Jump to content

Rooster7

Members
  • Posts

    2129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rooster7

  1. Okay - I'll concede that The Last Crusade was a good example - ironically from Spielberg. However, if you watch that movie closely, Indy seemed to be the only one who knew what he was doing. In other words, Indy was the exception not the rule. Bushwhacked did Scouting no favors. While the characters were likeable, they were geeky young kids. They were not strong characters. Your typical teenaged boy is not going to say - "Wow, I want to be like them!" In fact, I think most would feel quite the opposite. As for the line in the Spy Game movie, does that line undo all the damage done by dozens of sitcoms that make unflattering references to the Boy Scouts? Boy Scout is regularly used as a synonym for naivet and geekdom. Boys and leaders that are shown participating in Scouting are usually ill-equipped, unskilled, un-athletic wanabe rangers. Am I the only one whos noticed that? Having said the above, Ill give you two gold stars for the two movie references. I'm just saying - the media isn't blameless.
  2. OGE, With the exception of "Follow Me Boys", look at how boys in Scouting are portrayed by the TV and movies. Are they self-dependent? Are they confident? Are they athletes? Are they well-rounded individuals? I submit the answer to all of these questions is - No (not if you go by the media). So how are they portrayed? They are: allergy infested, mommy protected, low self-esteemed, uncoordinated, geeky loners. This image is constantly being presented by TV sitcoms and PG-13 movies. Name one recent movie or sitcom whereas a boy in Scouting is presented as a well rounded, smart, athletic kid. And more importantly, name one movie or sitcom whereas a kid's participation in Scouting is given even partial credit for his development into a well-rounded, smart, athletic kid. It may be the BSA's job to change its image. But the media is decidedly against them. And since the BSA has fallen out of favor with the liberal elite (probably since Vietnam), I doubt if the media will do much to help them. For every positive image coming out of Hollywood, you'll probably see a half-dozen or more negative connotations about the BSA. I hope you prove me wrong, but I doubt that outcome in this particular case.
  3. I think Scouting gets it "geeky" image from this false idea: Boys are babysat by a bunch of parents and not given any freedom to do anything on their own. The uniforms re-enforce this idea. Outsiders say to themselves: The parents like the uniforms. The boys wear the uniforms not because they are proud of their affiliation with the BSA or the things that they do, but because the parents tell them to wear them. The uniforms are reminders to everyone that these boys are still being told what to do by their parents. The boys are seen as immature and overprotected. I dont believe this idea but I think many kids outside of Scouting do. The media, which is unconscionable, re-enforces this idea at almost every opportunity. Scouts are always presented as geeky and mommy-dependent.
  4. NJ, If you want to take exception with something I've said, then state it and present your argument to me directly. You don't have to us teenaged girls as "middlemen" to pick a fight. Talk about a strategy for winning an argument - How about debating someone who isn't evening having a discussion you? Now that's clever.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  5. CrewGirl1024, I can not believe that a god fearing person like yourself, who if I'm correct is supposed "Love Thy Neighbor" is not loving thy neighbor because of their sexual preference. What did I say? Did I say - Dont love the homosexual? No. I said - Homosexuality is a perversion. My willingness to recognize sin (my own included) does not hinder my ability to love. I know his words, and I know what is "right" and what is "wrong" but what you have to understand is that Homosexuality was put on this earth by God. Does that mean all things on earth are good? Did God also put murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and sadists on this earth? If so, should we accept them like you want to accept homosexuals? I am a strong believe in predestination, and I believe that God knows everything about us before we even how to wiggle our toes. And in my opinion, god is testing us all! I believe in predestination as well. Except, by your interpretation, there is no such thing as sin or evil. By your interpretation, we should judge all behaviors as acceptable because God created all people and knew that they would behave in the way that they do. By your interpretation, no one can even be judge by God - because He created them to be as they are and they had no choice in their behavior. I disagree. We can recognize evil. We can ask God to change our hearts. We can conform to Gods desires and deny our own. Its true that God asks us NOT to judge people - in terms of their worthiness to be called Gods children. That is His job. But He doesnt command us to close our eyes to sinful behavior. We need to speak up and recognize sin whenever it is present. The only judge of us is God. Its true that God asks us NOT to judge people - in terms of their worthiness to be called Gods children. That is His job. But He