Rooster7

le voyageur, ChoicePoint is a for profit company that it will be use in some manner to generate income and profit without consent. I could be wrong. You may have more evidence. Or maybe you've stated it clearly and it just went over my head, but... Why are you presuming ChoicePoint's guilt? Where is it written that opportunity will always lead to abuse? Why else bother to compile data if you don't plan to make a buck with it.... Will they not make a profit by providing the required background checks for the BSA? It seems to me that is sufficient motivation for compiling the data. nonetheless I've been thinking about making this my last year with the organization because it no longer feels like Scouting. It's core has been gutted out and stuffed with too much politics and fundamentalism... What was the "core" and how was it gutted? What is "too much politics"? Are you inferring that you disagree with the BSA's policy makers concerning atheism and homosexuality? Or is there something else? ASM1, Sometimes it sounds like the doctrine of the Hitler youth program. They are literally teaching my child that if he is not a Republican, he is guilty of treason. Just to be clear While I maintain that your old troop is uniquely wacky and definitely out of order, I hope that your comments were not meant to demean conservatives or the Republican Party. I see your troop's strange behavior and it's politics as two separate issues. Personally, I believe George W. Bush to be a great man. Nevertheless, the expectations and demands of the said troop are simply creepy. You guys (le voyageur and ASM1) apparently have had some unusual experiences to justify your thoughts and feelings on this topic. I have not walked in your shoes. All the same, when I read your posts, my first inclination is to flash back to a movie I saw not too long ago - "Conspiracy Theory". But to your credit, in the end, Mel Gibson was much more sane than what anyone thought possible. Stillwhile I love the movies, this is real life and I'm having a hard time relating, most especially with your conclusions. I'm firmly in support of the background checks. If one kid is spared the agony of being sexually abused, and just as bad - its stigma, I say praise God! My heart goes out to those boys (and men) who live with this scar.

littlebillie, Try to keep up...I think we covered killer bees about ten pages back. Besides, isn't that a little off topic?

packsaddle, As you said - peace. Since you're extending the olive branch, I think you should know - in one of my previous posts, I addressed you as "paddlesack". That was a side-affect of my dyslexia...It wasnt intended to be a snub.

I do have to agree that Rooster is just as pharisaical in his religious views That is why Rooster has had differences with Bob and others have differences with Rooster. Ouch! I don't have time to take the bait todayperhaps tomorrow. I will say this, in defense of my "religious views", while I am skeptical of many posters who claim Christianity, but seem to be subscribing to something elseI try not to be pharisaical. Kwc57 and paddlesack, Keep it up. At this rate, I'll hit 1,000 posts before the end of January. My new year's resolution is - To leave the Politics and Issues forum, or at least take a real sabbatical, after 1,000 posts. Having said that, I advertised a sabbatical about a year ago and was back in a week or less. It's sadkinda like the smoker who's quit for the seventh or eight time. This stuff is addictive.

Kwc57, NoI'm not saying OGE is Bob White. OGE, I think I understood you the first timewe're on the same page. Paddlesack, The "right wing conspirator" comment was tongue in cheek. I was just trying to denote my perspective in a humorous mannerI never thought the world was out to get me. As for exercising your voice - BANG! BANG! BANG! (could that be the din of cookware)Go for it! No one is stopping you. If you really want a good cause, why don't you try convincing NAMBLA that they should disband? Oh, never mind, you're rightthere are greater evils to contend with in the BSA.

Just so there won't be any confusion... I don't know how much you know about Bob White and myself, but we have had an occasional disagreement. He's usually interprets every BSA policy by the letter and defends it to death (although he'd never admit it, I think he puts his own spin on some of these interpretations), while I tend to argue what I believe to be the obvious spirit of an intended policy. I have personally accused Bob as being a legalist and/or a Pharisee. OGE was probably laughing at the irony of packsaddle's comment to me when he said, "You would defend BSA over anything." That accusation is usually reserved for Bob Whiteand has been thrown his way many times. I'm fairly confident that he would take that observation as a compliment.

