Rooster7

Perhaps the title of this thread should have been, All I want is an explanation that will make me happy even though I realize most folks on this forum don't agree with my point of view and I will probably continue to argue until Im blue in the face or resort to name calling whatever comes first! But I must admit, his title was shorter, if not misleading. Or how about, "What's wrong with you people?" Either way, from his first post, it was pretty obvious where this thread was headed.

The Great Commission Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:16 - 20

In my opinion, Firstpusk has overstated it. Some churches, in order to bring in non-believers, avoid Gods Word as much as possible. They concentrate only on feel good messages. It becomes all about meeting the needs of those attending, even if those needs are not biblical. Theres nothing wrong with being friendly to those who are seeking God. Conservative evangelicals know the great commission as well or better than most others. Yet, theyre not willing to misrepresent God or His Word to accomplish that end. If youre sitting in the pews of a church, where you are rarely convicted, then theres a good chance youre not hearing Gods Word being preached.

Hunts post contains some real truths that you seem to ignore. I acknowledged certain truths in his post. But, I didnt agree with the entire post either. So here is one for you from me, anyone who uses the Bible as a weapon to demean other Christians or non Christians in their own beliefs is not a true Christian but a self indulgent religious bigot. Wow. Who and how specifically, did I demean or humiliate? I try to argue my points about faith in strong and convincing words, but I have not attack anyone like you have attacked me. In my posts, I have attempted to stay focused on exchanging thoughts on Christianity, and those in the BSA who feel compelled to express or not express their faith. BP - thus far, you have pointedly called or labeled me as intolerant, angry, hateful, self indulgent, bigoted, and a false prophet. Youve even went so far as to say, makes me wonder what other issues might be lurking inside you. If anyone on this forum is being abused, it is I. And you are the source of that abuse. Jesus was accepting and open to all, you on the other hand are open to only a small select few who believe as you do. Im open to many people. I like people. However, I do believe that the bible is Gods Word. His Word warns us: Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mathew 7:13 & 14 Is this my desire to have a narrow gate to God? No, but I understand the teaching behind it, and I accept it as Gods Will. Does that make me open to only a small select few. No - Thats just a distorted way of viewing it. I suggest you take some scripture courses from a good theology school so you can properly interpret the scriptures true meaning rather than constantly taking them out of context, as you so often do to support your intolerance. Im pretty confident that I have used Gods Word properly. And I have read enough Scripture to know that if I were to use it for my own purposes, he will judge me harshly for such an offense. If you feel that my selection of Scripture verses are out of context, rather than hurling insults, simply provide the bible verses that demonstrate that my choice of verses are out of context. I do applaud the fact that you recognize the need to interpret Scripture with the aid other Scripture (i.e., in context to the rest of Gods Word). Still, Im willing to bet that I can find more relevant verses to support my arguments than you will be able to find to contradict my claims. Furthermore, I believe that I will be able to show that your verses are out of context, not mine. So, bring it on. Youre the guy with two theology degrees. If my words are truly intolerant and unrepresentative of Gods Word, then quote me and juxtapose those words against Gods Word. Believe me, if you can prove that I am truly heading down the wrong road, my pride will not stop me from admitting that. My big concern in life is not proving you wrong. My big concern in life is being right with God. But as it stands right now, Im not convinced that you know of what you speak. "Beware of false prophets...", that my friend is how I see your views on religion. True. His Word also says: Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1 In regard to the bible as a weapon, have you not heard about the sword of Spirit? Now tell me, is not a sword, a weapon? Have you not heard that the Word of God can pierce hearts? In this way, I am willing to use the bible like a weapon. Jesus said: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughterinlaw against her motherinlaw a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 10:34 39 Im fairly confident that the sword of which Jesus speaks, is the Word of God. In regard to Jesus being open to everyone yes, hes open to all who are willing to come to Him. But I think the above verses, as well as many others that can be found in the bible, establishes that one must come to Him. You cannot claim Him to be your Savior and then pretend to have a respect for tree worshipping. It doesnt wash.