doesnt command us to close our eyes to sinful behavior. We need to speak up and recognize sin whenever it is present. And if we believe that homosexuality is right, and we believe that you can love anyone you feel to love without hating the rest, then you will be put before God and he wil love you for that! Were not talking about love. I have no problem with two men loving one another. I love many men myself. Were talking about seeking sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Sex is not love. Its an expression of love. This expression is reserved for a man and a woman. God does not ask us to stop loving one another. But he does expect us to reject unnatural sexual desires. Not every loving relationship needs to be consummated with sexual relations. In fact, most loving relationships should not be sexual in any way. It upsets me, when you say that me being a God Fearing person is moving in the wrong direction! My beliefs are my beliefs and you have no say in if I'm moving in the wrong direction! I hope youre inspired to examine your faith more closely. I have been pondering my relationship with God for 35 to 40 years. Im convinced that you are moving in the wrong direction because of Gods word - not my intuition. Read His Word. Pray about it. If youre truly open to God as He really exists, then Im convinced that we will come to agreement one day. Yes I do know that he is a forgiving god, and he will not let me lose faith again. He will not steer me in the wrong direction. So how dare you say I am "unwilling to love and know God!" We are all willing to love and know God - But are you willing to love and know God even if he doesnt fit into your preconceived notion of who he is supposed to be. My beliefs are MY BELIEFS! Thats exactly my point. God is not about MY BELIEFS! He IS. As in, I AM. He is not who we want Him to be. He is who He is. Yours are yours. Not exactly. God, who I have come to accept, love, and know - does not conform to my vision of who I think He should be. He simply is who He is. I am learning to conform my heart, mind, and desires to His Will. But for you to say that I am moving in the wrong direction, for "Loving my Neighbor" and supporting something I truly believe in, makes you just as bad as you say I AM! I am sorry if my words disturb you. However, I would not be loving my neighbor if I told you anything different. God is Holy and righteous. Do not deceive yourself into believing that we will not be judged for our transgressions. Gods love for us is evident by the fact that He sent His son to the cross as an atoning sacrifice for our sin. Its up to us to accept that gift, to repent, and to embrace God for who He truly IS.
  6. CrewGirl1024, I can't say I'm really surprised by your reaction. Homosexuality is a perversion. The fact that so many are willing to say otherwise is a strong signal to every God fearing person in this country that our society is moving in the wrong direction. Alas, I knew it was just a matter of time before folks started screaming for the "rights" of other sexual deviants. So, now - it is not only "natural" for one to crave one's own gender for sexual relations, it is just as natural to be alternately inclined toward both sexes. Or perahps its just as natural and acceptable to be inclined toward both sexes at the same time. Doesn't that make a nice cozy family picture? That's my mom on the right, there's my dad on left, and there's my other dad in the middle. Dad_1 didn't really want any children, but he fell asleep on the honeymoon so Dad_2 had his wayso much for monogamy. You know its funny. Folks like yourself tend to be all about animal rights too. I say this in all seriousness. If it could be proven that an animal was consenting, I have no doubt that you would be screaming about the injustices done to those poor souls who are attracted to dogs. Soon folks will be arguing about the age of consent too. Crewgirl, try drawing a line in the sand and setting a standard of behavior. There is a God and we will be judge one day. Rest assured, it won't be my standards but by His. So feel free to ignore me - If I'm way off base, you should. But seriously, spend more than five minutes thinking about what youre saying and pray about it. You can't seriously believe that God intended us to go around having sex with anyone whos willing or anything that we find "attractive". You can defend that stuff on this forum all day long, but I'm convinced one day when you're standing before God, you're not going to defend these sexual practices as natural. So do yourself a favor and think about what you are defending and the consequences of your words - today - not tomorrow - not when you're old - and certainly not when youre standing before God. That would be a little late in the game. Have you ever consider the possibility that God is not who you think He is? I have. I dont view God the same way I did as when I was a teenager or when I was in my twenties. Its not because I grew old and became a prude. Its because Ive been praying for many years and Hes revealed himself to me. Trust me I know He is a loving and forgiving God. But He is Holy and righteous as well. Dont make the mistake of thinking that Hes willing to be contrary to Himself so to accommodate your ignorance or your unwillingness to know and love Him.