Packsaddle, Just for future reference: Simile - a figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared, as in "she is like a rose." Cf. metaphor. While I never explicitly said BSA is like a church (at least not in one sentence), it's not as bizarre of a comparison as you have seemingly inferred. Both have a vision. Both have a set of values. Both have membership criteria. Both, as private organizations, are protected entities by the U.S. government. I am merely suggesting that members and potential members would serve themselves and others well by remembering the aforementioned characteristics of such organizations. Fight for what you believe, but the fight is only noble if there is a plausible resolution - one, which would be adopted by the BSA and its members. Otherwise, it's just a head banging exerciseor a pot banging exercise, depending on which side of the fence you happen to be sitting on. As an accused "right wing conspirator" and more recently - an accused tunnel vision supporter of the BSA (or as OGE noted, a.k.a. "Bob White"), I kindly request that you put down your "pot and spoon". On the other hand, if you want to draw a bull's-eye on the side of BSA's headquarters and charge it head long at full speed, there's nothing I can do about it. Enjoy.

acco40, I've always correlated natural with normal. Regardless, by your definition of natural, murder and rape is natural (because they can be found in nature as well).

ASM1, I will take you on your word...But that is truly a bizarre story. As for the "right wing" conspiracy stuff in the BSA...I hope you realize that your old troop is one step removed from the Twilight Zone. You and others cannot seriously believe that your family's circumstance is typical. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Packsaddle: As a member I still have the right to express my views if I disagree (and I do). Littlebillie: I'm speaking up, and working, for what I feel is right. Who's got a problem with THAT?!? No one. I don't disagree. Every American has the right to "speak up". You should exercise that right, not only in defending yourself, but in defense of what you believe to be right. However, in this case, I think there's a fine line between, defending one's position on a moral issue to ensure justice (although I disagree with your definition of justice in this particular instance), and just being a pain to those around you. For example, I'm a true believer in conservative politics (duh, bet you'd never guess that one). I'm also very interested in teaching. However, I don't envision myself joining the NEA and debating its officers on their educational policies, or going to the University of Berkley to teach. It's a futile exercise. Or, I can't imagine joining a church founded by the Unitarian Universalists and debating them over their lack of theology. What would be the point? In each circumstance, I would be a member of a very small minority, and thus my words would serve only to inflame those around me. Also, since the BSA's policies are fairly well known (their stances on atheism and homosexuality has occupied a fair amount of newsprint for several years now), I think it is disingenuous to join their organization (by doing so - you have tacitly, if not explicitly, agreed to support it's values) and then trying to inspire a revolt to change their values. It's like joining a Christian church and then trying to convince its members that Jesus was not the Messiah. If your heart brings you to a different conclusion, then join an organization that believes as you do. If you want to play chess, then join a chess club; don't try to convert a bridge club into a chess club. In short, you're free to be a pain in the neck, if that's what you aspire to be. I just don't see the point.

