The Plucked Chicken - Comments

Dan at Necessary Roughness: The Hidden Cost of Embarq DSL

nospam@example.com (Dan at Necessary Roughness) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:30:56 -0800

You'll want to use Embarq's Authenticated SMTP if you ever take your laptop anywhere. In fact I think they shut down the unauthenticated server

smtp.embarqmail.com port: 25

put in user@embarqmail.com for your user name (replace "user")

POP server is pop.embarmail.com port: 110

Same username.

Jesse Jacobsen: The Hidden Cost of Embarq DSL

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:05:07 -0800

I can only guess what I'm missing at this point, but I have connectivity at least. The only thing I might want beyond that is the ability to send mail via Embarq's smtp server. That could require a configured login. In the meantime, I can ssh into my regular environment.

Dan at Necessary Roughness: The Hidden Cost of Embarq DSL

nospam@example.com (Dan at Necessary Roughness) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:21:01 -0800

I've been using Embarq DSL for a little over a year, since they switched us over from Sprint DSL. Even though we have Windows machines we don't install their software. I set up my router myself, and everything is decent.

kent: Some Problems With Socialism

nospam@example.com (kent) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:17:57 -0800

Jesse, thank you for what you are doing. I love the new site. You are a shepherd of God--small "s" on purpose as you would like. I wish I could respond more, but working 24/7 at two full time jobs and being a father, well, I know you understand. Keep fighting the Good Fight. Your posts are so good for me. Hopefully soon we can speak on the phone about all the ELS "crap" and hopefully we can speak face to face very soon. I do have vacation days coming and I think it could happen very much sooner than later. God be with you always, brother. You and I think alike not only theologically, but politically. Not in the that we are both conservatives, but that we both trust the One True God and His Wisdom and Will. I would have rather have the most evil ruler which would cause more to come to the knowledge of the Truth, than the most awesome ruler which would allow the peoples of the world to think that they did not need The Saviour--Jesus the Christ of all. Amen brother.

Kent--Pastor and social services worker in the land of the pot growers, sellers, non tax-paying, democrat, losers!

Mary: Some Problems With Socialism

nospam@example.com (Mary) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:52:06 -0800

re. "perhaps many people who recognize the ideals of socialism in our president-elect actually think it's a good thing. Can that be true?"

I think it is true. A book I read earlier in the year Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher. (It's got a great subtitle, but too long to remember or include.) In his book, Mr Dreher tried to show that not all conservatives fit the stereotypical mainstream America "moving on up" mentality, and so were marginalized from the mainstream Conservative movement.

He showed many ways in which he felt there was a movement toward more eco-friendly, community centric ideas among conservatives. Things like recycling, eating organic, walking or taking the bus, buying old homes in old neighborhoods...

I could really appreciate much of what he said, because I have often felt that certain topics have been hijacked by the Democrats and so there is no room for dialogue on such ideas within conservatism.

But, my biggest problem with this guy is that he seemed to think that conservatives were all about money. "It's always the bottom line with conservatives."

He wants to draw a natural connection between people of faith and this desire to help others and take care of the earth and our communities. He refers to it as sacramental living (Traditional Catholic and Eastern Orthodox background). I think what he means is kind of similar to the Lutheran doctrine of vocation. Having our decisions for every-day living being a thoughtful reflection of our faith.

But somehow, he wants to work through politics to pass policy which would take into account the leanings of like-minded conservatives. Without realizing that the underlying difference in conservatism is not the all about money issue, but the limited government issue.

I heard him interviewed on Public Radio's Speaking of Faith recently, and I got so mad listening to him, I was ready to call in until Joe reminded me that it was a rebroadcast from an earlier show. Again, he spoke as though he only saw selfishness in mainstream conservatives.

And this guy has a pretty big following. There are web groups dedicated to Crunchy-Con discussion and philosophy.

Another example is a friend with whom, in June, I discussed the upcoming election. She was concerned that conservatives were not willing to give of what we had toward lifting others up through the government programs. And in fact she even said something very close to this, I cannot remember her exact words right now. "But isn't it also important for us as Christians to help others by supporting these programs and those who wish to implement them?"

