in our politics. He basically said that regardless of what a candidate holds to on other issues, if he or she is pro-abortion, a Christian cannot vote for him or her and still be a Christian.
Perhaps harsh words, but someone needed to say them. :amen:

[revjpw]

I dont want to start a argument between anyone by asking this question but which synod is viewed as being the most liberal and which one is viwed as being the most conservative?

The Wisconsin Synod (WELS) and the ELS are the most conservative of the major Lutheran synods in North America. The ELCA is the most liberal. The LCMS falls in between, but relatively close to the WELS.

[PACKY]

The Wisconsin Synod (WELS) and the ELS are the most conservative of the major Lutheran synods in North America. The ELCA is the most liberal. The LCMS falls in between, but relatively close to the WELS.

besides the actual synod web sites is there a site that breaks down the different idealogies of the synods?

[ChiRho]

besides the actual synod web sites is there a site that breaks down the different idealogies of the synods?


There might be, but why not utilize the actual websites of those claiming the various ideologies?

If you wanted to find out about Lutheranism, would you ask a Baptist?

[CrossWiseMag]

On the issue of abortion, I have to take my hat off to one Roman Catholic priest who recently stated during a homily that there is no issue more important than abortion right now in our politics. He basically said that regardless of what a candidate holds to on other issues, if he or she is pro-abortion, a Christian cannot vote for him or her and still be a Christian.

Actually, I think that was the new pope, formerly Joseph Ratzinger. If that's the one you're thinking of, his statement was a little more nuanced than that. He actually said that a Christian cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate based upon that issue. If you vote for Ted Kennedy based on his great hair or fiscal policy, that's apparently okay. At least that's how I read the statement.

[SPALATIN]

On the issue of abortion, I have to take my hat off to one Roman Catholic priest who recently stated during a homily that there is no issue more important than abortion right now in our politics. He basically said that regardless of what a candidate holds to on other issues, if he or she is pro-abortion, a Christian cannot vote for him or her and still be a Christian.

Actually, I think that was the new pope, formerly Joseph Ratzinger. If that's the one you're thinking of, his statement was a little more nuanced than that. He actually said that a Christian cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate based upon that issue. If you vote for Ted Kennedy based on his great hair or fiscal policy, that's apparently okay. At least that's how I read the statement.

If Ted Kennedy's Hair were the only issue, I think that the state of Mass would have voted for someone else long ago. ;)

[Protoevangel]

Actually, I think that was the new pope, formerly Joseph Ratzinger. If that's the one you're thinking of, his statement was a little more nuanced than that. He actually said that a Christian cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate based upon that issue. If you vote for Ted Kennedy based on his great hair or fiscal policy, that's apparently okay. At least that's how I read the statement.His statement was intended to state that it could possibly be licit to vote for a candidate that was pro-abortion if and only when all the other candidates held political standards that were more intrinsically unjust and evil.

It was Ratzinger's language that confused many. When Ratzinger said, A Catholic may vote for a pro-abortion politician only "in the presence of proportionate reasons", this has to be understood in the context of the teaching of the Catholic church. The Catholic church teaches that the direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is intrinsically evil. Therefore, to licitly vote for any pro-choice candidate, either all candidates would have to be in favor of killing babys in equal degree, or the candidate with the superior position on abortion would have to support evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond the genocide of 1.3 million abortions every year.

[revjpw]

Actually, I think that was the new pope, formerly Joseph Ratzinger. If that's the one you're thinking of, his statement was a little more nuanced than that. He actually said that a Christian cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate based upon that issue. If you vote for Ted Kennedy based on his great hair or fiscal policy, that's apparently okay. At least that's how I read the statement.

It wasn't Ratzinger. It was a priest on EWTN who basically stated that there is no issue that can overshadow abortion. Period. Even if a candidate has many favorable positions on other issues (or even nice hair! ^_^ ), but is pro-abortion, that trumps everything else. No issue can be more important than abortion, and no Christian should vote that way.

That view was also held by the current Bishop of the Diocese of St. Louis when he was in Minnesota (I believe, or maybe he was in Wisconsin - I don't remember). His stance was that he would not commune any Roman Catholic politician who was pro-abortion. After his arrival in St. Louis he changed his tune a little bit. (St. Louis has it's share of liberal Catholics)

[Flipper]

Archbishop Burke is from a diocese in Wisconsin. Since he's been in St. Louis, he hasn't changed his tune one bit - at least from what I've seen. He's also not very well liked here for a lot of reasons, his stance on pro choice politicians communing is just one of many.

[Protoevangel]

It wasn't Ratzinger. It was a priest on EWTN who basically stated that there is no issue that can overshadow abortion. Period. Even if a candidate has many favorable positions on other issues (or even nice hair! ^_^ ), but is pro-abortion, that trumps everything else. No issue can be more important than abortion, and no Christian should vote that way.

That view was also held by the current Bishop of the Diocese of St. Louis when he was in Minnesota (I believe, or maybe he was in Wisconsin - I don't remember). His stance was that he would not commune any Roman Catholic politician who was pro-abortion. After his arrival in St. Louis he changed his tune a little bit. (St. Louis has it's share of liberal Catholics)I think I like Ratzinger's position a little better. He leaves the possibility to vote for Candidate A, who is pro-abortion, if the only other option is Candidate B, who supports unleashing a biological agent that will kill everyone of Asian descent, or who wants to wantonly nuke the entire African continent. But under normal circumstances, I would absolutely agree that voting for a candidate that you know is pro-abortion is an evil act in itself. No other current or realistically imaginable issues on the political field is more grave than the murder of millions of innocent lives every year.

[Flipper]

I would absolutely agree that voting for a candidate that you know is pro-abortion is an evil act in itself. No other current or realistically imaginable issues on the political field is more grave than the murder of millions of innocent lives every year.

I disagree. I think abortion is one of the biggest issues, but there are other issues that are just as big involving people already born.