Rooster makes the interesting suggestion that a Christian who participates in a nonsectarian service without invoking Christ by name is somehow "disowning" Christ. Actually, my point was, no one should feel the need to cringe when they see a Scout following his faith. But to be sure, the Scripture has much to say about those who do not recognize Christ as their Lord and Savior. Any self-professing believer, who reads the bible, should be convicted to speak His name often. To make a conscientious effort to suppress his name, so not to offend others, doesnt bode well for those folks who claim to be His children. There are some Christian sects that believe this--one of the Lutheran groups forbids its clergy from participating in any kind of ecumenical service (even with other Christian groups). I think it would be very difficult for a person who really held such a view to be involved in Boy Scouts, with its nonsectarian Religious Principle. [in fact, I just looked it up: the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not allow its youth to join BSA because BSA recognizes religions other than Christianity.] There is a difference between washing your hands of other faiths and washing your hands of your own faith. In the example given by Acco40 (i.e., the Scout recognizing Jesus as his Lord and Savior, at his own Eagle ceremony), he is suggesting that the Scout did something appropriate. I argue vehemently that this boy has done nothing wrong, and most especially so as a Scout. In fact, he is living up to the Scout Oath, by doing his duty to God. On the other hand, I would argue in the example above that the members of that particular denomination (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) have washed their hands of all other faiths. If they truly believe they have a responsibility to witness to others, this in a very ineffective way of meeting that end. Regardless, these two examples do not mimic one another. They have distinct and profound differences. It's very difficult, I think, to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate proselytizing. Some religious groups think it is so important to convert people that it is OK to use deception to bring them in. Talking about ones faith before a captive audience is not necessarily deceptive. For example, if a Christian attends a mitzvah, he should expect an unabashed celebration of the Jewish faith. Similarly, when one accepts an invitation to a wedding, the faith of those persons being married, is likely to be celebrated. While an Eagle ceremony is not born out of ones faith, many people of faith (Christian and non-Christian) feel compelled to recognize their faith in all aspects of their lives, and most especially when a milestone in life is being celebrated. Anyone who is likely to mention God at such a ceremony probably demonstrates his faith enough in public life, that this occurrence would come as a surprise to no one or very few. But even so, it is a ceremony for the Scout - however the ceremony is conducted (religious or not), it should be accepted as such. Those who would take offense to a Scouts religious expression at his own Eagle ceremony; they are the ones who are demonstrating religious intolerance NOT the Scout! Most Christians wouldn't do this, but there are some who would preach to a resistant, unwilling, or captive audience. I agree with this statement. Yet, you seem to be ignoring the difference between preaching and simple public expressions of personal faith in God. A Scout who prays in the name of Jesus is not preaching. He is not even witnessing. He is merely praying to his God. For many people of faith, there is no such thing as a generic god. The God of the bible demands that we recognize Him by name. Some may prefer not to interpret Scripture this way BUT that does not mean others must do the same, or that they are wrong for not being as open-minded. These folks are simply practicing their faith a faith, which does not change as they move about from private life to public life. All of life is dedicated to God. I don't think this is appropriate or effective, and it's not the technique that is modeled in Acts, or by Jesus himself. Again, I agree that preaching to a captive audience is not effective. However, I am curious what technique do you see being modeled by Jesus? I ask, because while Jesus forced no one to hear his messages, his messages were not always seeker friendly. Or rather, they were not seeker friendly by the conventional Christian definition. I believe that those truly seeking God received Jesus and His words well. Those who wanted to maintain the status quo often rejected both. And as Jesus warned us: If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. John 15:19-21

BP, For someone who claims to know Gods Word well, you sure dont like hearing it. And for someone who's trying to keep things civil, you sure go out of your way to attack my posts. Trevorum, I expressed an opinion to someone who claims to share a faith in Christ Jesus. I supported my opinion with Scripture, which presumably he considers to be sacred. Now, while my words may give him reason to be concerned, I fail to see how you equate them with intolerance. Are all differences of opinions concerning faith now considered a sign of intolerance?

Although I consider my self a Christian, I've attended many "Scout's own" services where references to Jesus Christ are made - specifically in an opening or ending prayer. I cringe when I hear that because I don't think it is appropriate. Not a big deal on the grand scheme of things but still not necessary. Perhaps these boys, who made you cringe, were simply following the teachings of their faith: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:32 & 33 I wonder what Jesus thinks? Do you think He cringes? Sometimes children lead the way.

wyomingi, I will never respect a belief that claims a tree to be God or a god. Am I compelled to share that sentiment with every Pagan that happens my way? No. I respect the Scout and his passion to follow a faith (i.e., his convictions), but not necessary what he believes his actual faith or religion. If thats not good enough for the BSA powers-to-be, then I guess its good that Im not active with any troop at the moment. BadenP, If my posts reflect anger, it's purely directed at, and rooted in your consistent ability to avoid true debate. Out of one side of your mouth, you spitefully misrepresent my character, if not my words. Out of the other, you offer me peace and serenity. I find your sincerity to be suspect. Acco40, Id like to suggest that its much easier to preach to others about ignoring childish insults than it is to put that homily into practice yourself. Be that as it may, there is truth in your words. Perhaps, I will work on that.

