Rooster7

OGE, I think that's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to a bunch of old farts offering a bit of friendly advice to some teenagers. ;-) I can't believe you think 30, 40, 50, and 60 year-old men (or women) cannot offer any wisdom that would be beneficial to a 14, 15, 16, or 17 year-old boy. I'm not suggesting that they blindly follow the edicts of any one adult. I am suggesting that they may be able to learn some valuable lessons if they listen to some folks who have been around long enough to have made and realized a few of their mistakes. Its that simple...Nothing more to it.

mk9750, Your point is very well statedand taken. Or, as the Lord said to Paul: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Still, I feel we can definitely benefit the next generation by sharing with them. With a little prayer, our sons and/or their peers might be able to glean a lesson from our past without having to endure the same hardship.

Perhaps I've been misunderstood - I understand that your past experiences tend to mold who you are. But even if I was completely happy with who I am today, which I am not (I see lots of room for improvement) - there are a number of things I would have changed about my past, especially when I was in high school and college. First and foremost, I was way too occupied with the opposite sex and the pleasures of the here and now. There are many folks who were better examples than I, but I can't believe that I'm the only one who sees a lot of "wasted time" spent as a youth. The point of my thread was to point out some common pitfalls and opportunities to the Scouts on this board. They're in their teenaged years right now. Does anyone have some advise for them based on their own experiences (i.e., their mistakes and victories)? Hey I can accept that youre happy with the results. Im just surprised that so few of you made mistakes that you've regretted along the way.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

And then there's this perspective: The Constitution Be Damned Democrats try to impose a religious test on judges. BY BRENDAN MINITER Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT Are Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats trying to establish a religious test for federal judges? James Leon Holmes is the latest judicial nominee they've targeted. Before adjourning for Easter recess these Democrats demonized Mr. Holmes, persuading committee Republicans to put his nomination for a district court in Arkansas on hold until after the break. Then on Good Friday, New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer took to the airwaves on NPR to further attack Mr. Holmes. This follows on the heels of the attacks on appeals-court nominees Priscilla Owen (a Sunday school teacher) and Charles Pickering (a former president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention). The Judiciary Committee rejected both when the Democrats were in the majority. President Bush has renominated both and it's likely Ms. Owen will eventually win confirmation--although Democrats may filibuster her nomination, as they are now doing to Miguel Estrada. In Mr. Holmes's case the attacks are shocking, for the Democrats are openly targeting his religious convictions. Mr. Holmes's professional qualifications are impressive. He is an accomplished lawyer who has mostly practiced commercial litigation. He's a partner at the respected Little Rock firm Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Barrow. He was one of the lawyers to work on Rickey Ray Rector's defense. (Rector, a cop killer who was mentally retarded owing to a self-administered gunshot wound, was famously executed in 1992 after Bill Clinton took a break from the campaign trail to return to Arkansas and signed his death warrant.) Mr. Holmes received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, and both Democratic Arkansas senators--Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor--support his nomination. He also comes from humble roots. Among other things he's worked as a laborer picking peas before putting himself through law school at night while supporting his family. The lightning rod here, of course, is abortion. It's no secret that the pope and the Catholic Church are squarely against abortion on demand. And Mr. Holmes, who once served as president of Arkansas Right to Life, is an orthodox Catholic. He's written articles against abortion and has even--God forbid--defended the rights of people to peaceably protest against the practice. Abortion gives the Democrats some of their most fanatical supporters. So Sens. Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin feel safe in demonizing Mr. Holmes. They even dug up a 23-year-old letter in which Mr. Holmes argued against rape exemptions. Mr. Holmes says he no longer holds this view, and Sen. Durbin for one should sympathize, since 23 years ago he was pro-life. Mr. Schumer is particularly critical because Mr. Holmes admitted to him that Roe v. Wade was one of the Supreme Court decisions he didn't agree with and because he refuses to promise to recuse himself if any of the right-to-life groups he's defended ever comes before him. Such pre-emptive recusals aren't in line with judicial ethics, which require federal judges to weigh the circumstances of each case before deciding on whether to recuse themselves. It's not just about abortion, however. Judiciary Democrats took issue with Mr. Holmes's view of marriage. Citing an article Mr. Holmes and his wife wrote about the traditional Catholic teaching of a wife "subordinating" herself to her husband, Ms. Feinstein claimed he was antiwoman. Mr. Schumer asked if a battered woman bringing suit against her husband could have confidence in his impartiality. Mr. Schumer went on to complain about and distort Mr. Holmes's views on separation of church and state, evolution, prayer in public schools and more. "We are not getting somebody in this case who refuses to tell us what he thinks, but the bottom line is what he thinks is so bad," New York's senior senator said. The truth about Mr. Holmes's views is that he sees women as equal to men and in marriage each must assume collaborative roles--which is one reason many prominent Arkansas women who are also pro-choice support Mr. Holmes. In no way is Mr. Holmes endorsing legislating from the bench to impose religion on citizens. Just the opposite is true. Mr. Holmes has specifically staked out his views on religion and government in published articles--for the protection of a free state and religion, the two ought to be separate. Sens. Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin and others, in their zeal over abortion, are now attempting to screen out judicial candidates who take their faith seriously. Judiciary Democrats may not like Catholic doctrine, but to hold religious convictions against a nominee is a blatant violation of the Constitution, which provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Liberals have a knack for finding new rights in "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution, but this one is right there in the document itself. Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays. Taken From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003390