packsaddle, Except for their position, what makes them correct and others incorrect in the interpretation? Analogy: Except for their position as the parents, what give them the right to decide what is proper or improper for their children? The BSA is the parent organization. Troops are merely their childrenand as such, reflect the values of the national organization. It's that simple. I realize that you and others want to ignore BSA's rights as a private organization. I understand that you and others feel that the BSA is acting immorally by imposing their moral view on their membership criteria and/or awards associated with the BSA. Furthermore, I am aware that you and others believe that their stance is rooted in a specific religious faith or a set of faiths. Lastly, I recognize that you and others have the misconception that local charters of the BSA are somehow separate organizations. However... 1) BSA does have a legal right to maintain its stance. Despite your assertions that they are violating the Constitution...to the contrary, they are Constitutionally protected to take such a position. 2) Many members, if not most, feel that BSA's moral view is correct and proper - They don't want the policy changed. This is a matter of one's opinion. In and out of the BSA, Millions agree with their position. And I suppose, Millions don't. Regardless, BSA as a national organization has never released its right to be a self-governing entity, even to its members. Membership is not ownership. 3) If morality is always a function of faith, then why do folks on this board vehemently defend atheists as being moral? Millions of folks recognize the perversity of homosexuality as being self-evident. The BSA can come to the same conclusion without the "hidden force" of a religious faith (i.e., the vast right wing conspiracy, the Church of the LDS, the Pope, or some other "sinister" anti-American force). The fact that millions of others disagree does not make this a religious argument. It's merely a disagreement - free thought in a free society. That's the beauty of a free country with private organizations. If you don't like someone else's viewpoint, you can simply find another group of people, with their own organization, that you do agree with. 4) While the BSA is always looking for good charter organizations, they never relinquished their right to hold their own values and/or to impose membership criteria based on those values. If a charter organization cannot share these values, then they should step aside as a charter organization or risk expulsion by the BSA. Regardless, the fault lies within the charter organization, not the BSA. The American Heritage Girls is a perfect example of how Americans should resolve an issue such as this. These folks felt that the GSUSA was not valued based, at least not enough so to make themselves happy about it. While I have no first hand knowledge, I'm confident that they tried to influence the GSUSA to see it their way. Unfortunately (from my viewpoint), they found that there was a certain feminist element entrenched in the GSUSA, which was unwilling to change their position on certain policies. Furthermore, it seems that there was no base within the GSUSA to inspire a serious grassroots effort to effect change. These folks saw the writing on the wall and left the organization. They saw no noble purpose in being disruptive and/or rebellious. Those folks who wish to defend the morality of homosexuality and atheism should recognize the writing on the wall within the BSA. If you don't hold a majority opinion within a private organization and/or you don't have the political clout to effect change, then quit whining and seek or create a new organization that does reflect your opinion. And while I totally disagree with the "faith" of Wiccans, they too, at least understand the principles of a democracy and created an organization that served their purposes. In a free society such as ours, if the majority of a private organization is happy with its vision and purpose, and agrees with its policy makers, what's the point of playing the role of a disrupter? Simply find a group of like-minded folks and live your life, as you would like to live it. On the other hand, if you this was a communist nation or a dictatorship, and you only had the one choice - then, while I disagree with your viewpoint, I could at least understand why you'd insist on trying to change the organization. Having said all of the above, I think your incessant complaints concerning the BSA are ridiculous and unfounded. Before you start comparing your stance to the struggle of the 1960's for civil rights, try to remember these two points. First, there's a huge difference between discrimination based on a physical trait (such as skin color) and that of behavior or attitude (such as promoting sexual attraction and/or contact between men as being acceptable and natural). Second, and perhaps just as important, remember that we're NOT talking about changing the laws and attitudes of a free nation. We are talking about a private organization within a free nation. If you force your opinions and will on a private organization, the said organization would no longer reside in a free nation. Private organizations, whether or not you or I believe them to be "misguided" or not, must be free to define themselves. Beyond basic protections, the federal government should sit on their collective hands. The day we allow our national government to become our conscience, we will no longer be free men. Most Americans understand this fact. I believe this argument even applies to the story about California judges which started this thread. They should be free to join ANY organization they want. If they are not qualified to be judges, they should not have been appointed and the electorate should hold the appropriate elected official(s) responsible. If the said organization legitimately taints the judge as being bias in a particular trial, then that judge should be disqualified via the appropriate channels (recusal). There are safe guards already in place. Kwc57, I agree that BSA's religious standard is somewhat wishy-washy. I think they need to re-examine it, but that's just my personal opinion and I doubt that it will changeat least not anytime soon.

Additionally, I submit, because the GSUSA is so luke warm to traditional values (not unlike the Unitarian Universalists), hundreds of thousands if not millions, do not waste the time to investigate further.

