Rooster7

It either makes sense or it doesnt?" To whom? To intelligent people who listen to logic and reason. Religions and religious beliefs are intricate and deeply personal. Yes. Usually when one says deeply personal in reference to ones faith, its meant in terms of ones personal relationship with God. If this is your assertion, I would not argue that point. But even so, its not a pretext to rule out discussing someone elses religion. In the context that youve presented this statement, you seem to be implying that individuals personalize their faiths to their preferred way of thinking? If so, thats just another way of saying truth is relative. Either way, I dont see that statement as a justification to stop healthy conversation. A Person has every right to speak on behalf on what they see is the Truth in a faith they know and practice. But for anyone to comment on beliefs, doctrine, or failings of a religion they do not practice is presumptuous at best, and does an injustice to that faith. Its not presumptuous to have a discussion concerning faiths that youve previously practiced or investigated. Discussions based on knowledge and concern for one another is how people learn and grow. To assume such discussions are rooted in malice, now that would be presumptuous at best, and does an injustice to intelligent people. Regardless of what one practices, it is usually appropriate to speak the truth, especially if ones purpose is to edify. Dont tell me what its like to live in my house if dont live there now. Bob, for future reference - if you truly believe that proclamation, there are a number of topics that you should disqualify yourself from debating. Personally - no matter what characteristics I posses that others may use to define me religion, gender, sexual preference, nationality, race, etc., I will always have a brain. I refuse to disqualify myself from a topic of discussion simply because someone else refuses to use his/her brain. I will debate homosexuality with a homosexualI will argue against abortion with a feministI will proclaim my faith to an atheist. Conversely, if a black teenaged girl from Alabama wants to discuss Washington politics with a 44-year-old white male from Maryland, Im game. Im not going to diminish her input, simply because she hasnt lived in my house. We can exchange ideas. Truth doesnt have a gender, age, race, or religious affiliation.

Just to reiterate...There was no intended disparaging remarks against Catholics in my posts. Not unless one equates a discussion about differences between Protestant and Catholic faiths as disparaging. As I already noted, most of my family is Catholic. I harbor no ill will for those who practice the faith. I have difficulty understanding how some people feel they are fit to comment on the feelings and beliefs of a religion they do not practice, regardless if it is their own or someone elses. How does practicing a religion make one more fit to comment? If a person believes faith is all about feelings, then I would have to agree. I cant comment on anyones feelings. However, if we are discussing beliefs, then one should be able discuss religion just as easily as one discusses politics or BSA policy. Objectivity is not impossible, even in a discussion concerning faith. It either makes sense or it doesnt? And just like any other intelligent conversation, those who participate are free to walk away thinking and feeling as they please.

As someone who has been involved in the Presbyterian and Methodist churches, I have never heard that teaching either. To my knowledge, the Virgin Mary is accepted by all Christian faiths. However, Protestant faiths do not encourage believers to pray to the Virgin Mary or "Saints". Most Christian faiths would consider it sacrilege to pray to anyone but God. In Protestant circles, we are the saints. That label simply means youre a disciple of Christ.

