Rooster7

Then, in your view, throughout the Bible where it says "man", it means that quite literally? Why do you presume that to be true? The intended meaning needs to be interpreted within the context of the verse and chapter, and in a consistent manner with the rest of Scripture. If that's the case, then it would sure seem likely verses can be found that place women into subservience in ways beyond just spiritual leadership. Perhaps...but as I said, interpret within context. Can you provide some examples? I get the picture. I suspect that you will draw whatever picture that suits your purpose but that is not likely to reflect reality.

TJ Well, let's stick with the one I brought up in the most recent post... the Bible outlines a role for women to be subserviant to man. Most of Christianity rejects this today... where do you stand? My understanding of the Bible is that men should not be under a womans spiritual headship. Why? I cannot say but I believe it is clearly taught. This teaching does not speak to womens abilities or roles in relationship to men outside of spiritual leadership. And an extension of that example, what of the recent "edits" to the Bible to be more "gender-neutral" in the use of pronouns... do you reject new translations that refer to "people" instead of "man" or "woman"? I reject any translation that is inspired by political correctness. I read English translations that attempt to keep the integrity of the authors original words and meaning. Translations that attempt to do more than that are of no value to me.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

TJ That's progress, because a few moments ago you were convinced of what was really in my heart. (And you still seem suspect as to whether what I'm expressing in this forum is what I really believe. Very odd.) As a matter fact, I dont know what is in your heart. However, I strongly suspect that you know differently than what you say. I suspect this to be true, because I know God speaks to each of us. He will not allow us to ignore Him or His truth. Why question my sincerity? More importantly, you've already established there's no room for a third person's perspective between my heart and God, regardless of what you "find difficult to believe". Depends on how you define a third persons perspective. I dont claim to know where you stand with God nor could I. However, I can tell you what Gods Word says as it may be applicable to you. If you tell me that youre an unrepentant homosexual then its not my judgment when I advise you that the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin Or, that God will judge those who refuse be repentant from their sins and accept His sons sacrifice. I'll concede you've spent much more time studying them than I have, though I don't see how that makes you any more of an authority on something you agree is so personal. Ones relationship with God is personal on this I absolutely agree. However, His Word is universally true. I disagree, I believe there is considerable likelihood for misinterpretation and translation based on cultural bias. Though I also believe in the end it doesn't matter whether the current wording of the Bible is based on an accurate translation. I see Jesus saying that the lessons and laws of the Bible are subject to change, and I see how Christianity has already changed scriptural tradition on many other things (subservience of women, etc) to reflect an evolved ethos. This sounds like a sales job to me. Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Its quite possible that youre sincere, but I doubt that God will allow you believe this for long. Do you believe the Word of God is subject to change? No. If not, how do you explain modern views that differ from ancient views on many fundamental tenants of God's Word? I need more details. What views have changed? There are some modern day teachings which I disagree. There is also OT ritualistic law, which one was required to follow in order to approach God. However, Christs sacrifice on the cross enables us to seek him directly.

What are these parents thinking? Yes, I think it should be considered. Just to be clear though - How often? How many? Under what circumstances? Are adults (parents) around when this occurs? If I was reviewing this Scout for rank advancement, I'd like to know these answers.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I'm suggesting - If your heart is telling you something different than what you have expressed in this forum, a debate with God will be futile. He will not be convinced otherwise...because He knows all. I don't know what's in your heart. However, if youre sincerely searching for God, I find it very difficult to believe that He would allow you to embrace homosexuality unashamedly. I believe God reveals who He is through His Word. I don't understand every verse. However, the bible's teachings on homosexualtiy are clear.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Romans 1:24-28 Per Justin Cannon: As we see, Paul is talking about heterosexual individuals filled with lust and engaging in homosexual sex, which is contrary to their nature. So the unnatural acts mentioned by Paul are unnatural because Justin is purporting that the aforementioned men and women were heterosexual vice homosexual. In other words, if these particular men and women were actual homosexuals, then their behavior would have been perfectly acceptable...or rather; their acts would not have been unnatural. Hogwash. TJ if you or any other homosexual is going to convict my heart, its not going to be that I am twisting Gods Word to conform to my own prejudices. I have no personal agenda against homosexuals. His Word is plain, homosexuality is a sin. No, if I am to be convicted, its that sometimes I forget that God hates sin, not the sinner. I like to think that I rarely get derailed into this kind of thinking, but I know the human heart is a deceitful thing. I may have made some venomous arguments. If any of my responses appeared to be a personal attack as opposed to a discussion about God's Will for us then I truly apologize. I know that is not what my God (perhaps our God if we are both seeking Him) wants from me. Nevertheless, just as I know that yearnings in my heart, which prompts me to stare at a bikini-wearing twenty-something girl at the beach, is not from God Im convinced that you and many others know in your heart of hearts that whatever desires you have for other men are not from Him as well. No amount of Scripture twisting will convince me otherwise. More importantly, no matter what you may be able to convince yourself and other men to believe, I am confident that God knows what resides in all of our hearts. No words need to be spoken. Our hearts will speak to Him, whether our desires are to be like Him or to seek something else. He cannot be fooled.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Prairie_Scouter, Planned Parenthood doesn't "advocate" abortion. Surely, you can't be serious. How many women walk into a Planned Parenthood office, and come out deciding to keep their child? You'd have more credibility if you claimed Bin Laden doesn't advocate violence against Americans.

