Rooster7

Trevorum, But I have never been made to feel like a 3rd (or 2nd) class Scouter (except perhaps by those on either end of the extremist spectrum - from Rooster on the right to Kudu on the left - who for different reasons think I and other UUs should be BSA pariahs because of our faith). Pariah? I dont believe I have ever said such a thing. Regardless, I maintain that the UU faith is not a faith, but a humanistic creed. Their primary mission is not to recognize and worship God, but rather they seek to celebrate human diversity.

If in fact this boy's parents are claiming Romans 8 as the premise for their son's "faith" and salvation, I find it interesting. That is to say, most who believe in the "preservation of the saints" - claim this tenant to reassure those who are concerned that they may have lost their salvation. For example, a man commits adultery - realizes the gravity of his sin and subsequently starts to question his salvation. However, I have never heard anyone apply this to someone who does a turnabout and embraces atheism. To the contrary, given this boy's claim, I think most would deduce that he was not saved. In fact, a good Calvinist would exhort this boy to pray, repent, and to seek God.

"The people here in the bible belt seem to like it that way." With that last statement, do I detect a note of - empathy? No, that's not it. thoughtfulness? No, that's not it. hypocrisy? Hmm. Once again the pot rears his ugly head and slanders the kettle.

"Once saved, always saved" is a teaching that stems from Romans 8 and was made popular by John Calvin. The 5th point of Calvinism, "Perseverance of the Saints" expounds on this teaching. It, in part, says this: "If man cannot save himself, then God must save him. If all are not saved, the God has not saved all. If Christ has made satisfaction for sins, then, it is for the sins of those who are saved. If God intends to reveal this salvation in Christ to the hearts of those whom He chooses to save, then, God will provide the means of effectually doing so. If, therefore, having ordained to save, died to save, and called to salvation those who could not save themselves, He will also preserve those saved ones unto eternal life to the glory of His Name." In short -"Once saved, always saved". How does this relate to the Scout in question? And Fuzzy...perhaps you should change your name to "Dancing Bear", because you've done your best to dance around this question. What faith was the boy supposedly practicing?

It has been clearly established by some folks on this board that - if something is legal, it is not necessarily moral. A point I happen to agree with. However, Id like to point out that the inverse is true as well. Just because something is illegal, it is not necessarily immoral. For example, I dont feel that a father who allows his 17-year old son to have a sip of wine is guilty of immoral behavior. Perhaps I better use another example, because the aforementioned scenario is not in fact illegal. The legal age for alcohol in the USA is 21 years old. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. The national law specifically prohibits purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages. It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. The term "public possession" is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following: An established religious purpose, when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older Medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution In private clubs or establishments In the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer .

Men who defend pornography are fools if not immoral. And those who claim that pornography has no affect on them are fools if not liars. Rape - it may well be an act of violence. Amd who knows what inspires pedophiles and other perverts. But let's not play games here. It's well known amongst law enforcement, and it should be common knowledge by now - these idiots usually have closets (or computers) loaded with pornography. Don't try to intellectualize it. It's plain to see. Pornography is insidious and it DOES affect men...even "good" men. 1. Is Mr. Z morally straight? Its a little difficult to judge based the facts given. At the least, he seems to be playing with fire. 2. Do you have enough information to determine if Mr. Z is morally straight? No. 3. Is Mr. Z performing his duty to God? By appearances, Id say he is not honoring God by buying pornography. He may be doing his duty to God in other ways but this isnt one of them. 4. Should you say anything to Mr. Z about this? It would depend on my relationship with him. Should you report this to the Committee or the COR? No. Does it matter if you know that the CO, a church, strongly condemns such material? Yes, but that fact alone would not necessarily dictate any particular action on my part 5. If you were the head of BSA, how would you go about determining whether a person with a subscription to Playboy is morally straight or not? If I was the head of the BSA, I would condemn such magazines publicly. But, Im not sure how I would approach the leader issue if in fact I would approach this at all. How would you determine whether such a person should be allowed to be a Scout leader? Id have to be given more facts or create my own to answer that question. With the given facts, Id probably leave the issue alone unless something else came to light.

Whose company would you prefer? An alcoholic who's fighting to remain sober or his buddy who wants to take him out drinking? A repentant homosexual or his pseudo-intellectual neighbor who wants to justify deviate sexual behavior so he can feel better about himself? Personally, I prefer the alcoholic or the homosexual over those who would cause them to stumble, even celebrate their behavior - because it conforms to their own godless standards.