This is a quote explaining the Roman Catholics view on Non-Catholics. "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." OGE, If you read the website closely, the above does not address all non-Catholics, but those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. That description does not apply to most non-Catholics in the United States. Millions of Protestants are not ignorant of the Catholic Church. That being case, we who do not accept the Catholic Churchs teachings would fall under this assertion (on the same website): "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." Regardless, my posting was never intended to besmirch what most Catholics or their hierarchy may believe. Its not really relevant if most do or do not believe this teaching. I was trying to make the point that whatever one sincerely believes; it is not a matter of choice or politeness. A belief is either alive or its not. I cannot give birth to, or kill my own beliefs, any more than I can make my eyes see the color green in place of the color red. Or as a friend of mine once preached, if belief in and love for God was a food say beets, then you better get down on your knees and pray that God gives you a taste for beets. You cant fake it or manufacture it. You either like the taste of beets or you dont. Only God can change that fact. Conversely, if sin was say ice cream, you better pray to God that you develop a dislike for ice cream. We are what we are. We need God to make us something different. of course every member of a faith should believe they are a member of the better faith. But that member should also realize what is better for them, may not be better for their neighbor. Christianity is not about better or worse. Its about the true God. This is Biblical teaching. So when one professes a belief in Christ, hes professing to know the one and only true God. If/When a Christian professes that others may find salvation outside of Christ; he is denying the teachings of the Bible - the same document that provides a foundation for his faith. By definition, a Christian cannot believe in the validity of other faiths. Thus, I know in my heart, my neighbor would be better off knowing Christ. A strict Hindu, observing every rite and tradition and law for 20 or more years might have a very hard time converting to Chritianity just because someone shows them a bible and says follow this book to salvation. A Hindus conversion, anyones conversion for that matter, is dependent on Gods will and efforts. We may provide the vehicle but hes the gas. So, yes, waving a bible around has little effect if God is not behind the effort. However, the bible teaches us that God answers those who seek Him. I dont think the Hindu is damned at all. We all look at the world from our singular unique perspective born out of the sum total of our personal experiences. We all must follow society's rules (laws), but our religious beliefs are up to us (Is this a great country or what?), we are free to beleive what we "know" to be true, and should respect the beliefs of others as they "know" their truths with an intensity that matches our own. I respect the rights of a Hindu and all other folks who embrace a faith different than mine. I respect their right to believe what they want to believe. I understand that they may in fact believe what they believe - intently. However, salvation is not within my domain. I cannot attest with absolute certainty as to what God will do, or not do, for a specific person or situation. I only know what His Word says. The Bible clearly tells me that salvation cannot be obtained without Christ. If a Hindu is given salvation without Christ, its not my position to question God. However, this possibility would not be consistent with His Word. From my lifes experience, I have found the Bible to be very consistent. I would be extremely surprised if it didnt remain so for all time. and should respect the beliefs of others A small distinction needs to be made. I respect the right of others to believe as they do. I dont necessarily respect what they believe. as they "know" their truths There can be multiple truths if one is describing the characteristics of God (For example: God is righteous. And, God is loving.). There can be multiple truths if one is describing man (For example: We are sinful. And, we can give glory to God). However, faiths that contradict one another cannot be referred to as truths. By definition, by all understanding of language, if Christianity is true, than all other faiths must be false. Im not trying to convert anyone Im just trying to get folks to agree to simple logic. Else, if this simple premise cannot be accepted, conversation is futile. with an intensity that matches our own. I agree. The intensity of ones belief does not definitively validate ones faith as truth. It is possible to be passionately wrong. That is why it is important that we ask ourselves, Why do I believe what I believe? and pray about it. Mark, In case you missed it the first time, Im not claiming the Catholic faith to be false. I never rejected you as a brother in Christ. And I understand that there is a mindless rejection of Catholics by some Protestant churchesjust more evidence that we dont always think and/or pray before we act. I referenced a Catholic teaching in an attempt to illustrate a point, which Im not sure I conveyed well. At the risk of repeating myself, my beliefs concerning the narrow road to salvation is a Bible teaching. I fervently believe the Bible to be true because all of my experiences and Gods Holy Spirit proclaims its truth in my daily life. The acceptance of other faiths (as being true, even for others only) would be tantamount to rejecting my own faith. Its just not going to happen. Gods Word does not teach this. It does not ring true in my heart or mind.

