A Rather Interesting Comment

[evmori]

Quixote,

Your perceptions are correct! The reason boys & not girls! IMHO, sexually abusing girls is rape. Also, there are alot of Catholic schools that are boy/girl only!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Quixote]

Thanks Ed -

 

I hadn't thought of that. Makes you wonder how many rape cases were handled on the sly within the church as well though. Very sad.

 

Quixote

[OldGreyEagle]

I always have been uncomfortable discussing this and this is the only post I will make on this subject.

 

The priest that molested me and raped my brother was a pediphile pure and simple, he was not gay. He did not exhibit "gay" characteristics and when he left our parish he was always in the compnay of young teen boys. He was never in the company of men, only children. My brother and I harbor no ill will against gays, only priests. For my part I have no problem having gay leaders in Boy Scouts as I know from personal experience that Gay DOES NOT equal pedophiliac and have distrusted priests ever since even tho I attend church regularly

 

The abuse ocurred over a period of years and in true fashion we never told anyone about it. In my case, it never occured to me to tell anyone I just wanted it to stop. When I stopped putting my self alone with the priest he moved on to my brother. We never talk about this, perhaps we should. Later in life I did report him to the Diocese. Do not tell me its a Gay issue, pedophilia is separate, I know I was there.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Rooster7]

It's also intellectually (and religiously) dishonest to believe God made a being with the expectation that they would either "be a sinner" or be sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy.

 

TJ,

 

Your statement defends pedophilia as much as it does homosexuality. How do you make the case for one and exclude the other? God made all men, including pedophiles. Per your preposition, "intellectual/religious dishonesty" is also victimizing pedophiles, not to mention a number of other sexual deviations.

 

But it is at least refreshing to realize that official doctrine of that Church has come to grips with the innate nature of homosexuality... it's a step in the right direction to reckoning man's bigotry with God's will.

 

Are talking about God's will or the homosexuals' will? The God of the bible does not defend homosexuality; it condemns it. Anyone who says otherwise has twisted Scripture to serve his/her purposes.

 

Slontwovvy,

 

The quotes you presenteddo they represent the teachings of the whole Church? Is this from Rome or the American Catholic Church? I am curious. Does anyone remember George Carling? He used to do a great comedy routine about the Catholic Church's view on sin. The gist of it was this - If you thought about sinning, planned a sin, and executed a sin, you really committed three sins. In other words, just contemplating homosexual acts would be a sin. As funny as the routine was, I agree with this teaching. Which by the way, this is further proof for man's need for an atoning sacrifice and redemption - Christ. Without out His gift, we are forever stained with sin. Our own thoughts, no matter how hard we might try, will condemn us.

 

OGE,

 

I grieve for all the young (and old) victims of pedophilia. I certainly can't say I know how you feel, nor would I ever try to guess. This is a horror, of which, only you and other victims can provide testimony. While I would never claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles, I do believe both are sins of a sexual nature. Furthermore, I believe once a man descends down a road of sin, particular of a sexual nature, he is capable of becoming even more corrupt.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer]

Rooster said: While I would never claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles, I do believe both are sins of a sexual nature. Furthermore, I believe once a man descends down a road of sin, particular of a sexual nature, he is capable of becoming even more corrupt.According to the Catholic Church, so is masturbation (in fact, it's mentioned in the same catechism as homosexualitly). I hope you don't believe masturbation is the same a pedophilia, or a slippery slope toward that.

 

 

Rooster I do respect your right to an opinion and your style of discussion. I can usually count on you to be a consistent and honest defender of your point of view, and quite knowledgeable about your religion.

 

Pedophilia is by its nature an adult who takes sexual advantage of a non-consenting (read not capable of consent) child. It is therefore immoral and also illegal (this gets back to the earlier debates with DedDad). Homosexuality is not predatory and does not require subordination of will by one party for the other.

 

God made homosexuals. God also made pedophiles, schizophrenics and cancer victims. You see commonality between gays and one or more of the later three. There is, however, no commonality. Gays are neither immoral, criminal, mentally deficient or diseased. They are quite simply the same as heterosexuals in every way save one: they find intimacy (companionship and sexual) with same sex partners. You view that as deviant; gays view it as simply more natural for them. Most can't even explain why.tjhammer said: official doctrine of that Church has come to grips with the innate nature of homosexuality... it's a step in the right direction to reckoning man's bigotry with God's will.