Warning - This thread is along the same lines as "So what do you do for a living? Curiosity, more than Scouting, was its inspiration. Along with other threads, Senior_Patrol_Leader_T15 and hops_scouts posts in the So what do you do for a living? thread, has made me think about my past. If you were a kid again - say 14 or 15 years old, knowing what you know now, what would you do differently for the next 10 years until you were say 24 or 25? Heres a list of things I would do differently Or rather, its a list of ideas/actions that I hope I would embrace if I could go back in time to high school: Embrace my belief in God unashamedly Seek out and attend a Bible believing church Care a whole lot less about what others might think of me Develop a passion for learning especially history Temper my passion for the opposite sex and develop patience Look beyond peoples exteriors and appreciate them for their hearts and minds Stay away from the cool kids (i.e, the jocks and others looking to have fun all the time) Hang around some of the uncool kids (i.e., the young Bill Gates of the world some of which actually have a decent personality) Realize that there are more important things in life than a beautiful girl in a short skirt Dont become obsessed over one particular girl Honor my parents more Dont be in a hurry to grow up Accept whatever support my parents were willing to give Go straight to college out of high school Saved money knowing that the future will come quicker than I expect Soak up the time I had with my family especially around the holidays So How about you? What would you do differently? Senior_Patrol_Leader_T15 and hops_scout - I hope you guys are paying attention. I think you could benefit from the words of some adults who have had time to think about their mistakes.