NJ, Believe it or not, I agree with you. Israel is not to be blamed for the lack of peace in that region. They are surrounded by millions that hate their existence. Excluding self-inflicted genocide, they will never be able to appease their neighbors. I applaud Israel for being a people of self-restraint. OGE, I also believe the Pope was a good man. And while I did not agree with every conclusion he made, I agreed with most. I think, George W. Bush falls into the same catagory of admirers. Certainly, in regards to homosexuality, abortion, and many other social issues, the Pope and the current president were of one mind. Obviously, there were some differences in other areas, but name two men that were always in complete agreement.

BP, I didn't threaten anyone. And you'll have to tell me what scriptures you were referring to...

Now THAT'S ironic. You cling to your unsubstantiated belief in an afterlife as much as anyone I've seen. Cling to it? Interesting choice of wordsGod does offer something that we should all want to cling to salvation, love, peace, and joy. But as much as I want these things, I dont cling to Christianity as if its a buoy in an unforgiving sea. The fact is prior to knowing the truths of the Bible; I never realized that I needed a savior. Furthermore, it would have been much more palatable for me - to reject the ideas of sin, evil, and Hell. But the reality of this world, and Gods spirit testifies otherwise. It would have been easier for me to burry my head and dismiss sin, evil, and Hell as the products of superstitious fools. That would have enabled me to live my life as I pleased. Who needs guilt? Who wants to answer for their behavior, much less for their thoughts? I could have slept easier at night, knowing that my family was not going to judged or subjected to eternal damnation. God didnt allow me to embrace beliefs merely because they made me feel safe or comfortable. He made me examine His Words. His truth is undeniable. Those who refuse to yield to it; will answer to God. Those who surrender to it; will find a loving and holy God.

Merlyn_LeRoy, So, rooster7, do you think the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the new messiah? I dont think about Rev. Sun Myung at all. I just thought the article was interesting...and true. By the way, what does this have to do with Boy Scouts, Rooster7? I find it rather ironic that you of all people would criticize me for starting a thread that deals with atheism. Johndaigler, I'm assuming your post isn't signaling you're rolling out the WELCOME mat. SO, what is it you're thinking? Im thinking sadly, the sentiments expressed in the article strike me as being very true. I believe people want to control their future even beyond this life. They dont want to fear the unknown. So, they pursue a spirituality that enables them to remain unchanged and/or to believe in an afterlife that will satisfy all of their perceived needs. They embrace or create a faith that provides them comfort and security - as they stand today, unchanged. For some folks that means worshiping trees. For others it means worshiping Satan. And for some, that means atheism.

From the Washington Times: By Uwe Siemon-Netto UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL GURAT, France Godlessness is in trouble, according to a growing consensus among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars. "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg said in an interview. His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees. Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," Mr. McGrath wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today. Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground. British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism, saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Mr. Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible. But he has embraced the concept of intelligent design a stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe. A few years ago, European scientists snickered when studies in the United States for example, at Harvard and Duke universities showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness. Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District because of "spiritual resources." Atheism's other Achilles' heels are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. "With time, [atheism] turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively," Mr. McGrath wrote in Christianity Today. The Rev. Paul M. Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, said atheists in Europe have become "an infinitesimally small group." "There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research," he said. Mr. Zulehner cautioned, however, that the decline of atheism in Europe does not mean that re-Christianization is taking place. "What we are observing instead is a re-paganization," he said. The Rev. Gerald McDermott, an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College in Salem, Va., said a similar phenomenon is taking place in the United States. "The rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism," he said. After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual." Mr. Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants. "The Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion. In a similar vein, Mr. Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable quests of contemporary humanity the quest for freedom and truth. "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are inseparable properties to which freedom is linked." As for the "peril of spirituality," Mr. Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. He concluded from his research that in the long run, the survival of worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup: "The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he said, will come in at the tail end.

BadenP, Your post was as I expected. No argument, just more of the same insults and insinuations. Your approach to debate is a cowardly one. Ive asked you twice now - to come forward with your purported expertise and demonstrate your assertions. And twice youve responded with the same type of posts. I think most, perhaps even those that dislike my views, can see past your veneer. If youre going to spew garbage, at least have the courtesy to face me (intellectually and morally speaking) like a man. Dont hide behind pusillanimous and hollow statements such as these: I could pick your arguments apart, but to what end because you truly do not understand scripture other than on a very superficial level. While I enjoy a good debate - Ive always tried to show restraint in that I aim to keep my responses on topic and not directed at the person. Now there are some on this board that would say I have failed in that regard. And perhaps I have on occasion. Do I pull any punches? No, I am very passionate in my beliefs and I defend them earnestly. But I find it highly remarkable, that you as a self-proclaimed minister, have aggressively tried to discredit my character and taint my arguments by building a straw man of someone that is arrogant and judgmental, without any show of concern as to who I truly am. Your behavior belies your position in argument, and as a religious authority. Seemingly, as we both believe in the same God - we will find out soon enough as to who misrepresented our Lord and His Word. Life is short. I remember day dreaming in school about the year 2000 and what life will be like then. 35 years later - a blink of the eye in retrospect, here I sit in 2005 at 46 years of age. In another blink (if Im so blessed), I will be sitting before God. With that said, I am convinced that I have wasted enough time on this board bickering with the likes of you. As you no doubt will respond with yet another malicious retort that attacks me instead my arguments, I will let you have the last wordwhich apparently is your goal in life. Dont blink we may meet again one day.