 

Rooster said: Are talking about God's will or the homosexuals' will?God's will. Which is to love one another. Which, in my opinion placed a diverse culture of man into this world to see how we can come together as one to glorify him. Sooner or later (probably sooner, if the official Catholic Church is already starting to acknowledge this) man will realize that God made one out of every ten or twenty people to be homosexual. Once that realization hits you, how will you reconcile your previous position?Rooster said: The God of the Bible does not defend homosexuality; it condemns it. Anyone who says otherwise has twisted Scripture to serve his/her purposes.The "God of the Bible" you speak of is not one in the same with my God. And the "God of the Bible" that you follow did send a NEW Gospel to man. In the same scripture you cite (mostly Old Testament) it also condones slavery, sacrifice, punishment (eye for an eye) and a lot of other things most Christians believe were abandoned by the New Testament (or just by time). Personally (as I have said before), I don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of God (my God or yours)... It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again. The Mormon Church believes in an entirely new gospel, one that succeeds even the New Testament and was "God given" earlier this century. Do you accept that?

 

My point is, you accuse me of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible I want to believe or ignore. In fact, I don't really believe ANY part of the Bible is infallible, I only believe in the foundational teachings of Christ. I believe YOU are picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you want to accept to defend your position against gays... You surely don't accept all of the Old Testament as relevant and literal? You most likely don't accept that the Book of Mormon is God's word (unless you happen to subscribe to that religion).

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Weekender]

TJHammer,

 

I'm confused...you say...My point is, you accuse me of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible I want to believe or ignore. In fact, I don't really believe ANY part of the Bible is infallible, I only believe in the foundational teachings of Christ.

 

If you don't beleive in the Bible's infalibility how do you know what the "foundational teachings of Christ" are? Why would you even beleive in the existance of Christ? If the Bible has it wrong, where have you found the correct information on which you base your philosophy? Either the Bible is right or it is wrong! If it is right then it must all be right. If it is wrong in any sense then it is a useless waste of paper. All I ask is that if you (used in the general sense) don't beleive in it then don't try to use it's contents to support you own belief system.

 

 

[evmori]

Rooster7 & Weekender,

 

Excellent points!

 

TJ,

You can't believe in the New Testament without believing in the Old Testament. The NT has many references to the OT and visa versa. Or do you not consider them valid?

 

Not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken litterally. There are teachings (the parables) that are stories to depict certain things. And BTW, what about "plucking out your own eye" in the NT?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Rooster7]

Pedophilia is by its nature an adult who takes sexual advantage of a non-consenting (read not capable of consent) child. It is therefore immoral and also illegal (this gets back to the earlier debates with DedDad). Homosexuality is not predatory and does not require subordination of will by one party for the other.

 

I think the latter part of your statement is debatable. Regardless, let's say it is a given that homosexuals do not create victims. Also, I will grant you without hesitation that the pedophile in not interested in obtaining the consent of the child (and even if he does, he would still be taking advantage of the child's immaturity and/or fears).

 

Let's re-examine your preposition under that light -

 

It's also intellectually (and religiously) dishonest to believe God made a being with the expectation that they would either "be a sinner" or be sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy.

 

Does your proposition mention anything about the morality or legality of the behavior? Actually, it does not. Even if it did, that would be counterintuitive to your defense of homosexuality. Many states still outlaw homosexual acts based on the contention that it is immoral. Your claim is that God would not create a being with the expectation that he "be a sinner" (if he followed his sexual desires) or "sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy." This defense, if applied to one group, must be applied to all groups - regardless of legality or morality. Your statement is either true or false. It cannot be true for homosexuals, but false for pedophiles.

 

I am arguing that the proposition is false. We are, in fact, inherently prone to be sinful. This is the preposition of the bible story. We have a corrupt nature. Thus, one must seek redemption through Christ and become born again.

 

And the "God of the Bible" that you follow did send a NEW Gospel to man. In the same scripture you cite (mostly Old Testament) it also condones slavery, sacrifice, punishment (eye for an eye) and a lot of other things most Christians believe were abandoned by the New Testament (or just by time).

 

First, if you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slavery. In fact, there are many things attributed to Old Testament teachings that just are not true. The Old Testament, to my knowledge, does not mention pedophilia. Do you think it is endorsing it? Of course, it does not. Yes, the bible does reference slavery. However, if you want an honest interpretation, read it in context and don't add anything to those verses. For more on slavery and the Bible, reference this link:

http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif

 

Second, the New Testament does not nullify the law of the Old Testament. It releases us from bondage to it, but it does not negate the God's laws. If it were not for Christ, God's people would still have to make sacrifices. The Old Testament demonstrates to man how futile it would be to attempt to live by these laws with a corrupted nature. Additionally, the New Testament demonstrates to man that even if we could outwardly live the life that the Old Testament demands, we would still fall short because of what is in our hearts. Christ's sacrifice enables his people to stand before God with clean slates and pure hearts. Not because they earned it, but because they sought and accepted Christ's sacrifice.

 

Thirdly, there are plenty of references in the New Testament that condones homosexuality as well.

