The American heartland

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes it does, Ed. I think that's where we disagree.

[NWScouter]

I want to take the word clear out of this discussion, as it has turned into a loaded term.

What Christian scholars have are varying interpretations of the passages.

Let us take an other belief that Christian disagree on: baptism. Lutherans, Roman Catholics and others believe that infants can and should be baptized, but Baptists and others believe that baptism should happen only when there is ability to understand and agree with the baptism. Both look at the same passages and come to the opposite conclusions, they would both say the passages are clear but that the other is interpreting them wrong.

 

That is what is happening to the passages that are used in the homosexual arguments, some say they are clear, some say they are not clear. There is no agreement between biblical scholars. There is no agreement among many in the same denomination.

 

That is what think Merlyn was trying to say. While Ed is right in saying according to his interpretation the passages are clear, others may say that their interpretation is different than Eds.

 

[evmori]

Just because you don't understand it Merlyn, doesn't mean it isn't clear.

[HICO_Eagle]

Indeed, many people choose to be unclear on something that really is very clear because it doesn't say what they want. Lawyers and politicians do this unnecessary twisting of the English language all the time to satisfy their constituencies. This is precisely why lawyers frequently try to change the "reasonable person" standard to an "any person" non-standard for judging whether something might be offensive or determining liability.

 

A reasonable person might not think it was a smart thing to put a extra hot cup of liquid between his or her legs while driving, especially if s/he was especially sensitive to heat. Any person might think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do because it was "convenient". I contend that any person is demonstrably and purposely obtuse and evidence of that is found every time I see "Warning: Not Intended for Consumption" on the side of a can of white gas.

 

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State choose to twist the No Establishment clause into a de facto adoption of secular humanism by the state when all the historic and linguistic evidence is that it was never meant to be anti-religious.

 

AUSCS and gays have attacked Scouting's use of public facilities as "public accommodations" instead of acknowledging them as appropriate taxpayer use. They do so because they would rather attack any form of traditional values than create their own public interest groups for the promotion of general welfare that could also use public facilities.

 

There are of course other groups trying to change the American heartland and undermine any traditionalism still found in the landscape but it seems Barry Lynn and various homosexual/other-sexual groups are the most prominent ones doing so.

[Stosh]

When it comes to biblical interpretation one must always take into consider the fact that traditional interpretation may indeed be flawed. Just because someone says it's so doesn't make it so. I can read something and understand it because I have a different level of sophistication, understanding, and can actually read what's written, where the next guy can't, makes up what it means by what someone says it means and builds a tradition on it. If one guy says baptism requires human intervention, i.e. understanding and acceptance, then it becomes an activity of man. Others say it's an act of God and the only human interaction is going through the motions on behalf of God. There's nothing wrong with the wording of the bible, only the flaws in human understanding and of course there are always people out there who think they know more than God and make up their own rules and agendas and tag God for it. We see a lot of that going on over the years. Like any other historical manuscript, whether it be the US Constitution or the Bible, others who were not part of it's creation have twisted and distorted it's original clarity through flawed interpretation. It goes part and parcel with the games people play to make themselves appear better than others. Remember, NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it say "separation of Church and State", yet it is bantered around in today's world as if it does.

[NWScouter]

Ed, thats not what I was saying, Merlyn disagrees with you on the interpretation as do many theologians and biblical scholars do. Merlyn understands it but comes to a different conclusion than you do.

[DanKroh]

"AUSCS and gays have attacked Scouting's use of public facilities as "public accommodations" instead of acknowledging them as appropriate taxpayer use."

 

Umm, except, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the BSA is not a taxpaying organization....

 

Other than that, this statement is still an impressive piece of spin. No one is trying to stop scouting from using public facilities, however, it is illegal for scouting to get *special* access and other freebies that the rest of the *actual* taxpayers aren't privy to, when it is on the *actual* taxpayers' dollars.

 

So does that mean that Reverend Barry Lynn is "anti-religious"?

[HICO_Eagle]

No spin. Most of the participants in Scouting pay taxes. They are therefore as entitled to use available public facilities as any other citizen group, whether it's the school band or a chess club or drama club. However, AUSCS and *sexual lobby groups have taken it on themselves to deny Scouting that right rather than create their own groups ... perhaps because they know there's extremely limited demand for their alternative groups. They therefore have embarked on a campaign to defame and destroy OUR group. If a rising tide lifts all boats except theirs leaks, they have chosen to drill holes in everyone else's boats instead of patch their leaks.

 

I'm not a mind reader so I don't know if Rev Lynn is religious or not. All I know is that finding material on him actually celebrating some kind of religious thought or ceremony is pretty darned hard. Finding material on him attacking all sorts of religious institutions on the other hand is so easy a caveman could do it so you tell me. (insert Geico commercial here)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle writes:

No spin. Most of the participants in Scouting pay taxes. They are therefore as entitled to use available public facilities as any other citizen group, whether it's the school band or a chess club or drama club. However, AUSCS and *sexual lobby groups have taken it on themselves to deny Scouting that right rather than create their own groups

 

Cite even ONE case where any of these groups has tried to deny a scout group equal access to public facilities. As DanKroh says, scouts are being denied SPECIAL access, like free or reduced rates while other groups have to pay more, or access not available to the general public.

 

[evmori]

Merlyn understands it but comes to a different conclusion than you do.

 

And Merlyn is entitled to come to a different conclusion, but if he understands it, it MUST BE CLEAR!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey Ed, if it's clear, why do people not agree on the meaning?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

[duplicate post deleted](This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[evmori]

Because they don't understand it Merlyn? I don't understand quantum physics but that doesn't make it unclear.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, are you saying everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the bible doesn't understand it?

[evmori]

No Merlyn that's not what I am stating. I could ask you the same thing but won't.