This is why so many are now turning to the idea of "intelligent design," which is a religious/philosophical viewpoint that can neither be proven nor disproved with scientific evidence. (I happen to believe in it, by the way--although I still don't think it belongs in science class, since it's a religious idea.) And why cant it be proven scientifically? Id like to suggest that its this mind-set that most scientists assume, and thus they disqualify themselves as being unbiased observers. It reminds me of an old cartoon two fish swimming around in a large aquarium as they mocked the idea of a supreme being. If in 1491, the Pope declared the world to be round, would you discount Columbus claim in 1492 as a religious idea? My point being regardless of the original sourceno matter who or how a claim comes to light, truth will always be truth. If physical evidence suggests that there is an intelligent designer, it should not be ignored or discounted, simply because it supports the ideas or truths purported by a religious faith. Science claims to be the owner of truth or at least the owner of the known truth because all of its claims can be supported by physical evidence. When science refuses to recognize truths because acknowledging such truths latently validates the existence of Godor a Supreme Beingor the claims of a religious faith then science has failed its chartersomething other than truth is reining supreme. And since truth is the ultimate goal of science, no religious teaching should be summarily dismissed from science class. Examined with a critical eye? Yes. But to instantly dismiss an idea simply because scientists (NOT science) have taken the posture that all religious ideas are counterintuitive to the laws of the physical world, is inane (no offense intended) change that to silly.

God dummied up evidence to make it look like it took billions of years. But, that's just me. Did God dummied up evidence to make it look like it took billions of years or did man feel compelled to dummy up the evidence himself? Thats not meant to imply that scientists who back evolution are conspiring to hide the truth. Rather, it is meant to say, I believe many scientists believe what they believe first, and then find the evidence to support it. Now, one might argue - evidence is evidenceit matters not what a scientist believed before his search. However, I argue that these scientists are compelled to view all evidence with a slant that they cannot suppress. This is not unlike how many scientists would describe people of faith. The only difference is people of faith realize that they have one.

BadenP, Rooster, Rooster, Rooster, what can I say, your simplistic approach to understanding the Word of God is a constant source of amusement to me. My son, keep my words and store up my commands within you. Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart. Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," and call understanding your kinsman; they will keep you from the adulteress, from the wayward wife with her seductive words. Proverbs 7:1-5 Gods Word is plain to me. Im sorry you feel it needs to be so complicated. Let me remind you, those red letter editions of Jesus quotes are an interpretation of an ancient language Aramaic that Jesus spoke. Many of those red letter translations are poor attempts of deciphering the ancient texts. Even the ancient Greek of the New Testament bears little to no resemblance of modern day Greek. So, I take it that youre an expert on ancient languages? Please demonstrate your expertise here and show me how I have misinterpreted Gods Word. Demonstrate with a specific example and specific verses, how have I taken a simplistic approach? So please don't claim to be speaking for God to me or others because you do not, nor do you really understand the true meaning of God's word by quoting a line of scripture out of context, which you so often do. I must admit. This assertion makes me angry. First, I never claim to speak for you or anyone else. I merely presented my understanding of Gods Word. Secondly, if youre going to accuse someone of misinterpreting Gods Word, you should be specific and support your arguments with Scripture. Something you failed to do, and something I have yet to see you do. Every book in the Bible was written for a particular time in history to a specific group of people. While there may be application for us today 2,000+ years later that was not the original intent of the writers. Im aware of the history behind the Bible. Im also aware of the fact that all of Scripture is God breathed. With that said, Im fairly confident that the Bible does have application for us today 2,000+ years later, regardless of what the original intent of the writers may have been. I suggest you talk to an actual ordained minister who went to an accredited seminary and ask them for guidance on how to PROPERLY read and understand the Holy Bible, instead of constantly misinterpreting it as you so often do. Again, I see no reasoned argument or Scripture to support your assertions. You claim to have much expertise, without offering any.

...nor do you really understand the true meaning of God's word by quoting a line of scripture out of context, which you so often do. Yes, you've said that before...but you never quote me and demonstrate how my use of a bible verse is out of context. You merely throw the accusation out as if claiming it, makes it so.

