Church asks boys scouts to leave.

[RobertNashville]

It took me no time at all to find places in the Bible that talks about homosexuals. Quite a few places, actually,

Robert. And I wasn't that interested in the direction this has gone. :D

I know there are but that wasn't my question was it.

 

I ask again to anyone who is willing to answer; point out to me where in accepted scripture it states that being attracted to the same sex is a "sin"?

 

I submit, such attraction is not a sin any more so than a person being attracted to the opposite sex is a sin.  If being attracted to the same sex isn't a "sin" then it makes no more sense to ban such boys from scouting that it would to ban a boy who was attracted to the opposite sex.

 

Moreover, if mere impulses and desires constitute "sin" then I would submit that no one could ever be saved because all would be in a constant state of "sin" and utterly incapable of being otherwise. Jesus himself when he chose to live as a human being had the exact same desires we ALL have (something I would submit is clearly taught in scripture); as such, it would be impossible for him to be our perfect sacrifice and provide forgiveness for our own sins if simply having the desires/impulses were in and of themselves "sin".

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[maroonandwhite]

I know there are but that wasn't my question was it.

 

I ask again to anyone who is willing to answer; point out to me where in accepted scripture it states that being attracted to the same sex is a "sin"?

 

I submit, such attraction is not a sin any more so than a person being attracted to the opposite sex is a sin.  If being attracted to the same sex isn't a "sin" then it makes no more sense to ban such boys from scouting that it would to ban a boy who was attracted to the same sex.

 

Moreover, if mere impulses and desires constitute "sin" then I would submit that no one could ever be saved because all would be in a constant state of "sin" and utterly incapable of being otherwise. Jesus himself when he chose to live as a human being had the exact same desires we ALL have (something I would submit is clearly taught in scripture); as such, it would be impossible for him to be our perfect sacrifice and provide forgiveness for our own sins if simply having the desires/impulses were in and of themselves "sin".

I am starting to get on the wagon a little with you Robert. Everything you are saying does make perfect sense. If I were to put all scripture aside though (I don't but just for argument sake) and look at this solely as a parent (I'm not), I think I would still be uncomfortable letting my child attend overnight events with other boys who I know are openly gay and may be attracted sexually to my child. I don't think that necessarily implies that I automatically think any gay child or person for that matter will throw themselves onto my child BUT the possibility is there. Others have used this analogy before but if you got two gay children together on the boy scout camp out that is essentially the same as a boy and a girl sleeping in the same tent. The opportunity is presented on a silver platter for something to happen. Something that other (or my) child might witness. Put all the hurt feelings aside on both sides and it just doesn't make sense to allow it.

 

I realize you are mainly defending the fact that an impulse or temptation in itself is not a sin which I agree with. Just though I would throw this in there haha.

[RobertNashville]

I am starting to get on the wagon a little with you Robert. Everything you are saying does make perfect sense. If I were to put all scripture aside though (I don't but just for argument sake) and look at this solely as a parent (I'm not), I think I would still be uncomfortable letting my child attend overnight events with other boys who I know are openly gay and may be attracted sexually to my child. I don't think that necessarily implies that I automatically think any gay child or person for that matter will throw themselves onto my child BUT the possibility is there. Others have used this analogy before but if you got two gay children together on the boy scout camp out that is essentially the same as a boy and a girl sleeping in the same tent. The opportunity is presented on a silver platter for something to happen. Something that other (or my) child might witness. Put all the hurt feelings aside on both sides and it just doesn't make sense to allow it.

 

I realize you are mainly defending the fact that an impulse or temptation in itself is not a sin which I agree with. Just though I would throw this in there haha.

Believe it or not I had a somewhat similar discussion of this point with a lesbian couple that I've known for years and who have been partners for over 25 years...I don't remember exactly know how the subject arose but somewhere alone the line I made the statement that I wouldn't be comfortable, being in a locker room or a shower room and being undressed if I knew there was a guy there who was "gay"....my friends asked me why exactly that was and I was a little hard pressed to come up with any sort of logical answer.

 

I came to realize that I would be just as uncomfortable if it was a heterosexual female rather than a homosexual male.

 

I finally came to the conclusion, that it had to do with "me"...how I was raised...my personal comfort level (or lack of it) being naked in front of others regardless of their sex or their sexual orientation; in other words, it didn't really have anything to do with someone being gay.