  7. ...you should read the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted under Washington's administration and signed in Adams' administration in 1797, which includes the sentence "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." First, there is a difference between living in a Christian nation (America) and being ruled by a Christian government (The Vatican). Second, whether its declared in government documents or not, we are a nation primarily composed of Christians. I guess it depends on how you define "Christian nation"? And if you read the constitution, you'd find that the government believes in religious freedom, and not religious favoritism. Excuse me. I don't believe I've have seen the phrase "religious favoritism" in the Constitution. Furthermore, these two ideas (religious freedom and religious favoritism) don't have to be mutually exclusive. I can encourage everyone in my neighbor to practice their religion, as they feel obliged to do so, and still favor my own faith over theirs. I can even encourage others to follow my faith over someone elses and still give everyone the freedom to practice whatever faith they chose.
  8. A quote from James Dale: "We need a future...If marriage was equally available to lesbians, gays and bisexuals, I wonder how many HIV infections would be prevented." Dale and others like to claim that homosexuality is all about "a natural orientation", yet they affiliate themselves with bisexuals. Why do gays empathize with the "struggle" that bisexuals face? I don't know very many straight people who can empathize with bisexuals. Shouldn't a bisexual's desire for both sexes be just as alien to homosexuals as it is to heterosexuals? And, if one is bisexual, how can marriage a desire much less a reality? Is Dale arguing that bisexuals should be allowed to marry one of each sex? I find his remarks interesting...and very revealing in regard to the true nature of homosexuality. Bisexuality is perverted lust. Certainly, even most liberals would agree with that statement. Yet, Dale refuses to condemn bisexuality - Why? In fact, he puts himself in bed with them (figuratively speaking). Is it because he knows bisexuality is merely a cousin of homosexuality? I also find it interesting that the Capital Times didn't see fit to ask any tough questions - Such as, "How can marriage help a bisexual man or woman commit to a monogamous relationship?" (This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  9. eisely, I think that says it all. Notre Dame comes to Stanford for a football game. As required by tradition, a group of college kids fulfills their obligation to harass them (undoubtedly all in good fun). Yet, who gets offended? It's not the Irish, but the local liberals. It's enough to make you want to puke green. Somewhere between fighting racism in the middle of the last century, and the embracing of diversity in the new millennium, millions of Americans forgot how to laughand in particularly at themselves. Their intolerance to even the most benign or well intended is incredulous.
  10. The art of taking offense - ethnic Americans have taken this skill to new heights. I agree with wingnut. I love Irish-Americans. They recognize their history - good and bad. They celebrate their culture whether someone else has gotten it right or wrong. And despite being treated as pariahs in the early 1900's (and they suffered as much as any group back then) - they've gotten over it and moved on. Their attitude (collectively speaking) is an example that others should follow. The Irish - gotta love em.
  11. Institutions are neither godless or moral. They are inanimate. Only people (some would argue animals as well) can have ethics, morals, and faith. I laughed when the author labeled Columbia University as a radically secular institution that either ignores or disparages religious belief in God. There is no Switzerland in the spiritual world. Youre either for Him or youre against Him. Institutions that devoid their culture and history of references to God and/or force individuals to hide their relationship with God, will suffer a consequence. If you think Columbia University and other universities are guiltless in this pursuit, then you should remove the scales from your eyes. I will agree with this thought Individuals, not institutions, will be held accountable.