Scoutingagain, Let me explain my previous post. Im not sure what acco40 meant when he indicated that ones interpretation of the Bible might be a test. I made the assumption (it may well be wrong) that he was trying to say - God allowed his Word to be imperfectly translated, and thus made ambiguous, so He can observe how we chose to interpret it. I disagree with this idea on two points: First and foremost, I dont think God wants to make himself, or His will for us, ambiguous - a mystery. The Bible was written so we could come to know God and His will in our lives. Even without the knowledge of the Bible, I think most men recognize this truth our hearts and minds are prone to sin. An ambiguous message from God would simply encourage us to corrupt that message into something it was not intended to be. Second, I think if we break away from our own self-imposed mindset of who God is, shed our fears of what that might mean, and read the Bible with a prayerful spirit, God makes His Word plain to understand. Thats not to say, all believers will come to the same understanding on all issues at the same time. Still, its been my experience that people who are truly seeking God, eventually come to an agreement as to who He is, and how He wants us to live our lives, based on His Word. I do not deny the fact that there are many interpretations of the Bible. Many of which seem to contradict one another. Be that as it may be, there are trustworthy versions of the Bible. I have asked many believers about this. I can understand and relate to your question (although I dont know whether or not it was rhetorical) But which Bible, which words? If someone wants to follow God, this should be a very serious concern. In my mind, its the kind of question that God puts on ones heart when there is an awakening to Him. According to the people that Ive come to trust in my walk, the King James Version, the New International Version, and the New American Standard Bible are all trustworthy translations. Great pains were taken, for both the Greek and the Hebrew, to ensure the correct English words were chosen and presented in the proper context. I do not speak Hebrew or Greek so I cannot attest to this firsthand. Of course, that fact leaves me open to criticism from someone who might question my conviction to a particular understanding of Gods Word (i.e., I cannot read or understand the original languages that were incorporated in the Bible). I cannot offer an explanation to those critics other than to say that the Holy Spirit is as real as God the Father or His son, Jesus Christ. When I have doubt - I do; I dont pretend otherwise. When I dont have doubt I dont; again I dont pretend otherwise. Rarely have I had doubt concerning a foundational issue in the Bible. When I have had doubt, I have found brothers and sisters in Christ who could provide an explanation that not only made sense, but also was affirmed by the Holy Spirit. I have no doubt that there are many non-believers on this forum who will simply shake their head indignantly at this notion. I also have no doubt that there are many believers on this forum who will nod their head in profound agreement. God is real. His Word will endure forever. Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you. 1 Peter 1:13-25

Personally, I like Bart Simpson's death bed conversion approach to religion. While you say this in jest, many people do this. They try not to think about God or His expectations for them until their days are few. Why? Is it because we don't want to conform to God's Word follow His ways? If someone did this, how do you think God will respond to that kind of stubbornness? Acco may be right. Maybe how we interpret the Bible is a test. To what end? Those that get it right earn salvation? Those that dont are damned? I believe the Bible tells us who God is, and what He expects of us. If you believe the Bible is Gods Word, shouldnt you investigate further? Ask people that you trust which versions were translated faithfully? Ask your pastor or a theologian what they think? Or, if you dont understand what it says, then pray about it? The Bible teaches us that if we seek the truth in earnest, and not our own will, we will find the truth. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Matthew 7:7-9

Hunt, Your recollection of that particular inquiry may be a 100% accurate, but please realize that these kinds of inquiries are not rare and are the hallmark of Democrats, not Republicans. Even a casual viewer of the news can gleam that truth. As to why the inquiry was made, it should not matter. Without any signs of wrongdoing, controversial topics such as abortion should not be used as an excuse for questioning ones faith. These jurists are entitled to their own thoughts and beliefs so long as they enforce the laws of the land as written. You dont have to be a law student to understand that concept, not even a high school graduate. Its basic civics. Unless a congressman can demonstrate that a jurist has previously ignored the law in preference to his religious teaching, they have no business going there. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

and today in the U.S. the minority religions would like to relegate the majority to "second-class citizenship". I see some evidence of this, but not necessarily by minority religions as much as it is by some special interest groups - such as the ACLU, gay and lesbian advocacy groups, NARL, NEA, and other non-faith based organizations that are driven solely by their narrowly defined agenda and the liberal pundits that lead them. I resent the idea that all religious expression in public and/or done with the cooperation of the government is wrong and must be suppressed. From my reading of the Constitution, I believe separation of church and state applies to laws and public funding that would hinder the publics ability to practice a particular faith and/or penalize them for doing the same. I have no problem with this interpretation. However, since the 60s, some of our courts have embraced the idea that religious freedom means freedom from all influences of religion in government. To the point, that liberals in Congress think its appropriate to query potential jurists about their faith even when there is no evidence that these persons have ignored the law in preference to their faith. The vast majority of the time, it is persons of a Christian faith that are pressed and accused of having a conflict of interest. Its kind of ironic since our founding fathers were the decedents of Christians who escaped religious persecution by risking their lives to come to America.