...nor do you really understand the true meaning of God's word by quoting a line of scripture out of context, which you so often do. Yes, you've said that before...but you never quote me and demonstrate how my use of a bible verse is out of context. You merely throw the accusation out as if claiming it, makes it so.

To Rooster and his supporters your statements are hypocritical because a Christian is supposed to be against all evil in the world, not a select few, and while I do not agree with the gay lifestyle I do not see them as a real threat to our society as I do the KKK or Neo Nazis. So to these Christian protesters all I have to say is that you need to refocus your protests to the truly evil groups in our society, and there are many to choose from. In other words pick your battles more carefully than you have. I never said I appreciated or agreed with these protesters' tactics? It's quite possible that I do, but I really have no idea because I was not there. My remarks were directed at hate crime laws and the presumptions that some people make about how Christians should preach Gods Word. Rooster, Gods main message to us is to love one another, and in your posts I find it hard to find that Christian love in your replies, you preach a vengeful and dictatorial God which is not in line with the main body of scripture. My God is who He is. What scriptures would you like for me to quote? What scriptures would you like for me to ignore? I believe in all of Gods Word not just the ones that allow me to live as I please. Are Jesus own words in line with the main body of scripture? If so, read the red-letter text in your New Testament and tell me where my doctrinal views fail to live up to Christian love.

Firstpusk, Im fairly certain that I am guilty of dishing out a few barbs here and there. I never claimed otherwise. I cant say for sure. But if you say so, Im sure there are a few to be found. However, if you review my posts, I think youll find that the vast majority of my remarks are directly related to the topic of discussion and/or a splitter issue. I dont recall ever making a post merely with the intent to offend someone, especially when I had not been participating in the discussion previously. Conversely, I find that many of your remarks (at least in the Politics and Issues threads) are aimed at the poster and have little to say about the issue. I offered some thoughts on this thread, which apparently prompted you to join the fray...but not with any kind of argument, just an affront directed towards me. While I dont feel like a victim, I have to wonder - what is your motivation? In short, if ever the pot called the kettle blackthis is it! (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Firstpusk, Through this forum, you know some of my thoughts. You may or may not agree with them. What qualifies you, to infer anything about my character? Why do you feel compelled to do so?

Yeah, Rooster, when I read your posts I can just feel "God's love" dripping off every word. I presume that's sarcasm. If you think "God's love" means never having to present an argument, which some may find offensive then you are sorely mistaken. Furthermore, while I strive to be Christ-like, I never claimed to mirror His character. So, yes, occasionally I fail. Is this what youre looking foran acknowledgement that I do not measure up to Christ? If so, there you have it. Now, what exactly drips off your words?

Protesting a peaceful gathering, using words that may not directly say hate, but incite hate and are announced in a hateful manner is considered a hate-crime. WOW! Whos to judge what words do this - Words that may not directly say hate, but incite hate and are announced in a hateful manner is considered a hate-crime? This is scaryand its unconstitutional as well. Whether or not judges in Philadelphia understand the Constitution is another matter though. If Christians really want to convert people to Christianity, or if a person of any religion for that matter wants to convert and/or being in new followers, the I'm Right Your Wrong so go to hell, approach isn't the right way to go. You'll make more enemies than friends that way. First, Christians dont convert peoplethey merely pass along the message. God changes the heart of the unbeliever. This may not make sense to you, but it is the reality that we (Christians) recognize. Second, while you may not personally appreciate a harsh message, hell is a reality that Christians recognize and many feel obligated to warn others about it. Third, Gods children are not instructed to go and make friends. We were told to spread the Word of the Gospel. Anyone who reads the Gospel understands that hell is a reality that Jesus recognized, and quite often at that. Having said all of the above, if this guy is actually saying, Go to hell, then he is obviously not telling the truth in love. We are clearly instructed to show Gods love, even to those who hate us. So, with this point, I agree. Yet, I have no problem with anyone delivering a message that others find to be harsh or unpleasant. With the many ambiguous and subjective definitions of hate crimes being created these days, I have no doubt that many supporters of these types of laws would also seek to have Jesus arrested if he were preaching in the streets today. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I have three eagles, ages 15, 18, and 21. What do you think my opinion is on this?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

With exception to Article VIII, I had no problem with the list. One can argue that he was describing Hitler and Mussolini. We may not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. Yet, we have much more to lose than most, if we dont try to restrain their power and influence over the rest of the world. If we think we can wait for bigger threats before we react, we will do so at a much greater cost. I dont like the sacrifices being made, but I appreciate the fact that without such sacrifices, we would not be a free people. Otherwise, I enjoyed that list very much.