Rooster7

TheScout, "If one persons policies are more socialist than another's, isn't it fair to say so?" Careful now...you're making sense here. The only problem I have will labels is when they're applied to someone strictly to distort and distract from what the person represents and/or is attempting to state. For example, I'm a Bible believing Christian who's pretty conservative in my political views. Sometimes I will make an argument based purely on my beliefs in God and His teachings. However, most times there are secular arguments to support my views as well, and I don't hesitate to present them. Yet some folks prefer that I don't - it's much easier for them to label me as a Bible Thumping Christian (or something less polite) than to resort to reason. In their minds (and unfortunately in the minds of those who gobble up labels and swallow false stereotypes without thought), they have nullified (and ignored) my argument by portraying me as someone "less credible". I dont mind be calling a Bible Thumping Christian. Its not entirely complete but its true enough and succinct. That said, I do mind the label when its purpose is to call to ones mind a disparaging typecast and ultimately to taint who I am or what Im saying. Its a lazy and weak minded response. And alas, too often it works because many folks are too lazy and weak minded to look pass the label and to analyze the argument. That said - I wont hestitate to call someone a flaming liberal when they consistently present arguments which support the extreme left. But my ascertion would not be to distort or to distract, but to summarize the obvious. You can call me a fanatical Christian I dont mind. In fact, its what I strive to be. Just dont call me that when were discussing Jim Jones or David Corresh.

It's easy to blame leaders...but there isn't always a clean and easy answer to every problem. If one is confronted with an enemy, whose goal is your destruction - then what is the acceptable answer/response? What if we postpone the inevitable (i.e. war) and your enemy gains such an advantage that the cost in terms of sacrificed lives increases ten or hundred fold? Or the conflict is brought to your borders? Or the sacrificed lives now become those of civilians women and children? Or our very freedom is sacrificed? If/When that happens, will anyone attack the integrity of the previous Presidentsthose who chose not to act? In todays world, probably not. Our generation not only seeks immediate gratification, but cannot see beyond their collective nose. We demand complete and perfect answers from our leaders for each and every problem. So, the safe President makes great speeches and takes little action. This is how he protects his legacy. And when another President seeks to protect his country, rather than his legacy, hes ridiculed as a hate monger or portrayed as catering to special interests. Its a fallen world. In short, as long as God allows us to rule this planet, we ought not to expect to see Heaven on Earth. Theres always going to be conflicts and problems that cannot be resolved easily, and in some cases may never be resolved. That said, I continue to be thankful for our President.

Vicki, I'm not convinced by that argument. How do you explain these verses: " 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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. 28Furthermore, 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 1:26-28

And since some of us are trying to be glib, let's make this very clear - although, for those with common sense, it need not be said: Being black is not a behavior or a choice. Having sex with other men is a behavior - and partaking in such behavior is a choice. So please stow the 60s Civil Rights comparisons. It doesn't hold up. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Horizon, A couple of points for you to ponder before you head out the door on your camping trip - 1) The God in the OT is the same God in the NT. As believers in Christ, while we are free from judgment resulting from the laws of the OT (or rather our inability to conform to those laws), we are still called to be Holy by God's standards, which is Christ. He did not abolish the standard set by the law but exceeded it. The law says do not commit murder; while Christ says do not hate. The law says do not commit adultery; while Christ says do not lust. Jesus words: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Mathew 5:17-20 2) My church welcomes homosexuals, just as we welcome everyone and anyone else. However, unrepentant sin tends to disqualify folks from leadership positions, especially when that position is viewed as having spiritual headship over others. Pauls words (interestingly from the NT): 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 Just to be clear, I know that Christs blood covers all. But clearly, the NT (as well as the OT) teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It is not to be celebrated. It is an unholy practice. God fearing followers of Christ, if practicing this behavior should repent and seek Gods forgiveness. 4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Luke 12:4&5

