Bisexuality...

[NJCubScouter]

FOG says:

 

NJCubDude said, "I don't think of the BSA as a 'they,' I think of it as 'we.' "

 

It isn't that way if you accepts the teaching of Bob White.

 

Again with the dude. As for BobWhite, I don't know what he's said on the subject of "we." But it doesn't matter, because as you may have noticed, I don't always agree with BobWhite anyway. If you leave aside the "gay issue," (on which the two of you are birds of a feather, as you know), I probably agree with him roughly 83.6 percent of the time. Roughly. Most of my disagreements with him (apart from the "gay issue") do seem to involve matters of semantics, such as this one. So your statement, once again, is irrelevant.

 

As for the rest of your post, at first it looked like you were responding to something I said, because the only name you mentioned in your post was "NJCubDude" (again with the dude), but someone else said that, not me.

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

Ex Cathedra -

 

Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesi Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

 

I can now. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing? ;-)

 

[frank10]

OGE:

 

" Just to be accurate, the Pope/The Catholic Church does not oppose birth control, only artificial means there of meaning natural methods are OK (IE Rhythm) "

 

Since this topic is so far off track anyhow I'll reply to this... BTDT, Named her Maggie, she's almost a year old now and dang cute too... (plan was to wait another 3 months)...

http://onmyhonor.com/baby

[OldGreyEagle]

Very good Rooster, and the last time the Pope. (hint any Pope) spoke "Ex Carhedra" Was?

[NJCubScouter]

Very cute baby, Wingnut.

 

Just make sure you don't get the child-welfare folks on you for the photo in the second column of the second row, though...

[scoutingagain]

From FOG,

 

"If the disagreement is significant enough, yep. I don't like the quality of the current BSA uniform but that isn't enough to make me quit. On the other hand, I took a stand when the Smithsonian tried to paint the US as the villian in WW II, so I dropped my membership and let them know why."

 

OK FOG, I'll agree there may be times when it is time to end your affiliation with an organization if you don't agree a particular issue. But as you also indicated there are also times where one may not find the issue significant enough to warrant such an action.

 

I'll also submit that there may be times when the issue is of such signifigance it is more important to remain and try and change things, especially if there is no good alternative to the organization and there are other aspects of the organization one agrees with.

 

This is not directed at you FOG, or any other particular person for that matter, I just find the attitude of not allowing for reasoned disagreement on any particular issue as ...frankly Un-American.

 

SA

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

I'm not sure where you are going, but here's your answer:

 

Modern invocations of papal infallibility are rare. Since 1870 only one statement claiming papal infallibility has been made, Pope Pius XII's dogma on the "Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven" in 1950. No other papal statement, including Pope Paul VI's controversial Humanae Vitae, has been proclaimed ex cathedra.

[OldGreyEagle]

So in over 100 years, the Pope has only said one thing that the Cathoic Church has said to be infallible, nothing about birth control, divorce, only that Mary was assumed into heaven. Catholics beleive the Pope is infallible only when he speaks Ex Cathedra on manners if faith and morals. So its not like Catholics huddle at the Vatican chamber waiting to see what the Pontiff says today.

 

I understand you have read the bible and that God has revealed himself to you. Is it not possible that another person reading the bible would have God revealed to them, and you both saw the same God, but in different dimensions?

 

You appear to say your interpretation of the bible is THE only way to interpret it and all others arent just mistaken, they are damned. Is that that you are saying?

[NJCubScouter]

This is not in response to any particular person's posts, but is a general response to the notion that the Bible declares homosexuality to be immoral.

 

I guess I first need to acknowledge that I am in really no position to be interpreting the Bible myself. I have written before on my own beliefs regarding the Bible. The religion of my ancestors includes only what is commonly referred to as the Old Testament. I have no beliefs regarding the New Testament one way or another or the faith expressed therein. There are many people of good will who do believe in that book, and I am married to one of them, and there are a number of others who post in this forum, but it's their book, not mine. When it comes to the Old Testament, I believe that the words attributed to God are an interpretation of the word of God by the believers who wrote the book. In so interpreting the word of God, they necessarily filtered it through their own cultural understanding. In that way, all of the condemnations of homosexuality in the Old Testament could be regarded as the words of man, and not necessarily the word of God.