Prairie_Scouter, Im sure it wasnt your intent to portray me as sort of prude in order to score points for your cause. So to be clear, I never said sex was wrong. I think that was obvious, but I will say it explicitly so that you cannot distort my words in the future. I said - we need to recognize the power of sexual temptation, especially in mens lives. If youre stating that sexual temptation has no more influence over men that most other temptations, then I have to conclude one of two things either youre in denial or youre not a man possibly both. I remember my school years from elementary school, to JR high, to SR high, and all through college. I recall working as a laborer when I was 19 - pouring concrete for a construction company. I currently work with many professionals as an engineer at NASA. Ive attended all sorts of churches - Catholic and Protestant. Ive hung around with book worms, rednecks, jocks, and academics If Ive learned one thing from my social, academic, and professional relationships with other men - the one thing 99.99% of us have in common, is a great weakness for sexual temptation. If youre one of the .01% not affected, thank God that hes placed that protection around you. However, even so, youd have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to realize how sexual temptation potentially affects the rest of us. With that said, I have a very difficult time viewing homosexuality as some sort of hidden talent such as piano playing. I think the analogy is very naive.

BSA is a private ogranization trying to milk as much aid as possible from "outsiders" - be it government or other charitable causes - under terms that it cannot honestly comply with. I think the BSA is a private organization that seeks to improve the lives of boys, which happily accepts support wherever they can get it. I dont see that as a huge evil. It uses legal weaseling like "Learning for Life" which is NOT a "discrimanatory" organization to get aid "Scouting" cannot receive. I suppose thats one Scouters viewpoint. You are a Scouter right? BSA solicits preferentiall treatment and exclusion from laws that other groups have to comply with. I think the BSA welcomes a friendly government. So long as they are not signing agreements which they know they cannot keep (which apparently happened at least once at the council level), I dont think its their responsibility or obligation to figure out what an agency of the government can or cannot do. That is hardly ethical and more than a few people see the hypocrisy. If my viewpoint on this subject gets me called a hypocrite, so be it. Ive been called worse. Id rather live with that slight than embrace the cynical views stated above.

So the question remains, does playing the piano rub off on any unsuspecting by-standers? This analogy fails in so many ways. Even if you don't consider homosexuality to be a perversion, one should consider the potential influence that sexuality has on an individual any individual but especially men. Its staggering how many succumb. Since the beginning of time, sexual temptation has caused the ruin of more mens lives than any other vice. In contrast, from my limited life experience, I dont know of one news account whereas a man left his wife and family, or more generally speaking - set his life on a course for self-destruction, due to an irrepressible urge to play the piano.

Merlyn, Im not up to reading a 30 page summary of the case. I will take your word that the Old Baldy Council is guilty of signing an agreement which they did not intend to honor. However, this proves that this particular council acted unethically. I dont view it as being representative of the entire organization. Furthermore, Im not predisposed to believe that the signers of this agreement knew better from the onset. That is, I dont buy the argument that every council and/or its legal representation will always know with confidence how the courts will interpret specific wording of an agreement. Not every court will interpret every clause the same way. Im just saying that there is room for human error in this as opposed to someone acting unethically, i.e. fraudulently entering an agreement.