- Children who are homeless
- Rape/Murder/Genocide of millions in Africa (I guess since it isn't in the US, we shouldn't be bothered by it).
- HIV/Aids
- Children living in poverty
- Children who don't have parents

Just a few examples.

[CrossWiseMag]

I disagree. I think abortion is one of the biggest issues, but there are other issues that are just as big involving people already born.

- Children who are homeless
- Rape/Murder/Genocide of millions in Africa (I guess since it isn't in the US, we shouldn't be bothered by it).
- HIV/Aids
- Children living in poverty
- Children who don't have parents

Just a few examples.

Here's an ethical system that is either devaluing human life, or declaring "fetuses" as less than human. Think through the consequences of declaring these other issues "just as big" as abortion:

Putting a child in an orphanage is the ethical equivalent of killing it before it's born.

Letting a child live on the street is the ethical equivalent of killing it before it's born.

Given the choice between killing an unborn child or letting it live life as a poor person, it is equally acceptable to do either.

As for the red herrings of HIV/AIDS, genocide, etc., I'm pretty sure no politicians are out there campaigning on a pro-genocide platform.

[Flipper]

Here's an ethical system that is either devaluing human life, or declaring "fetuses" as less than human. Think through the consequences of declaring these other issues "just as big" as abortion:

Putting a child in an orphanage is the ethical equivalent of killing it before it's born.

Letting a child live on the street is the ethical equivalent of killing it before it's born.

Given the choice between killing an unborn child or letting it live life as a poor person, it is equally acceptable to do either.

Seeing what happens to children who fall through the cracks (and I've seen A LOT of children who fall through the cracks, in ways are worse than what the media portrays, and the media seldom touches), in my mind, it is ethically similar.

If you are going to be Pro-Life -- you need to be pro-life-after-birth too. You just can't be one, and say the other is less important. It diminishes the reason for being pro-life in the first place. It's like saying to the child, "Ok, you're born...buh by."

In other words, to me, ALL life is just as precious as the unborn.

Therefore, what do I do, vote for someone who is pro-choice, but for legislation that helps children in need. Or, do I vote for someone who is pro-life, but wants to cut legislation that helps children in need. I have yet to see someone who is running on a pro-life platform, and is willing to enact legislation that will help children in need.

See my delimma and frustration?????

I'm pretty sure no politicians are out there campaigning on a pro-genocide platform.

No, probably not. Rather, they focus our attention to a different area of the world, you know, like the Mid-East, probably hoping that we don't notice it.

[Protoevangel]

I disagree. I think abortion is one of the biggest issues, but there are other issues that are just as big involving people already born.

- Children who are homeless
- Rape/Murder/Genocide of millions in Africa (I guess since it isn't in the US, we shouldn't be bothered by it).That was unnececerilly snide. Of course we should be bothered by it.
- HIV/Aids
- Children living in poverty
- Children who don't have parents

Just a few examples.Important issues all, no doubt Flipper. We should all be concerned, and urging our representatives to act on these issues, while STILL holding unwaveringly to supporting the basic right to live for our most innocent and helpless.

If there was a candidate that suggested that the issues you listed above were right and good, (that we should force children into poverty, etc.) then your argument might hold some value. But no candidate does this, therefore the argument is specius, a strawman.

Your list even, is not the limit of things that should concern us, either Flipper. What about the growing worldwide child/woman sex-slave trade as just one small example? There is a lot that should concern us Flipper, but are you really suggesting that any of these issues are equally as grave as murdering thousands of innocent babies every single day -- under the guise of 'choice'?

[CrossWiseMag]

The dilemma only exists because of the presuppositions behind the ethical system you've created, Flipper. Take a look, using one of the examples off your list. For this exercise, let's look at "children in poverty."

You have equated the ethical problem of "children in poverty" with the ethical problem of "abortion." Leaving aside the economic issue of whether all children can ever be lifted out of poverty, let's look at where the underlying assumptions in your system lead us, logically.

First, some parameters. I think we can agree as Christians that abortion is murder (leaving aside exceptions). Let's talk about good ol' garden-variety elective abortions.

Second, I think we can agree as Christians that an unborn baby is equally as human as a baby that is born. There is nothing about the process of passing through the birth canal that bestows humanity on a person.

Now, let's take those assumptions and plug them into the ethical system you've laid out. (And not just you -- but many others who vote for abortion-rights candidates.)

1. If a child is living in poverty, that is equally as bad as if he were aborted. This is what's ultimately meant by words like, "other problems that are just as serious."

2. Therefore, killing the child (remember -- we all agree that abortion is "killing") is the moral equivalent of allowing it to live in poverty.

Of course, when put this way, people will chafe at the words, and say that their position is mischaracterized. But given the assumptions above, I don't think there's any mischaracterization going on. That is, if we agree that abortion is murder, and if we agree that an unborn child is fully a person, and if we say "a child in poverty" is just as serious as "an aborted child," then we are left with the conclusion I have drawn, which is that killing the child to end its poverty-stricken misery is a valid moral alternative.

This isn't meant to be a "bashing" post. But it IS meant to help folks think more clearly about the logical consequences of their position on the abortion issue vs. other "quality of life" issues.

[Protoevangel]

Flipper,

CrossWiseMag's latest post made me think.
This isn't meant to be a "bashing" post.
I hope you don't see my previous post as 'bashing' you. I know I can be insensitive sometimes, and I truly hope I have not hurt your feelings or anything here. Please understand that I was 'attacking' the argument, not you yourself. :hug:

[Protoevangel]

Here's a thought. It is easier to have pity on the poor, diseased and destitute, you can see them and talk to them. But when it comes to the unborn, there is naturally a level of detachment; it is easier to dismiss them or minimize them. We don't see the brutal way they are torn limb from limb, we don't hear their screams as they are mercilesly butchered.

We can think with our hearts when dealing with the issue of those in front of us every day. We don't have the luxury of just using our hearts with the abortion issue, the heart's memory is too short. We have to force ourselves to care about them with our minds, and continue to make ourselves not forget thier out-of-sight-out-of-mind suffering. The blood of the innocent crys out God for justice, will we simply forget about them?