"Anyone who sincerely wants to live in a country where 'God is sovereign and His Righteousness cannot be denied or redefined' can always move to Saudi Arabia or Iran." And if that attitude was adopted by our forefathers about 250 years ago, you'd probably be speaking a different language and doing it from another spot on the globe. This country was founded by folks who embraced God, not by those who rejected Him. You're free to define Him in your mind and with your words as you please - but the God of the Universe is real and changeable. Eventually everyone will know that. As for my desires to see our country embrace Him again its just that a desire a hopebut I am not endorsing a society that imposes religion on anyone such as Iran. Youre free to paint me with that brush (i.e. religious fascist), but I think most folks understood what I was saying. If not, I cant make it any clearer for them.

Sorry to spoil the love fest here for those folks embracing these enduring values. Alas, I am not inspired by those men who chose to have sex with one another. Nor do I think it is a wonderful thing to push God out of ones mind to justify those types of choices. I know for some, this sin-free utopia is progressive But you can count me as one of those regressive types whod like to see this country go back to a time when they fully embraced God. Was it perfect during those times? No - of course it was not. We found plenty of ways to sin against God but at least as a collective, we recognized the fact that we were sinners. Today, we have redefined sin so we can deny its existence in our livesdenying our need for a Savior. What a great shock it will be for those folks when they discover that God is sovereign and His Righteousness cannot be denied or redefined. I weep for the youth of a church that would install and celebrate a gay youth leader.

I don't know about Councils. But I'm pretty sure a CO can adopt their own health and safety policies (if they are more stringent than Nationals). But I defer to someone with more direct knowledge. That said - I find it difficult to believe that BSA would tell a chartering organization that they cannot adopt a policy like "three deep adult leadership" vice "two deep adult leadership".

I'm not particularly impressed by a tattoo, but I don't have a huge problem with them. I've encountered good folks with tattoos. That said a few years back, I saw a boy's club coach with a swastika tattoo on his forearm. I always thought that the boys club should have given the coach the option - cover it up and coach, or get lost. Just my opinion...(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I would not argue with the ascertion that no unit has ever been sucessfully sued for the removal of a leader (per BW). However, I would argue that the following statement is false - Technically the Unit and CO can not be sued. I can think of a scenario where someone could be very successful in a lawsuit against the CO. But the CO would have to make some very, very bad decisions. For example: Say a unit leader is falsely accused of violating Youth Protection. If the CO makes this a very public issue (e.g. gives interviews to the local paper, etc.) and removes the unit leader for the said cause (YP violation) with little or no proof, I can envision the ex-leader filing a very legitment lawsuit against the CO. On the other hand, if the CO does not make public statements - which could make them vulnerable to a slander suit - and they simply dismiss the leader without explanation, then I don't see the ex-leader having any recourse but to accept it. The short of it, if youre going to remove a leader (as a CO), you ought to keep it a private matter unless you have very credible proof for any public statements one might make. Im just saying anyone can be successfully sued, if you make enough dumb choices.

Bat boy? Didn't they change that to "bat person"?

I have two theories: 1) There really is some kind of threat that warrants this kind of concern and direction given by the DoT. 2) Some self-appointed idiot in government has nothing better to do but to exercise his powers and hinder a private organization from doing a public good. Either is very plausible. Here's my problem. I rarely see enough facts behind these stories to get worked up either way.

