Rooster7

Its Barbara Eden hands downor any other way those hands might be turned. Truly, when I was a boy, "I dreamed of Jeannie"... ;-) No witches, secret agents, or stranded castaways come closenot even Susan Dey. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Dan, You are exactly right. I don't know why I was given a thumbs down. I don't know the motivation, thoughts, attitude, etc. So, thanks for making my point. You don't condemn folks just because circumstantial evidence suggests that you may have a right to do so. More information is needed. For those of you that are confused, see my posts under Court of Honor Controversy (Open Discussion). In short, people need to lighten up and not be offended so stinking easily especially when the evidence of a transgression is weak.

I find it humorous that my rating plunged from 4.5 stars to 1.5 stars in one day. What happen?! Man - I'm crushed...I was working for that elusive 5 star rating. Tough crowd. ;-)

Fuzzy Bear, First - Get off your horse so we can speak eye to eye. I have four children and I dare say I care as much about them as you care for your own. Second - I lack your passion for persecution because I don't think we enough facts to warrant that response. I did agree that someone (i.e., the committee) should tell him to watch his word choice. Beyond that, I think you are on a hunt.

I agree that in todays sensitive times, a Scoutmaster ought to know better. Nevertheless, words are merely words. Volume, tone, inflection, facial expressions, body language, emotion, etc. all convey the messageNot to mention the context in which something is said, the personality of the person delivering the message, and the personalities of those in the audience. Do you want all of your words to be taken literally? I think its a little silly for us to be expressing our shock when we lack so many details. Does anyone truly believe that the SM is planning to hunt down one of these kids? Ask the committee to tell him to watch his words, but call off the witch-hunt. If theres more to it, then tell it but from where I am standing his sin was not that great. If the real controversy is his inability to let the boys have control of the troop, then I'd say voice your complaint at the next Committee meeting and let them handle it.

FOG, I think you are unfairly characterizing the Scouting program. The behind the scenes business of a troop, which is directed by adults and permits the boys to participate in a troop, is not the program. Similarly, the behinds the scenes business of a boys and girls club is not the sports program. The benefit that a boy derives from a sports program, stems from his participation on the team as one of its members. Or, do you think scheduling fields, finding volunteers as coaches, and purchasing trophies constitute a healthy sports program? These things are necessary, but no boy or girl is going to learn much about a particular sport or what its like to be on a team from doing any of these tasks. Likewise, the Scouting program stems from a Scouts participation in a troop. The infrastructure supporting the troop (i.e., Troop Committee, Scoutmaster, etc.) is not the program.

First, I offer my apologies for not reading every word of every post in this thread. This apology should also serve as a disclaimer. It may be that Ive missed something worth reading. Still, in response to Wheeler and to those who reject his thoughts in this thread (this probably applies to quite a few other threads as well) Id like to say: Youre making much ado about nothing! Wheeler - Obviously, you are well read. You also make some good points. But, I have a hard time following you because a) you quote way too many dead people to keep my interest, b) you dont always explain in straight forward language as to why you have chosen a particular quote, and c) your crusade seems to be extremely narrow in focus. Even if I completely agreed with your assessment (i.e., the rapid demise of American manhood), I believe the Gospel (which we both embrace) has a much greater message to impart, which you seem to think is secondary. Also, I think you devalue the BSA program disproportionately considering the unique opportunities it offers young boys. To those who paint Wheeler as some kind of lunatic sexist or some other kind of nut While I dont appreciate Wheelers ability to bore me with quotes and his intellectualizing of the same, I think the reaction of most folks on this board is over the top. I find myself agreeing with many of his thoughts but not necessarily all of his conclusions. The BSA was created specifically for boys because boys have specific needs that need to be fulfilledbecause boys will eventually become men. Logically, the BSA should seek men to fill the adult leadership roles. Men should mentor boys. They have a unique perspective that women cannot offer. Women dont know what it is like to be a boy. Nor can women fully appreciate the needs or demands associated with being a man. Having said all of that, I appreciate the many women who have served in leadership roles within the BSA. I am thankful to them because a) many men have failed to step up and play a part in these boys lives, and b) many women in the BSA understand and appreciate the differences between the sexes. The end result is, the BSA is a pretty good program. Would it be better if more men stepped up, took leadership roles, and mentored the Scouts? I believe the answer is yes. Does that position make you mad? If so, I think you have just as much time on your hands as Wheeler. Its just one opinion. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Ed, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 1 Timothy 2:11-14 I have had a few discussions with my pastor and friends on these verses. Usually most of us conclude that Timothy was stressing spiritual authority or headship. That is to say, in the circle of churches that I know, we believe it is okay for a woman to provide leadership in some areas of the church, but not ones that involve spiritual headship over a man. Obviously there are many other churches on the spectrum some that will not allow women to even speak in a worship service...and some others that completely ignore the verses (discounting it as a antiquated cultural teaching). If you know me, then you know that I dont believe in discounting any of God's Word only interpreting them through other verses and teachings of the Bible. It seems to me that God encourages women to take a role in the church. But it is also clear to me that God wants men take the leadership role in the church.