 

I suppose what I'm saying is that in my example above, I wasn't "worried" that some gay guy or some lesbian woman was going to jump on me and try to have sex with me; I was just uncomfortable as a matter of "culture".

 

I suppose then it comes down to the question of whether someone's cultural taboos is enough of a reason for an organization like the BSA to exclude gays from scouting simply because they are gay?  While I accept that some or even many may be uncomfortable with it; even uncomfortable for their children, I can't honestly say that I think excluding them is justified.

 

 

 

EDIT: I just remembered another illustration of this; a few years ago I was in Amsterdam on a layover for several hours. The restrooms there are unisex and, at least when I was there the attendants (who were always there) were female - now, it was all and only set up as individual stalls so each person was closed off from everyone else but to say I was pretty uncomfortable would be quite an understatement but as I thought about it, it really didn't have anything to do with "sex" but rather, culture...I was able to "go" but I doubt I'll ever be comfortable in such a situation.

I will say this, however, those were the cleanest restrooms I've ever been in anywhere in the world!

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Erik88]

I am starting to get on the wagon a little with you Robert. Everything you are saying does make perfect sense. If I were to put all scripture aside though (I don't but just for argument sake) and look at this solely as a parent (I'm not), I think I would still be uncomfortable letting my child attend overnight events with other boys who I know are openly gay and may be attracted sexually to my child. I don't think that necessarily implies that I automatically think any gay child or person for that matter will throw themselves onto my child BUT the possibility is there. Others have used this analogy before but if you got two gay children together on the boy scout camp out that is essentially the same as a boy and a girl sleeping in the same tent. The opportunity is presented on a silver platter for something to happen. Something that other (or my) child might witness. Put all the hurt feelings aside on both sides and it just doesn't make sense to allow it.

I realize you are mainly defending the fact that an impulse or temptation in itself is not a sin which II agree with. Just though I would throw this in there haha.

You're making the assumption that these things are not already happening today.that somehow this ruling changes anything. If little boys want to be gay together I'm pretty sure the opportunity already exists. This fear that gay children are going to violate other children reminds me of the liberals who thought concealed carry would lead to a wild west scenario.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Erik88

[maroonandwhite]

You're making the assumption that these things are not already happening today.that somehow this ruling changes anything. If little boys want to be gay together I'm pretty sure the opportunity already exists. This fear that gay children are going to violate other children reminds me odd the liberals who thought concealed carry would lead to a wild west scenario.

Notice I made a point to say that I don't believe that all gay children or men are automatically sexual predators.

[maroonandwhite]

I guess at the end of the day all w can do is train ourselves as well as our children to stand firm in our beliefs while making sure they are the correct beliefs based on actual scripture (for believers) or whatever moral compass you may use. I realize bad stuff happens and laws or regulations don't always make things better.

[BigK]

I find myself attracted to the KRISS Vector Carbine. If it were wrong to merely like them or fantasize about having one, I'd surely be guilty of having impure thoughts. I've yet to act on that attraction, however.

 

I've never been alone with one; never taken one home with me, and never committed any acts with one. Given half a chance, wrong or not, I'd almost definitely take things to the next level...experimenting physically with the object of my attraction.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that all that stands between me having an innocent attraction and a full-blown, lead-flinging, carnal experience is opportunity...like stumbling across one alone in a tent on a BSA camp out, led by a Scout Master that owns a Vector too and thus condones my attraction.

[maroonandwhite]

I find myself attracted to the KRISS Vector Carbine. If it were wrong to merely like them or fantasize about having one, I'd surely be guilty of having impure thoughts. I've yet to act on that attraction, however.

 

I've never been alone with one; never taken one home with me, and never committed any acts with one. Given half a chance, wrong or not, I'd almost definitely take things to the next level...experimenting physically with the object of my attraction.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that all that stands between me having an innocent attraction and a full-blown, lead-flinging, carnal experience is opportunity...like stumbling across one alone in a tent on a BSA camp out, led by a Scout Master that owns a Vector too and thus condones my attraction.

:rofl:

[daddyo]

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.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Unfortunately, there are some, maybe even a lot of Christians who base their beliefs solely on what they think the Bible says or, even worse, on what someone else has told them the Bible says or even worse still, on their particular church doctrine...confusing doctrine for scripture happens all too often.