 

It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again.

 

This is a very ironic statement. There are plenty of bible translations that have stated true to the original text (which were in Hebrew and Greek). The ironic part is this - Most bibles that have not stayed true to the original text (and "were revised for political correctness") are the liberal translations that condone the sinful lifestyles of the day (i.e., homosexuality). So, yes, I agree that these people are amazing. It is inconceivable that folks are so willing to change God's Word simply to achieve some level of security, however false it may be (i.e., so they can sin without any sense of guilt, shame, or condemnation from their self-proclaimed faith).

 

The Mormon Church believes in an entirely new gospel, one that succeeds even the New Testament and was "God given" earlier this century. Do you accept that?

 

Do you know what the New Testament says about "adding" to God's Word? Do you know how this book was supposedly revealed to mankind? In short, I do not believe Mormons are following the same God as other Christians. It's likely that most Mormons would say the same about other Christians - else we would see no need to convince one another about the truths of the Bible (or in their case, the book of Mormon). Regardless of how I feel about the Mormon faith, your original statement is not supportable.

 

In fact, I don't really believe ANY part of the Bible is infallible, I only believe in the foundational teachings of Christ.

 

Why believe in the foundational teachings of Christ? If the Bible is fallible, why believe in the story of Christ at all? You are telling me that parts of the Bible cannot be trusted as truth. How can anyone determine what parts are trustworthy? How do you know what parts are tainted by man and false? Your position is much more indefensible than mine. You are one that seems to be picking and choosing.

 

Yes, I believe in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Are there interpretations that one cannot or should not trust? Yes. However, if one does a little bit of research, it is not difficult to find a Bible, which has stayed faithful to the original texts.

 

You surely don't accept all of the Old Testament as relevant and literal?

 

Is all of it relevant? Yes, I believe it is. Is all of it relevant to every believer? May be not. I can't say how every verse is applicable to every believer. I do believe each verse has a purpose.

 

If one reads the Bible in earnest, you will discover that there are parts that are symbolic. However, it is apparent when this is the case, because the teachings and stories of other verses will make it clear to the reader. Still, I believe most of God's Word is difficult, if not impossible, for many to understand because they have NOT truly sought God. God reveals truth to those who seek Him.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Bob White]

HEY GUYS!

This isn't even the topic of the thread for cryin out loud.

 

You want to play theologians that's fine. Start an appropriate thread. Throw Bibles at each other all day long. But please quit taking over topics and perverting their intent.

 

Bob

[Rooster7]

Lighten up Bob. A few words about the Bible are not going to harm you. No one's here to rain on your parade. If you got something to say about United Way, please say it. I'm sure folks are smart enough to pick up where it left off. As for our detour, "forgive" the transgression...no one meant to "pervert" anything.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer]

Christ was a historical figure. His teachings (and more specifically, the teachings in his name) are pretty simple, pretty clear and documented. I don't believe in a God that micromanages. I don't believe in a God that is vengeful. (That is the God often reflected in the Bible, and I reject those depictions of Him.) I do believe in a God who created man and measures us on our ability to preserve humanity, a "foundational lesson" taught by Christ that "love" is above all else. I suspect this is a more spiritual approach, than a specifically religious one.

 

Let me be clear... I have not said that I reject the Bible as a source for solid religious principle, not just for you, but also for me. I have chosen to be a Christian, but I don't believe that those around me that are Buddhist (or whatever) are wrong... religion (IMHO) is a way to live your life, not a means to an end (some of you may disagree?). I think some Christians are "crucifixion Christians" and others are "resurrection Christians"... depends on what you find most meaning in.

 

 

I have said that I believe no part of the Bible (when taken in pieces or as a whole) is the literal, infallible word of God. In other words, the Bible, IMHO, is a good book to live by, but I don't believe it's sacrosanct and divine; it represents man's evolving attempt to articulate a religion.Rooster said: Does your proposition mention anything about the morality or legality of the behavior? Actually, it does not. Even if it did, that would be counterintuitive to your defense of homosexuality. Of course my proposition is about morality. Homosexuality is not immoral. (I argue pedophilia is immoral simply because it subordinates the will of a child who is incapable of consent and breaks down our humanity; how does homosexuality break down our humanity? How is it immoral? This is the essence of the same repetitive debate we've had for months on here, which is to say the only viable argument placed forth on the "immorality of homosexuality" is that "the Bible says its so".tjhammer said: It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again.

