Church asks boys scouts to leave.

[daddyo]

If some of you knew what I know about the inner workings of the modern church you would praise your chosen diety without the use of a church out on your own.

 

Oh, do please share it with us. Is it just one church or do you have experience with them all?

[enfield]

For $32.99 and a few moments of your time filling out a online form you YES YOU sir can be a legal doctor of divinity.  . . . .

 

I didn't go for the DD as I was short of funds, but I AM a Bishop in the Universal Life Church.  :x:

[knewcomb]

Ive never quite understood how a person could be "born" gay. That would make it a genetic trait. how exactly is that trait carried through human existence if homosexuals cannot reproduce? Also, if its genetic, why wouldnt identical twins who would share the exacg gentetic makeup both be gay? The latest nba player and his twin for example.

[TMF]

Ive never quite understood how a person could be "born" gay. That would make it a genetic trait. how exactly is that trait carried through human existence if homosexuals cannot reproduce?

Dunno, but I ain't learned enough to know one way or the other. I can only base it on personal experiences. I remember back to 3rd grade when I got a letter home regarding myself and a few other students picking on a queer kid. Obviously none of us knew what gay was, but I remember my conversation with my father when I got in trouble, in which my father inquired as to why we were making fun of him and some of the stuff I said was regarding how he hangs out with nothing but the girls on the playground. My dad said something about him being smooth with the ladies and that we were being jealous, and I remember explaining to him that it wasn't like that. Nowadays I'd understand that he was just queer as hell, but like I said, we didn't know what that was when we were 8; we just knew he was different.

On another note, to say that it is a genetic impossibility since homos can't reproduce doesn't pass muster when you consider the vast amounts of people who are sterile and have been unable to pass along their genes throughout history. Obviously people continue to be born sterile despite not having sterile parents.

[RobertNashville]

Ive never quite understood how a person could be "born" gay. That would make it a genetic trait. how exactly is that trait carried through human existence if homosexuals cannot reproduce? Also, if its genetic, why wouldnt identical twins who would share the exacg gentetic makeup both be gay? The latest nba player and his twin for example.

Is it really so extraordinary that someone could be born with an innate attraction to the same sex?

 

If you are straight were you not "born that way"; with an innate attraction to the opposite sex?

 

Science may or may not ever uncover a genetic marker for homosexuality but I see no reason why it cannot exist.

Edited June 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[klamb5]

 The dictionary definition of lust is "1) intense or unrestrained sexual craving, or 2) an overwhelming desire or craving." The Bible speaks of lust in several ways. Exodus 20:14, 17 (NLT), "Do not commit adultery. . . Do not covet your neighbor’s house. Do not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else your neighbor owns," or Matthew 5:28, "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Job 31:11-12 (NLT) sums up lust quite nicely: "For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own."

Lust has as its focus pleasing oneself, and it often leads to unwholesome actions to fulfill one's desires with no regard to the consequences. Lust is about possession and greed. The Christian faith is about selflessness and is marked by holy living (Romans 6:19, 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 30, 6:19-20; Ephesians 1:4, 4:24; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, 5:23; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 1:15-16). The goal of each person who has put his/her faith in Jesus Christ is to become more and more like Him each day. This means putting off the old way of life of which sin was in control, and conforming one's thoughts and actions to the standard put forth in Scripture. Lust is in opposition to this ideal.

Nobody will ever be perfect or attain sinlessness while still on this earth, yet it is still a goal for which we strive. The Bible makes a very strong statement regarding this in 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8, "God has called us to be holy, not to live impure lives. Anyone who refuses to live by these rules is not disobeying human rules but is rejecting God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you." If lust has not yet gripped your heart and mind, ready yourself through a life lived above reproach to combat the temptations of lust. If you currently struggle with lust, it is time to come clean before God and ask for His intervention in your life, so that holiness can be a mark of your life as well.

