its baaackk.... BSA policy on homosexuals and leadership

[Lisabob]

DLChris writes: "Homosexuality is not equivalent to slavery."

 

Yet, apparently, you believe homosexuality *is* equivalent to theft, lying, and murder...

 

I really hope your comparison was made in a moment of over-the-top rhetoric and not what you truly believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DLChris71]

It's not rhetoric. It's a sin, listed in the bible and in the eyes of God there is no difference. In the eyes of men and hearts of men, apparently, there is some difference. Men like to pick and choose, and God does not.

 

The problem as I see it that some people wish to favor the standard of man and others would favor the standard of God. Those that believe in the full word of God, would thus be unconvinced by the standards of man. Since in the long run, that is eternity, man is rather insignificant, and God is supreme, ignoring the word of God is done with a great deal of peril.

 

Those that continue to follow the standard of man can come up with any number of exceptions that God is not obligated to consider in his judgement.

 

If you would like to amuse me with some discussion of sin by degree I'm more than willing to read it.

[packsaddle]

So it is for your amusement. OK, then please explain what you mean by "sin by degree". It is a concept with which I am unfamiliar.

[Scoutfish]

A always, I will preface by saying: I respect everybody's right to their own beliefs and opinions and defend youyr right to have them.

 

I also am not predjudiced or bigoted.

 

I goptta bite okay, so let's begin:

 

It's not rhetoric. It's a sin, listed in the bible and in the eyes of God there is no difference. In the eyes of men and hearts of men, apparently, there is some difference. Men like to pick and choose, and God does not.

 

The bible tells us that we are supposed rto rest on the sdabbeth - which is a Saturday, Yet, we do not. We still do as e please, which is a direct afront to God. But apparently not enough to matter to us .

 

We are also told that we are not to judge one another, that we must do unto others as we would have them do to us. So, unless we want to be treated the same way, we ought to stop putting ourselves above them, and stop pointing and judging them.

 

The bibles tell us that he who has not sinned , throw the first stone. Yet somehow, we are so busy throwing stones that we must have not noticed that part.

 

The bible also says that ALL Men are sinners. Period!

 

And it also tells us that all sins are equal. It is not a case on one sin being worse or more bad than another.

 

So, we can toot our horn over gays being sinners, or the fact that the choose to do what they do...but then we turn right around and judge others, look down upon them, all the while completely ignoring the Sabbath and changing things around to suit our own needs,

 

Then tell others how they are living outside God's will.

 

Then we all tell others they really ought to attend church...yet......

 

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?".....

 

 

"But there is no such place in the age of grace. This building we are in is not God's temple. This building is not even a church, just the place the church meets."

 

And we must not eat any seafood that does not have fins and scales or any animal that does not have divided hoves. So I guess we just totally screwed ourselves by eating chicken, shrimp, turkey, rabbit, duck.....

 

Oh yeah, we can't grow tomatoes if we are also growing corn or cucumbers, or grow beans if we are growing colards. We can't grow more than one crop.

 

[DLChris71]

So it is for your amusement. OK, then please explain what you mean by "sin by degree". It is a concept with which I am unfamiliar.

 

>>>>>>>

 

Sin by degree...the concept created by man that some sins are worse or better than others based on some perceived value. Such as it is less a sin (or not a sin) to put a criminal to death, yet it is a greater sin that an innocent person is put to death.

 

SF - Acts 11:1-18? I've also often been perplexed by the sabbath on Saturday vs. Sunday which I can only attribute to the resurrection. As to the matter of crops I'd have to study up on that. But I generally would rely on Acts 10 and 11 on the matters of food.

[packsaddle]

Are you saying that your opposition to the sin of the death penalty is based on Biblical scripture?

[DLChris71]

Yes, I have to admit I'm against the death penalty because of my faith in the bible.

[packsaddle]

You're certainly consistent with that. If you had to choose the two most likely extremes which would 'test' your belief of there not being different degrees of sin, what would those be?

I'm thinking in terms of committing murder versus swiping a paperclip from the office. Or is there a better one that you've heard of?

 

OK, the paperclip will probably work. Situation: you are in a position to prevent one of two different sins. On one hand you can convince someone not to swipe a paperclip. In the other alternative you can convince someone not to commit murder. You know that both of these will happen without your intervention but you can only chose one option. How would you decide? By this I mean: what rationale would you use to make your choice?

 

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

While slavery is almost the most extreme way to deny rights, denial of rights to people because of who they love IS denial of rights to a group.

 

Yah, packsaddle, I reckon you're elevating the notion of "rights" so high that you're makin' it into a god of its own.

 

Does someone have the right to do meth? Some would say yes, a person has a right to do whatever they want to their body, and the law should end where their body begins. A majority would say no, the societal consequences are too high. For me personally, as for NJCubScouter, those aren't interestin' arguments, eh? I think it's a moral issue, not (just) a financial or public policy one.