I don't understand the debate. The BSA IS a private organization. The BSA has no obligation, legally or ethically, to declare that fact. They are - what they are. To the contrary, if they declared themselves to be a public organization, it would be lie. Furthermore, the appropriate government agencies would be encumbered to rectify that distortion and perhaps even levy penalties against the BSA. The claim of being a public entity is not the same claim as being open to the public. Most theme parks are open to the public. However, they are not public parks. As to any help the BSA may receive from the government, it is the responsibility of the sponsoring agencies to determine whether or not their help is appropriate and legal. Again, the BSA is not acting unethically or illegally when they accept help from the government. It is not their job to determine whether or not such aid is legal its the governments duty. As to this claim - The BSA is unethical because they accept public assistance yet they do not accept homosexuals, all religious faiths, or atheists. It is a ridiculous notion. First, as I have ready noted, it is the governments job (more pointedly, the appropriate agencies, and possibly those in our judicial system) to determine whether or not such aid is legal. Second, this claim rests on ones interpretation of the Constitution and some court rulings. Its ludicrous to assume that the BSA would have the same understanding of these legal matters as those who criticize them. Not because it hinders their current operations, but because these matters are not clear-cut. Third, despite the assertion of some, many in and out of our government believe that this kind of aid (given to the BSA) IS perfectly legal that it does not constitute the establishment of a state religion.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

If I understand the last three posters correctly (Scoutldr, GernBlansten, Fuzzy Bear) - To understand homosexuality (i.e. how TJ became gay), we should plant our fat heterosexual butts on a piano bench and learn to play music from the heart. Hmmm, if I had only realized this sooner.

mmhardy - I suppose the goal of your post was to lift up and edify. Still, theres a simple solution to your pain. Dont read this thread or post here.

Rooster - I'm bewildered by what "behavior I embrace" that has you so uptight. Im sure you already know. Regardless, youre not going to succeed in getting me to reply to it and I think the reasons are obvious. Life with my partner around our house is about as "normal" as it gets, and my "behavior" out in the world is pretty much indistinguishable (at least as far as my sexuality goes... in other ways, I do aspire to be a little distinguished ;-)). Im sorry, but two men deriving sexual pleasure from one another will never to be normal to me. The only "behaviour" I can imagine that has you so worried for my soul (and my influence on the world) is what happens in my bedroom. Alas, I regret to inform you that's pretty unremarkable, as well. If its so unremarkable to you, why do you fight so hard to keep doing it? As to your soul, I worry for you to the degree that I can worry for anyones soul that I might know on a casual basis. If I was a better child of God, Id probably be able to show more compassion. That being the case, the best I can do, is to simply tell you what I know in my heart to be true. Gods law reveals the sin in all of us. Our need for a savior is plain to see. While I have my own sins to be bear, I think you know yours. I dont claim to be better than you. And I dont point to your sin to lessen the appearance of evil in my own life. I fight to show the evil of homosexuality because we have an obligation as Gods children to speak the truth as He has shown it. If you feel that I am not speaking the truth in love then I apologize. Its quite possible that I like to debate more than I like to tell Gods truth and/or show His love. This is perhaps one of my flaws. Regardless, I am convinced that I am speaking the truth. My delivery may be rougher than I care to admit. BTW, your argument is weakened, not strengthened, by lumping me in with predators, self-abusers and the dangerous/reckless. If you try hard enough, surely you'll see the difference between my "sinful behavior" and the parallels you've drawn. The point is not that homosexuals are predators (although, Im sure some are). Read my previous post again. My point is that the claim of inborn attraction, true or not, is not justification for one to act on that attraction. The examples I used, were pedophiles and alcoholics. No matter how inherit their disease, we expect them to control their behavior.

TJ, 1) I never chose to be gay, I just am. Something every pedophile will tell you as well. Your claim does not justify your embracement of that behavior. Alcoholics dont choose to be alcoholic, but we expect them to control their behavior. 2) Your religious view is not a universal religious view, and the BSA "claims" you/they have no right to impose your religious view on others as a condition of membership. No ones views on morality, religious or otherwise, are universally accepted. The BSA has chosen to embrace a set of moral values. Apparently they align with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Regardless, its their choice and I do not believe it violates any Scouts ability to seek religious training outside of the BSA. 3) Your other views of homosexuality (non-religious based) are based solely on conjecture and ignorance (i.e. lacking corroborative data). I dont think so. But you are free to believe otherwise. I think the facts and common sense support my position. The convenience of your position is that you can bounce back and forth between using religious and non-religious arguments, and in the end dismiss your opponents as "devilish delusion", just like your Bible has predicted. Convenience or not, a religious based argument does not have to conflict with secular arguments. In fact, I have found that science is very consistent with my Christian faith. When my judgement comes, as you suggest it will, I take comfort in being judged for who and how I loved, and not the opposite. I do wish you well on that day, too. Only God knows your heart. He knows whether or not you have rejected Him or embrace Him. I never implied otherwise. In regard to your wishes, sincere or not, they will have no affect on that day. I will stand before God as someone who has either accepted Him or not.