 

Edited June 4, 2013 by klamb5

[RobertNashville]

 

 The dictionary definition of lust is "1) intense or unrestrained sexual craving, or 2) an overwhelming desire or craving." The Bible speaks of lust in several ways. Exodus 20:14, 17 (NLT), "Do not commit adultery. . . Do not covet your neighbor’s house. Do not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, ox or donkey, or anything else your neighbor owns," or Matthew 5:28, "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Job 31:11-12 (NLT) sums up lust quite nicely: "For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own."

Lust has as its focus pleasing oneself, and it often leads to unwholesome actions to fulfill one's desires with no regard to the consequences. Lust is about possession and greed. The Christian faith is about selflessness and is marked by holy living (Romans 6:19, 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 30, 6:19-20; Ephesians 1:4, 4:24; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, 5:23; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 1:15-16). The goal of each person who has put his/her faith in Jesus Christ is to become more and more like Him each day. This means putting off the old way of life of which sin was in control, and conforming one's thoughts and actions to the standard put forth in Scripture. Lust is in opposition to this ideal.

Nobody will ever be perfect or attain sinlessness while still on this earth, yet it is still a goal for which we strive. The Bible makes a very strong statement regarding this in 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8, "God has called us to be holy, not to live impure lives. Anyone who refuses to live by these rules is not disobeying human rules but is rejecting God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you." If lust has not yet gripped your heart and mind, ready yourself through a life lived above reproach to combat the temptations of lust. If you currently struggle with lust, it is time to come clean before God and ask for His intervention in your life, so that holiness can be a mark of your life as well.

 

 

Just to be clear; are you equating "lust" with simple sexual attraction?  To me there is a significant difference between the two.

 

When I see a beautiful woman I have what I consider to be a very normal and largely instinctual/involuntary attraction to her sexually...that does not mean I'm fantasizing about having sex with her which I suggest is the difference between simple sexual "attraction" and sexual "lust/desire".

 

If a homosexual man sees a handsome man and has a sexual attraction, which for that homosexual man is a perfectly normal reaction; has he committed the sin of lust or is he, like the heterosexual man, just having a typical and largely instinctive/involuntary reaction?

 

I suggest that while "lust" is a sin, simple sexual attraction, whether opposite sex or same sex, is not a sin...it's what each person does WITH that attraction that really matters.

[Capbyrd]

Unless someone here has their divinity degree and is a true Bible scholar, I believe I'm going to stick with what my pastor has to say about the issue.

I love that you let other people tell you how to think and how to interpret the Bible.  Do you check with your pastor before you post anything to make sure you are getting it right. 

[BigK]

If a homosexual man sees a handsome man and has a sexual attraction, which for that homosexual man is a perfectly normal reaction; has he committed the sin of lust or is he, like the heterosexual man, just having a typical and largely instinctive/involuntary reaction?

 

I'm changing my argument to "eww, that's just gross"

[Guest 6.8 AR]

For $32.99 and a few moments of your time filling out a online form you YES YOU sir can be a legal doctor of divinity.

If you base your religious life on the interpretation of the Bible by another person without at least reading it and thinking about it with free thinking then you would do fine in a cult.

If some of you knew what I know about the inner workings of the modern church you would praise your chosen diety without the use of a church out on your own.

If you need your religion to function in life due to fear of living life without some sort of guidance or help then I am all for it and support it. But to say that another person's interpretation is the only true gospel and picking out only the parts of the text you want to support and throwing away the others is just not right.

Either take it all or nothing, and by all I mean the entire book from taking slaves to beating your children and wife to not allowing her to speak in the church as a few examples.

The "all or nothing" argument is not any kind of argument. If that's your answer to living your life, good for you. People

choose their belief system. You chose that one.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Is it really so extraordinary that someone could be born with an innate attraction to the same sex?

 

If you are straight were you not "born that way"; with an innate attraction to the opposite sex?

 

Science may or may not ever uncover a genetic marker for homosexuality but I see no reason why it cannot exist.

No one said it didn't exist, just that it was an aberrancy. Not going back into the Bible argument with you.

[daddyo]

I love that you let other people tell you how to think and how to interpret the Bible. Do you check with your pastor before you post anything to make sure you are getting it right.