mk9750, Are you saying your religion is better than mine? If so, I think I take exception to that. Just a couple more points of interest 1) I was raised Catholic. I am familiar with most of their teachings (at least the basics). My family (mother, father, brothers, sister, etc.) remains in the faith. Since I love my family, I have a very strong interest in viewing Catholicism as a legitimate sect of Christianity. I dont think I have blinded myself to reality, but I do have reason to be biased. 2) Ironically, it is your faith (forgive me acco40) Catholicism, that judges other Christian sects as invalid and forbids them from partaking in the Lords Supper. In other words, if you believe and follow your faith, you must view my faith as inferior in fact, you must view it as false. 3) Intellectually, I dont have a problem with Catholics viewing themselves as being exclusively saved, and others (even other Christians) as being damned. Im confident that particular teaching (as well as some others) is wrong. If I werent, I would not have left the faith. Still, there are a number of Catholics, perhaps even most that honestly believe this teaching to be true. As a practitioner of another Christian faith, should I be resentful? If so, why? My point is this - If you believe that God has shown you the way to salvation and everlasting peace and joy, then why would you reject it? As Acco40 alluded to, it's not about what we want to believe (i.e., "my" faith), it's about what we know in our hearts and minds to be true.

Are you saying your religion is better than mine? If so, I think I take exception to that. I dont think I have made any pointed remarks concerning the differences in my faith verses Catholicism or any other sect of Christianity. There are some self-professed Christian faiths, which I reject. I wont describe these faiths as being less, just false. We have slightly different beliefs about the same God, and his Son. The biggest two of which I am aware are the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine and the virginity of Mary. These are dogma issues on which both our churches stand firm. I think there are many other differences that are worth noting. However, I havent drawn the conclusion that Catholicism is a false faith. I do feel that they have some false teachings. But, Im not convinced that these teachings should drive a wedge between Catholics and other Christians. Just for clarification, what is it about the Virgin Mary do you presume we disagree? There are also issues of doctrine, but these are man made rules that I won't take a stand one way or the other as being right or wrong. I wouldnt describe doctrine as man made issues. Doctrine is derived from the Word. Depending on how one interprets the Word, I think doctrinal issues can be a justifiable reason for division. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

God is wise enough to know that the spiritual needs of 20th Century Kansans, and 15th century Plains Indians and !Kung of Africa and ... so on ... all differ. Yes, certainly God is wise enough to know everyones spiritual needs. Whether or not our spiritual needs are different from one another is very debatable. Heres another question, and one I feel is more relevant Are we wise enough to know the spiritual needs of God? He can show many faces, and in His infinite wisdom and kindness does so... Due to differing religions contradictory faiths, millions have fought and died. Why would God create this source of conflict by presenting numerous faces? How would this be an expression of kindness? Perhaps God is not the one who is presenting the many faces. God has only one true face. God is not the author of confusion and conflict.

It has also taught me, that as a scout leader, not to judge the value of one faith over another despite my personal beliefs. As a Scout leader, I don't - and I wouldn't openly judge the faith of a Scout, most especially during a Scouting venue. However, as an individual, if you don't judge the value of other faiths over another, particularly in relation to your own, then on what basis have you embraced your faith as truth? And, if it's relationship to truth is not relevant to you, then why even seek to have a faith?

Zahnada, Let me give you an analogy. In my church, which happens to be pretty conservative, I know that there are some folks who believe abortion should be a woman's choice. This does bother me. I would prefer that they believed as the church preaches - that abortion is wrong...that it's a sin. However, these individuals know the churchs position and they do not attempt to sway other members in the church. Nor do they teach Sunday school...or at least, they don't teach their own opinions over that of the church's position. That being the case, I cautiously accept these folks as church members. Do I seek them out for their opinions on theology, the interpretation of Bible verses, or doctrinal issues? No. Would I nominate them for a lay position within the church? No. Am I willing to have friendly conversations with them? Yes. Do I try to treat them as a brother or sister in Christ? Yes. Do I try to build relationships with them? I like to think so. So, in your case - Would I recommend you as Committee member? That would depend on the job and what I knew of your capabilities. Would I recommend you as a member of the Scoutmaster's corps? If you didn't share your contrary opinions about the BSA with the Scouts, I probably would. Would I be willing to have friendly conversations with you? Yes. Would I try to treat you as a fellow Scouter? Yes. Would I try to build a relationship with you? I like to think so. I don't like every opinion that my friends hold, but I still value those friendships.