 

But let's say that the Old Testament is, in fact the word of God. Do the passages that are pointed to by those who wish to punish homosexuality or discriminate against homosexuals, in fact mean what they are claimed to mean? First of all, those of us who read the Bible in English are reading a translation at least once removed, and sometimes at least twice removed, from the source language. Things can, quite literally, get lost in the translation. Additionally, I have tried to educate myself by seeing what interpretations people give to these passages. One can find, on the Internet, interpretations of all of these passages (and maybe the ones in the New Testament also, I am not sure) that demonstrate that God was condemning only certain practices existing at that time, such as "temple prostitution" by males, and not homosexuality in general. By these interpretations, the notion of two males living together openly but calmly and quietly, in a monogomous relationship prompted by their own orientations, simply was not considered by God, or the human writers of the Bible, and therefore was not condemned by them.

 

So why can't everybody just choose their interpretation and let others choose theirs? Apparently, not everyone is able to do this. There are those on this board who insist repeatedly that their interpretation is the only correct one and that anyone who does not agree is not a true believer in the religion they say they believe it. It seems to me that some of these people are setting themselves up as God's exclusive spokespersons. I wonder how God will feel about that, when and if the time for divine judgment comes?

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

So in over 100 years, the Pope has only said one thing that the Catholic Church has said to be infallible, nothing about birth control, divorce, only that Mary was assumed into heaven. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible only when he speaks Ex Cathedra on manners if faith and morals. So its not like Catholics huddle at the Vatican chamber waiting to see what the Pontiff says today.

 

First, my comments on the Catholic Church were directed toward Hunts comments, which were directed toward FOGs comments on membership requirements. So this is getting out of context. Hunt never answered me so I wasnt able to expound on my thoughts.

 

I understand you have read the bible and that God has revealed himself to you. Is it not possible that another person reading the bible would have God revealed to them, and you both saw the same God, but in different dimensions?

 

Im not sure what you mean by phrase in different dimensions - regardless, I agree that there are disputable issues that arise from different Bible interpretations. However, I maintain that homosexuality is not one of them. It is clearly discussed in the Bible.

 

You appear to say your interpretation of the bible is THE only way to interpret it and all others arent just mistaken, they are damned. Is that that you are saying?

 

No, thats not what I am saying. I am saying that there many clear teachings in Gods Word, which are not disputable. Jesus was the son of God. He died for our sins. These are just two examples. While this next teaching is not nearly as important as the previous two - It is also just as clear that homosexuality is an abomination towards God.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

It seems to me that some of these people are setting themselves up as God's exclusive spokespersons.

 

I don't see anyone - including myself (as I'm sure you were referring to me), claiming to be "exclusive spokespersons" for God. But, I will speak up if I see an interpretation that is an obvious corruption of God's Word.

 

I wonder how God will feel about that, when and if the time for divine judgment comes?

 

So, God will judge me for being confident about what His Word says - But he'll passover me if I'm having sex with everything that moves? Yeah, I'm sure you have a point.

 

Let's just say - God will judge us by what's in our hearts and who we claim as our Lord and Savior.

[Fat Old Guy]

"So, God will judge me for being confident about what His Word says - But he'll passover me if I'm having sex with everything that moves"

 

How about being confident about what He said and having sex with everything that moves? That way you'll have all bases covered.

 

I really like the part of the OT that says if you son is disobedient, have him stoned. I'll bet they didn't have much back talking back then.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says, in response to me:

 

I don't see anyone - including myself (as I'm sure you were referring to me), claiming to be "exclusive spokespersons" for God.

