Time to get rid of the LCMS/WELS subforum

[SPALATIN]

I think this experiment has proved futile at best. We in these synods don't ban debate and therefore should let our sub-forum go. If the ELCA wishes to continue theirs I have no objection. What say you?

[Jenna]

I second your opinion. If my positions cannot stand scrutiny, then I need to amend them to the truth of scripture. I have no problem with debate, and see that it is of little use to have an LCMS/WELS subforum. I, too, have no issue with the ELCA folks having their own subforum if they desire.

[ctay]

Ditto

[ctobola]

I think to claim the main forum for yourselves, you need a flag and a pointy hat. Then you must proclaim, "We claim this forum on behalf of the LCMS/WELS -- we represent all that is Lutheran. Semper ubi sub ubi!" ;)

-Cloy



On the LCMS/WELS Subform Scott wrote:
I think we should just fold up the subforum and from now on claim the main forum as ours. If they want to go off and pout about what they claim are attacks on them they can go to their room. Maybe we should just send them there until they can behave. ;)

[Jim47]

I think to claim the main forum for yourselves, you need a flag and a pointy hat. Then you must proclaim, "We claim this forum on behalf of the LCMS/WELS -- we represent all that is Lutheran. Semper ubi sub ubi!" ;)

-Cloy


Thats an excellant idea Cloy! Thanks for helping us out. :thumbsup:

[SPALATIN]

Thats an excellant idea Cloy! Thanks for helping us out. :thumbsup:

we represent all that is Lutheran. Semper ubi sub ubi!" :priest:

Does that meet your expectations Cloy?

[Tetzel]

Would that not make the regular forum the defacto LCMS--WELS forum? I think it might be good to keep it around for discusion of issues such as the current Kieschnick affair rather than cluttering up the main room with internal affairs of our synods

[Protoevangel]

Would that not make the regular forum the defacto LCMS--WELS forum? I think it might be good to keep it around for discusion of issues such as the current Kieschnick affair rather than cluttering up the main room with internal affairs of our synods
I don't think it would. There would be the general Lutheran forum, where everyone is allowed, and all are free to discuss and debate. Then there would be the ELCA forum where they could discuss all those things they don't want to bother the LCMS/WELS/ELS/TAALC/etc. Lutherans with.

[ctobola]

All joking aside, I think Tetzel is right.

There seem to be enough issues for distinct forums; moreover, it seems to imply that the LCMS/WELS is the defacto forum, and it marginalizes the ELCA/ELCIC. That doesn't create a level playing field or encourage respectful dialogue.

In Christ, -Cloy


Would that not make the regular forum the defacto LCMS--WELS forum? I think it might be good to keep it around for discusion of issues such as the current Kieschnick affair rather than cluttering up the main room with internal affairs of our synods

[Protoevangel]

Frankly though, it is not a question for you (or even me) to answer. If they do not want a subforum, then they should be able to have it removed. The ELCA people should have the same option. Bit I think that most of the ELCA people are happy to have their own private area.

[ByzantineDixie]

All joking aside, I think Tetzel is right.

There seem to be enough issues for distinct forums; moreover, it seems to imply that the LCMS/WELS is the defacto forum, and it marginalizes the ELCA/ELCIC. That doesn't create a level playing field or encourage respectful dialogue.

In Christ, -Cloy

To clarify...I think the argument goes like this:

1) Subforums were requested so that the various Lutheran factions could have a place to express their views free from confrontation and the snips of the other factions.
2) The main forum stays to allow respectful debate between Lutheran factions and with Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
3) The folks in the LCMS / WELS / ELS / TAALC group have, for the most part, decided that debate would be welcome in that subforum.
4) So if debate is welcome in that particular subforum as well as in the main forum then there is no difference between the main forum and the subforum...hence the LCMS / WELS / ELS / TAALC subforum is no longer needed.

This in no way marginalizes the ELCAers. If the ELCAers want a no debate place they have it...and they have a debate place in the main forum. They get everything they want.

Conversely...since the other faction is not seeking a "no debate" sanctuary...they are giving up that option. They actually have "less" than the ELCAers...by choice.