SM406, Just a small point of contention - Being obese is a state of being. It's likely that such a person is guilty of gluttony. Yet, I believe one can be obese and not have the sin of gluttony - And therefore, still be a good role model. Being overweight is not the sin Its how one achieved that end. Also My heart aches for the atheist and those that avowedly chose not to follow God's word. Not that Gods wrath will befall them, but because I believe they are missing out on a very special relationship with a loving and forgiving God. I agree with the sentiment But it almost appears as if youre saying Gods wrath wont befall such people. I think the Bible clearly teaches that those who refuse to embrace Gods call will incur His wrath. I know youre not looking for my approval BUT, just to be clear I liked your post and agreed with it.

I love the part about soon having the opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I wish more people had the attitude toward religion that Franklin had. If we wait for our deaths to know the truth (with less trouble), what benefit will it be to us as living beings? What if the truth indicated that a change in ones heart was necessary? While Franklin recognizes Jesus example, he doesnt seem to understand that Jesus taught us that we must be pure in heart to be presentable before God. If he had studied it, he would have realized we cannot meet Gods expectations by our own efforts. This realization would have prompted Franklin to inquire more about Jesus divinity and how he reconciled those who believe in Him to God the Father. Waiting for the truth to be revealed upon your death will no doubt be less trouble, but it could be costly as well.

I think I might have stayed in Cub Scouting a little longer, had Linda Ronstadt shown up to one of my den meetings wearing a Cub Scout uniform. Back then, it might have even inspired me to join the "co-ed" crowd. ;-)

Hunt, Most Christians have an idea of what core beliefs separate Christianity from pseudo-Christian religions. For mainstream Christians, it tends to be the divinity of Christ and the Atonement, while for more conservative Christians things like the inerrancy of the Bible are added. If you cannot trust the latter (the inerrancy of the Bible), then how can you be confident about the former (the divinity of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross)? Furthermore, if the Bible is open for interpretation (on matters such as homosexuality), how do you know what sins you are embracing? How are you convicted of your sins? How are you inspired to repent? After all, if the Bible cannot be trusted How do we know there were even 10 Commandments maybe there were only 5? Perhaps, everything written by Paul was just his opinion? Perhaps, the gospels are based on faulty recollection? You are opening a Pandoras box if you claim the Bible contains human error. More liberal Christians might include anybody who follows the moral teachings of Christ. So then these more liberal Christians are in fact pseudo-Christians by your own definition, because they fail to recognize the need for the Atonement. Is that not true? Isnt accepting the Atonement a core belief that separates believers from non-believers? (Please note that I never said one way or the other what I think about the inerrancy of the Bible--I just said you'll never convince people of your point by just quoting the Bible unless you can first convince them of its inerrancy--a point that I think is bourne out in this thread.) I tend to agree with this statement. However, I also know God can change the heart of a non-believer by simply prompting his children to speak the truth. If the truth was not spoken in love I apologize. (Side note: by Rooster's definition, we do not live in a Christian nation, nor were many, if any, of the Founding Fathers Christians. Does that help with some of the other arguments here?) Why would you want to debate the faith of our Founding Fathers and how will it further Gods kingdom to claim that they were not Christians? For a believer, you seem to be prompting some unusual debates that dont appear to serve God or his people. I will recant this statement: If you dont believe the Bible is inerrant, you shouldnt claim Christianity as your faith. It is harsher than I intended. However, I am convinced that the Bible is inerrant. Furthermore, I believe - not trusting the Bible to be inerrant is a great stumbling block to those who wish to be close to God. Could it separate you from God? I cannot say.