well, most folks I know have been able to find both, and so need not prefer either over the other. Speaking purely from a personal perspective, as a Christian, I don't feel good about humanity. I feel good about the ultimate outcome, because I know those who accept Christ have a savior. Regardless, humanity should not be puffing out their collective chest over their "evolution" or act as if they have reached some moralistic mountaintop. As an individual, I feel good about my relationship with God and His willingness to help me grow as His child. But, I am fully aware of my sinfulness and the evils that I would allow myself to be tempted by, and ultimately submit myself to, if it were not for God. Jesse Ventura and some others like to argue that Christianity is a crutch for the weak minded. To some extent, I happen to agree with that sentiment. What those folks dont say, and what needs to be said, is Without God, were all weak minded. Also, Christ is not offering a self-help course. Hes offering salvation.

So I think the BSA represents the values that most Americans still beleive in and want for their children. We are not trying to please everyone and should not be coerced to. Bob, I think you've captured it in a nutshell. But, I might add. Even if most Americans did not believe in the same values, the BSA believes in these values and has the character to fight for them. Despite the declarations of some on this board, true morality cannot be ruled by popular opinion. Fortunately, the powers-to-be in the BSA appear to recognize this fact.

I may have to leave you - perplexed. I'm not going to open that can of worms. As I said, most folks have a good idea as to what I'm talking about. But because Im a gluten for punishment, heres an attempt to clarify without going into details: Some folks seem to think "finding, knowing, and following God" is about embracing a faith that makes one feel good about himself and/or humanity in general. It's not. We should be trying to seek God as He truly is, and His will for us. When God told Moses - "I am" - It was understood because He was speaking to those who were truly seeking Him. Unfortunately, these days, many folks - maybe most folks, prefer the former description of faith as opposed to the latter.

Let's see 'fly-by-night religions'. Augsberg Confession (Lutherans) 1530, Church of England (Episcopal) 1500's, Puritains (United Church in Christ-Congregationial) 1500's, Presbyterian (Knox and Calvin) 1500's, oh the new one Methodist, late 1700's. Jewish 2000 + BC, they won't last. Watch what you say these faith groups have been around a long time. From the time periods of which these faiths were born, recite one document attributed to any one of those religions, which endorses homosexuality as morally acceptable. As to their present day versions, if they beleive that God has changed with the times, then I would have to describe that faith as "no faith at all" or if you prefer, fly-by-night. Also, why have you listed these religions? You seem to be implying that all of them support the homosexual lifestyle. As someone that is familiar with a few of these faiths, I can assure that is not the case. Rooster, did you really intend to make that "fly-by-night religions" comment? I knew that comment would draw a bit of a reaction. I'm not going to attempt to define it. Most people know what I'm talking about. I will say this - There's a huge difference between "not believing in what other folks believe" and "believing in fairy dust, dream catchers, wishing wells, and the like". I could go on and list other types of bogus faiths, but its not my goal to offend. My point was and is - the BSA should have standards. If some of their standards preclude some religions, then so be it. The BSA shouldn't let "inclusiveness" drive its values or goals. Those who suggest that they should, don't share the same value system as the BSA and/or apparently don't understand that true moral values don't change with the times.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

...what is the BSA going to do? Write off a third of its charter partners? Tell the youth members of these groups that they cant earn their religious awards because their beliefs are wrong? Works for me. How does that expression go? If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing...something like that. Either the BSA has core values that it believes in, or it doesn't. If the BSA decides to alter those values, simply because they want to maintain numbers, then they will no longer be the organization they claim to be. They will lose all creditiblity and they will lose a lot more members because of that, then they ever will lose because of their stance against homosexuality and fly-by-night religions.

In regard to this poll and yet another thread devoted to the "gay issue", I have only one thing to say: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!! I'll stop if you'll stop...