[Flipper]

I didn't think you were bashing me, Dan, and Crosswise, I do understand what you are saying.

I don't think either of you are understanding what I am saying.

I value all life (especially children) with equal importance. I think that if we have a duty to keep a child (in the womb or out) from being murdered, I think we have just as much a duty to take care of that child. What I mean child, is someone who is incapable of taking care of him/herself.

[Flipper]

Here's an example of my point. Our new governor, who ran on a pro-life platform, wants to cut funding to families who adopt children from foster care. To me, that's hypocracy. You can't just support children in one stage of life, and not so much in another.

[CrossWiseMag]

Here's an example of my point. Our new governor, who ran on a pro-life platform, wants to cut funding to families who adopt children from foster care. To me, that's hypocracy. You can't just support children in one stage of life, and not so much in another.

And according to the ethical system you have created, MO Governor Matt Blunt is equally as abhorrent as a man who kills babies. Not only that, but as long as we agree that abortion is murder -- we DO agree on that, right? -- Matt Blunt is equally as abhorrent as a man who kills a toddler.

Unless, of course, you are saying that abortion is not REALLY murder, or that an unborn baby is not REALLY a full human being.

I don't think you think those things. But this is where you have placed yourself with your words about "child poverty" and "child homelessness" being EQUAL with child murder (i.e., abortion). Rather than suggest that I don't understand what you're saying, I would humbly ask that you examine the logical progression I laid out above. If you find a flaw in the logic, please point it out. But if you don't see a flaw in the logic, then perhaps it is your thinking that needs to be adjusted on this issue.

(And, of course, none of this even addresses the debate about whether there might actually be better ways to care for poor children than through state-run programs. Even if we assume that state-run programs are absolutely the best option for caring for poor kids, I contend it is still wrong to equate state program cuts with the killing of children.)

[CrossWiseMag]

Looked at another way, you said,

I think that if we have a duty to keep a child (in the womb or out) from being murdered, I think we have just as much a duty to take care of that child.

Under this ethical system, here's a sample ballot for consideration. Remember, this is not meant to reflect political reality, but to test the logical extension of the ethical system:

Candidate A would outlaw almost all abortion, but would cut all government programs for poor people, returning us to pre-New Deal America.

Candidate B would fully fund social programs in an effort to lift children from poverty, but would encourage parents to kill their children if they can't afford to feed them well, clothe them well, and otherwise avoid poverty conditions.

Which of these candidates would we vote for? Under the ethical system you've set up, Flipper, there's essentially no difference. Letting a kid live in poverty is JUST AS BAD as killing it. I know you don't really think that -- but that's there your ethical system leads.

[Protoevangel]

Here's an example of my point. Our new governor, who ran on a pro-life platform, wants to cut funding to families who adopt children from foster care. To me, that's hypocracy. You can't just support children in one stage of life, and not so much in another.
I don't know what the reasons for him doing this are; for all I know, the system is so full of abuse that the money isn't helping the children anyway. I am just speculating here, I am not defending the Govenor. From my lack of knowledge of him, it could just as easily be that he isn't even pro-life, but was only trying to get the votes.

But the fact of the matter is, once the child is born, there are a number of private organizations, including churches, that can help these children and families out. It doesn't have to all be laid on the Governments shoulders. Of course. if we want it too, we can delve as deep into socalism as the voters want. But the fact of the matter is that killing social programs is not the same as killing babies.

Does this govenor want to kill the children that don't find adoptive homes? In that case, the situations may be morally comparable.

[Flipper]

I think the issues are much more grayer and complicated than how you are presenting them to me.

First of all, think of who is more likely to get an abortion. I don't have hard facts, but my guess would be teenage or young adult women. How do they into the situation that gets them pregnant in the first place? Why do they want to have sex? I think we are better off spending our energy nipping the issue before it starts, rather than working on it after it starts.

I gave those earlier examples as little bits of a cycle that I think abortion (or not) is just a part of.

You are telling me that a situation of life or death, is more important than a situation where the child is already alive and may not die. Ethically, we should prevent murder, before protecting someone who isn't likely to die - right?

I'm just thinking ahead to when that child gets to the point where they could get pregnant and want to make a choice about it. I'm also thinking about unwanted children born because they were not aborted, and how they are going to be cared for - I am in no way saying that they should not be born, I just think we have just as much a duty to worry about those children, and about preventing unwanted pregnancy, as we do about banning abortion - because it is all part of a huge cycle. I simply can't see how focusing on banning abortion only will stop that cycle, or why we shouldn't care so much about that cycle.

Maybe we shouldn't prevent unwanted pregnancy because it's God's will that those children be born. Then, why wouldn't it be God's will that we worry about their upkeep once they are born with equal importance?

I am not saying to keep abortion legal and just work on the other problems. I'm saying that we need to look at the bigger picture, and work on all aspects of it - that's the only way this cycle will stop - and that's the only way I can see all abortions stop (legal or illegal). I just have yet to see a politician look at that bigger picture. I would love to see a pro-life politician who doesn't want to cut funding for children - if there is one, let me know, because I'm not seeing him or her.

[Flipper]

I don't know what the reasons for him doing this are; for all I know, the system is so full of abuse that the money isn't helping the children anyway. I am just speculating here, I am not defending the Govenor. From my lack of knowledge of him, it could just as easily be that he isn't even pro-life, but was only trying to get the votes.

But the fact of the matter is, once the child is born, there are a number of private organizations, including churches, that can help these children and families out. It doesn't have to all be laid on the Governments shoulders. Of course. if we want it too, we can delve as deep into socalism as the voters want. But the fact of the matter is that killing social programs is not the same as killing babies.

Does this govenor want to kill the children that don't find adoptive homes? In that case, the situations may be morally comparable.

The governor is a devout Christian - I would be very surprised if he isn't pro-life.