BadenP, If you dont want to drag out these things to the public forum in any more detail in order to keep things civil - then dont use a public forum to make slanderous accusations. So, for the record, I too prefer not to exchange barbs over religion. However, if you attempt to portray me as an intolerant, hateful person, dont expect me to remain silent and address you only via private messages. With that said, if you can manage not to direct any insults my way, I can not only refrain from addressing you via PMs, Id be more than happy to ignore you all together. Otherwise, if you insult in public, expect a public response.

BadenP, Rooster, you are constantly degrading people on this forum who disagree with you and that too is intolerance. Okay, that didnt take long. Could you please enlighten me? Like, who was degraded and by what words of mine? Until your provide some facts with your jibes, theyre a little difficult to defend.

"Religious tolerance is not religious indifference. It is valuing the right of someone to hold beliefs which you know to be wrong" however, I think it's perfectly legitimate to try to persuade others that their beliefs are wrong, as long as you don't use coercive methods to do so. I agree. This is an excellent definition. Nevertheless, Hunts assertion is no less valid. A Christians right to proselytize does not violate the aforementioned definition of tolerance. In fact, those who try to silent the Christian are being religiously intolerant themselves. With that said, I have no problem with the concept of debate. The content of a message is fair game. But everyone, including Christians, should fight for their right to deliver a message. To EagleInKY, I can only say, AMEN brother! (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Boleta, Im afraid you have me pegged. Or rather, I hope you do. I will gladly accept and embrace the label of fanatic so long as youre referencing my zeal for God. BadenP, Does the BSA define reverent other than believing in a greater power, no it does not. This is because a belief in God is not restricted to the narrow definition of Rooster7 or anyone else, I dont believe I provided a definition of God. Please tell me, what definition of God did I provide, which you feel is narrow? As to the BSA, I dont believe they have an exclusive understanding as to what constitutes being reverent. The Bible was written to give us a very basic human insight to the power of God, not to define him, as are the Koran and other major religious books. Is there nothing else to be learned from 66 books, 1,189 chapters, 31,173 verses, and 773,692 words? BTW, I dont care how many degrees you have in theology or how many years youve been ordained. If you want to impress me, use Gods Word to make your point not your diplomas. Furthermore, tolerance is the ability to live in harmony with others who disagree with you, which I am fully capable of, and practice regularly. However, I will not remain silent on matters of importance, or defer my beliefs, simply to avoid the possibility of someone taking offense. This is not a sign of tolerance, but one of indifference.

Religious tolerance is one of the basic principles of the Unitarian Universalists. Religious tolerance is easy when your religion has no standard but tolerance. A bad man who believes in a creed is no more religious than the good man who does not. Away from God, there is no such thing as a good man. By ourselves, we are all - bad men. Through God, any man can be redeemed. From the UUA website: The Association declares and affirms its special responsibility, and that of its member societies and organizations, to promote the full participation of persons in all of its and their activities and in the full range of human endeavor without regard to race, color, sex, disability, affectional or sexual orientation, age, or national origin and without requiring adherence to any particular interpretation of religion or to any particular religious belief or creed. Is this a statement of faith or an EEO policy? Sure theyre tolerant. In fact, theyre so tolerant I challenge you to find something that they dont tolerant.

Trevorum, R7: I take it back. I don't think I'd want to watch a football game with you. You are narrow-minded and righteously intolerant and probably not much fun. So I dislike the Unitarian Universalists teachings. Is that reason to be offended? Are any of my statements substantively wrong? Today, if I wanted to join the UUA, and advised them that I did not believe in the existence of God, they would still welcome me with open arms. Yes, this is very open-minded. And indeed it is

If you ask, he will answer I definitely don't understand why you feel this way about the Unitarian Universalists. It seems almost personal, perhaps even vindictive. No, its not personal. Ive no personal background with Unitarian Universalists. And because its not personal, I am hardly motivated to be vindictive. They anger me though. They are leading many astray down a rosy path that leads nowhere. By their own self-avowed statements of faith, they stand for nothing. They believe in all faithsfaiths that contradict one anotherany faith is good faith. It does not matter how or whom one approaches god, just as long as they approach someone they call god. In fact, persons of faith are not even required to limit themselves to one god or even one faith. For that matter, theyre just as happy with you if you worship a rock verses anything that is living. Actually, you don't have to worship or even believe in god. They believe in the Rodney King approach to religion Why cant we all just get along? Which, on the surface, provides everyone with some warm and fuzzies, but ignores truth and the condition of humanity. So to answer your question, Im not being vindictive. I just cant stomach lying in any shape or form.