NWScouter, When I read your last post Im am reminded of one my favorite passages, I t comes to mind when I I get too certain in my interpretations of biblical truths. For now we see in mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 1Corinthians 13.12. If your point is, we dont fully comprehend God and his ways, I agree. If your point is, the Bible is vague then I think you are greatly mistaken. For example Big Dog wants us to look at Romans 1.26-27 I ask you to look farther to verse 29 were Paul condemns envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossips, slanderers. haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. All of his lists in the first chapters of Romans are to remind us we are all sinners. No none is righteous, now not one Rm. 3. 10b. We are convicted by. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Rm. 3. 22b-23. Absolutely true. My previous posts never said anything to contradict that teaching. I find it interesting that many Christians have a hierarchy of sin. Certain sins are greater than others and should be condemned more. If you study the totality of the Old and New Testament, you will find homosexuality mentioned only a few times but greed and mistreatment of the poor hundreds if not thousands of time. Again, absolutely true. All sin separates us from God. My previous posts never said anything to contradict that teaching. But lets review this a little. Why do these posts on homosexuality and bisexuality disturb me? Is it because I feel these are the greatest sins of all? No. I realize I have my own sins, which deserve the same measure of condemnation. So whats the problem? The problem is I dont like sin being called a natural orientation. If I were prone to stealing, how would you feel about me posting thoughts that suggest stealing is perfectly acceptable? You would be outraged. You would speak out against it. Thats all I have done here in regards to homosexuality and bisexuality. The other passage that discussions of this also brings to mind is Matthew 7.1 ff., there are a lot logs in our eyes. Again, I dont disagree that I have committed sins of my own. However, I am not calling any one out in particular and accusing them of sin. I am simply stating that homosexuality and bisexuality are sins. Would you do any less if I started a thread defending adultery or some other sin. Also Rooster, the Bible is open for interpretation, thats why there are hundreds or maybe thousands of different Christian Church. First, many of these different churches are not all that different. Second, many of the others split on interpretation not because Gods Word is not clear, but because they prefer an interpretation that allows them to believe as they want to believe as opposed to accepting Gods will. Where you say there are maybe a thousand people you have meet that agree with you and I would say that there as many more out there that both agree and disagree with your beliefs. And they have dedicated themselves to the study of Gods word. I cannot speak for those other people who you claim have dedicated themselves to the study of Gods word. I can only testify concerning the people I have met in my life. And I did not say I met a thousand people who agree with me. I said I met hundreds, perhaps thousands of believers who take studying Gods Word seriously. Of them, I cannot recall a case where I was in serious disagreement with any of them concerning a fundamental teaching of the Bible.

Why do you assume it's about you? Or as you recently said to me, did I strike a raw nerve? Because youre about as subtle as a gorilla swinging a sledge hammer. Ask anyone else on this forum if they felt you were implying anyone else. In other words, you will speak up when you disagree with someone else's interpretation of what you believe to be God's word. Nobody's stopping you. But using words like "obvious corruption of God's Word" doesn't change the fact that it's just a bunch of people's differing opinions and beliefs. NJ, youre free to believe that - But Im not debating Gods Word with you. I discussing it with other self-proclaimed believers. Youre injecting yourself in an argument about a faith that you dont even profess for yourself. Whose trying to offend whom here? For someone that doesnt read the New Testament or even cares to, you sure have a lot of opinions about the book and the people that do read it. Some people don't even believe the book you claim is God's Word is really God's Word. Some of them are members of the BSA. Why should they be forced to comply with religious beliefs they don't agree with? Im not forcing anyone to do anything. Thats just your spin on this. First of all, I didn't say it was you. Again with the denials. Please, give me, not to mention everyone else on this board, just a little bit of credit. Second of all, I didn't say what God was going to do. I just said I wonder. I personally don't presume to know what God is going to do. NJ - My comment was sarcasm. Youve been hammering two points on this thread - 1) You dont like my confidence in knowing what Gods Word says; And 2) you dont think we should call homosexuality a sin. It seems to me, you think God will have more mercy on bisexuals than he will on someone who professes they understand His Word. Third of all, who said anything about the morality of anybody "having sex with everything that moves"? How does that even come into the conversation? If you think a man can have sex with men and women until he figures out what he really likes, then I think that nearly qualifies as "sleeping with everything that moves". Just my opinion. But Rooster, how about dealing with the parts of my post that you don't think are about you personally. It's up to you, of course. When you stop making posts that address me personally (including those that insult me by inference), then I will comment on those thoughts. But, as of late I have not seen you post any other thoughts - you seem obsessed with making comments that either attack me or my faith. Its up to you, of course.