 

I said I wasn't responding to anyone in particular. Why do you assume it's about you? Or as you recently said to me, did I strike a raw nerve? I notice that you skipped the really important paragraph in my post, which is the one before the one you are responding to. How about responding to the idea that reasonable people can have different beliefs and that nobody should suffer because of an interpretation that is reasonably in dispute?

 

You do touch on that issue when you say:

 

But, I will speak up if I see an interpretation that is an obvious corruption of God's Word.

 

In other words, you will speak up when you disagree with someone else's interpretation of what you believe to be God's word. Nobody's stopping you. But using words like "obvious corruption of God's Word" doesn't change the fact that it's just a bunch of people's differing opinions and beliefs. Some people don't even believe the book you claim is God's Word is really God's Word. Some of them are members of the BSA. Why should they be forced to comply with religious beliefs they don't agree with?

 

I said:

 

I wonder how God will feel about that, when and if the time for divine judgment comes?

 

And Rooster says:

 

So, God will judge me for being confident about what His Word says - But he'll passover me if I'm having sex with everything that moves? Yeah, I'm sure you have a point.

 

First of all, I didn't say it was you. Second of all, I didn't say what God was going to do. I just said I wonder. I personally don't presume to know what God is going to do. Third of all, who said anything about the morality of anybody "having sex with everything that moves"? How does that even come into the conversation?

 

Let's just say - God will judge us by what's in our hearts and who we claim as our Lord and Savior.

 

OK, everybody's entitled to their opinion. I do agree with part of this. If God does judge us individually -- and I really have no basis to know whether he will or not -- but if he does, what is in our hearts will be part of the evidence. Other parts of the evidence will be how we have treated the other parts of his creation -- our fellow people, and the plants and animals and the rest of the stuff here on Earth. There's probably something in one or more of the Testaments of the Bible that supports that statement, but of course, that does not really matter to me. It seems logical.

 

But Rooster, how about dealing with the parts of my post that you don't think are about you personally. It's up to you, of course.

[Rooster7]

Why do you assume it's about you? Or as you recently said to me, did I strike a raw nerve?

 

Because youre about as subtle as a gorilla swinging a sledge hammer. Ask anyone else on this forum if they felt you were implying anyone else.

 

In other words, you will speak up when you disagree with someone else's interpretation of what you believe to be God's word. Nobody's stopping you. But using words like "obvious corruption of God's Word" doesn't change the fact that it's just a bunch of people's differing opinions and beliefs.

 

NJ, youre free to believe that - But Im not debating Gods Word with you. I discussing it with other self-proclaimed believers. Youre injecting yourself in an argument about a faith that you dont even profess for yourself. Whose trying to offend whom here? For someone that doesnt read the New Testament or even cares to, you sure have a lot of opinions about the book and the people that do read it.

 

Some people don't even believe the book you claim is God's Word is really God's Word. Some of them are members of the BSA. Why should they be forced to comply with religious beliefs they don't agree with?

 

Im not forcing anyone to do anything. Thats just your spin on this.

 

First of all, I didn't say it was you.

 

Again with the denials. Please, give me, not to mention everyone else on this board, just a little bit of credit.

 

Second of all, I didn't say what God was going to do. I just said I wonder. I personally don't presume to know what God is going to do.

 

NJ - My comment was sarcasm. Youve been hammering two points on this thread - 1) You dont like my confidence in knowing what Gods Word says; And 2) you dont think we should call homosexuality a sin. It seems to me, you think God will have more mercy on bisexuals than he will on someone who professes they understand His Word.

 

Third of all, who said anything about the morality of anybody "having sex with everything that moves"? How does that even come into the conversation?

 

If you think a man can have sex with men and women until he figures out what he really likes, then I think that nearly qualifies as "sleeping with everything that moves". Just my opinion.

 

But Rooster, how about dealing with the parts of my post that you don't think are about you personally. It's up to you, of course.

 

When you stop making posts that address me personally (including those that insult me by inference), then I will comment on those thoughts. But, as of late I have not seen you post any other thoughts - you seem obsessed with making comments that either attack me or my faith. Its up to you, of course.