And this is a friend who has always been very conservative.

I think the election and campaign season this time has been the worst for those who depend upon the MSM for their information. There are many people out there who have typically considered themselves Republicans but do not make use of other sources of information. Many consider talk radio too extreme or the hosts too obnoxious for their taste, so they refuse to listen. And worse they assume that those of us who do listen have been brainwashed or taken in. So then we are no longer considered reliable sources of information.

I know of several people who said things like, "Well I watched both conventions and the debates, so that should be enough to make my decision, right? I'm getting the information straight from the candidates themselves."

I guess this got longer than I intended, but, yes, I do think that many people think the socialist type ideas are fine and even good. I think our education systems (not just public) have let us down to the point that we as a society are no longer capable of either historical analysis or critical thought.

And the very fabric of our lives has become strongly inclined toward emotional decisions rather than logical process.

Mary

Bruce Gee: Magic, Means, and Mystery

nospam@example.com (Bruce Gee) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:27:33 -0700

"Seemingly in conceit" Steven? Come, lad. Thou revealest thine own heart here. It can be said plainly, humbly, without conceit. Are we not "as beggars" when we ask "come, Lord Jesus"? But I digress.

And, I nitpick. While Bucer was present at the Marburg Colloquy (Reports have betwen 24 and 60 present at any given time) and while it was indeed Bucer that Luther refused to recognize, the debatants were Zwingli and Oecolampadius on one hand, and Luther and Melancthon on the other. As I said...

I confess that I am intrigued, or more likely, just confused by your reference to certain "conservative Lutherans." Are you speaking here of a certain receptionism that has crept into the practice or doctrine of certain pastors? You seem to be hinting at some disconnect between the administration of the sacrament and the office of the holy ministry. I'm, as is often the case, confused.

Jesse Jacobsen: More Seeds of Discord

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:51:32 -0700

Sorry about that. I wasn't connecting all the dots between thoughts, like I usually try to do. Let me try again, and see if I understand what I wrote.

I started by comparing the sacramentarian controversy of the 16th Century (i.e., some absolutely deny the real presence in one way or other) to other controversies. In the sacramentarian controversy, the answer is plain without looking any further than the words of institution: "This is My body." I find Luther's mention interesting that some were complaining about insufficient detail, because we hear that in controversies today as well. "Why do you insist on this one point of view, when scripture is not specific enough to settle the matter?"

Though the biblical answer to the question in the sacramentarian controversy seems plainly evident, we can't expect that to be the case in every other controversy. Sometimes it will be plainly evident, but other times it will require the application of some sanctified reasoning. Yet there will also be times when scripture doesn't answer a controversial question, because there is such a thing as the hidden knowledge of God. This should teach us that it's just as important to ask the right kind of questions as it is to find the answers in scripture.

Case in point. Compare the two questions "What is the office of the ministry?" and "What do we mean by the term 'office of the ministry' in relation to the Gospel?" They are not the same question. In fact, the latter question can't be answered from scripture (and is therefore not strictly a matter of Christian doctrine). The former question also carries shades of the same problem, depending upon how it is understood. That's what has become so problematic about the PMW: the ELS is not united in the way it understands the question being answered there. Some understood the question one way (i.e., "What does the Bible say?"), others understood it another way (i.e., "What do we mean by...?") and a growing number understand it both ways simultaneously.

The next paragraph, beginning with "Remember doublethink?" takes off from the thought of understanding the question in both ways simultaneously. That paragraph also has some disconnected dots, but you might understand it better with the prior paragraph fleshed out.

Thanks for asking.

Mary Abrahamson: More Seeds of Discord

nospam@example.com (Mary Abrahamson) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:29:49 -0700

I follow your first and last points. Or to be more clear, I follow the points you are making after the initial Luther quote and the final Luther quote.

But you lose me during the paragraph that begins, "Granted, not every theological question..." And that seems to be kind of the focal point of your post. I don't want to miss the best part of the explanation.

Could you please try again for us readers who like Winnie the Pooh are "of very little brain."

