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 n

"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 ordaine

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

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 li

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, t

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 spi

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 v

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, Christian

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 pic

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

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 scientis

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 nee

...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 poss

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 Issu

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

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.