This is a really disappointing post from you. Just because I agree with what someone else says about something in no way means that I am incapable of thinking for myself. I am old enough and mature enough to know that I don't know everything and when to defer to someone who I regard as more of an authority the subject.

[RobertNashville]

No one said it didn't exist, just that it was an aberrancy. Not going back into the Bible argument with you.

I wasn't judging whether it was or wasn't an aberrant occurrence; I would suggest that is is or at the very least; it effects a small percentage of the population.

 

I was simply responding to the question/statement made by knewcomb.

[Capbyrd]

This is a really disappointing post from you. Just because I agree with what someone else says about something in no way means that I am incapable of thinking for myself. I am old enough and mature enough to know that I don't know everything and when to defer to someone who I regard as more of an authority the subject.

 

I'm sorry, do you know me?  How do you know that its just that one post and not me in general?  

I have very different views on Christianity from pretty much every Christian I've ever met.  I believe in God and I believe that Jesus died for my sins.  But I also recognize the Bible as a flawed document written and interpreted by men.  Of course, this post is going to spark an entirely new debate and conversation and that is why I was hesitant to post it before.  But, the Bible, as we know it, is an amalgamation of different translations and interpretations from men.  Christians have long held that the Bible was written by men but guided by God's hand.  Where was God's hand when King James was having his own translation written?  How about the earlier translations into English?  Or the later translations.  I can get behind the story that God wrote the Bible through people.  I can't get behind a theory that God then used a bunch of other people to translate the Bible into different versions that can be interpreted differently.  And to take that a step farther, I will NEVER get behind getting my lessons from someone else.  I have been able to read since I was 3 years old.  I can see the words on the paper and determine what they mean for myself.  

I'm passionate about reading the Bible for myself because I have attended a great number of churches through the years.  I have seen numerous preachers use the pulpit to preach their own agenda.  It was once told to me that Sermons are for a preacher to tell his stance and Bible Study and Sunday School are for us to question and debate every aspect of the Sermon.  I believe that to be true.  Preachers are fallible men just like us.  Even they can get things wrong.  


As for the Scouts, I've always been proud to be an Eagle Scout.  And I still am.  I will never differentiate between pre and post gay whatever.  I'm sure there were some gay scouts active when I was and I'm even more sure that there were some gay leaders.  None of them ever bothered me or anyone else.  Scouting teaches that one should be morally straight, but wouldn't that include not judging your fellow men?  When it did it become morally okay for me to exclude you from anything based on hatred and fear mongering.  Part of scouting and a huge part at that, is uniform.  the uniform represents more than just some clothing.  Its about taking away differences.  Showing that we are all just boys learning to be young men.  Showing that we are all the same.  And whether you into dong or redheads, you are still a boy and still welcome in the scouts.  To all of the scouts that are fearful or showing hatred towards gay scouts, I have to ask, just what exactly were you taught in scouts?  

[daddyo]

Yes, preachers are fallible, but that doesn't mean they're never right. And just for the record, you don't know my pastor, so you're sort of unqualified to make a judgement call where he AND my church are concerned.

And, by disappointing, I mean that it wasn't necessary to be insulting. Someone else had suggested that I wasn't able to think for myself before you did. Does that mean that you're just parroting someone else and not able to think for yourself?

Disagreeing with the BSA's decision does not equate to "fear" or "hatred". That accusation is becoming really tiresome. Edited June 4, 2013 by daddyo

[Jonnin]

It has always been about getting into the church, for the gay community.   For decades they have tried to get into the churches, from gay weddings to gay clergy and more.  I wonder if this is just part of that strategy, to erode churches by a two step process... 1) get to the scouts 2) when scouts are booted from churches, where a great many troops meet, to raise a stink about that.... 

 

My personal opinions that I do not care to force on anyone..

 

- The churches are right for throwing them out. 

 

- The gays are wrong for forcing the scouts, a private group, to accept them.  I strongly uphold the right to discriminate in private settings whether its the black engineers or the KKK or whatever other similar racist/sexist/etc group.  If the group is offensive to enough people, it will self destruct eventually.