Actually, the funding for programs he's wanting to cut are the few programs that really benefit only children, that are almost impossible to be abused, and really and truely work - believe it or not. Focus on The Family is even rallying with the parents against these recent cuts - because they believe it will encourage women to get an abortion thinking that their child would not be adopted (sounds strange, but I'm gussing being in an unwanted pregnancy is stressful enough that no telling what one might be thinking).

Just a few months ago, he was wanting to cut First Steps - which is a state funded therapy program for special-needs kids under the age of 3 (by law here, the school district takes over therapy for special needs kids at age 3), that has been proven to save the state future money in long-term care - and genuinely help the kids lead normal lives. I don't know if you know any parents of autistic children, but to get them proper therapy that insurance usually doesn't cover, will bankrupt families that make over 6 figures.

[revjpw]

If the liberals in government would stop funding abortion clinics then perhaps there would be more money to care for children and families already alive and here.

:scratch:

[PurpleBunny]

I would call myself a liberal. When it comes time for election, I tend to vote for the candidate who I agree with on the most issues.

I am LCC (in communion with LCMS).

[Flipper]

If the liberals in government would stop funding abortion clinics then perhaps there would be more money to care for children and families already alive and here.

:scratch:

Ok then, let's cut funding to the abortion clinics and divert it to children's programs - I don't have a problem with that.

[Protoevangel]

Ok then, let's cut funding to the abortion clinics and divert it to children's programs - I don't have a problem with that.:clap: We agree!!! http://usslibertyinquiry.com/forums/themes/techie/smilies/wave.gif

[Flipper]

:clap: We agree!!! http://usslibertyinquiry.com/forums/themes/techie/smilies/wave.gif

It's about time!!!

[Protoevangel]

It's about time!!!:D :sorry: :D

[PACKY]

Are Most Lutherans Conservatives Or Liberals?



Out of Curiosity I was wondering if the majority of Lutherans lean one way or another in the political spectrum of America?
Please post what synod you belong too...
THANKS :wave:

[Flipper]

As you have probably figured out, on many social issues, I fall politically to the liberal end. Compared to my card carrying Democrat boss, and every detailed survey on the subject I've ever filled out, I'm a moderate.

LCMS

[ChiRho]

Here's an example of my point. Our new governor, who ran on a pro-life platform, wants to cut funding to families who adopt children from foster care. To me, that's hypocracy. You can't just support children in one stage of life, and not so much in another.


That is not hypocracy. The government has no money of it's own, it is ours. Would you advocate stealing from a neighbor to help fund a friend's adopted children? It is not the governments role to provide financial aid to people. It sounds good, but in the end the money is being sucked from those who already struggle to support their own families. One's personal moral conviction should not be forced upon everyone. If someone desires to help, then volunteering one's own time or money is the only moral choices.

Remember, I am not suggesting that we ignore this problem, just quit funding it by evil means.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

Ok then, let's cut funding to the abortion clinics and divert it to children's programs - I don't have a problem with that.


We should cut the funding to the abortion clinics sooner than yesterday! This is sick. But we should not direct the funds to children's programs. This is what cripples families everywhere. Let our personal convictions test our strength. It is so easy to say "I love the children" while thinking "you foot the bill." The state fails at every attempt it makes to "take care of the people." Uncle...er...Nanny Sam should be fired and we should entertain no more fantasies of "if we only allocate the funds more appropriately"...it fails everytime! Stop the social programs and allow people to be responsible for themselves and their convictions. I hate Marx!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

If the liberals in government would stop funding abortion clinics then perhaps there would be more money to care for children and families already alive and here.

:scratch:


Yeah, and I am sure the government will see fit that it gets there! Come on, how many times must we be burnt by this false premise!

Alas, I fear people will clutch these child-like dreams until the haunting ghost of Hitler is elected into power. :sigh:

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

I think the issues are much more grayer and complicated than how you are presenting them to me.

First of all, think of who is more likely to get an abortion. I don't have hard facts, but my guess would be teenage or young adult women. How do they into the situation that gets them pregnant in the first place? Why do they want to have sex? I think we are better off spending our energy nipping the issue before it starts, rather than working on it after it starts.

I gave those earlier examples as little bits of a cycle that I think abortion (or not) is just a part of.

You are telling me that a situation of life or death, is more important than a situation where the child is already alive and may not die. Ethically, we should prevent murder, before protecting someone who isn't likely to die - right?

I'm just thinking ahead to when that child gets to the point where they could get pregnant and want to make a choice about it. I'm also thinking about unwanted children born because they were not aborted, and how they are going to be cared for - I am in no way saying that they should not be born, I just think we have just as much a duty to worry about those children, and about preventing unwanted pregnancy, as we do about banning abortion - because it is all part of a huge cycle. I simply can't see how focusing on banning abortion only will stop that cycle, or why we shouldn't care so much about that cycle.

Maybe we shouldn't prevent unwanted pregnancy because it's God's will that those children be born. Then, why wouldn't it be God's will that we worry about their upkeep once they are born with equal importance?

I am not saying to keep abortion legal and just work on the other problems. I'm saying that we need to look at the bigger picture, and work on all aspects of it - that's the only way this cycle will stop - and that's the only way I can see all abortions stop (legal or illegal). I would love to see a pro-life politician who doesn't want to cut funding for children - if there is one, let me know, because I'm not seeing him or her.


I think you have just proved my point:


I just have yet to see a politician look at that bigger picture.


They do not exist. Instead of investing our hope into the individuals that comprise the government, look to yourself for the difference. It is your money and you certainly will know better where it is most effectively spent.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

The governor is a devout Christian - I would be very surprised if he isn't pro-life.

Actually, the funding for programs he's wanting to cut are the few programs that really benefit only children, that are almost impossible to be abused, and really and truely work - believe it or not. Focus on The Family is even rallying with the parents against these recent cuts - because they believe it will encourage women to get an abortion thinking that their child would not be adopted (sounds strange, but I'm gussing being in an unwanted pregnancy is stressful enough that no telling what one might be thinking).