I just want to present alternative views to Mark Twain, Lenny Bruce, and Clarence Darrow. Humorously presented or not, I didnt find any of their remarks enlightening, only denigrating to people of faith. Todays PC police would not tolerate similar comments made by Twain or Bruce concerning other faiths. Nor should they tolerate it when Christians are the target.

(For Acco & NJ) "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire (1694-1778) God didnt create us to be His audience. Rooster7 (1959 xxxx) God is a doctor whose cure is mocked by the terminally ill. Rooster7 (1959 xxxx) If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses. - Lenny Bruce If Lenny Bruce could resurrect himself from the grave, he wouldnt be making light of Christs sacrifice. Hed be to shouting out the gospel instead of obscenities. Rooster7 (1959 xxxx) "I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means." - Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial, 1925. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come form the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

NJ, Your appreciation for Mark Twains revelations on the Bible and what appears to be a stereotype of Christian behavior is most telling. While I appreciate Mark Twains wit, I do not consider him a theologian. Furthermore, his views of the world served his humor and editorials, not reality. The truth is, witches have lived amongst us for thousands of years. If you dont think so, try doing a little Internet search, youll find plenty of history to support that thought and plenty of individuals living today that are willing to wear that label. As to how various societies reacted to them, the people of those times and places are accountable no others. And I dare say, Im sure there were many people of other faiths, not to mention agnostics and atheists that behaved just as badly. So, Mr. Twains observations do not serve to prove any truth other than his apparent lack of understanding.

Proverbs 1 7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 24 7 Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the assembly at the gate he has nothing to say. By the way, concerning - "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice," Europe and Elsewhere I hope you know enough about the world and the Bible, to know that the author of these quotes (see Sturgen's first post) does not know much about either.

Adrianvs, Great article. I love how he concluded it: With the raw sewage being pumped out of the open cesspool that calls itself a creative community songs that celebrate rape and the degradation of women, films that glorify violence and legitimize perversion and sexual anarchy its ironic that some have chosen to attack a film that dramatizes sacrifice and redemption. More power to Mel, say I. Its rare to see a man with such power and influence willing to stand up for his faith in the face of a hostile culture. Instead of opposing him, Jews should be looking for someone like him willing to propagate the wisdom, beauty and truth of Judaism. Don Feders words make me realize that I have more in common with Jews, who hold Gods Words close to their hearts, then liberal Christians that want to deny the power and righteousness of God. I envision a day when millions of Jews and Christians will embrace, in joy and love, as they realize that they have sought and found the face of the same Loving and Holy God. Obviously, today, my Jewish brothers and I do not agree. But the Bible makes it clear that one day, Gods chosen children the Jews, will find His favor again. I pray that God will let me witness that day as one of His children. Not surprisingly, the controversy concerning Gibsons movie doesnt appear to be so much between Jews and Christians. More predictably, its between people who love and believe in Gods Word whether it be the Torah or the New Testament, and those who want to deny the truth and power of His Word.

So, put in philosophical terms (a.k.a., Wheelism), one might say: If a wheel squeaks, and no one oils it, does it continue to squeak or will the wheel fall off? Sorry Wheeler, I couldnt resist. I dont know anything about you, and frankly Ive only skimmed a post or two. Apparently youve ruffled the collective feathers of this forum. So, while it might appear as if this Rooster is taking sides with the Old Grey Eagle and a few other birds around here, the truth is Ive just been involved in Scouting too long and like to make bad puns.