Thanks, Mary

Bruce: Christian Doctrine Vs. Class Warfare

nospam@example.com (Bruce) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:48:55 -0700

A quote from East of Eden by Steinbeck, wherein the Chinese manservant Lee explains his vocation:

"I don't know where being a servant came into disrepute. It is the refuge of the philosopher, the food of the lazy, and, properly carried out, it is a position of power, even of love. I can't understand why more intelligent people don't take it up as a career--learn to do it well and reap its benefits."

In stating this observation, Lee reflects the hiddenness of the humbler vocations: what power for good and ill that lie within them; what influence and joy. Yet certainly into every vocation a worldly value is embedded, which to the end of time will keep the world busy with infighting and posturing.

Ian MacLennan: Why Libronix isn't there... yet.

nospam@example.com (Ian MacLennan) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:28:48 -0700

I echo this sentiment. The closed nature of this drives me crazy. Unfortunately as well, Libronix is a resource hog. The concept of Libronix is great, but it is just too painful to use.

Jeff: Why Libronix isn't there... yet.

nospam@example.com (Jeff) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:51:11 -0700

I use Libronix and love it, however I am in the same situation. I hate M$ OS yet I feel beaten to use it as most software is coded to use it. I understand the reason, money. I have found some people who use Virtualbox and other VMs to accommodate this one application they need. I am currently working on my migration back to Linux, Ubuntu.

The painful process of getting back to Linux. Ahhh, I feel so constrained by windows!!!

Shawn Stafford: Comment to "Analysis of Appeals Commission Report"

nospam@example.com (Shawn Stafford) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:22:00 -0700

Jesse- It was interesting to note the number of guideline changes at the convention wrt adopting synodical statements on doctrine and the appeals process. One might conclude that in the past things were not carried out in above the board manner. Then again, being an orthodox synod means never having to say you're sorry.

Shawn

Jesse Jacobsen: Shaking the foundation of Christianity?

nospam@example.com (Jesse Jacobsen) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:42:51 -0700

On the issue of teachers and calls, I believe we are saying the latter, but also that teachers ought to be authorized in some way by the Church before they can teach publicly in its name. "In accordance with" may not be clearest way to state the connection to AC XIV, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean that AC XIV demands that teachers receive the same sort of call that we require for pastors.

In my own words, I'd say that AC XIV demands such a call for public ministers in the narrow sense, and requires some kind of official authorization for public ministers in the wider sense. That authorization may be established in a variety of ways, including the "calling" process. Others may disagree, but that's where your point comes in: the PMW is not exactly precise about it.

If you want to know what's scheduled for GPC, have a look at the envelope that was passed out to the pastors at synod convention. I don't think it included the thetical form of the PMW. (Now, if I can remember where I put mine...) Why don't you bring it up for discussion at your local winkel?

dan: Shaking the foundation of Christianity?

nospam@example.com (dan) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:34:58 -0700

So, people read the Old Testament and concluded that a Savior who was killed would rise again in three days for the salvation of Israel. ...and this proves that Jesus wasn't the Savior? How does THAT work?

btw, Jesse, thanks for posting the thetically formatted PMW by Pastor Webber the other day. Reading it raised a question or two in my mind, but they are the same questions raised by the PMW itself. (I'm still not clear on whether we're saying that teachers MUST receive calls, or only whether they CAN be called. cf. thesis 49). Anyway, my point is, thanks for posting it. That was the first I'd heard of it, and I appreciated getting it. Do you know if it's scheduled for discussion at GPC?

Peter Kaufman: Shaking the foundation of Christianity?

nospam@example.com (Peter Kaufman) — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:26:27 -0700

I would submit that this "ancient tablet" is probably another sensationalist scam, as is clearly indicated by the facts

(1) that no specific information is available on its provenance and

(2) that no details are provided on carbon dating of the ink.

As such, this "news" brings to mind the faked Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus "documentary" designed to make a profit off of people's fascination with the "real" Jesus, as well as the larger scandal of the biased and misleading way the Dead Sea scrolls are being presented in museum exhibits around the world, with an antisemitic expression appearing on a government-run North Carolina museum's website. See, e.g.,

http://spinozaslens.com/libet/articles/dworkin_ethicsofexhibition.htm

and

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew/archives/2008/06/dead_sea_scroll.shtml.