Just a few months ago, he was wanting to cut First Steps - which is a state funded therapy program for special-needs kids under the age of 3 (by law here, the school district takes over therapy for special needs kids at age 3), that has been proven to save the state future money in long-term care - and genuinely help the kids lead normal lives. I don't know if you know any parents of autistic children, but to get them proper therapy that insurance usually doesn't cover, will bankrupt families that make over 6 figures.


And I wonder why the costs are so high? Hmmm...I will give you one guess.

Ya, thats right, da gubmint! :sigh:

[Phoebe]

In case I've never posted this elsewhere, I'm ELCA.


;)

[ChiRho]

L-C-M-S :mad: :sigh: :(

[SPALATIN]

L-C-M-S :mad: :sigh: :(

ChiRho,

Why the angry, sigh, unhappy faces this morning when you put the synod you are affiliated with?

[ChiRho]

ChiRho,

Why the angry, sigh, unhappy faces this morning when you put the synod you are affiliated with?


Well, what emotions come to mind when one claims the LCMS.

In order,

1) Anger

2) Frustration

3) Infinite sadness

[SPALATIN]

Well, what emotions come to mind when one claims the LCMS.

In order,

1) Anger

2) Frustration

3) Infinite sadness

Are you disenchanted with them at the moment or just in general?

Have you been to LQ again?

[revjpw]

Well, what emotions come to mind when one claims the LCMS.

In order,

1) Anger

2) Frustration

3) Infinite sadness

Well, membership IS voluntary.

[revjpw]

Are you disenchanted with them at the moment or just in general?

Have you been to LQ again?

Friends don't let friends read Christian News. ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[Flipper]

And I wonder why the costs are so high? Hmmm...I will give you one guess.

Ya, thats right, da gubmint! :sigh:

I have personally seen children get help from First Steps (both my nephew AND my godson) and from the program helping families adopt foster children in Missouri. My nephew has Downs Syndrome. Because of First Steps that started at 3 weeks of age, and ended when he turned 3, he has no delays, except for speech. How is that possible? Constant therapy that his parents would not have been able to afford otherwise (even with all of us helping with the cost). Insurance will never cover it because the politicians cater to the insurance companies. This is going to save even more in lifetime care - he can be in regular classes when he starts kindergarten.

When he was born, the doctor told his mom that he would never walk or talk, and that she might as well institutionalize him.

My godson started the program a few weeks ago at 9 months. He has a disorder that is similar to autism. His older brother had the same thing and died a couple of years ago at age 6. :( Autopsy couldn't find a cause of death, we are praying that doesn't happen to him as well.

I don't think any church or conglomeration of churches, or charities can fund this expansive and expensive program. In fact, it is so successful in Missouri, that other states come here to see how it works. This is proven to keep kids out of state schools for the handicapped, which education is even more expensive.

Especially where First Steps is concerned, anyone who says those children shouldn't get that help from the state - I take as personal attack and insult.

Regarding the foster kids. Maybe I'm taking this personally because it looks like my husband and I can't have kids on our own and I would like to adopt. The aid was going to families at a certain income level - we wouldn't qualify for it anyway, and that's fine - we can afford it. Still, families at lower income levels that can't afford it should be able to adopt, and the average amount of aid going to families every month is much lower than the cost of keeping the kids in foster care in the first place - I think the average is something like $200/month.

Young Children are the only people who have absolutely no control of their life or circumstances. Parents should take the brunt of responsibility, but not all parents can or do. I would rather cut medicaid funding to adults, than to children. Children don't drive a brand new Ford Explorer through the pharmacy drive-thru to pick up their meds on their medicaid card.

I've tried to understand the libertarian point of view, I really have, but in this sense, it just seems so cold and heartless.

[ChiRho]

Well, membership IS voluntary.

While I do not think that the LCMS has sunk (yet), much of what has recently happened is enough to conjure up those emotions, I believe. Agree? Or are you suggesting that people in your congregation should seek worship elsewhere if they dont happily accept all that the LCMS does and says? :scratch:

Pax

[Rechtgläubig]

Friends don't let friends read Christian News. ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

LOL! ^_^

[CrossWiseMag]

All arguing about politics aside, nothing has been said to refute the fact that the ethical system in use by political and theological liberals -- as written earlier on this thread -- equates letting a child live in poverty with killing it!

Even if we concede every political argument made on this thread -- the government is the best way to care for these children, and they will live their lives as poor people with substandard education if we don't fund government social programs fully -- it does not justify a position of legalized killing of babies!

Whether you know it or not, Flipper, you are saying that a life of poverty is no better than being killed in the womb! That is the logical import of your argument. I can tell you, my family came from nothing in the middle of the Ozark hills, scraping by on beans and cornbread for most meals. Your ethical system equally validates two moral decisions regarding a family like that:

1. Letting them all be born and live on beans and cornbread -- maybe even going hungry at times -- without government help.
2. Killing them in the womb so they don't have to go through that.


Candidate A takes position #1. Candidate B takes position #2. You think it's a morally responsible choice to vote for Candidate B. That's wrong -- and I think if you thought it through, you'd think it's wrong, too.

[Flipper]

So, your logic dictates to make sure that child be born no matter what (which I believe too), but afterwards, it doesn't matter what happens to said child that you saved from being murdered?

[Protoevangel]

No one said what you are suggesting Flipper. You are still just avoiding the question. 'Not being the moral equivilant of' does not equate to 'it doesn't matter'. The children must first be allowed to live, and then they can have a chance at a good life. But if the first dosen't happen, the second never can. It's not that complicated.

[ChiRho]

I have personally seen children get help from First Steps (both my nephew AND my godson) and from the program helping families adopt foster children in Missouri. My nephew has Downs Syndrome. Because of First Steps that started at 3 weeks of age, and ended when he turned 3, he has no delays, except for speech. How is that possible? Constant therapy that his parents would not have been able to afford otherwise (even with all of us helping with the cost). Insurance will never cover it because the politicians cater to the insurance companies. This is going to save even more in lifetime care - he can be in regular classes when he starts kindergarten.