From the article noted in NJs post: For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization, four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitism: "The Jews killed Christ." Some of you know I stand here today thanks to Christian faith, Christian belief, Christian mercy, Christian love. For as a Jewish child born in Europe during the Holocaust, it was only through the intervention of good Christians that some Jews were saved. And I was one of them. The lady that saved me loved me, loved me with a passion, and was faithful and religious with a passion. She baptized me and gave me a saint's name to protect me, and yet, when as a child I misbehaved, she would call me "Judas." And she loved me. At its core, from a Christian point of view, the Christ Killers argument is lunacy. Jews should not fear a reprisal from Christians. Its simply illogical. First, we are all Christ Killers. As I noted in previous posts, because of our sin, Christs sacrifice on the cross was predestined and necessary so that God children could be reconciled to Him. Our atonement, Christians and Jews alike, could not have been obtained any other way. The Gospel makes this point clear. Since Gibson is supposed to be faithful to the Gospel, I have to assume that his movie makes this point clear as well. In fact, he found a role for himself to emphasize his own culpability (and that of every other man). He holds the stakes that are driven into Christs hands. Secondly, anyone who would attack a Jew as a result of this movie has completely missed the message and should not be calling himself a Christian. The childhood story related above by Mr. Foxman is a personal tragedy. But, Mr. Foxman should not be holding it up as a predictive model for Christian behavior. The Christian lady that he describes may in fact have loved him and by appearances, she took great personal risk to hide him from the NAZIs. However, her betrayal to that love (i.e., calling him Judas) prompted by his misbehavior was wrong. True followers of Christ know this. When Foxman pointedly observes, And she loved me, he is implying that the typical Christian that does not love him, will do even worse. His implication is extremely bigoted towards Christians, and equally ignorant of the faith. Later in the speech, Foxman invokes the name of Hitler and his twisted views. I realize playing the victim is a popular game in this country, but I fail to see how a disposed German dictator (and a hater of Jews) which cost this country thousands of young men (most of whom were Christians) has anything to do with his point. Contrary to his flawed argument, American history (i.e., our involvement in WWII) should give him hope and comfort that no such backlash (from a movie about the Gospel) would ever occur. Of course, if he embraced that thought, then his status as a potential victim in this country would decrease, along with his potential political influence. Alas, truth takes the back seat again to political aspirations and/or correctness. Im not surprised. Its the model for liberal leadership. Power and political gain are their ultimate goal, not a country that embraces one another regardless of race, color, or religion. If that were ever recognized as being a reality then they would be out of a job. Mr. Foxman says, And if you walk out of that film in pain and in anguish, where is that anger going to go? To God, or to those portrayed so crudely on the screen in this film for two hours - the Jewish people. I dont know what to believe. Does he truly miss the point? Does he believe Christians, who by definition are supposed to be repentant and thankful for Christs sacrifice, will become bloodthirsty and seek revenge (two transgressions which Christ taught against)? In the garden, didnt Christ tell Peter to put his sword away? And when does anguish translate into anger? If my brother pushes a stranger and me out from the path of a speeding car, is it logical for me to blame the strange for his death? Its good that Foxman has concern for his people as its good for any man to have concern for another. But his pointed finger against Gibson and Christians in general, is not only inappropriate and misguided; its insulting and ignorant. I will concede one point. If Gibson were to attach a trailer at the end of his movie as Foxman described, it would be good. Not because millions or even thousands of Christians would respond with hatred - but because theres always the chance that some small group of perverse, self-described believers will act with malice. Yet, if Gibsons disclaimer is necessary, then I submit that many other movies should be treated accordingly. Did the German people deserve a disclaimer at the end of Schindlers List? No matter what stories are told or not told, or how they are told, there will always be people (from every religion, race, nationality, etc.) that will be intent on doing harm to others. The Gospel was not written to inspire that kind of behavior. To the contrary, it was written so that all men will realize the way (accepting and embracing Christ) to be reconciled to God. This reconciliation is extended to our fellow man as well. When people imply otherwise, they are either demonstrating a total lack of understanding, or something much worse - a deceitful heart thats intent on serving their own purpose.