  12. That sounds like someone majoring in biology and being upset to find so many plants. Or, someone joining the BSA and being upset to find so many traditional values!
  13. eisely, Great post! I truly appreciate and agree with Mr. Prager's words. However, I would submit that Mr. Prager's experience in college is not as unique as he believes. I'm convinced that many believers and "non-believers" are born in college dorms.
  14. Packsaddle, I think you are unfairly mixing debates. Not all policies are written with the same kind of purpose - and subsequently, nor are they written with the same kind of clarity.
  15. NJ, You have nitpicked over the term "avowed" for months claiming that the BSA policy is ambiguous. You bring this argument to the forefront seemingly at every possible opportunity. I am simply pointing it out. If you think that impugns your reputation, then perhaps you should stop. By the way, private organizations are comprised of individuals. Individuals are entitled to their own opinions - even after they join an private organization. When these individuals are elected or appointed to leadership positions, they get to set policy. How did they get elected or appointed? I imagine its because they represent the values of their predecessors. It's just a guess, but I think its as sound as any conjecture that you've supplied. As for most of what else you have written, there's not much there I really disagree with - at least in regard to any factual statements you may have made. It's your opinions that trail behind them that I find to be faulty in logic.
  16. It cannot base a policy on religious beliefs that are not accepted by many people, and be "abolutely nonsectarian" at the same time. And if you extend this line of reasoning to all areas of life, then based on the same "nonsectarian" principle, they should allow alcoholics and people who have sex with animals to be members. It's possible to not embrace any one particular religion as a guidepost and still see the immorality of certain behavior.
  17. NJ, And once again, you accuse me of something ("you feel free to impugn the motives of others"), but you don't specify what you're talking about. Please try to move on and stick to the debate. So why not just let him? And save the judgment of mankind for those people and acts that do actual harm to others? First, no one is passing judgment on homosexuals or anyone else in regard to their salvation. That is God's job and no one can take it from Him. Second, sexual perversion is an insidious scourge that will create more and more victims as society caves in to those who have allowed their conscience to be buried. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  18. I think "avowed" is pretty straight forward (no pun intended). It's people who dislike the policy that want to make it complicated. If the policy were against avowed alcoholics, no one would even try to play the word game.
  19. acco40, I think that's an over simplification of what I said. I'm saying, it's what you take into your heart that will ultimately define who you are, what you stand for, and who you want as your Lord. It's your choice to embrace or reject sinful thoughts. It's your choice to embrace or reject righteous thoughts. God calls us to righteousness. You can fool your friends, family, and neighbors, but you can't fool Him. God knows your heart. He knows every thought and desire that your heart produces. You can pretend this is about "mother nature" or genetics, but I have no doubt it's more about sinful desires and our willingness to turn from them and accept God as Lord and Savior. So, we can debate this til the cows come home, but in the end - He will judge us all and it will be a righteous outcome. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  20. FOG, BTW, what is "nubile"? Let me try to break this down some more: 1) You go to the beach. 2) There are women on the beach dressed in very revealing swimsuits. 3) You notice these women. 4) A thought enters your mind, "Man, that's a beautiful woman!" (or something of the sort) At this time, I don't think a man is lusting in his heart. I think he's simply processing what's in front of his eyes. However, I do believe that if we're alive in the spirit at all, at this particular moment, typically one realizes that he needs to make a conscience decision. Do I continue to go with these thoughts wherever they may drag me (and as men, we all know where that will be)? Or, do I reject this journey? Do I say, "This is not going to honor God. I am about to cross over a line where I know I will ultimately sin - if not in the physical world, then in the spiritual world - in my heart." So, are we still in disagreement?