Hunt, If you think I am a proponent of animal cruelty, then you dont apply much thought to the views expressed in my posts. This needs not be said, but just for you: I am not advocating the torture of animals. And, I do not consider fishing to be cruel, for sport or for food.

We don't need to discuss religion. However, I will never understand your sentiment (which is also a mantra for the Unitarians) - "Your path is as right for you as mine is for me." You don't know my path (i.e. my beliefs, my doctrine, or my relationship with God). And "right for you" could mean I am ignorantly following a path to destruction. How can that be "right" for me or anyone else? Your response reflects one of two attitudes, or both: 1) Your ultimate destination is none of my concern. 2) Id rather not think about it. If its the former, I would not be surprised. However, my God calls me to be concerned about others and to spread the news of salvation. If its the latter, again Im not surprised. Many folks avoid thinking about God as much as possible. Its a popular sentiment, Lets not talk religion and remain friends. Im capable of doing both. A person can disagree with my faith and remain my friend. Unfortunately, it appears very often the inverse does not hold true. Many folks cannot receive the news of salvation as anything other than a personal affront. This reminds me of a story I heard in college by a lecturer, who was trying to explain a communications gap that we humans cause and endure. It went something like this: A young man was doing his best to navigate his car up a narrow mountainous road with hairpin turns and huge cliffs. As he approached one particularly sharp and narrow turn, another car suddenly appeared around the corner. As the car passed, an older man stuck his head out the window and shouted PIG! The young man was quite upset and retorted with the same, whereas he completed his turn around the bend and struck a pig. So, call me a pig if you want, but I have your interest at heart.

Trevorum, It comes as no surprise to me that you have an affiliation with the Unitarian Universalists. This is a faith which essentially espouses the philosophy - "all paths lead to the same god". In other words, in regards to God and his expectations for us, they do not care to seek and find a singular truth. They believe there are multiple truths. If my thinking is so convoluted, then put me to shame and explain the basis of morality embraced by Universalists? That would be interesting. If you do this and make sense, then I will hang my head low and apologize to liberals everywhere. Otherwise, your quip is simply a poor insult - and even a sorrier retort to my argument. BTW, I dont find dogs or horses very palatable. Theyre a little on the gamey side. Perhaps if you had a cat or two. So go take that vacation and relax.

If one believes the rhetoric in this forum, posted by various proponents of homosexual and atheist rights, then its only logical that some folks would step forward and resume the argument for animals. I say this because - by their reasoning, morality is not innate. These people deny the existence of morality as an absolute which one discovers. They assert that society evolves and defines morality. They argue - morality is determined by the collective maturity of humanity, or rather the cultures created by the same. They claim - we didnt know slavery was wrong until society evolved and decided it was so. They claim - the poor treatment of any group by any society is simply the result of a morally immature culture. This is how they derive their morals. After all, if morality is not a constant if its not a spiritual law given to us by God, then it must come from humanity itself. If not us, then who? So, why shouldnt we recognize other creatures as beings with emotions, beings that suffer like us, and thus deserve the same protections as humans? What gives any human the right to declare otherwise? What special powers do we have to climb into the mind and heart of another creature, and proclaim them as lesser beings? With that said, it makes absolute sense that an organization such as PITA exists. They are the logical extension of the arguments presented by atheists, homosexuals, and others who deny the existence of absolute right and wrong and more importantly the existence of God. Its the natural outcome from a society that embraces the thought that God is merely a product of blind faith and not a reality. Or just as a bad its the predictable conclusion for a culture that exhorts one to embrace religious faith to satisfy personal needs as opposed to seeking and finding true revelation. God is real. He created animals to serve our needs. The truth is that simple. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is just another example of a liberal organization that denies the existence of God. Their foolishness, while predictable, is plain to see.