 

Others, as was mentioned before, are somewhat particular about what parts of the Bible they like and ignore what they don't like...when that happens, rather than winding up with the "Word of God" they actually wind up with the "Word of George" (or Tom or Marry or Bill). ;)

Based on what I said about this, before, you must be the only one who knows the true answer since we can't do

much more than think, like mere mortals, what it says. Nonsense!

[RobertNashville]

Based on what I said about this, before, you must be the only one who knows the true answer since we can't do

much more than think, like mere mortals, what it says. Nonsense!

All I'm asking for is the scripture to back up the assertions that some are making; the assertion being that merely being a homosexual (which actually only truly means that the person is attracted to the same sex).

 

If the Bible really says that the mere attraction to the same sex is a "sin" then it shouldn't be that difficult to point out the scriptures that say so should it?

Edited June 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe it differentiated between "acting on" and "desiring", but I don't think so. I'm thinking about it like:

Gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, pride and lust. If I remember correctly those are the seven deadly sins,

Robert.

 

What exactly is "lust"? Does it apply only to male-female activities? I just think you split the wrong hair with

this argument, but I could be wrong. Lust is the desire for something.

Edited June 3, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

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.

For some strange reason I suspect that even if 10 people here with divinity degrees contradicted your belief it wouldn't really matter. ;)

[daddyo]

For some strange reason I suspect that even if 10 people here with divinity degrees contradicted your belief it wouldn't really matter. ;)

 

I knew I could count on you to respond.  :pleased:

Edited June 3, 2013 by daddyo

[RobertNashville]

Maybe it differentiated between "acting on" and "desiring", but I don't think so. I'm thinking about it like:

Gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, pride and lust. If I remember correctly those are the seven deadly sins,

Robert.

 

What exactly is "lust"? Does it apply only to male-female activities? I just think you split the wrong hair with

this argument, but I could be wrong. Lust is the desire for something.

Actually, if you refer to Catholic teaching and the scriptures I think you'll find that lust is more than simple desire.

 

If resting on what the Bible actually says rather than what some pastor once said about something is "splitting hairs" then so be it.

[56FordGuy]

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.

Or, y'know...you could try thinking for yourself. :lol:

 

Why bother to study on your own, just parrot what the man in the pulpit/ on the radio/ Fox/ CNN/ etc has to say. It's just so much easier. 

Edited June 4, 2013 by 56FordGuy

[daddyo]

Or, y'know...you could try thinking for yourself. :lol:

 

Why bother to study on your own, just parrot what the man in the pulpit/ on the radio/ Fox/ CNN/ etc has to say. It's just so much easier. 

 

No man is an island.

 

Humility seems to be a rare thing these days.

Edited June 4, 2013 by daddyo

[BigK]

All I'm asking for is the scripture to back up the assertions that some are making; the assertion being that merely being a homosexual (which actually only truly means that the person is attracted to the same sex).
 
If the Bible really says that the mere attraction to the same sex is a "sin" then it shouldn't be that difficult to point out the scriptures that say so should it?

There are sins of the heart and sins of the flesh. Your defense of unconsumated homosexuality relies on the premise that only sins of the flesh are sins. Sins of the heart are what I always understood to be impure thoughts. The Bible definitely warns against them as being sins as well...

Matthew 5:28
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

1 Corinthians 6:10
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 John 2:16-17
For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Robert, you're still trying to make an argument, well, I'm not sure what it is, anymore, and mine has been the same throughout the length of the thread: political, plus moral relativism. You're probably much better experienced with the teachings of certain particular religious writings, and I concede that, okay? It doesn't add or take away from what I think the problem involving the Boy Scouts, or that church in the news article allude to.

 

The moral relativism and the activists, politically motivated, are who I think caused this problem, and I think it

won't go away any time, soon. I won't try to expand on it any more than that, because I already have.

Edited June 4, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

There are sins of the heart and sins of the flesh. Your defense of unconsumated homosexuality relies on the premise that only sins of the flesh are sins. Sins of the heart are what I always understood to be impure thoughts. The Bible definitely warns against them as being sins as well...