If Hunt wants to argue that the Bible cannot be trusted, then I will say even more things that probably will offend him. The Bible IS God's Word. If it cannot be trusted, the whole faith of Christianity is called into question. I am offended when people tell me that the Bible is open for interpretation. Certainly there are more than a few verses that I cannot explain. However, there are a multitude of other verses that are very clear. Furthermore, I have never found God's Word to be contradictory. That being said, if someone dedicates themselves to reading God's Word, truth will be revealed to them. I know this is true because I have met hundreds if not thousands of believers that have done just that. There are very few teachings that we debate - Not because we're told what to think - But because God does reveal truth in His Word.

NJ, It seems to me that some of these people are setting themselves up as God's exclusive spokespersons. I don't see anyone - including myself (as I'm sure you were referring to me), claiming to be "exclusive spokespersons" for God. But, I will speak up if I see an interpretation that is an obvious corruption of God's Word. I wonder how God will feel about that, when and if the time for divine judgment comes? So, God will judge me for being confident about what His Word says - But he'll passover me if I'm having sex with everything that moves? Yeah, I'm sure you have a point. Let's just say - God will judge us by what's in our hearts and who we claim as our Lord and Savior.

OGE, So in over 100 years, the Pope has only said one thing that the Catholic Church has said to be infallible, nothing about birth control, divorce, only that Mary was assumed into heaven. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible only when he speaks Ex Cathedra on manners if faith and morals. So its not like Catholics huddle at the Vatican chamber waiting to see what the Pontiff says today. First, my comments on the Catholic Church were directed toward Hunts comments, which were directed toward FOGs comments on membership requirements. So this is getting out of context. Hunt never answered me so I wasnt able to expound on my thoughts. I understand you have read the bible and that God has revealed himself to you. Is it not possible that another person reading the bible would have God revealed to them, and you both saw the same God, but in different dimensions? Im not sure what you mean by phrase in different dimensions - regardless, I agree that there are disputable issues that arise from different Bible interpretations. However, I maintain that homosexuality is not one of them. It is clearly discussed in the Bible. You appear to say your interpretation of the bible is THE only way to interpret it and all others arent just mistaken, they are damned. Is that that you are saying? No, thats not what I am saying. I am saying that there many clear teachings in Gods Word, which are not disputable. Jesus was the son of God. He died for our sins. These are just two examples. While this next teaching is not nearly as important as the previous two - It is also just as clear that homosexuality is an abomination towards God.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

NJ - excellent reply. It's really what I've come to expect. You infer an insult, but yet again, fail to be specific. Are we to assume the worse, but not hold you personally accountable for that assumption? That's what I call having your cake and eating it too. Nice job. NJ, you are the better man.

OGE, I'm not sure where you are going, but here's your answer: Modern invocations of papal infallibility are rare. Since 1870 only one statement claiming papal infallibility has been made, Pope Pius XII's dogma on the "Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven" in 1950. No other papal statement, including Pope Paul VI's controversial Humanae Vitae, has been proclaimed ex cathedra.

NJ, I didn't know you were in charge of issuing rules for how things are to be discussed in this forum. (I thought that was someone else's job -- and he isn't the forum owner either.) Until this thread, I assumed that you were man enough to talk to me directly. I guess I was wrong. But as you have made abundantly clear - on the Internet, the rules are a bit hazy, much less enforceable, and you seem more than willing to take advantage of that fact. Personally, I think you've crossed the line with that comment, but as always, I am happy to leave that for the assembled multitude to decide for themselves. Perhaps if you would explain to me how I crossed the line with that comment, I could understand your point. But since youve made no point, just as an inference - I dont have the slightest idea of what youre talking about. Rooster, all someone has to do is read the posts by Crewgirl and then read your response to her, in this same thread, to see that you have twisted her words and have said that she said things she never said. You do the same thing to me all the time. I responded to Crewgirls post as honestly as I could. Again, try giving some specifics. Rooster, you are the best spokesman for the BSA's anti-gay policy that an opponent of the policy could ever possibly wish for. Please never stop. NJ, are you trying to hurt my feelings? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, Ex Cathedra - Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesi Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." I can now. Isn't the Internet a wonderful thing? ;-)