My own take on the matter...if the LCMS et. al. faction doesn't need their forum sanctuary then they don't have to use it.

The bigger issue at hand is not marginalized Lutherans but fractionated Lutherans...what does all this mean in light of the visible church that Christ promised would prevail. If someone finds that visible church...PM me with directions. :sigh:

[Tetzel]

Rose, I have bad news. Turns out that it is the snake-handlers. ;)

[ByzantineDixie]

Rose, I have bad news. Turns out that it is the snake-handlers. ;)

EEWWW!!! :eek: That is VERY BAD news...because I hate snakes!!! But the good news is I think we have one of those congregations in the "holler" next county over. Ah, the benefits of Southern Living. ;)

[Jim47]

To clarify...I think the argument goes like this:

1) Subforums were requested so that the various Lutheran factions could have a place to express their views free from confrontation and the snips of the other factions.
2) The main forum stays to allow respectful debate between Lutheran factions and with Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
3) The folks in the LCMS / WELS / ELS / TAALC group have, for the most part, decided that debate would be welcome in that subforum.
4) So if debate is welcome in that particular subforum as well as in the main forum then there is no difference between the main forum and the subforum...hence the LCMS / WELS / ELS / TAALC subforum is no longer needed.

This in no way marginalizes the ELCAers. If the ELCAers want a no debate place they have it...and they have a debate place in the main forum. They get everything they want.

Conversely...since the other faction is not seeking a "no debate" sanctuary...they are giving up that option. They actually have "less" than the ELCAers...by choice.

My own take on the matter...if the LCMS et. al. faction doesn't need their forum sanctuary then they don't have to use it.

The bigger issue at hand is not marginalized Lutherans but fractionated Lutherans...what does all this mean in light of the visible church that Christ promised would prevail. If someone finds that visible church...PM me with directions. :sigh:

I think I'll frame this responce Rose, if thats O/K? :thumbsup:

[BigNorsk]

If you don't want a subforum, quit posting in the subforum.

I don't understand why if the LCMS members here say they don't need a subforum, why they continue to post to it.

Quit posting there and it will go away with time.

If you keep using it, your actions say that you think it is necessary.

It was never set up as LCMS members "should" post there, just they could if they so desired.

To say you don't want it and then keep using it sends mixed messages.

Marv

[SPALATIN]

If you don't want a subforum, quit posting in the subforum.

I don't understand why if the LCMS members here say they don't need a subforum, why they continue to post to it.

Quit posting there and it will go away with time.

If you keep using it, your actions say that you think it is necessary.

It was never set up as LCMS members "should" post there, just they could if they so desired.

To say you don't want it and then keep using it sends mixed messages.

Marv

Marv,

Couldn't have said it better if I tried.

Thank you,

[filosofer]

The bigger issue at hand is not marginalized Lutherans but fractionated Lutherans...what does all this mean in light of the visible church that Christ promised would prevail. If someone finds that visible church...PM me with directions. :sigh:

Are you sure that Christ promised the "visible" church would prevail? Does he make a distinction?

Despite the (former) LQ contingent that claims the EO is the only visible church, I think that such a request is caving in to the wrong conclusion based on wrong assumptions. But that may just be me.

If I saw you in person, Rose, there would be the visible church. :)

[ByzantineDixie]

Are you sure that Christ promised the "visible" church would prevail? Does he make a distinction?

I believe in a visible church. An invisible church is a little hard to sell...even the Lutheran confessions speak to "marks"--and the marks are not invisible and do not require special goggles with UV lenses to see them. :P By the way...my church doesn't have one of the marks. It must be one of those "invisible" churches.

Despite the (former) LQ contingent that claims the EO is the only visible church, I think that such a request is caving in to the wrong conclusion based on wrong assumptions. But that may just be me.

I don't spend a lot of time on the LQ. Unless my sisters in Christ are doing battle...I just follow one or two threads at a time. To much LQ is a bad thing.

If I saw you in person, Rose, there would be the visible church. :)


Now filo...I'll be the first person to admit that I certainly should lose some weight but that you should confuse me with the Church is problematic! :P I am just one of those invisible members. You would need special UV goggles to see me.