Matthew 5:28
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

1 Corinthians 6:10
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 John 2:16-17
For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT)

 

1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV)

 

The English language is woefully lacking in many way when compared to languages like Hebrew and Greek...I wonder, have you looked at the original language for words translated as "desires"? ;)

 

Anyway; if mere thoughts are sin, could anyone ever be saved?  I would suggest that if sexual desires = sin then Jesus could not have been without sin (and therefore not the Lamb of God and the perfect payment for our sin)!  It must be that way because EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US has desires that run afoul of God's laws.  Since these desires are always with us we would have to be considered to be n a constant state of sin and unrepentant (indeed I don't think it would even be possible to repent).

 

Likewise, Jesus, as a man, had the exact same desires in his heart as well (or he wasn't really a man at all)...if "desires" = "sin" then Jesus sinned.

 

Christians, and I am one, believe that Jesus never engaged in any sexual act during his life and that he was never married but one cannot ignore the natural desires that all of us feel; the natural sexual attraction of a heterosexual man for a woman.  What I'm suggesting is that if Jesus was "fully God AND fully human" he would have to have had the same sexual desires we all do. The Bible tells us that Jesus sympathizes with our weaknesses because He was in all points (not just some) tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). If he was tempted in all points then he was surely tempted sexually and the only way a person can be tempted sexually is if he has sexual desires in the first place.

 

Oh well...I'm done with this topic...I know that no one is going to change their mind. I left the Christian forums some time ago because I found that most folks didn't really want to delve into issues like this, they just believed what they believed.  That's okay but not very conducive to real discussion!

 

I will leave with this thought, however; actually, a question I asked earlier in the thread which is "how can a Christian ever minister the love of Christ to someone if that Christian truly believes that a person simply being attracted to the same sex is in sin, even without acting on the attraction?  If the same sex attraction is sin then can a homosexual ever be saved??? I wold think not but if that's the case it would seem to me the God made a mistake somewhere along the line and really sad for anyone who truly was born gay.

 

 

P.S. While I don't agree with your interpretation of the passages you posted; I do appreciate you taking the time to offer them.

Edited June 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[daddyo]

Robert, you must have lots of free time.  :)

[Mike.357]

I will just cut to the chase,  the bible means jack squat to me.  If to others it holds meaning and all then good for you. I am seriously happy you find contentment in it.   As far as I am concerned gay people are just like me, you, and anyone else. They are people.  They deserve to be accepted for being people.   And if the BSA wouldn't accept them then screw the BSA.  

 

Gays need to speak out and demand acceptance.  How else will they ever get it?  

 

The BSA did the right thing here.  Plain and simple they did the right thing.

[Erik88]

I have mixed feelings on the subject. I have zero problem with gay kids being in scouts and I highly doubt there will be a line of gay kids waiting to sign up for boy scouts. This won't create any new opportunity that doesn't already exist.

 

If some pedophile wants to assault kids he's going to find a way and no policy is going to change that. That's the unfortunate truth. I'm sure there are already gay people that participate in Scouts and just like Mike said, these are average people who typically just want to live their lives and be left the hell alone. I doubt this will greatly change anything for them.

 

What I don't like is seeing any group that makes a decision because of political correctness and pressure from the media. I really don't think this was about doing the right thing, it was about pleasing a small minority.

 

Just my .02

Edited June 4, 2013 by Erik88

[Tobashadow]

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.

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.

[BigK]

The English language is woefully lacking in many way when compared to languages like Hebrew and Greek...I wonder, have you looked at the original language for words translated as "desires"? ;)

 
I don't see how any mistranslation can explain away Matthew 5:28. I listed it first, because if lustful thoughts are a sin, it stands to reason that other sinful thoughts are as well.

As far as that being hard to live up to, I can't disagree with you there. I can only say that I'm less likely to do wrong, if I recognize I'm heading there...kind of like an ounce of prevention, ya know?

If the same sex attraction is sin then can a homosexual ever be saved??? I wold think not but if that's the case it would seem to me the God made a mistake somewhere along the line and really sad for anyone who truly was born gay.

I won't touch these last 2 words or this can go on forever. I'll just say I respect you for putting up a good fight to passionately defend your stance. It shows you aren't a blind follower, you thought out your position. I'd much rather walk away agreeing to disagree than to walk away thinking I've been arguing with a fencepost.