Packsaddle and NJ, The boys are ALLOWED to wear it on anything they like, including their Sunday go-to-meeting clothes. I don't doubt it. However, if there was a magical map where one could push a button and view every child wearing the religious award, I'd be willing to give a dollar to your favorite charity for every child who was wearing his award on something other than a Scout uniform. On the other hand, I doubt I could afford the inverse of that bet. Any boy (or girl, for that matter) can earn the religious award outside of scouting (they don't have to be a scout). Again, I don't doubt it. However, outside of Scouting, how many people know or participate in the P.R.A.Y. program? While I don't have the statistics, I'm confidant the Scouts, and in particular Boy Scouts (as opposed to Cub Scouts or Girl Scouts), comprise the vast majority of their participants. It would exist if there was no BSA. Sure it would existJust like soccer would exist if the Europeans and the Latin Americans dropped out of the World Cup. There would be folks interested and participating, but to what degree? It is a major award. Did anyone say any differently? The UUA exercises their right to speak because they are true to their beliefs and because, importantly, BSA IS homophobic (they would just like to stay in the closet about it). Well, that is their right. However, it is also the BSA's right to embrace and maintain its values. You and NJ speak, as if its impossible to view homosexuality as being inherently wrong, unless one basis that belief on a religious tenant. There many folks, including myself, that believe nature and common sense screams out its perversity. Apparently, the BSA has taken same position. Yes - I have a strong faith, which condemns homosexuality as a sin. Yet, I came to the conclusion that it was wrong long before I became serious about studying the precepts of my religion. I'm certain that the BSA and many others feel the same way. As for "fearing" homosexuality or homosexuals (i.e. the accusation of being "homophobic"), this is simply a ploy by those that embrace homosexuality to taint and discredit those that disagree with them. I love peopleall people, including the homosexual. I can feel empathy and pain for many different folks. Regardless, this fact does not make homosexuality more acceptable. The whole thing with the Unitarians is one of the ways the BSA violates its own declaration of religious principles. That declaration says that the BSA is "non-denominational" in its approach to religion. It is not. If your denomination believes gays have the same rights as everybody else, and should not be excluded, and your denomination says so, you are penalized by not having your award approved for wear on the BSA uniform. That is not non-denominational. One type of religious belief is being favored over another. It is entirely possible that one can embrace values without endorsing a specific religion or group of religions. Many folks believe that lying is wrong, even atheists. I'd be willing to bet that some atheists even believe that homosexuality is wrong. The point being, the BSA can claim values that are unique to them and/or they can share some values that others also embrace. It is wrong to presume that they hold a value merely because certain faiths do as well. The BSA can embrace and maintain values that are separate from religious teaching. The fact that they agree is not proof that they believe in the same God. How can you claim otherwise? If this was so, then you are also implying that atheists have no values. Or, are you implying that they are lairs...that they really do believe in a faith and just won't admit it? Let's be consistent here. Having said the above, this is what P.R.A.Y. says about their award and Scouting - "The religious emblems programs provide opportunities for young people to reinforce and internalize the values they have learned in Scouting and to relate them to their faith." In short, the religious awards program should be consistent with the values associated with Scouting. It is the BSA's right to insist that this theme be present. It is their uniform. If the religious award offered by the UUA is inconsistent with Scouting's values, the BSA is wise not to allow the award to be worn on its uniform.

Sorry...I stand corrected (in regards to it being a "Scouting" award). However, it seems to me that the award has very strong ties to the BSA. Are the boys encouraged to wear this award on anything other than a Scout uniform? Can anyone other than a Scout or Scouter participate in the P.R.A.Y. program? Wasn't P.R.A.Y. conceived as an add-on program for Scouts? Whether or not it is the BSA or the "church" that actually awards the medal is not as significant as who is most closely associated with the award. Would there be such an award if the BSA did not exist? As far as the UUA bending over backwards, if that were the case, why do they insist on providing supplementary material labeling the BSA's stance as homophobic?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

packsaddle, From your posts, it is obvious that you feel that the BSA is the "bad guy" here. However, it appears to me that the Unitarian Universalists forced BSA's hand. They basically told the BSA that they were going to use the Scout award associated with their religion to teach their boys to accept homosexuality as natural. This directly contradicts the values that the BSA endorses. The BSA was very patient up to a point. Eventually, the BSA presented an ultimatum to the UUA - Stop manipulating the awards program for your own selfish political purposes. The UUA refused to change their proposed program. They wanted the BSA to capitulate. The UUA insisted on presenting literature associated with the Scouting award, which was contrary to BSA's values. It is sad (as you've noted), but it was the UUA that made this happen, not the BSA.