kraut-60 I in no way will be drawn into debating interpretations of the bible...especially in light of the fact that it was heavily edited by the "church" and its leaders to reflect the "beliefs" they thought suitable for consumption by the masses...many books were omitted and/or banned because they didnt measure up to what the "leaders" of the church felt was suitable for the people they "served". Contrary to your initial statement, you seem eager to coax me into debating you. Why else attack the source of my beliefs the Bible. Religion is a fine thing...when taken in moderation and small doses. I am quite weary of the proselityzing that must be endured by many in public forums...and am especially tired of having bible verse trotted out and quoted as if doing so embellishes one with moral authority. Religion in small doses is a fine thing? Why dont you just say its okay to be a little black? Its just as bigoted. It appears to me that you have no problem with a faith so long as it shares your philosophy of all paths are equal and lead to the same place and/or if you can chose when to be exposed to those to such a faith. That is not religious tolerance. Its the opposite. Youre claiming to be open minded, yet you condemn anyone has the audacity to claim that they know truth about God and/or elects to tell others. And just to be clear claiming to know the truth, doesnt mean one is intolerant of others. That is, I seek no persecution for those who believe differently. I agree that all should be free to pursue their own course, but that doesnt negate my right tell others what I believe. And per the first amendment, that right is first and foremost for public forums (not that the Scouter forum is such a forum, but they have tolerated free discussion of all issues to date). By the way, if/when I quote the Bible and you sense any moral authority be assured that I do not claim that authority to be my own (although I have no doubt about its authenticity). I am grateful to live in our great country because people here can believe freely in their own interpretation of God...being preached at by anyone who doesnt share my views, but takes them to task while assuming a moral authority is annoying and marks them as a religious fanatic...I hope you draw comfort from your beliefs...but do not denigrate mine for NOT matching yours. Kindly mind your own business. I never denigrated you or your beliefs. I simply noted that there was a disconnect in your logic.

I agree with BW and others. Although, someone said this unofficial policy (second leader should not be a spouse) is not for the youths protection, it's for the leader's protection. I disagree. I think it is for both. If you read the papers, there's enough strange goings-ons these days to give parents pause for concern. If something did occur, it's not beyond the pale of reasoning to believe that a spouse was complicit (or at least to believe that the spouse could not be objective enough to stop or report an event properly). It happens. If not in the BSA, definitely elsewhere. For example, if a spouse had a beer on a campout, how many spouses would report that violation to the troop or BSA? I realize most folks in BSA leadership recognize that event as a gross violation, but I suspect most spouses are not willing to strain the relationship over something like this.

That, my friend, is a true believer's heart. Should I ever find myself in such circumstances, I hope and pray I can echo his faith, courage, and strength. Thanks Brent.

GernBlansten and Ozemu My faith is not about virtues. Its about having a relationship with God. A relationship that is paramount for ones salvation. Many, who embrace this faith, feel it is better to be annoying than to be ignored. Of course, this assumes the end result is that the annoyed person is forced to consider his relationship with God. I applaud those who endure ridicule for preaching the truth. I rarely go that far not because Im considerate, but because I often lack the courage that should accompany my convictions. Romans 10:14 & 15 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

We should not compartmentalize faith and claim one is better than others... It sounds as if you're telling me - You can believe whatever you want; just don't claim it and/or promote it with conviction. So I can believe in Jesus, but I shouldn't think about those "pesky little" verses like - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" or "Go and make disciples". How does your interpretation of faith allow one to embrace the truths declared in the Bible? Or perhaps, youre suggesting that I should adopt your version of faith? No, that cant be it else youd be claiming your faith to be better than mine. I think youve created a Catch-22 in logic. If you believe in the truths of your faith and refuse to promote them as such, then you either have serious doubts or you dont care about your fellow man enough to share the truth. Neither of those two possibilities is consistent with my faith.

Parents drive the kids to the park which is a half mile away because Bobby could get lost. Okay I understand the concerns about the over protective parent. But before we condemn them all, let me point out a few things: 1) When I grew up (and I presume this is true for many here on this board), I had the full run of the neighborhood and then some. I easily strayed with my friends around woods, fields, and creeks within a mile, two, or three of my home. As long as I made it back for dinner and/or before dark, my parents were happy. 2) During that time (60s/early 70s), no doubt child molesters were around. However, per the headlines and crime statistics today, the pervert population is growing in this country. 3) The BSA leadership has been stained by the aforementioned population spurt in pedophiles. And we all know (or should know) that pedophiles are opportunists. They seek roles such as teacher, babysitter, and Scout leader to create those opportunities. 4) I have seen more than one thread on this forum complaining about hazing in a troop and/or at summer camp. 5) I have also seen several threads citing stories where Scout leaders did not take proper measures to ensure a Scout's safety. With the above said, I fault no parent who worries over his child even when that child has been to camp for several years in a row. In fact, in some cases, I applaud their vigil - for not falling into a false sense of security. We need to be aware of the potential dangers in our society and stand in the gap for our children. Now, I realize this can be carried too far and there are examples of such cited in this thread. Still, I rather see a kid with the hyper worrier as a parent, then a kid whose parent shows no interest or concern. So, if you can volunteer and be near your kid - I see no harm so long as you give him some space. And for me, I don't believe that means "don't talk" to him. It just means dont make him the focus of your attention and everyone elses by babying him.

