What Would it Take to Change your mind on ...

[Eagledad]

So what you are saying is all sins are OK and not harmful. That is your opinion and so why even do a check on adult applications. Hey, you want pedofile for a leader, you need to become an activist for them as well. A sin is a sin? Well I let you figure how far you want to go with that. Just warn the parents that there are no limits of role modeling behavior as far as you are concerned. The BSA, like it or not, is a values organization and they have to draw the line somewhere. You are lucky that you have a choice of staying with an organization that doesn't represent your principles, OR not.

 

Barry

 

 

[Vicki]

>For homosexuality to be fully accepted as moral behavior, the culture will have to restrict, discriminate against and eventually out law the practice of religion>

 

Uh, I really think there are some progressive Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, and UUs who would take umbrage at this statement. Episcopalians and Buddhists, as someone mentioned. Not to mention the Metropolitan Church, which was founded (more or less) to support gay Christians and others who find denominational footdragging on the issue intolerable. Talk about painting with a broad brush!

 

BTW, not all Christians agree with the way scripture gets taken out of its context, twisted, and put back down again, either.

 

All of which is only indirectly related to this thread so I won't go any further.

 

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah and Eagledad, you have both twisted what I said so badly that I don't even recognize it.

 

And as for this, Eagledad:

 

You are lucky that you have a choice of staying with an organization that doesn't represent your principles, OR not.

 

I am fine with the principles of the BSA. I don't think those principles include banning all openly gay people. The problem is that the current BSA leadership is not following the BSA's own principles, on this one issue. That's not enough to get me to leave.

[Beavah]

Yah, claiming that someone "twisted" words is of da same character as claiming "oppression" for what is a difference of opinion. It's presuming an exaggerated negative approach by da other fellow which isn't justified.

 

You presented your words, eh? Others responded to what yeh wrote. If yeh didn't communicate your real thoughts, I reckon that's more likely a failure of communication on your part than a deliberate "twisting" by other people. Rather than get combative, why don't yeh try to reframe your idea and communicate it more clearly?

 

Beavah

[NJCubScouter]

No, Beavah, I "reckon" it's the result of twisting. That's why I said so.

[acco40]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

I think we are wasting some time here.

 

1) Natural - the FDA can't define this term so why should we attempt to? Does homosexuality occur in nature? Yes, in humans, mamals and even some creatures are hermaphrodites! Celibacy in not natural in humans, yet some religions hold that up on a pedestal!

 

2) Is homosexuality a sin/immoral/wrong etc.? No more, no less than working on the Sabbath, eating pork, not covering ones head, etc. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

3) Should sex be only for procreation? Even Catholocism has dropped that belief.

 

The real question is; Should an organization, such as the BSA restrict adult leadership in such a way as to limit avowed homosexuals? If so, why? If not, why? Arguments such as a simple "it's wrong" are lame in my book.

[NJCubScouter]

Acco says:

 

I think we are wasting some time here.

 

In this forum? I can't believe it!(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[qwazse]

While we're spewing random facts ...

 

"1) Natural - the FDA can't define this term so why should we attempt to? Does homosexuality occur in nature? Yes, in humans, mamals and even some creatures are hermaphrodites! Celibacy in not natural in humans, yet some religions hold that up on a pedestal!"

 

I know far more celibate folks than I do homosexuals. I think there are stats to support this (although I haven't read the latest). So by the numbers celibacy is more natural than homosexuality. You may happen to be situated in an area where it is the other way around, so your world view may think abstinance is unnatural. But from where I sit the "need to have a sexual expression" is a unique and presumptuous form of cultural oppression.

 

Higher numbers does not make one behavior more natural than another.

Science can report on what may happen in nature.

Natural selection can explain why it persists in nature. (BTW, evolution also allows for things like suicide to have genetic origins.)

 

But neither statistics, observation, nor very sound theory are sufficient to identify a human behavior as natural (i.e. acceptable and welcome in a free society). The reason: humans have shown themselves to be extremely flexible in their behaviors.

[evmori]

BTW, not all Christians agree with the way scripture gets taken out of its context, twisted, and put back down again, either.

 

What Scripture do you speak of Vicki?

[Vicki]

Ed, if you do a search on my postings you'll know what I mean - this isn't the first time this subject has come up and I will not bicker. As I said in my post, this is not directly related to this thread so I'm not going any further.

 

Vicki

[evmori]

Vicki,

 

You have 56 pages of posts. I do not have the time on inclination to wade through 845 posts. If you aren't going to back up your claim then don't post it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Welcome to my world, Ed.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think this is my favorite, posted in this thread on 8/18

 

Ephesions 5:22

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

Some take this verse and say it proves that man is head of the household and the wife is more or less chattel to do the mans bidding and the best thing they can say is "thank you sire, may I have another?"

 

The next few verses gets ignored, still Ephesians 5

 

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

 

"become one flesh" sounds like a team to me, no one more important than the other

 

Anyway, this is my example

 

BTW Ed are you saying you will be backing up all your claims from now on? Just sayin'

[Vicki]

>BTW Ed are you saying you will be backing up all your claims from now on? Just sayin' >

 

Thanks, OGE. My dad has a wall hanging my sister did for him, "Never try to teach a pig to sing - it will frustrate you and annoy the pig."

 

I will say there are two Christian camps - those who believe in the "inerrancy" of scripture and those who believe that the Bible was written by human beings in a particular place and time and that it helps us to understand applications to our time and place if we study it from that perspective. For instance, for those of us in the latter camp, it has been well-established that Ephesians probably wasn't written by Paul at all but was written much later by an author who was trying to prove to the Romans that Christianity wasn't a threat (as the Romans had taken Christianity out of the protected Jewish fold and deemed it an "unlicensed" religion). Therefore the deutero-Pauline author incorporated what's known as the Roman household code which stratified society, free males at the top (of course) and everyone else in varying degrees of servitude. Just one example.

 

For those in the first camp, it is very similar to the OP's query - they "know" what they know and that's the end of it.

 

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[packsaddle]

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."

 

Edit: Vicki, I have puzzled over your dad's wall-hanging - how can we tell when a pig is annoyed, what are the signs?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)