FOG, Am I to assume that you believe Christ wants us (his followers) to invoke such harsh punishments upon those who break the law? I realize that our duty to follow the law has not been removed But is our duty to enforce it as prescribed by the Old Testament still intact? Or, did Christ say or do something to void that obligation? I believe he did. While the New Testament does not void the law, it does have a thing or to say about forgiveness. Dont misinterpret my words. Im not suggesting that we are to ignore sin. However, I dont think we have the same obligation to punish those sinners amongst us as we once did. Christ, revealed the truth. We are ALL sinners. If we even thought about the 'who-de-who' or the 'Yada Yada Whoopie', then we stand as guilty as those have acted upon those thoughts. Thus, using Gods standards, we ALL deserve to be stoned to death (i.e., If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone...). Yes, I claim to follow the Bibles teachings, but I am trying to follow all of the Bibles teachings as they relate to one another the Old Testament with the New Testament. The Old Testament teaches me that I deserve to be stoned to death and that I ought to be. The Jews, Gods chosen people, purged themselves of those sinners (as prescribed by the law) and/or made sacrifices because they had no other way to stand before a Holy and Righteous God. The New Testament teaches me that because of Christ, I have Gods forgiveness and that I ought not seek to punish others as if I have no sins to claim of my own. Jesus allows us to stand before God even though we are sinners because His sacrifice on the cross atoned for our sins. Having said all of the above, God still wants us to acknowledge sin whenever and wherever we see it, whether it is in ourselves or someone else. Furthermore, while we should not judge harshly and/or act as if we are sinless, Christ gave authority to earthly governments to punish evildoers appropriately. I say this in closing because I know there are some folks lurking in the wings anxious to claim the Bible is inconsistent and thus not trustworthy. The Bible is consistent and very trustworthy. The problem is there are some who dont want to know the truth or worse, they want to distort the truth, so they dont read or seek to understand Gods Word in context. Go see Mel Gibsons The Passion and tell me that Christ did not change our relationship with God. I havent seen it yet myself although I will soon. I have been told that it will change you, whether you are passionately devoted to Christ or just someone who is casually interested in the faith. Billy Graham, whos been around the block more than a few times, said the movie changed the way he preaches. Regardless, Christs sacrifice is not to be taken lightly. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Achilleez, "Although I still do not regard this as proof that we should all hate homosexuals, I see why some would." Of those who have referenced the Bible on this forum, who has ever stated that Christians should "hate homosexuals". The Bible teaches us to hate homosexuality - just like another sin such as adultery or lying. But it does not tell us to hate those who sin. If so, we'd have to hate ourselves too. That being said, we are instructed to speak the truth in love. And the truth is - God will judge those who reject Christ and refuse to repent of their sins.

Achilleez, "It is possible that it also meant perversion or disrespect for God's creation, but it does not say so." Who are you kidding?! Have you read the Bible or just the parts that make you feel comfortable? When you're done reading Acts, read the book of Romans. Do you have a different interpretation for the words "vile" and "evil".

Msnowman, If you have something worthwhile to say, dont build a straw-man argument for your opposition; simply state your case logically. Unfortunately, that possibility seems unlikely. Your references to the Bible prove to me that you dont understand its contents. Try buying and reading a study bible. Prayer isnt a bad idea either. Old Testament ritualistic laws address our broken relationship with God, and how His Children, can approach Him. Jesus atoning sacrifice on the cross changed that relationship for all time. And thus, many of the ritualistic laws noted in the Old Testament do not apply. Unless you understand that God is a most Holy God (i.e., the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord), then it will be difficult for you to grasp many of the requirements spelled out in the Old Testament. Nor will you fully appreciate the nature of Jesus sacrifice. Christs sacrifice erased our sins (past, present, and future), but it did not relieve us of our duty to strive for a sinless life. Homosexuality was and is a sin. This is plain to see, not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New Testament. Read the bible in context. Theres no denying this fact.