packsaddle, Perhaps I am assuming too much about the situation, of which you are referring. What was the controversial issue - are we talking about homosexuality or something else? What church was kicked out of BSA? Somewhere in this thread, I must have lost track of some specifics. Regardless, while I confess that I believe parents and their boys should hold themselves accountable for following established policies and/or criteria, this "transgression" isn't so harsh that I would expect such an outcry. You appear to be of the belief that my comments make me worthy enough to be fitted for a millstone.

littlebillie, 'k' - I'm still not sure I understand what your point was concerning Ceasar, but it's not worth belaboring. Perhaps, I'm just slow. Regardless - peace. kwc57, You don't want to offend your friends and give them the wrong impression. That is noble. Is there anything wrong with a judge taking a good hard look at how his outside activities might impact how he is perceived on the bench? That is a fair question in my opinion., It's fair, if each case is taken separately. That is, for a given trial, a "hot shot" lawyer might be able to make a valid point against a particular judge that he "could be" bias because he belongs to a particular organization. However, to decree that no one who belongs to the BSA is qualified for the judgeship is not only overkill, it's dishonest and a blatant example of partisan politics.

littlebillie, Apparently my confidence was misplaced. I was hoping that your theatrics was a momentary diversion. For some sick reason, I feel compelled to state, if not for you then for others, that I never compared the United States to Adolph Hitler, but at this point, I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears. Having said this, pretend I never made the supposed comparison and simply acknowledge if you feel the following is true or not: One cannot always render to "Caesar" and remain faithful to his God. I really deserve this. Not because littlebillie is right, but because I didn't speak out earlier to defend kwc57. He faced a similar accusation. I chose not to defend him - not because I didn't understand his example (although I didn't agree with his conclusion) but because I didn't want some old friends to get the wrong impression. In short, I didn't want to pick a fight with OGE and Ed Mori. I figured that I would stay out of that particular fray. It's kind of like that old story about NAZI Germany, first they came for the Jews, then they came forOOOPS, there I go again.