I have ideas about what's right and wrong--for example, I think the Pope is wrong for opposing birth control--and I'm not really impressed by a response that he's the Pope and I'm a nobody. I can understand not accepting "I'm a nobody." That's not part of your faith to accept that teaching. However, if you're claiming to be a Catholic (with the big "C"), then "he's the Pope" should impress you. Catholics claim that the Pope's wisdom concerning the church is divinely guided. In other words, he has God's ear for the explicit purpose of guiding the church in the proper direction. If you're not a Catholic, then I understand your reluctance to accept the Pope's guidance. If you're a Catholic, then you should ponder why you believe as you do. Or, are you indicating that the Pope's judgment in these matters is not inerrant? If so, then you must also be indicating that the Catholic teaching, that the Pope is given divine wisdom regarding matters of the church, is wrong. Which begs the question; if you believe these things, why embrace the Catholic faith? Just asking...

NJ, It makes a lot more sense than concluding that people are intentionally doing something "wrong." I tend to think most people want to do what is right. Consider me a hopeless idealist... No, youre just a hopeless liberal. There are no bad people in world, just bad chemistry. Thats a great bumper sticker. Its a nice counter argument to Guns dont kill, people do NOT. but I'm in good company, I think the BSA is a pretty idealistic organization. Theres a difference between striving for something that is ideal and pretending that youre living in a world full of ideal people. The BSA is guilty of the former, and I applaud them for their efforts. They are not guilty of the latter. If they were, we wouldnt have youth protection (against those other guys with bad chemistry). Now, I know I will get some "flak" for not being "consistent," but I think I am being perfectly consistent. NJ, you are consistent consistently wrong. Hunt, I think some of my fellow Christians could use a little gentle admonition on how to talk about gospel truth in a manner that is loving and persuasive. Sometimes its better to be straight forward than to dance around an issue. You appear to be uncertain about what the Bible says on this subject. Perhaps some of your fellow Christians see Gods word plainly. 1. First, it's not persuasive to say that you know the answers because you've been praying and thinking about it for years. There are plenty of people older than you who don't agree. It's also condescending. As for my years of prayer, it was not a reference to my age. While age can bring wisdom, that is not assured. My point was and is one should ponder truth for more than a few minutes or even a few days. Im not convinced that Crewgirl has done this. 2. It's offensive to suggest that somebody is worshipping a different God because they don't interpret Scripture the same as you. (Note: President Bush recently caught unfair flak for saying Muslims worship the same God as Christians.) We are not discussing scripture that leaves much room for interpretation. Gods Word is plain on the matter of homosexuality and Im not going to pretend otherwise. 3. "The Bible says so" is not a persuasive argument to anyone who doesn't already believe the Bible is inerrant. Even among devout Christians, reasonable minds disagree about the inerrancy of Scripture--so some humility is called for when expounding on such matters. If you dont believe the Bible is inerrant, you shouldnt claim Christianity as your faith. If my confidence in His Word makes you believe I am not humble so be it. 4. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree on religious matters, and to explain why you think you're right and the other person is wrong. But when you simply announce that you possess revealed, absolute truth, your opportunity to persuade has ended. Reasonable people fellow believers can and do disagree on the interpretation of scripture. However, as I noted before, this matter does not leave the door open for interpretation. The Old and New Testaments clearly condemn homosexuality. If you claim to believe in the God of the Bible, then you should read the Bible and accept it as Gods Word. Otherwise, your faith is being built on a faulty foundation a foundation, which will not be consistent or trustworthy. Big_Dog, Amen.