When he was born, the doctor told his mom that he would never walk or talk, and that she might as well institutionalize him.

My godson started the program a few weeks ago at 9 months. He has a disorder that is similar to autism. His older brother had the same thing and died a couple of years ago at age 6. :( Autopsy couldn't find a cause of death, we are praying that doesn't happen to him as well.

I don't think any church or conglomeration of churches, or charities can fund this expansive and expensive program. In fact, it is so successful in Missouri, that other states come here to see how it works. This is proven to keep kids out of state schools for the handicapped, which education is even more expensive.

Especially where First Steps is concerned, anyone who says those children shouldn't get that help from the state - I take as personal attack and insult.


I think we may have discovered a problem. I didnt personally attack you...yet you have decided to take something that is not personal and make it such. This is where the fallicies begin. You have decided that it is somehow moral to make your tragedy everyone's, without thought to how many others may be adversely affected by your fascist reasoning. Somehow you have decided that it is ok to open peoples wallets and take their money to fund your charity. You do not ask, but encourage another (think Robin Hood) to steal money for you. How is this moral? My guess, is that you have witnessed the tragedy first hand and love the afflicted child so much, that you dont care about the means, just the ends. Well, if all of us used this reasoning, imagine the consequences.

As a side...you claim that this cost which is too big for "any church or conglomeration of churches, or charities" is yet smaller than the funds for handicapped education at state run schools. Numbers would be helpful to bear this statement out.

Regarding the foster kids. Maybe I'm taking this personally because it looks like my husband and I can't have kids on our own and I would like to adopt.

Again, I am sorry you have chosen to take this personal. It wasnt. Adoption is great...think about how much greater it would be if it were privately run.

The aid was going to families at a certain income level - we wouldn't qualify for it anyway, and that's fine - we can afford it. Still, families at lower income levels that can't afford it should be able to adopt, and the average amount of aid going to families every month is much lower than the cost of keeping the kids in foster care in the first place - I think the average is something like $200/month.

Let me ask you one thing...if someone cant afford a child why should they be able to adopt one?

Young Children are the only people who have absolutely no control of their life or circumstances. Parents should take the brunt of responsibility, but not all parents can or do. I would rather cut medicaid funding to adults, than to children. Children don't drive a brand new Ford Explorer through the pharmacy drive-thru to pick up their meds on their medicaid card.

Cut them both.

I've tried to understand the libertarian point of view, I really have, but in this sense, it just seems so cold and heartless.

It is impossible for me to see how evil means = good end. And it isnt selfish and cold and heartless to desire that everyone be forced to suffer for the benefit of another?


Flipper, as much as you are gonna take this personal regardless of what I type, I must say it. I wish no harm to your nephew and only blissful happy moments. But this is an impossible dream that we sinners envision as real life. There is sin and tragedy and death. This world is real ugly. And it isnt God's fault, it is ours (your nephew included). You mentioned earlier how children are not responsible for anything. I disagree. They are responsible for the state of this world as much anyone else. With sin, all contribute. We cannot eliminate the nasty effects of sin with more legislation. Only He can and does. Is your nephew Baptized?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

All arguing about politics aside, nothing has been said to refute the fact that the ethical system in use by political and theological liberals -- as written earlier on this thread -- equates letting a child live in poverty with killing it!

Even if we concede every political argument made on this thread -- the government is the best way to care for these children, and they will live their lives as poor people with substandard education if we don't fund government social programs fully -- it does not justify a position of legalized killing of babies!

Whether you know it or not, Flipper, you are saying that a life of poverty is no better than being killed in the womb! That is the logical import of your argument. I can tell you, my family came from nothing in the middle of the Ozark hills, scraping by on beans and cornbread for most meals. Your ethical system equally validates two moral decisions regarding a family like that:

1. Letting them all be born and live on beans and cornbread -- maybe even going hungry at times -- without government help.
2. Killing them in the womb so they don't have to go through that.


Candidate A takes position #1. Candidate B takes position #2. You think it's a morally responsible choice to vote for Candidate B. That's wrong -- and I think if you thought it through, you'd think it's wrong, too.


Candidate A! And let me know where the child lives please.

[CrossWiseMag]

So, your logic dictates to make sure that child be born no matter what (which I believe too), but afterwards, it doesn't matter what happens to said child that you saved from being murdered?

As ChiRho pointed out, that's not what my logic dictates. You avoid the logical conclusion of your ethical system, which is that "living in poverty" is just as bad as "being murdered." I could use your ethical system to justify killing the poorest children to reduce population--because that would free up more money to feed the kids who remain, thus lifting them above the poverty line.

You will argue that that's not true. But if you think it's not true, it must mean that you are defining "abortion" as something less than "murder." If "abortion" really equals "murder," this is the position you've left yourself in.

[SPALATIN]

As ChiRho pointed out, that's not what my logic dictates. You avoid the logical conclusion of your ethical system, which is that "living in poverty" is just as bad as "being murdered." I could use your ethical system to justify killing the poorest children to reduce population--because that would free up more money to feed the kids who remain, thus lifting them above the poverty line.

You will argue that that's not true. But if you think it's not true, it must mean that you are defining "abortion" as something less than "murder." If "abortion" really equals "murder," this is the position you've left yourself in.

Dontcha just love Ethics? My favorite ethicist was Kant. His Categorical imperatives (which this situation is well defined) are to die for. ;)

[revjpw]

While I do not think that the LCMS has sunk (yet), much of what has recently happened is enough to conjure up those emotions, I believe. Agree? Or are you suggesting that people in your congregation should seek worship elsewhere if they dont happily accept all that the LCMS does and says? :scratch:

Pax

A vast majority of my congregants don't really know or care about the political nonsense of Synod.

[Protoevangel]

Dontcha just love Ethics? My favorite ethicist was Kant. His Categorical imperatives (which this situation is well defined) are to die for. ;)I think the groundwork for CI was great, if a little simplistic; especially in regard to the question of the benevolent lie. Of course, we've moved past that, but I was surprised at Kant's answer.