It is difficult to believe that the BSA will withstand the next generation of progressives - In 20 years or so, I imagine folks will be visiting this forum to discover the consensus view on what the requirements are or should be for the atheist award, and such enlightening spin off threads like - If an atheist has doubts, is he worthy of such an honor? So, if a tree falls in the woods, and a Pagan is not there to worship it never mind.

BadenP, Up until this point in your post, I have no disagreement: Human beings have taken his teachings from scripture throughout history and corrupted them to suit their own selfish needs and desires. Doesnt that just re-enforce my point with which youre arguing against Man is inherently bad (due to his corrupted nature)? That is why you or any other person does not have the right to tell another how to believe, only God has the right to pronounce judgment. I dont think I ever tell someone how to believe not sure what that means. But I will not shy away from telling someone what the Gospel says. I think the following scripture is clear and difficult to reinterpret: Matthew 28:18-20 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, very end of the age." Man is imperfect and capable of doing good or bad. The so called inherent stain of original sin against God, a myth created by clergy, can not be washed away by one human being baptizing another. Since God created all life it seems logical he created a way to salvation for all, not just the Christians. Again, these thoughts are not consistent with the Gospel: Ephesians 2:3&4 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsit is by grace you have been saved. Matthew 7:13&14 13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

For those that claim the Christian faith, I submit these verses for your consideration (concerning the nature of man): Romans 7:4-6 4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Galatians 5:16-18 16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. Ephesians 2:1-5 1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsit is by grace you have been saved.

Eagledad, Well - I don't know about scary, but it certainly is an eye opener to me. There seems to be a consensus in this group - that kids, if not all of humanity, is inherently good. Yet, I detect a fair amount of bitterness from folks towards me for having an opinion that differs from theirs. Furthermore, others want to twist and infer my reasoning into some sort of justification for child abuse. Go figure. Beavah, John 15:4-6 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. I submit that the same free will that allows you to do Gods pleasure also permits you to set yourself apart from Him although its not a good idea.

Beavah, Yah, Rooster, Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction, not a documentary In literature, good fiction is good because of its believability. But if you find Lord of the Flies so unbelievable, perhaps you could expound on how you believe these boys would have behaved given the same circumstances? A teenager who becomes mouthy and rebellious hurts himself and his relationship with his parents, eh? That makes the parent work harder, give more, sacrifice more out of love. But it doesn't make the kid inherently bad. And we are all da children of God. If we are all inherently good, then why is Jesus atoning sacrifice necessary for us to be acceptable before God our Father? SR540Beaver, Salvation does not make a person "good". It makes them forgiven and "sinless" before God. Free will still exists and even with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, a person can choose wrong over right. Okay I didnt mean to imply that all Christians become inherently good (i.e. pure in heart, word, and action) through salvation. What I said was Without Gods intervention (His Sons sacrifice, His stirring of our hearts, and His Holy Spirit, etc.), man has no hope of being good. Without Gods grace, to some degree, all of our thoughts and actions are corrupted. But with that said, I agree that believers can and do make wrong choices. Eagledad, Most of the time when you see a kid who picks on another kid in these situations, the bully isnt getting enough attention from the parents. In the show, the Nanny visits the family some months later and the kids are completely different... So, the good kid, in order to gain the attention he feels he deserves from his parents, strikes his sister whos perpetrated no wrong against him. Hmmm. If youre trying to convince me that this kid is inherently good, this example doesnt do it. ... And the solution nine times out of ten is the same as the Nanny: set consistent limits on the dogs so they learn what the master will and will not tolerate, and exercise the dog to burn off the excess energy So, when the kid/dog learns that hell get smacked back or punished by some other means (i.e. his own self interests will not be served), then he learns to stop the bad behavior. Learning behaviors does not make one inherently good or bad. Whats in ones heart thats the source of good and bad. If the entire country read the Bible daily, and we didnt have God in our hearts, wed still be motivated by our selfish desires. As believers, perhaps this argument of inherently good or bad is just a red-herring. If we agree that apart from God, we can do no good then I think were on the same page. If not, then were no longer arguing as believers in the same God.

