Rooster7

TheScout, "If one persons policies are more socialist than another's, isn't it fair to say so?" Careful now...you're making sense here. The only problem I have will labels is when they're applied to someone strictly to distort and distract from what the person represents and/or is attempting to state. For example, I'm a Bible believing Christian who's pretty conservative in my political views. Sometimes I will make an argument based purely on my beliefs in God and His teachings. However, most times there are secular arguments to support my views as well, and I don't hesit

It's easy to blame leaders...but there isn't always a clean and easy answer to every problem. If one is confronted with an enemy, whose goal is your destruction - then what is the acceptable answer/response? What if we postpone the inevitable (i.e. war) and your enemy gains such an advantage that the cost in terms of sacrificed lives increases ten or hundred fold? Or the conflict is brought to your borders? Or the sacrificed lives now become those of civilians women and children? Or our very freedom is sacrificed? If/When that happens, will anyone attack the integrity of the previ

Vicki, I'm not convinced by that argument. How do you explain these verses: " 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

And since some of us are trying to be glib, let's make this very clear - although, for those with common sense, it need not be said: Being black is not a behavior or a choice. Having sex with other men is a behavior - and partaking in such behavior is a choice. So please stow the 60s Civil Rights comparisons. It doesn't hold up. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Horizon, A couple of points for you to ponder before you head out the door on your camping trip - 1) The God in the OT is the same God in the NT. As believers in Christ, while we are free from judgment resulting from the laws of the OT (or rather our inability to conform to those laws), we are still called to be Holy by God's standards, which is Christ. He did not abolish the standard set by the law but exceeded it. The law says do not commit murder; while Christ says do not hate. The law says do not commit adultery; while Christ says do not lust. Jesus words: 17"Do not t

"Anyone who sincerely wants to live in a country where 'God is sovereign and His Righteousness cannot be denied or redefined' can always move to Saudi Arabia or Iran." And if that attitude was adopted by our forefathers about 250 years ago, you'd probably be speaking a different language and doing it from another spot on the globe. This country was founded by folks who embraced God, not by those who rejected Him. You're free to define Him in your mind and with your words as you please - but the God of the Universe is real and changeable. Eventually everyone will know that. As for

Sorry to spoil the love fest here for those folks embracing these enduring values. Alas, I am not inspired by those men who chose to have sex with one another. Nor do I think it is a wonderful thing to push God out of ones mind to justify those types of choices. I know for some, this sin-free utopia is progressive But you can count me as one of those regressive types whod like to see this country go back to a time when they fully embraced God. Was it perfect during those times? No - of course it was not. We found plenty of ways to sin against God but at least as a collective, we rec

I don't know about Councils. But I'm pretty sure a CO can adopt their own health and safety policies (if they are more stringent than Nationals). But I defer to someone with more direct knowledge. That said - I find it difficult to believe that BSA would tell a chartering organization that they cannot adopt a policy like "three deep adult leadership" vice "two deep adult leadership".

I'm not particularly impressed by a tattoo, but I don't have a huge problem with them. I've encountered good folks with tattoos. That said a few years back, I saw a boy's club coach with a swastika tattoo on his forearm. I always thought that the boys club should have given the coach the option - cover it up and coach, or get lost. Just my opinion...(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I would not argue with the ascertion that no unit has ever been sucessfully sued for the removal of a leader (per BW). However, I would argue that the following statement is false - Technically the Unit and CO can not be sued. I can think of a scenario where someone could be very successful in a lawsuit against the CO. But the CO would have to make some very, very bad decisions. For example: Say a unit leader is falsely accused of violating Youth Protection. If the CO makes this a very public issue (e.g. gives interviews to the local paper, etc.) and removes the unit leader

Bat boy? Didn't they change that to "bat person"?

I have two theories: 1) There really is some kind of threat that warrants this kind of concern and direction given by the DoT. 2) Some self-appointed idiot in government has nothing better to do but to exercise his powers and hinder a private organization from doing a public good. Either is very plausible. Here's my problem. I rarely see enough facts behind these stories to get worked up either way.

kraut-60 I in no way will be drawn into debating interpretations of the bible...especially in light of the fact that it was heavily edited by the "church" and its leaders to reflect the "beliefs" they thought suitable for consumption by the masses...many books were omitted and/or banned because they didnt measure up to what the "leaders" of the church felt was suitable for the people they "served". Contrary to your initial statement, you seem eager to coax me into debating you. Why else attack the source of my beliefs the Bible. Religion is a fine thing...when taken in mode

I agree with BW and others. Although, someone said this unofficial policy (second leader should not be a spouse) is not for the youths protection, it's for the leader's protection. I disagree. I think it is for both. If you read the papers, there's enough strange goings-ons these days to give parents pause for concern. If something did occur, it's not beyond the pale of reasoning to believe that a spouse was complicit (or at least to believe that the spouse could not be objective enough to stop or report an event properly). It happens. If not in the BSA, definitely elsewhere. For e

That, my friend, is a true believer's heart. Should I ever find myself in such circumstances, I hope and pray I can echo his faith, courage, and strength. Thanks Brent.