[Flipper]

Dontcha just love Ethics? My favorite ethicist was Kant. His Categorical imperatives (which this situation is well defined) are to die for. ;)

Ethics, to me, implies logic - and I don't see Christianity as logical. If it were, then why do we need faith?

[Flipper]

I think we may have discovered a problem. I didnt personally attack you...yet you have decided to take something that is not personal and make it such. This is where the fallicies begin. You have decided that it is somehow moral to make your tragedy everyone's, without thought to how many others may be adversely affected by your fascist reasoning. Somehow you have decided that it is ok to open peoples wallets and take their money to fund your charity. You do not ask, but encourage another (think Robin Hood) to steal money for you. How is this moral? My guess, is that you have witnessed the tragedy first hand and love the afflicted child so much, that you dont care about the means, just the ends. Well, if all of us used this reasoning, imagine the consequences.

As a side...you claim that this cost which is too big for "any church or conglomeration of churches, or charities" is yet smaller than the funds for handicapped education at state run schools. Numbers would be helpful to bear this statement out.



Again, I am sorry you have chosen to take this personal. It wasnt. Adoption is great...think about how much greater it would be if it were privately run.



Let me ask you one thing...if someone cant afford a child why should they be able to adopt one?



Cut them both.



It is impossible for me to see how evil means = good end. And it isnt selfish and cold and heartless to desire that everyone be forced to suffer for the benefit of another?


Flipper, as much as you are gonna take this personal regardless of what I type, I must say it. I wish no harm to your nephew and only blissful happy moments. But this is an impossible dream that we sinners envision as real life. There is sin and tragedy and death. This world is real ugly. And it isnt God's fault, it is ours (your nephew included). You mentioned earlier how children are not responsible for anything. I disagree. They are responsible for the state of this world as much anyone else. With sin, all contribute. We cannot eliminate the nasty effects of sin with more legislation. Only He can and does. Is your nephew Baptized?

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

I'm sorry - I can't help but take it personally because I can only imagine where some of these kids would be if it weren't for government help.

You are right, it isn't the fault of any of you here. It isn't even your problem.

Funny, you reminded me of a lesson I learned about where sickness and suffering really comes from - please bear with me on this story. Kolin, ironically, had his heart surgery two days after 9/11 - he was baptized the week before. A very strange day. I spent that morning interviewing an Iraqi Arab family (our only non-American client that I can think of). They had just moved here as refugees, and could only afford a small apartment run by a slum lord. Their youngest child, who was about 3, developed lead poisoning. We were seeing whether we can bring a lawsuit against the owner for not cleaning up the lead. Most of our hundreds of lead poisoning clients came from the poorest of the poor - all those sick children... Sorry, I digress...

That afternoon was spent at the hospital during the surgery (which was a complete and total success - praise God). That evening, I had class. I was going to Concordia in St. Louis through CUW, and happened to be taking a class called Life of Christ - 6 weeks of messianic prophesy - very fascinating. Anyway, being that it was 2 days after 9/11, the instructor tried to explain how God allows things like that. She (she is a deaconess who received a doctorate in Biblical studies at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis) went on about the nature of sin. All sickness and suffering in the world is caused by sin, not one person's specific sin, but the nature of sin in general. Until Jesus comes back, it will always be like that.

Thank you, Chi Chi - for reminding me of that. :blush:

Maybe my personal ethics-system is indeed skewed. Just please don't for one minute believe that I would want anyone unborn to be murdered. My life's experiences, personal convictions and even prayers have led me to be more aware of children's causes - even if it means rendering onto caesar - and I tend to get a little too passionate about it. Abortion is just one of many of those causes I'm too passionate about.

[Protoevangel]

Ethics, to me, implies logic - and I don't see Christianity as logical. If it were, then why do we need faith?
Christianity in no way rejects logic or rationality. After all, logic tells you that rape and torture are wrong. We certianly do not reject that. Logic tells you that if you perform the same action in the same circumstances, that the same conclusion is likely to occur. As Christians we do not reject that. Ethics are similar, yes ethics are logical and rational. We do not reject them out of hand, simply because we are Christians. We keep them in their place. Just like we do not reject the Law simply because we are under Grace, we keep the Law in it's proper distintion and place.

[SPALATIN]

Ethics, to me, implies logic - and I don't see Christianity as logical. If it were, then why do we need faith?

Flip,

So then we are faithful and naive? I don't think so. I think that Christianity takes a lot of reason and logic as well as faith. C.S. Lewis thought so as well. If you get a chance read his book "Surprised by Joy" which is his autobiography of his journey to faith. He takes a very interesting journey using logic and reason to come to faith. The use of Apologetics in our faith takes a lot of reason and logic to use it properly.

We should never dismiss the use of logic in our faith as we will look rather "dumb" when we try to explain our faith to others.

[Flipper]

So... what about having the "faith of a child" as Jesus told us to in Matthew (chapter and verse escapes me). I guess I am interpreting that incorrectly as well?

[pastel]

I don't know. I know that I am a moderate... and do not suscribe fully to either side. :D

[BereanWannaBe]

In general, LCMS and WELS are very conservative and so attract conservative members. ELCA is much more liberal. Of course I'm sure individuals within these denominations vary across the board.

[Protoevangel]

So... what about having the "faith of a child" as Jesus told us to in Matthew (chapter and verse escapes me). I guess I am interpreting that incorrectly as well?
Matthew 19:14 "But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Mark 10:15 "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."
Luke 18:17 "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

To be perfectly honest, and with all respect and love for you Flipper, I think you are interpreting that incorrectly, that is if you are trying to say that it has anything to do with the issues we have been discussing.

First of all, what is faith? Hebrews 11:1 tells us: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith has to do with the fact that we know that our Lord and Savior, Jesus, the Christ of God has come in the flesh to pay the penalty we, by all rights, owe. Faith is the assurance that we are Justified, for Christ's sake alone, and not by our own works or observance of the Law. Faith is knowing that since we are in Christ, even if we are wrong on the issue we are discussing, we will spend eternety with Him.