packsaddle, When BSA refuses recognition of significant legitimate achievement by a boy (God and Country), simply because his church publicly disagrees with BSA policy, it goes against the 1st Amendment. Actually, they are not going against the 1st amendment. If the BSA were a government entity, your statement would be agreeable. However, as a private organization, BSA is fully within its right constitutionally to behave in the manner you just described. There is nothing unconstitutional or unpatriotic about it. And for doing this to a child, I consider them cowardly. Just a personal opinion. The BSA, like any good organization does, defines it criteria for awards and rank advancements so that others know up front what is expected of them. If parents, their children, or leaders ignore these criteria, then they are accepting the associated risks. Consequently, they are responsible for any shedding of tears as well (whether that be the child or the parent). One answer is that they don't proclaim the truth because they lack self-confidence and I sympathize with them. My favorite disciple is Peter (well-meaning but prone to error) but I also have great affection for Thomas (because of his doubt and skepticism). While I like Peter and Thomas, and I can empathize with them, I do not seek to be like them. In other words, lack of self-confidence and doubts may be a human tendency, but it not something I accept as a constant or necessary side-affect for embracing Christ. It's is an unnecessary darkness that we can avoid. Almost every church I have ever visited in nearly every faith (20-30 or so) has claimed the truth as theirs. The few that are willing to admit possibilities are viewed in the pejorative by most of the others (kind of the way I usually feel). The rest are confident of the truth. They just don't happen to agree. Some of them are well-meaning but don't offer explanations, they just require agreement. Some are openly prejudiced or anti-intellectual. Some are snobbish and quite mean-spirited towards the others (you know, the old "a Methodist is a Baptist who can read" thing). If I picked one, the choice could only be based on my personal preference, as I have no other basis for judging one faith against the others. Yes, there is indeed a multitude of faiths, and within each one there is a multitude of personalities presenting different thoughts on each of those faiths. So what? This fact may make one's search for truth more difficult, but it doesn't preclude the fact (or if you prefer, the possibility) that God is a reality. One thing is certain. If all faiths claim to be the exclusive path to God, then only one can be right- if any. Conversely, a faith that proclaims there are multiple paths to God does not make itself any more valid, by virtue of that claim. In short, one should examine the claims of a faith, and judge it's legitimacy by the merits of those claims. If you throw one blanket over all of them and pronounce, "All faiths are false" or "No faith has a right to claim itself as the truth", then I have to ask, why? Is there any logical reason why one of these faiths could not be the truth? There is no rational explanation to flatly reject all faiths, without making an examination. Likewise, to casually accept all faiths as possible truths, without any skepticism, is just as illogical. Fear motivates conclusions such as these. Men cling to darkness because they are afraid of what the light might reveal. Ironically, while many of the godless recognize the value of science (truth as it applies to the physical world), they prefer to deny the existence of the spiritual world. They rather live in spiritual ignorance than probe its realities. I don't mind if they think I am bad for asking questions, As for the ill behavior or bad counsel of individuals who claim to possess a faith, whether or not they know the truth, they stand by themselves. Only God is perfect. Even His children on earth fall short (with the one exception of course). If it were not so, then seeking Him would be a rather futile since you're not perfect yourself (right? - Or am I assuming too much? ). There is nothing wrong with asking questions. I know of no legitimate church that would chastise someone because they wanted to know more. On the other hand, there is a difference between "asking questions" to obtain knowledge, and "asking questions" to make inferences. One should have evidence to support such an inference before making it. Otherwise, it is derisive. but I know children who are occasionally in tears because they are told they are 'going to hell' simply because they are in the 'wrong' church, and this bothers me. Anyone who would purposely seek to inflict emotional harm on a child, simply because the child is "in the wrong church", or for any other reason for that matter, is probably in the 'wrong' church themselves. Furthermore, only God knows a man's heart and can judge his soul. I keep trying. "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." Matthew 7:7&8

packsaddle, ...If a Hindu quotes from the OT, do you consider this invalid? No, I wouldn't necessarily consider it invalid. But it would be suspect. That is to say, the Bible is not a collection of bits and pieces. The Bible is a history of the Christian faith and it builds on itself, from Genesis to Proverbs to the Gospels to Revelation. When taken as a complete and comprehensive teaching, it is very consistent. On the other hand, many folks have abused the Bible to serve their agendas. This usually accomplished by selectively picking verses while ignoring others. And incidentally, I have no aversion to the OT or the rest of the Christian bible, only to the hypocritical way some persons selectively employ these and selected other passages to justify their prejudices. Sorry for the digression. Good, then we stand on common ground. Sorry about making the assumptionit was a "knee-jerk" response to your Leviticus comment. I have no problems with questions but I can't answer them all. Rather, I am fascinated by those who feel they possess the truth. Why should one stake a claim to a faith (any faith), if they do not passionately believe it to be the truth? Those who claim the Christian faith as their own, but feel they have no right to speak as if they know the truth fascinate me. That is not meant as an insult. I just don't understand why any Christian would not have confidence in God's Word. And I am ready to receive truth from them if they can explain it in terms I understand. Like I said, I keep trying. I respectfully suggest that you find a church, which strongly believes in the sanctity of God's Word and teaches it through the use of small groups. If you've never done this before, I earnestly believe that you'll not only enjoy the experience, but also discover more about God and the Bible than you previously thought possible. evmori, Yes of course, the Oath and Law. I, for one, would also like to pay some attention to our Constitution. Speaking for Ed (I hope you don't mind)the Constitution protects the BSA's right, as a private organization, to establish membership criteria and it's own behavior standards. The fact that the LDS may have an influence on the BSA (great or small) is really inconsequential to the point. The BSA and the LDS are both within their legal rights as protected by the Constitution. littlebillie, Until your last post, I thought your comments were reasoned- if not well, at least resembling a fair rationale. Now, I am confused as to whom I am addressing. If it's the former, then I'm confident that you will realize that the reference to Hitler was to illustrate this simple point: One cannot always render to "Caesar" and remain faithful to his God. What if Caesar demanded Christians to murder and rape? " Well, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" certainly had some impact in Salem, and it wasn't from Caesar... What does the abuses of Puritans have to do with God's Word? Are you befuddled by the fact that some Christians (the Puritans) failed to live up to His Word? Or, are you suggesting that their acts were logical extensions of their faith? If you feel the bible endorses murder by Christians, then please provide a specific verse. And of course when we start to say well, what if, murder, rape, pillage - this is no real argument. The Bible is full of smiting and sacrifices, frankly, and there are limits to ordinary discussion and example. What are we supposed to derive from these statements? Are you suggesting, because the Bible tells some stories concerning people who did some bad things that anything Caesar asks us to do cannot be outside of God's will or desires? If it helps, I'll go on record as being against bestiality - oh, and pederasty, either side of the fence. What else should we get out of the way in order to have meaningful dialog? Try presenting some thoughts, which address specific points of contention in a logical order. If you want to prove to others and myself that my points are invalid, then please provide a true argument. Dissect my comments, analyze them, and then present information, which demonstrates them to be false. Your last post appears to be a rant with no basis of reasoning.