 

Rooster counters: Most bibles that have not stayed true to the original text (and "were revised for political correctness") are the liberal translations that condone the sinful lifestyles of the day (i.e., homosexualityLet's take, just for example, the current NIV edits to use non-gender-specific pronouns. That's the kind of "evolving" I'm talking about. Do you think that's inappropriate? Do you think God literally meant just man, or is that too literal of an interpretation.Rooster said: if you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slaveryI disagree, and this has been debated here many times before where the scripture was even cited.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[WoodBadgeEagle]

Rooster, I read through this entire thread before I posted this (as it is of interest to me), and I think your quip back at Bob was uncalled for. I was wondering when one of you was going to take the lead and start a new post centered around the last 10 messages.

 

But, then again, the title of this thread IS "A Rather Interesting Comment", and I gotta admit, all of these have been "rather interesting comments" .

 

Like I said, this (UW) topic is of interest to me. I was at a District Committee meeting last week and one of the commissioners brought up the following scenario:

 

A group of large local businesses had contacted our Council and (I am paraphrasing here) said that if the Council didn't get some diversity/sensitivity training right away, they were going to divert "their UW funds" away from BSA by pressuring the local UW chapter. When ended up happening was that the leader of the local Gay Alliance was selected to come in and do the talk (wow, talk about drowning a fire with gasoline!). And he (the commissioner) was caught off-guard and under attack by people who believe that the BSA should stand its ground on not allowing gay leaders (or members? I'm not totally clear on the wording of the BSA policy, and that's not terribly important for this post). I personally did not get anyone confronting me about it.

 

What I find "interesting" is that these businesses have enough clout to take their EMPLOYEES' donations and treat them as THEIRS. Matching funding aside, it is NOT all coming out of the pockets of the corporations, yet they appear to be using it as bargaining chips for their agendas!

 

Has anyone else heard of this happening, and what (if any) were the outcomes? I wish I had all the specifics, but the gist of this (described above) was not disputed by the 5-6 people in the room who had first-hand knowledge of it.

 

Just wondering.

 

ps- DedDad pre-dates me, and, from the sounds of things, I think I am happy with that.

 

[Bob White]

WBE,

Just to clarify a point you made. A business cannot divert the pledges of their employees. each employee of a United Way supporting company fills out there own participation card and the UW has very strict rules against employers pressuring employees to donate or influencing the direction of the gift.

 

Companies can however direct what to do or not do with corporate donations that are not from the individual employee but, only to a degree. Most local United Ways not appreciate being threatened by businesses anymore than the BSA does and seldom capitulates.

 

This whole thing of United Ways dropping scouting due to their membership regulations is mostly alot of spleen venting by people who have little or no knowledge of how the United Ways actual work.

 

A very small percentage of United Ways have completely dropped their support of their local Scouting program. Many more Councils have had their funding reduced rather than dropped because every year there are more and more organizations becoming UW agencies. The pie is not growing as fast as the number of people who want a piece.

 

The biggest problem the scouting program has is the trend that many United Ways have taken in determining who needs money more and what kind of community services they want to fund. The current trend is to fund the treatment service rather than the preventative service. So shelters, counseling, rehabs, halfway homes and the like are funded at a higher level than educational and character development programs such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA which serve far more people and help to diminish social problems. There is also an emphasis to fund agencies that affect youth development before the age of six and of course that just misses us.

 

There are people, some scouters included as you see from these posts, who would like to think that the BSA's values are for sale and that if they frighten the BSA with financial loss they will alter their values. If the BSA changes it will not be for financial or membership numbers.

 

The BSA takes a bad rap when it comes to diversity and sensitivity training. Diversity is an important goal in today's scouting. In fact every person who goes through wood Badge will have to set a personal goal in the area of diversity. as far as sensitivity the problem is not the BSA it's a few overly vocal, ill-informed scouters in a community that are the problem.

 

You will read more gay bashing remarks in this forum than you ever have or ever will hear from the BSA. I urge you to go to the BSA national website and read what the BSA's stand on homosexuals really is. It is represented very poorly in this forum.

 

Hope this helps,

Bob

[tjhammer]

OK, this is a good opportunity to spawn another thread. So I will do so.

[Rooster7]

Bob,

 

I am done with my conversation with TJ concerning the "bible" and do not intend to distract from the original topic. However, you said:

 

You will read more gay bashing remarks in this forum than you ever have or ever will hear from the BSA. I urge you to go to the BSA national website and read what the BSA's stand on homosexuals really is. It is represented very poorly in this forum.

 

Since you do not take the time to elaborate, this comment does somewhat irritate me. What exactly are you saying about whom? I have not seen any "gay bashing" on this forum (at least not in this thread). Nor have I seen anyone misrepresent BSA's policy. I find your remark inflammatory and without purpose, or at least without any noble purpose. Speaking for myself (and I have been one of the primary posters speaking out against homosexuality in this thread), I never claimed or implied that my view was a reflection of the BSA policy. If you wish to clarify something, please do. If you're going to make accusation, then be upfront about it. Don't hide behind inferences.