Rooster7, turn about is fair play. Why do hold the opinion you do supporting the viewpoints of the article? Simply put, I agree with all of its assertions. I think the article expresses my viewpoints on a wide array of issues pretty accurately - In fact, I'd like to meet the author. If you've read the article, then you have a good idea as to what I believe about today's culture. What else can I say? Furthermore, I'm not willing to concede that the ACLU is not ant-religious. They pick and chose their fights pretty carefully. While on a rare occasion or two, they actually seem to be on the right side of the argument; I'm not convinced. I think its merely a clever front, a ploy to gain some creditability, a feeble attempt to convince fence sitters that they are unbiased. They are posturing to gain public support. Sadly, it seems be effective.

From what I've read, it appears to be right on target.

COULD - MIGHT - CAN BECOME...etc, these qualifiers are very important. Just because a bad situation has the potential to become a positive learning experience, doesnt mean it will become one. Furthermore, even if the said individual is repentant and a stellar example in many other ways, one has to think about the unsaid, unintentional messages that are being conveyed. Say for example, by all appearances, the pregnant and unmarried girl is extremely happy. She presents a public image of someone who is successful, trouble-free, and unencumbered. Now, as adults, many of us might think - Good for her! Shes making the best of a bad situation. However, a 12-year-old, especially if the situation is never addressed publicly, he may be thinking - Hey, getting pregnant straight out of high school is no big deal. Look at how well Jane Doe is doing. If the situation is glossed over and no one talks to the Scouts, then the potential for sending a message can go either way - positive or negative. So, if I were going to allow Jane Doe to become a leader in my troop, then I would strongly advise the parents to have a talk with their child. I would even consider asking the young lady to talk to the Scouts (with advance parental notice) about her unfortunate circumstance. If the purpose of allowing the girl to become a leader is to provide a positive learning experience, then the leadership needs to make sure that the right message is sent. If they simply allow her to become a leader, and never address her pregnancy in any fashion, then they are rolling the dice and hoping for the best. This is not a smart plan. If the troop (committee/charter organization) is afraid of addressing the pregnancy (because of the feared reaction of the Scouts and/or their parents, or the girl is not willing to have it addressed, or the leadership is not sure how to address it, etc.), then I say the wiser course of action is to ask the young lady to reapply after some time has passed, and definitely not while she is pregnant and unmarried.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

The value that's being embraced by the federal government is - freedom - not atheism. The BSA embraces the same value when they chose not to associate with folks who chose to ignore God. So if you examine this carefully, you will discover that they in fact share the same value. The difference is, the federal governments charter is for all people within the domain of the United States, while the BSAs charter is simply for it members - people who chose to join and met the criteria for membership. Its all about freedom. You should study the Constitution one day. As a lawyer, you might find it to be fascinating.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Before you go too far off the deep end (maybe its too late for that), this thread should probably be moved to the "Issues & Politics" forum, or perhaps you could start a new topic - "Head Banging" (just a suggestion). ;-)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Some how, I doubt if a reference or a link will make much difference.