kwc57, I think the real question is- what if Caesar demanded something that contradicted God's Word? What if Caesar demanded Christians to murder and rape? Or, in the case of NAZI Germany, what if Hitler asked Christians to turn in/expose Jews, which very often meant their eventual torture and/or murder (although it is debatable how much the average German knew). I am confident (and hope others subscribe to this as well) that God expects us to submit to His Word before any government authority. That being the case, when littlebillie suggests- if our government accepts gays as being morally acceptable, then we should submit ourselves to that belief because it is harmonious with the teaching, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" - it completely ignores the rest of God's Word.

packsaddle, I try not to ask for confessions of faith from others (sometimes I get it anyway) and I don't make such on my behalf whether requested by individuals or the BSA. It is simply none of their business. I hope you understand. I understand. For the most part, I don't use biblical references and my faith to support my argument unless others bring religion into the conversation first. For example, I did not respond to you in kind until you made this statement: Rooster, You must already know about the numerous denominations that accept homosexuals. Would you really have us adhere strictly to all the laws set forth in Leviticus (Vayikra)? Consequently, I answered your questions using biblical references. Furthermore, since you were presenting the question as if you yourself were a believer, I made further arguments based on that presumption. Similarly, I did not respond to littlebillie in kind, until he made these comment: if it ain't natural, why are there animals that exhibit the behavior? I felt it was important that he recognize the fact that we are not merely animalswe are spiritual beings. He went on in his next post to say this: Regardless of what ONE or 2 or 20 religions say about gays, others are accepting of gays. and if Caesar (as civil authority) says no big deal, then render let those others render unto Caesar... He was implying that Christians should remain silent when civil authorities make decrees. Again, I felt compelled to explain to him that he was not presenting these verses properly (i.e., with respect to other biblical teachings). In short, while I respect your right to abstain from religious teachings of which you don't agree, and most especially your right to remain silent on your faith, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you reference the bible to support your argument, you should expect a rebuttal, which does likewise. Furthermore, by virtue of those same bible references, you are tacitly implying that you are a Christian and/or at least someone with knowledge of the faith. Thus, you should not be surprised when others question you about your faith (i.e., ask exactly what you believe) as well.