Don't lump all viewpoints together. One's perspective either represents truth and logic, or it does not. So I challenge you to listen. Second, it's a matter of degree. I may be offended by some OA ceremonies, but I'm not lobbying against the BSA either. I'm just not a big fan of the OA. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Prairie_Scouter, Once again, homosexuality may be a sin within the constructs of some religious beliefs, but that doesn't make it universal. What is true about homosexuality in regard to it being a moral construct, is true for every moral law including murder. Name one moral law that is universally accepted among men. What is the difference, really, between what religious groups are doing now, acting against gays, and the actions of whites against blacks in history until some corrections were made starting in the 1960's? The discrimination that homosexuals face is the result of their behavior, which is immoral. Obviously, inherit physical traits such as being black, does not make one immoral and is not a valid basis for discrimination. Furthermore, not all who believe homosexuality is wrong, are religious. tjhammer, Rooster, it's a bit disingenuous for you to couch your criticisms to be "I just think it's a sin". Your condemnation has gone far, far beyond that, and you regularly have suggested gays are perverse, unclean, unnatural, insidious, etc. With in the context of various discussions, Im sure that I have said all things about the sin of homosexuality. However, the same can be said about all sins. We all need Gods mercy. Homosexuals have no greater need than anyone else. This I have said numerous times. Yet, if one is unrepentant, the bible clearly teaches that he will not find Gods mercy. And yes, I have argued against homosexuality without respect to my faith. I think biologically, the most stubborn person can see that it does not make sense biologically. Similarly, despite the intellectual gymnastics of some others, I think the inborn argument is very weak. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Fuzzy Bear, If you read my posts carefully, I am not condemning homosexuals. I have no window into the soul of others. I am noting that homosexuality is a sinsomething that many on this board do not want to recognize.

It's entirely possible that all "sanctioned" OA ceremonies are non-religious in nature. I can't say. I am not a member. Regardless, I have seen call out ceremonies conducted at summer camp and at some troop meetings. They were spiritual in nature, and they did call upon Pagan gods, but perhaps this was merely the work of some creative boys. wojauwe, Please educate your self before you bring the OA into your religious witch hunt. Your indignation is duly noted. It's unnecessary and insulting, but I recognize your disdain for any discussion that might put the OA in a negative light. Please try to remember that your experience may not reflect that of every BSA member, past and present.

tjhammer brought homosexuality into the discussion when he implied that my stance on OA ceremonies was hypocritical in relationship to my stance on homosexuality. I was merely trying to explain to him why I felt I was being consistent...and that Christianity was not dictating BSA policy.

Christians are not the only ones that believe homosexuality is wrong. I'd venture to say there's probably a few atheists that feel it is wrong too. Some might argue that homosexuality goes against nature. I wonder what the Indian cultures have to say about homosexuality.

I knew that question would follow. No, I don't. Because a prayer is an offering which is made by an individual. You can support it or ignore it. In contrast, a ceremony requires one's participation. However, if a troop is NOT sponsored by a church and the only prayers ever offered were by Christains, then I'd say you have a legitimate complaint. As I said, I don't mind seeing other religions (i.e. hearing their prayers). A prayer offered by someone else, doesn't require my direct participation.

I suppose if I was uptight about seeing other religious views, it might upset me. I have no problem seeing other religious views or practices. However, the OA is open to all faiths. Ceremonies which require participation by members and/or candidates, should be generic in their approach towards God. Christians should not be made to recognize Pagan, polytheist gods. I find this kind of ceremony offensive when my sons or I are brought into them. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

TJ, No I have no affiliation whatsoever with Bob Jones University. While it has no relevance to me, it was an interesting rant. Interesting because you follow the same means and methods of many of the gay activists, which you claim to have no association. For example, rather than discussing the specific issue and debating the relative arguments, you attempt to smear me and/or draw me into a side debate, apparently hoping that I will offend some other group such as blacks or Catholics. Sorry to disappoint you, but while I have some doctrinal differences with Catholics, I love them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Similarly, I enjoy the company of other believers regardless of their color. Matter of fact, I use to share fellowship with a repentant homosexual in a church small group. I haven't seen him in awhile, but I truly appreciated his ability to share his heart.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)