You see, faith, even a childlike faith has nothing at all to do with the Law. And that is exactly what we are talking about here; the Law. Ethics are part of the Judicial (application of) Law. This has nothing to do with our Justification, and if anyone suggested that it did, this whole thread should be shut down and thrown in the lake of fire. Like Martin Luther often said, "The Law is good, holy, and profitable, but it does not justify", "We say with Paul that the Law is good if it is used properly", "Within its proper sphere the Law is an excellent thing", "We say the Law is good if it is used for the purposes for which it was designed, to check civil transgression, and to magnify spiritual transgressions".

So, you see, faith is applicable to Grace, but not to the what we are talking about here. This is exactly what must not be confused, for it leads to confusion, as we have seen on your arguments.

So, your childlike faith is a good thing. Because God has seen fit to bless you with it, you have nothig to fear, eternally speaking. Let no one dare to deny you of that truth.

But, now back to what we were discussing, in it's own sphere, not confusing it with the Excelence of the Gospel.

Abortion is the taking of innocent human life, how can you approve of those who would promote this barbarism? Are we not told in God's Word that among the seven things that are an abomination to God are "hands that shed innocent blood"?

Please don't think I am minimizing your concerns, though. You are absolutely right that the poor, diseased and destitute must also be taken care of (more Law). We have already covered that. No one is suggesting that the poor, diseased and destitute should be killed (actually the Liberals are, as witnessed recently with Terri Schindler-Schiavo's murder).

It is just that the issues are differing in scope. On the one hand, it some politicians want to keep it legal to rip children apart, limb from limb. On the other hand, some politicians are foolishly misallocating money that could help make those who beat the odds and are somehow not mercilessly butchered, to have somewhat 'better' lives.

If the children are murdered, they won't even have the chance for you to fight for them, so that they can have a chance at that better life. And you, by your vote, have contributed to their murders.

[JADVirginia]

I really don't know what a Liberal or a Conservative is. You can be a Liberal Republican or a Conservative Democrat. Lutherans can be radical liberals if your status quo POV is 1517, or they are ulta-conservatives if your POV is 1200 AD.

I love Republicans so much that I want to show them how to correct their greedy ways, love their neighbor regardless of his skin, and be good stewards of God's earth. Democrats need some corrective lovin' too in the area of saving babies, and for suggesting that homosexuality should be statutorily rewarded. And both parties need to beg on their knees for God's forgiveness for letting W have four more years. It's like we're in a desert, 5 years down, 35 more to go before we can see the Promise Land. :sigh:

[Protoevangel]

I really don't know what a Liberal or a Conservative is. OK.

You can be a Liberal Republican or a Conservative Democrat. Lutherans can be radical liberals if your status quo POV is 1517, or they are ulta-conservatives if your POV is 1200 AD. Well, which one is it? You just stated you "don't know what a Liberal or a Conservative is", but now you are telling everyone what they are.


I love Republicans so much that I want to show them how to correct their greedy ways, love their neighbor regardless of his skin, and be good stewards of God's earth. Democrats need some corrective lovin' too in the area of saving babies, and for suggesting that homosexuality should be statutorily rewarded. Maybe you could start by curbing your own predejuces and not bearing false witness. I know I could work on that some, too ;).


And both parties need to beg on their knees for God's forgiveness for letting W have four more years. I'd agree if we had any kind of a decent, realistic alternative. If you want an alternative for next term, you better get hoppping, the 2 bullies of the block aren't going to give up without a fight.

.

By the way, welcome! :wave:

[revjpw]

And both parties need to beg on their knees for God's forgiveness for letting W have four more years.

:o And why should they do that????:confused:

[AngelusSax]

I love Republicans so much that I want to show them how to correct their greedy ways, love their neighbor regardless of his skin, and be good stewards of God's earth.

As a Republican, I must ask if you've given up your car yet? And secondly, I must say that it's a shame you've bought into the liberally perpetuated stereotype (which is false) of Republicans.

Considering red states are generally more charitable than blue states according to most indexes of Philanthropy... it seems those evil greedy Repubs are out-giving the caring liberal Democrats.

(http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004)

Democrats need some corrective lovin' too in the area of saving babies, and for suggesting that homosexuality should be statutorily rewarded.

Speaking as a Republican again... while I don't agree with the DNC party platform much at all, I must say that I don't see them saying they want to reward homosexuality... they just want to not punish it. As for saving babies... well now that's an issue that both parties have dissenting members on.

And both parties need to beg on their knees for God's forgiveness for letting W have four more years.

Considering the only other alternative... maybe it's better that we ask God's forgiveness for whatever we've done that made Bush the better of the two... just my opinion (though I think he's pretty good overall, but he isn't perfect either... He's not Jesus after all.)

[PACKY]

As a Republican, I must ask if you've given up your car yet? And secondly, I must say that it's a shame you've bought into the liberally perpetuated stereotype (which is false) of Republicans.

Considering red states are generally more charitable than blue states according to most indexes of Philanthropy... it seems those evil greedy Repubs are out-giving the caring liberal Democrats.

(http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004)



Speaking as a Republican again... while I don't agree with the DNC party platform much at all, I must say that I don't see them saying they want to reward homosexuality... they just want to not punish it. As for saving babies... well now that's an issue that both parties have dissenting members on.



Considering the only other alternative... maybe it's better that we ask God's forgiveness for whatever we've done that made Bush the better of the two... just my opinion (though I think he's pretty good overall, but he isn't perfect either... He's not Jesus after all.)



Christian Forums MessageYou cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

[Phoebe]

May I interject?
In American history, have we ever voted a new guy into office while "at war?" I am under the impression that there were ulterior motives for leaving the troops over in Iraq past that June deadline.

[AngelusSax]

In American history, have we ever voted a new guy into office while "at war?" I am under the impression that there were ulterior motives for leaving the troops over in Iraq past that June deadline.

We have not. But ulterior motives... I don't see it. I don't think they'd still be there well after the election if there were ulterior motives.