SemperParatus, What specific "inalienable right" are you accusing maddog of denying Merlyn? Or was your post purely tongue-in-cheek? Here are some thoughts on individual rights and the concept of tolerance: I will fight to the death for Merlyns right to express himself in public forums. Furthermore, I tolerate his being. However, he does not have a right to express himself in every forum including Internet forums designed to support Scouts and Scouters, unless the forum moderator gives him that right. Which of course, is the moderators right. And, while I recognize Merlyn as a follow citizen in this country, and of Gods world, I do not enjoy his thoughts. In fact, I do not tolerate his thoughts. I have no respect for his ideas which deny the existence of God. These thoughts are the folly of the spiritually blind.

First - Presenting straw man arguments (i.e., citing the beliefs of those who have strayed from God's Word and/or those folks who concoct their own versions of Bible prophecy), does not invalidate the truth of God's Word. This is a shameful practice which many on the left like to employ. Mix a little truth in with a lie and present it as if it represents the beliefs of those that oppose your views. This is akin to quoting Klansmen as evidence against those people who want to disband quota systems. Go back and read the verses that I noted, and speak to them. If youre a Bible believing Christian, I want to see how one reconciles those words with the idea that there will be no Rapture. Second - Those who take God's Word seriously, have more reason to strive to help others, not less. The claim that folks who embrace the Rapture are selfish is garbage. It's pure slander. And clearly, its a weak rebuttal to the Bible supported teaching of the Rapture.

Bruce J. Ackerson has the same twisted view of the Rapture as firstpuck. Apparently, theologian that he is, Mr. Ackerson never heard of the parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Furthermore, he describes such teachings like this: The underlying theology of the Rapture is one of fear rather than love. The vengeful Jesus separating the righteous from the unrighteous promotes a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross. Now, I may not have the credentials that Mr. Ackerson has, but its clear to me that he believes that Jesus will not separate the righteous from the unrighteous and/or that there is no judgment for those who reject Jesus. Has Mr. Ackerson ever picked up a Bible? Clearly those who reject Jesus will be viewed as unrighteous, since their sins will not be covered Jesus blood, and they will be judged. Jesus is not vengeful. He is a righteous king. His mercy, his sacrifice on the cross, is available to whoever seeks it. However, those that reject Him also reject the atonement on the cross and will be subject to His wrath.

Packsaddle and Firstpusk, Sadly, your retorts are what I expected. No substance. No merit. Just emotion. For your sake, I hope your attempts to discern Gods Word is more earnest than your efforts to debate me. Grace and Peace (if you believe in them) be to you and yours this Christmas season.

On a separate note, your accusations against President Bush and his supporters are absurd. You are audacious, if nothing else. First, you presume that the Bush administrations policies are partially motivated by their view on such teachings (the Rapture and Armageddon). Then, to make matters worse, you present a perverted view of those teachings claiming that the current administration uses them as an excuse to not care about the future. Have you read your own words? Do yourself a favor and keep these ideas confined to the Internet. An anonymous expression of these ideas is the best course. After all, they are unfounded and ludicrous. In your next post, I halfway expect you to blame the Kennedy assassination on the Bush administration. It has as much merit as your other charges.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

If the rapture is a false teaching, please explain the meaning of these verses. Read Mathew 24:36-44 and Luke 17:20-35. If the coming of end times (Armageddon) is a false teaching, please explain the meaning of these verses. Read Revelation 16. Firstpusk, Your outrage to such teachings infers that you know of an alternative meaning to these verses (and perhaps others not mentioned here). Is your outrage based on an intellectual understanding of the Bible? Or, is it in fact just an emotional outburst against an idea that you find to be unpleasant? There are many other verses that support these teachings. How do you reconcile them with your understanding? Do you even have a clue as to which verses that I might be referring to, or have you simply blotted them out of your mind? As they say, ignorance is bliss. I dont mean to insult you, but Im guessing that your repulsion to these teachings is more inspired out of fear than intellectual or spiritual indignation. Martin Luther may have been an environmentalist, but I doubt it. Rather, I believe he was simply saying - since we do not know the day or hour of the end times, we should conduct our daily lives as if tomorrow is an eventuality. On the other hand, Im sure he didnt indiscriminately destroy any of Gods creations either. Regardless, Im confident that his words were meant to exhort men to not fret or plan for the end times - as opposed to the virtues of planting a tree. Youve put an interesting spin on his words, but lets keep them in context. Martin Luthers life struggle was to reform the churchto rid it of false doctrine. His ideas did not give inspiration to PITA or Green Peace. His ideas gave birth to the Protestant faiths. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)