Just Vapor in the Wind

[SemperParatus]

Bob,

 

As I said Jesus was convicted under Jewish law. The Sanhedrin was granted the authority by Rome to act as the high court in all matters under Jewish law. Rome retained the power of the sword, however, while refusing to get drawn into matters of Jewish law (John 18:31). I agree that Jesus was never convicted by the Roman authorities. He was convicted by the Sanhedrin under its laws for the crime of blasphemy and for that he was found worthy of death (Mt 26:66, Mk 14:64). Ever here of the death penalty pronounced at an indictment?

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

The people asked for the death penalty. The death penalty was determined prior to any criminal indictment. Again this is not the place for a religious discussion but the crucifiixfiction was going to happen not because in had to happen. Remember that Jesus knew before his arrest that he was going to tortured and executed. He made references to it long before those things took place. He existed for that event to happen.

 

Here is a website you might find thought provoking.

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/implicationsJesusTrial_2.htm

 

[SemperParatus]

You crack me up.

 

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed I started this thread as a religious discussion two days ago. If you want it closed down, why don't you request that of the moderators or just move on.

[Bob White]

This line was intended to be

 

"Again this is not the place for a religious discussion but the crucifixfiction was going to happen not because of anything done by man, but because in had to happen."

 

I apologize for any confusion.

BW

 

Semper,

You started this yesterday not a couple days ago. No matter when you started it I am not convinced that debating the crucifixtion is appropriate on a scouting forum. I had no intention of it becoming that when I responded to the comment that Jesus was a felon. I have no reason to ask for the thread to close, I was asking for a little self-restraint from posters.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Semper

 

I misunderstood your original message thinking that you were concerned with personal perception rather than with policy. But you have restated it as a concern with the policy, meaning you believe that the Church does a better job with the idea of God than the BSA. This makes it a better and more involved question.

 

I believe that we cannot get away from our personal perception of the one True God idea because of human nature; we personally believe we are right. The BSA attempts through policy to bring people together under an umbrella that most would normally find it impossible to do so any other way. The BSA has very rightly identified the perceptional error and has given it a policy instead of an organization. The BSA has simply pointed people in the direction of their own personal God and has told them to stand by those principles but within their own organization outside the BSA. The BSA does not attempt to take over the work of the Church but points individuals to their own Church to follow those principles on a daily basis. I believe that to be a genuinely inspired thought.

 

The next idea that some might want is to make the BSA a proving ground for finding God. This is a high ideal and one worthy of consideration but it is wrong. The reason is the BSA does not nor should not take the place of ones worship. The BSA wants people to bring their own personal God to the organization and learn the expression of good works for others in general and not directed just towards those we find agreement. This gives a generous face to the policy, one that is worthy of a parable.

 

Those that have no religion or God would find this type of policy empty and contrary to their own belief because the policy is founded on a faith in a God and the use of an organization/Church to express that faith. The BSA policy is based on one bringing ones personal God to the BSA but watering it down so as to be able to be with others that may have a totally different concept of God but then the policy wants each one to return home to practice their own faith. A person that does not have a God might have any organization to express their personal beliefs and would find all of the watered down talk about God as disrespectful. It would be disrespectful and that is the reason why an agnostic or atheist would not be a good fit for the BSA policy.

 

Note: The Roman trial(s) of Jesus found him not within the proper jurisdiction and not guilty (they used the Rule of Law); the trial by Caiaphas pronounced him guilty but was illegal within their own system of jurisprudence and everyone present knew their own many violations. This is not just sour grapes; investigate just a little bit more. No matter what the verdict, the judgment could not be carried out without a Roman trial. He was then inexplicably offered up for a holiday release instead of being openly released by reason of innocence but lost the voice vote to Barabbas. It was politically expedient to wink at Jesus' innocence to gain favor all around and get rid of a nuisance. (*a win-win situation)

 

FB

[NJCubScouter]

Fuzzy Bear says:

 

Those that have no religion or God would find this type of policy empty and contrary to their own belief because the policy is founded on a faith in a God and the use of an organization/Church to express that faith. The BSA policy is based on one bringing ones personal God to the BSA but watering it down so as to be able to be with others that may have a totally different concept of God but then the policy wants each one to return home to practice their own faith. A person that does not have a God might have any organization to express their personal beliefs and would find all of the watered down talk about God as disrespectful. It would be disrespectful and that is the reason why an agnostic or atheist would not be a good fit for the BSA policy.

 

I personally don't understand what this means but if it is intended to mean that a person must be part of a "religious organization" to be a member of the BSA, that is not the case. A person can be part of no religion at all, and believe in a deity all on his own, and still be "reverent" and do his "duty to God."

[Fuzzy Bear]

NJS,

 

You are right that a person does not have to belong to a Church to be in the BSA. I was attempting to say that the BSA does not want to become the chosen place of worship and would reject such an objective.

 

Let me try to explain my explanation:

 

Religion is personal, people believe that their God is the one and only God and this alone has has lead to much division and continues. This is easily shown by history, present day news reports and in this forum.

 

The BSA's policy is not for the expressed purpose of worshiping God like a Church or an organization that worships God. The BSA's policy is more like an umbrella for people to come together that has some concept of God. The BSA's policy makes their organization available for all those that believe in a God to come together. This can only be accomplished in a non-denominational way (*watered down). The BSA's policy about God is one with a noble motive.

 

The BSA does not want to become the organization for the purpose of worshipping God. The BSA continually refers Scouts to their Church or their parents for their answers. People that have no God, question the existence of a God, or do not have an organized way to find their answers or worship their God would find that the BSA does not fit their spiritual needs or lack there of and the policy would be contrary to that person's personal beliefs.

 

This same policy, no matter how noble, has become the subject of several lawsuits because of several reasons stated elsewhere in this forum.

 

I apologize for the confusion.

 

 

FB