GernBlansten and Ozemu My faith is not about virtues. Its about having a relationship with God. A relationship that is paramount for ones salvation. Many, who embrace this faith, feel it is better to be annoying than to be ignored. Of course, this assumes the end result is that the annoyed person is forced to consider his relationship with God. I applaud those who endure ridicule for preaching the truth. I rarely go that far not because Im considerate, but because I often lack the courage that should accompany my convictions. Romans 10:14 & 15 14How, then, can they cal

We should not compartmentalize faith and claim one is better than others... It sounds as if you're telling me - You can believe whatever you want; just don't claim it and/or promote it with conviction. So I can believe in Jesus, but I shouldn't think about those "pesky little" verses like - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" or "Go and make disciples". How does your interpretation of faith allow one to embrace the truths declared in the Bible? Or perhaps, youre suggesting that I should adopt your version of faith? No, that

Parents drive the kids to the park which is a half mile away because Bobby could get lost. Okay I understand the concerns about the over protective parent. But before we condemn them all, let me point out a few things: 1) When I grew up (and I presume this is true for many here on this board), I had the full run of the neighborhood and then some. I easily strayed with my friends around woods, fields, and creeks within a mile, two, or three of my home. As long as I made it back for dinner and/or before dark, my parents were happy. 2) During that time (60s/early 70s), no doubt

It is difficult to believe that the BSA will withstand the next generation of progressives - In 20 years or so, I imagine folks will be visiting this forum to discover the consensus view on what the requirements are or should be for the atheist award, and such enlightening spin off threads like - If an atheist has doubts, is he worthy of such an honor? So, if a tree falls in the woods, and a Pagan is not there to worship it never mind.

BadenP, Up until this point in your post, I have no disagreement: Human beings have taken his teachings from scripture throughout history and corrupted them to suit their own selfish needs and desires. Doesnt that just re-enforce my point with which youre arguing against Man is inherently bad (due to his corrupted nature)? That is why you or any other person does not have the right to tell another how to believe, only God has the right to pronounce judgment. I dont think I ever tell someone how to believe not sure what that means. But I will not shy away from tellin

For those that claim the Christian faith, I submit these verses for your consideration (concerning the nature of man): Romans 7:4-6 4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit,

Eagledad, Well - I don't know about scary, but it certainly is an eye opener to me. There seems to be a consensus in this group - that kids, if not all of humanity, is inherently good. Yet, I detect a fair amount of bitterness from folks towards me for having an opinion that differs from theirs. Furthermore, others want to twist and infer my reasoning into some sort of justification for child abuse. Go figure. Beavah, John 15:4-6 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you rem

Beavah, Yah, Rooster, Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction, not a documentary In literature, good fiction is good because of its believability. But if you find Lord of the Flies so unbelievable, perhaps you could expound on how you believe these boys would have behaved given the same circumstances? A teenager who becomes mouthy and rebellious hurts himself and his relationship with his parents, eh? That makes the parent work harder, give more, sacrifice more out of love. But it doesn't make the kid inherently bad. And we are all da children of God. If we are all i

Packsaddle, "Go rent Lord of the Flies." Proof through comparison to a movie. I'm in awe. Getting a little personal, arent we? I thought you missed my sparring. No matter - Its a well constructed movie. And I point it out as a good example of how kids, collectively, tend to act no differently than adults. "Christianity states that newborns have "original sin."" Indeed you are correct, acco40. I find the view disgusting and reprehensible. If there was such a mythical thing as satan, it would embrace that view. I cant say I entirely understand Adam and Eves fal

Acco40, Okay - so maybe we have an excuse for our behavior (good, bad, or indifferent) through the terrible two's...maybe even a year or two after that. I'm not completely buying your assertion that a two year old doesn't realize that his behavior is bad - but I'll relent. Bottom line - eventually, it's not about development...it's just about ourselves. My vote - we're inherently bad (i.e. prone to please ourselves...prone to sin).