No man can testify as to what will become of any specific individuals soul. God is the only one who can truly answer your questions. Nevertheless, youve made some false premises that Id like to address. What will happen to those who don't believe what we believe? (I am assuming we have the same belief). What becomes of Ghandi? False Premise #1: God cannot judge Ghandi to be unfit for His kingdom. No man truly knows Ghandi. You just know of him the externals. God knows Ghandi He knows his heart, his motivations, and his sins. And, let us not forget, it IS Gods kingdom. Or the souls who spent their entire lives never having gotten the chance to believe what we believe? False Premise #2: If we havent witnessed it, then it hasnt happened. Just as you really dont know another mans heart, you dont know what God has revealed to those of whom you speak. Or can being wrong still get one to heaven? False Premise #3: "Being wrong will cause one to be rejected by God. Its rejecting God that will get you rejected by God. Let's say Hinduism is the one true religion. Or that we idolize a false god by worshipping Jesus, when Judaism was the Way. Will you and I burn forever? Since youre a self-professed Christian, Im not sure how to respond to that supposition. If you truly have these doubts, I would do some serious praying. Id want God to reveal himself to me. If you dont have doubts, then that question is moot. I am certain that God is a loving God. However, He is a righteous God too. There are dozens of Bible verses that make it very clear that those who seek Him will know Him and can be assured of salvation. Here are a couple of verses that I think you might want to read. If you study the Bible, you may discover that God is not the god who you have portrayed Him to be. Or maybe He is Regardless, everyone should challenge him/herself and ask, Do I truly know who God is, or I am worshiping an image that Ive created on my own? Read Romans 9, Proverbs 1:7, John 6:60-71 If you truly want to be a Christian, then you have to accept some hard teachings. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Rooster, no flame intended at all, but while I understand your point about "reporting rumor" just for the sake of it, I do not think you are giving me enough credit. OXCOPS, No offense taken. Nor was I intending to discredit you personally. After all, I don't know you. I only know what you've relayed in your previous posts, nothing else. Having read your last post, it does appear as if you're being very reasonable and cautious in your approach. That's all I was trying to convey...although not necessarily to you specifically. BTW, I do appreciate your profession. I have family that are involved in law enforcement. It's an unappreciated occupation by any standard. As a character on one of my favorite TV shows use to say, "Let's keep it safe out there" (or something like that).

If it makes you feel better let me rephrase my original statement: As should be the case with all accusations, especially those that taint reputations and careers, one should tread cautiously before identifying someone as a potential sexual predator, especially if gossip and rumor is the source of those accusations. I dont care for sexual predators any more than I care for communism, but I'm not going to resort to McCarthyism to root it out of the BSA. While it may not be my job to gather all of the facts, its certainly my duty to act responsibly. Due to the BSAs increasing sensitivity to the threat of litigation, they may feel otherwise, but my ethics are not completely driven by BSA policy and concerns. Despite what some folks seem to be implying here, gossip can and does cause damage to many innocent folks. Its not responsible to pretend that it is a non-factor. So, I beg to differ on the point as to whether or not one should be concerned if there is any basis in fact. If I reported every piece of hearsay I ever heard, Id be calling the DE and/or the police department every couple of weeks. Lets be realistic here, were talking about a camp with dozens of teenaged boys and girls, rumor and innuendo is practically a second language. While I appreciate the BSA stance, I have my own brain I am not merely their eyes and ears. If my brain tells me that I have seen or heard something worth repeating to the SE or someone else in authority, Ill know it. As to OGEs what if scenarios concerning the Explorers One can play that game all day long. If I step out of my house and turn left instead of right, the future of the entire world could be affected. One can never be sure. But, Im not going to second guess myself. If I was at one of those Explorers posts and failed to report something that turned out to be legitimate, I would certainly be upset. Id also be upset if I reported several suspicious incidents only to discover that I had caused serious personal strife for several well-meaning police officers. I realize that the potential damage to the youth is a grave concern, much more so than that of an officers reputation or any other damage that an adult might incur, but as I said - I have my own brain. I would account for what I heard and saw, and weigh it against the credibility of the source and the potential damage to both the youths and the officers. Then I would make a decision and live with the outcome. Recognize and Report YES. But recognize whether or not something is worth reporting. The words recognize and report, are not synonyms. Perhaps there's a reason that the policy doesn't just say - Report. A rumor is not worth recognizing unless theres more to it. Innuendo is not worth recognizing either. To report everything, no matter how insignificant or credible the source, is a cowards way of avoiding true responsibility. In this particular case, if I were the camp director, Id want to talk to the girls directly. Then, depending on what was in their statements, Id go from there...(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Triple double dog dare! Didn't you breach etiquette and skip the double double dog dare? Yeah, I saw A Christmas Story too. It was great. The movie could have been in the 50's...I thought they did a great job of making a good old fashion family movie. Wish they (the movie industry) would make movies like that 2 or 3 times a year instead of 1 or 2 every decade. Sorry for that interruptionnow back to the vitriol and derision. ;-)