 

Everyone definitely has the ability to make that choice to use meth, at least dependin' on financial means and the ability to look for supply. That freedom to choose is a God-given one that none of us can take away.

 

The question for the person is whether to do meth. Goodness knows many are attracted to that easy "high". Others are pulled into it by social groups and such. The question for each of 'em is whether responding to that attraction or followin' that group is the right choice. Some would say the only personal morality is to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. Others would say the body is a gift from God which has proper use to do good deeds and live well. Those are the moral choices with which the individual must grapple.

 

For the rest of us, though, the question is what's our proper choice in support of individuals grappling with that choice? We can't choose for 'em. All we can do is choose what we try to teach 'em, or how we respond to da choices other people make.

 

Do we teach 'em that meth is an OK choice, like any other recreation or hobby?

Do we teach 'em that it's a big, scary monster?

 

When they choose to use,

Do we cheer for 'em and defend their 'rights'? Hold marches in their honor?

Do we hold 'em up to our young people as examples? Hire 'em as teachers?

Do we persecute and jail 'em, seize their property?

Do we reach out to 'em and try to get 'em help, try to convince 'em to change?

Do we pray for 'em quietly, and stand ready to catch 'em as they hit bottom?

Do we ignore 'em, as long as they use in private? Even in public?

 

What would yeh do if it was your friend? Your student? Your brother? What would yeh teach if it was your son, your granddaughter?

 

These are hard questions, eh? Hard choices. I think goin' on about God's law against drug use, makin' it a taboo in a culture has some merit from a public policy perspective. Taboos can be powerful incentives. Just say "no". In a discussion of moral choices, though, where the taboos have broken down, perhaps it's counterproductive. It doesn't change hearts.

 

The reason things are God's law, after all, has to do with compassion, not taboo. We care about other people's choices because we care about other people.

 

If yeh feel use of meth is a right for those who feel that's fulfilling, I understand that. I'll even agree that the choice is theirs, from God. But in care and compassion for 'em, I have to say that I would do what I could to discourage that choice, or at least not hold it up to the young folks as a good choice. Because from where I sit, it isn't a good one for them, for those around 'em, for society.

 

I reckon the same is true for other moral topics, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

Seems like yeh all had a lot of fun while I was composin' my longwinded reply.

 

Scoutfish, that was about the most bizarre group of random out of context biblical quotes I can imagine. Yeh know yeh can do that with any text, right? Yeh can do it with a Physics text just as easily. Some graduate programs in some professions even teach yeh how to do it with any text. Doesn't take any ability other than a deliberate effort to ignore da real meaning, and a desire to ridicule or undermine. Jed Bartlett did it better, though. (

)

 

DLChris, I'm not gettin' the sin by degree thing either. Never heard the term. I get the mystical tradition that holds that even a venial sin is a horrific thing because it is pullin' away from God, the most awesome Good. But once yeh get beyond that I think you're lost. God, after all , did provide different penalties for different types of sin, eh? Doesn't that suggest that He at least had a notion that some were a bigger deal than others?

 

That havin' been said, I wouldn't buy into packsaddle's cutesy hypothetical. He's tryin' to paper over the distinction you're makin' between physical harm and spiritual harm because he only believes in da former.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Horizon]

Well Beavah, we could just take a look at Paul's list of who doesn't get the Kingdom of God (I am using the NRSV for this one):

 

wrong doers, fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers

 

Now the interesting thing in Paul's list is that our lesbian mom doesn't make the cut, so perhaps we should let her back in?

 

In the meantime, the greedy is interesting. Perhaps we should start rejecting adult applications from The 1% that Occupy Wall Street is so concerned about. No Gordon Gekkos need apply!

[Beavah]

Nah, Horizon, it's easier to jump in bed with da Catholics and use Jesus' list, eh?

 

Those who give the hungry no food.

Those who give the thirsty no drink.

Those who do not welcome strangers.

Those who do not clothe the naked.

Those who do not care for the sick.

Those who do not visit with and treat the imprisoned with compassion.

 

"Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels... Truly I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me."

 

(Matthew 25, of course, usin' your RSV)

 

Beavah

 

[Horizon]

Beavah - I have no issue with that list. Funny - seems to have left out the evil gays that the BSA won't let into the club though. Not a good verse to hang the organizations beret on.

 

[Unkiewill]

There were several guys I worked with at summer camp over the years that are now openly gay. I think the program is missing out without them being able to serve now. I am not sure what someone does in their bedroom, even if I do not agree with it, has to do with there ability to be a scout leader.

[packsaddle]

Beavah, how is it that you think you know with such certainty what I believe...that you confidently report to others what that is, that I "only" believe certain things?

 

Why don't you just let my question be answered by the person to whom it was addressed? Do you think that person is incapable of thinking of a good answer? Or are YOU incapable of thinking of a good answer and so conclude therefore that HE can't possibly answer it...if YOU can't?

 

DLChris71 has stated a position based on his faith. Give him some credit and let him speak for himself instead of giving him a 'way' to run away from the question, which is evidently what you just did.