The Bible is relevant today - all of it. Don't deceive yourself by evoking the tired and baseless arguments of self-serving men, who are desperately trying to justify a sinful lifestyle, even if it means twisting Gods Word. The Bible addresses the sinfulness of homosexuality in several passages. Take a look at Romans 1:18-32. You cant play gymnastics with the Bible and explain these passages away. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is unnatural and evil..

As a God-fearing, God-loving Christian, I find it difficult not to resent the professor in this "joke". Yet, upon reflection, I realize these mockers of God should not be despised but pitied. Merlyn, when youre not tucked behind the warm walls of your home with your head buried in your blankets, try reading and meditating on Proverbs 1.

Achilleez, Before you lash out at Christians who believe in both - Heaven and Hell, why dont you examine the faith a little more closely? Heres a few suppositions. Tell me which ones cause you the most heartburn and why? 1) A Christian is a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. Any disagreement on that one? Some folks stop right there and go no further, but I don't think its quite that simple. 2) A Christian makes a conscious decision to reject sin (he repents). Obviously Christians still commit sinful acts, but they strive to purge their life of sin. 3) A Christian accepts Christ's atoning sacrifice. He knows without this gift, he cannot escape Gods judgment - who is a Holy and Righteous God. Many folks like to ignore Gods Righteousness - Some go so far as to say that they dont believe in the God of the Old Testament. I dont understand that belief. Its seems perfectly clear to me that the God of the Old Testament, who asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (but allowed a lamb to be substituted) is the same God, who sent His own son - Jesus - as a atoning sacrifice for us. 4) A Christian accepts the Bible as the Word of God. Now, for many Christians today - this point seems to be a stumbling block. I am befuddled by this because without the Bible, how is one suppose to know what Jesus stood for and what God the father wants us to do? If the Bible cannot be trusted, the entire Christian belief becomes a house of cards. Of course - many prefer it this way because it turns Christianity into a open buffet, whereas one can pick and chose whatever one wants to believe. Do you think God wants His children to pick and chose? Or, do you think God wants His children to know Him? Simple logic, tells me its the latter. God gave us the Bible so we know exactly what it means when one accepts Christ and becomes a believer. 5) The Bible warns us that the road to salvation is narrow. It further explains that those who reject Christ will spend eternity in Hell. By definition, a Christian is proclaiming that he accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - Salvation from judgment - A judgment that would result in eternal damnation. In short - Show me some self-professing Christians that dont believe in Hell - And Ill show you some Christians that dont believe in the Bible. Which makes me wonder - If they dont believe in the Bible, why do they call themselves Christians? And - if they believe in Christ, but dont trust the Bible - then how do they know that they are following Christ? Perhaps the lady who looked down in her purse and left in a hurry, was too shy to tell you what she believed in her heart. You seem quick to label - or at least to imply - that the message on her shirt was hateful (and offensive). It may well be offensive - but did you ever consider the possibly that it was inspired by love and not hate?

Achilleez, So by your logic there is only one true church that contains the only true Christians and the rest of us are all on the wrong track. You can be offended, but that's not what I said. Basically, all I said was - the Bible is consistent...it does not contradict itself. Furthermore, I believe God reveals truth to those who seek it. These people - those who love God and embrace his Word, may be in many different churches. However, that does not mean that each of these churches (various Christian sects) know and teach the proper interpretation of God's Word. There is only one truth.

On a national level, the Republican Party would quickly disassociate itself and disavow a candidate like David Duke. If he pursued a Senate seat or a Presidential bid, his harshest critics would come from the right. However, when Al Sharpton steps up to the plate, the left embrace him like one of their own. Yes, Duke got a large portion of the vote, but that was a local election. Even the right has a few candidates in local offices that their not proud of - BUT at least they don't uplift them. The Democratic Party has no shame.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

No - I think, mostly its just clowns to the left. Every party has its jokers. But as a general rule, Republicans police their own. Case in point - David Duke hasnt gained much ground since his coming out party a few years ago - YET, Al Sharpton is a Presidential candidate. A candidate that the likes of Howard Dean, John "F" Kerry, Richard Gephardt, and others take seriously. Why? Because they're pandering for every possible vote - no matter what the cost.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)