  21. FOG, We're probably splitting hairs, but... My intention in the previous posts was to illustrate someone who's been tempted with sinful thoughts, but rejects them not just as a course of action, but as thoughts that one would knowingly keep in ones mind and heart. As for the daydreaming - that term leaves open a number of possibilities. I probably should have found another way to describe the temptation. Obviously I'm not God, so I can't say when a person's daydreaming crosses over into an embracement of a sin. I believe many men are tempted, but as soon as they become consciously aware of their wondering thoughts, they reject the sin. I'm convinced that this is not what Jesus meant. I believe Jesus was referencing an individual who willfully holds a sin in his heart. A question that only God can answer is What did Jimmy Carter do when he confronted himself with the lust that he apparently had in his heart? Did he embrace it and continue to daydream about women? Or, did he reject those thoughts? There are many in this world that think that they will not be held accountable for thoughts - only actions. I believe that was the point that Jesus was making. The Old Covenant "only" held people accountable for their deeds. Jesus was saying, you must also consider what is in your heart. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  22. I agree. I just don't want to pretend that she's something that she's not. There are other individuals on that show that I think have shown, and continue to show, better character. She's a nice lady who's "doing her best", but she hasn't impressed me as someone who's setting a higher standard than those around her. I'm proud of the BSA, but that pride and loyalty doesn't translate into unqualified support of all Scouters.
  23. FOG, Please read my words closely - You are married. You find yourself constantly distracted by young beautiful women. On occasion you catch yourself daydreaming about these women. You recognize that this behavior is wrong and will ultimately cause you to cheat on your wife. Its a struggle, but you make a vow to yourself to fight these thoughts and to think about nobler things. Are you an adulterer? Is that the truthful answer? Jesus did NOT teach that one is an adulterer for simply being tempted. Satan tempted Jesus in the desert. But, just as He teaches, Jesus resisted those temptations. Jesus said if you entertain wicked thoughts - if you embraced those thoughts - then - yes, you would be guilty of that sin - such as adultery. But if you REJECT those thoughts...if you resist them and think of nobler things, you would NOT be guilty of that sin.
  24. I don't think I would necessarily do any better than Lil in this game - either in terms of ethics/morality or in advancing as the "sole survivor". However, I don't think she is the shinning example that dsteele has indicated. She has among other things - lied, drank, and cursed. Again, if it was me, I may have done worse - But let's not pretend that she's a poster child for the BSA.
  25. acco40, You are a cruel, cruel, cruel man. You must know I cant pass up bait like this: What about a gay individual who felt in his heart that yes he was gay, yes it was immoral, and had remained celibate. When asked point blank if he was a homosexual he was truthful and replied yes. Should he be banned from membership in the BSA? I cant speak for the BSA, but in my mind, there is a HUGE difference between the individual described above and the so-called avowed homosexual. 1) The above individual recognizes the immorality of the act and/or those desires. 2) The above individual has made a vow to himself, not to embrace homosexuality. You create a paradox concerning this persons status and the BSA policy when you hypothetically state: When asked point blank if he was a homosexual he was truthful and replied yes. In short, I dont think the man in your example is a homosexual. I think that man struggles with thoughts of homosexuality. But that by itself, doesnt make him a homosexual. Hes not embracing those thoughts. Let me ask you a couple of questions: You are married. You find yourself constantly distracted by young beautiful women. On occasion you catch yourself daydreaming about these women. You recognize that this behavior is wrong and will ultimately cause you to cheat on your wife. Its a struggle, but you make a vow to yourself to fight these thoughts and to think about nobler things. Are you an adulterer? Is that the truthful answer? Or - as a young man, you engaged in the art of embellishing. To hear some of your high school friends speak about you, one would think that you were John Wayne, Elvis, and Johnny Unitis, all rolled into one person. Now, when you look back to those days, you are embarrassed by your dishonesty. In fact, because of this shame, today you make a point to always tell the truth. Does your past over shadow your present Are you a liar? Is that the truthful answer? If the man in your example is a homosexual, then I say by definition 95% of men are adulterers. There is a difference between being tempted and being seduced. When one gives into temptation and embraces immoral thought or behavior, then the seduction is complete and one must live with the consequences You become a product of that temptation by yielding to it. On the other hand, if you are able to resist temptation, then I believe God rejoices over your victory. You are not a product of that temptation Youre a product of Gods grace.
×
×
  • Create New...