 

- The scouts are right to accept gays given the poor arguments against it (molestation?! sex between boys?! ) and inability to formulate a logical reason not to.  (Taking a stand, simply saying "we think homos are immoral" would suffice, right or wrong).

 

- And finally, I think scouting will survive just fine and in 5 years no one will know the difference. 

[Capbyrd]

Do you think that there is some sort of Homosexual Illuminati that meets regularly and plans the gay take over of the world?  I find that first paragraph of yours to be hilarious! 

[Capbyrd]

Yes, preachers are fallible, but that doesn't mean they're never right. And just for the record, you don't know my pastor, so you're sort of unqualified to make a judgement call where he AND my church are concerned.

And, by disappointing, I mean that it wasn't necessary to be insulting. Someone else had suggested that I wasn't able to think for myself before you did. Does that mean that you're just parroting someone else and not able to think for yourself?
 

 

1.  I don't recall singling out you and your church.  Like you said, I don't know them and couldn't make a fair assessment.  

 

2.  I wasn't trying to insult.  I was simply trying to make a point.   If I was trying to insult you, I would have called you a big headed meanie face and thrown poo in your direction. 

[maroonandwhite]

1.  I don't recall singling out you and your church.  Like you said, I don't know them and couldn't make a fair assessment.  

 

2.  I wasn't trying to insult.  I was simply trying to make a point.   If I was trying to insult you, I would have called you a big headed meanie face and thrown poo in your direction. 

Who flung poo??  :rofl:

[1pointofview]

pretty soon, the church will be forced to give up all it's beliefs that do not align with government demands..  All while the pro government slobs scream separation of church and state

[Chucktshoes]

Do you think that there is some sort of Homosexual Illuminati that meets regularly and plans the gay take over of the world? I find that first paragraph of yours to be hilarious!

Be careful what you say, the "Mauve Hand" is watching and they are plotting faaaaabulous plots.

[RobertNashville]

It has always been about getting into the church, for the gay community.   For decades they have tried to get into the churches, from gay weddings to gay clergy and more.  I wonder if this is just part of that strategy, to erode churches by a two step process... 1) get to the scouts 2) when scouts are booted from churches, where a great many troops meet, to raise a stink about that.... 

 

I don't see how this is true and/or how it applies here.

 

Certainly, it's true of some homosexuals want "the church" to change its stance on gays (marriage, clergy, etc.) but I don't believe that there is any large conspiracy going on to make that happen.  I'm not even sure it would matter if there was; after all, pick any 20 churches and you'll likely find 8 to 10 different opinions about homosexuals; , sometimes even within the same denomination!

 

I also don't see how this issue with the BSA has anything to do with getting into the church - first because the two largest Christian sects (LDS and Cathlotics) have already stated they don't have a problem with the change. Second, not all BSA groups are sponsored by/meet in a church. Finally, I don't see how a church continuing or not continuing a relationship with the BSA impacts the doctrine of the church???

 

Respectfully; I think a lot of people look at the fringe element of the homosexual community and assume what they see is true for the whole. Making that assumption is no more accurate than judging a Tea Party gathering based on the most radical fringe who show up or judging all "Christian churches" by looking only at the reprehensible acts of Westboro Baptist.

Edited June 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Il Duce]

The amount of care over something that does not affect anyone here is astounding.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It really affects everyone here and elsewhere, but not how you might think. Policies that are made based

on moral relativism and not the Constitution affect everyone, eventually. Unless you consider your children

and their children to not be a part of your family. The part that concerns me is when any group tries to force

itself on others. If, for no other reason, it is rude and people need to quit accepting rude behavior.

 

Policies made now might not seem like much, but if you have any concern about future generations, you begin

to look at things differently. Everything contributes to either benefit or consequence.

[daddyo]

I wasn't trying to insult. I was simply trying to make a point. If I was trying to insult you, I would have called you a big headed meanie face and thrown poo in your direction.

Sorry, CB, I'm not that stupid. It certainly was not a compliment. Edited June 6, 2013 by daddyo