Packsaddle, "Go rent Lord of the Flies." Proof through comparison to a movie. I'm in awe. Getting a little personal, arent we? I thought you missed my sparring. No matter - Its a well constructed movie. And I point it out as a good example of how kids, collectively, tend to act no differently than adults. "Christianity states that newborns have "original sin."" Indeed you are correct, acco40. I find the view disgusting and reprehensible. If there was such a mythical thing as satan, it would embrace that view. I cant say I entirely understand Adam and Eves fall and how were impacted by their act of rebellion (i.e. original sin). What I do understand is this I have yet to befriend a person on this planet who eventually did not display a selfish heart and/or confessed to the same. Yes, there are many people who behave well and appear to show all the signs of a generous and loving person. While I dont deny our ability to love others, Im convinced left alone (without God) our hearts will always revert back to its first love ones self. Eagledad, I think you have it backwards, first it starts with just about ourselves, then it is about development. Every single person is born with their bent or attitude. Well yes. I submit that bent at birth is always and primarily serving and loving oneself and does not fundamentally change until we embrace God. I was trying to convey to Packsaddle that eventually we become young adults and we have no more excuses (if indeed we ever had such an excuse). It is interesting how we look at kids as selfish in nature and cringe from it. But nature put that selfishness in most creatures when they are young for survival. I think when a three year old smacks his younger sister because she has the audacity to pick up one of his toys; it has nothing to do with survival. Its just a kid acting out and being selfish. And it changes when the youth goes through puberty. I have watched it in scouts many hundreds of times to be convinced of it. After puberty, most humans are giving and caring because that is nature required to raise families. Wow that doesnt reflect the world I live in. Explain a >50% divorce rate and the amount of child abuse thats reported here in the U.S. and elsewhere. What happened to all those great kids did they do through another developmental stage? Beavah. Rooster, mate, I think yeh got it wrong. Man is made in da image and likeness of God. That God himself became man, was friends with men and women, sent his Spirit out to abide in us. Yah, we're tempted. Yah, we're fallen from what we should be. Yet we strive to rise again. Man is inherently good. Since youre referencing the Bible to make your point, I assume that youre a Christian and believe in Gods Word. So if were made in Gods image (as you noted and the Bible teaches), I have to also assume you believe in mans fallen nature (as taught in Genesis), and its not until we repent and accept Jesus as our Savior that God sends His Holy Spirit to us. Thus, without Gods intervention (His Sons sacrifice, His stirring of our hearts, and His Holy Spirit, etc.), man has no hope of being good. You can strive to rise again, but its not going to happen without some assistance. OldGreyEagle, If man is inherently evil, how did the Greeks invent democracy Even a serial killer can show acts of kindness, that doesnt change the evil that resides inside that person. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Acco40, Okay - so maybe we have an excuse for our behavior (good, bad, or indifferent) through the terrible two's...maybe even a year or two after that. I'm not completely buying your assertion that a two year old doesn't realize that his behavior is bad - but I'll relent. Bottom line - eventually, it's not about development...it's just about ourselves. My vote - we're inherently bad (i.e. prone to please ourselves...prone to sin).