Rooster7 - I note that you didn't answer the apple query? was it literally an apple? I mean, that's what some texts say...? it's important because some authorities say the "man with man" passages in Lev should actually have been translated as "male temple prostitute", which takes things in a different direction, I'd say. Well, whether or not it was a literal apple, I cannot say. I've always assumed it was an actual apple tree. Your doubts regarding Leviticus' significance seem to be more of a matter of trusting a particular translation's validity verses an argument of literal interpretation. I recommend that you investigate when and by whom your bible was translated. Did these folks have an agenda (either in general or specific to the question of homosexuality)? It may prove to be revealing. Regardless, how do you explain Romans 1:18-32? Those verses are pretty specific. Now, when certain local populations get TOO large, or if a social structure is such that only a few top creatures can reproduce - then we see homosexual activity and this helps to "relieve" the individual animal WITHOUT overburdening an already stressed environment with further increases to "headcount." It's one of Nature's birth controls, one that nevertheless allows the individual to perform some physical bonding. Stressed populations - OVERpopulations - can show a marked increase in homosexual activity... food for thought, y'all. If you think junk food is good for you, then eat up. Homosexuality is one of Nature's birth controls!? Please. By that definition, one can claim the same about bestiality and pedophilia. This is a justifiable "biological function"? One could also make a case for murder - to "relieve" the "stressed over populations". It's really a ridiculous supposition. As far as an important social function, I've NEVER heard anyone argue that so-called "unadoptable" kids are better off being institutionalized than being placed in a loving gay family. It's not an either or proposition. You're just trying to make it into one. If my children were put into the above situation, I would not want them to go to a pair of homosexuals. I'd bet you more often that not the child is dragged into something dark and insidious, either directly or indirectly. While I'm no fan of the foster system, I'd rather have my children take their chances there, than be subjected to the alternative lifestyle served up by homosexual "parents" and their friends. Furthermore, homosexuals are not the only folks around interested in "un-adoptable" children.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Even many homosexuals agree with me that homosexuality is evolutionarily maladapted. But I try not to judge things I don't understand (homosexuality in this case), especially if I'm not affected by them. I don't understand bestiality, but I still find it detestable. I view God with love, not fear of His hate or jealousy. Just a difference in point-of-view. While I agree that God is to be loved, His Word clearly states that fearing the Lord is a prerequisite to wisdom and knowledge. I believe this to be true. For only after one fully realizes his own wretchedness; and conversely, comprehends the restraint God has shown in not exercising His wrath, do I believe - can one fully appreciate and love Him. But unless my eyes deceive me, my KJV Bible says: Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." In regard the OT use of the word "abomination", my translation (NIV) uses the word "detestable" in most of the incidences that you noted. So, it may just be a minor difference in translations. Your Romans passages also mention that transgressors 'deserve death'. Is this what you would advocate for homosexuals? It's not "my version" of Romans. It's simply a NIV translation of the book of Romans. What does the KJV translation say? I seriously doubt if much of the meaning is lost between the two translations. My point is - Do you believe it be God's Word or not? As for what I advocate for homosexuals - again, it's God's Word, not mine. God says these transgressors deserve death, not me. Interestingly, among the transgressions listed are gossipers and those who "disobey their parents". As you know, all sin separates us from God. Christ's atoning sacrifice (a free gift, for those who will accept it, for all time) is what makes us acceptable before God. The likes of Falwell and Robertson employ this and related texts extensively for their positions but they are the same guys that said we 'deserved' the 9/11 attacks (see the 'deserve death' similarity?). Do you agree with that as well? I don't believe that Robertson said it quite the way that you are inferring. If you provided some verbatim quotes, I'd be willing to say whether I agreed or not. Otherwise, I refuse to comment on their purported statements. As for being set free from certain of the laws, I will take your word for that as I don't remember where it occurs and I am probably already at risk of a good stoning. If you have to take my word for it, then I think you're missing a critical piece of the Christian faith. The entire Old Testament speaks to God's Righteousness. While His love is also demonstrated, the OT reinforces His Righteousness, time and time again. As one makes his way through these books, it becomes increasing evident that no man can stand become God and claim to be a worthy child. Because of this, the Hebrew people were forced to observe and worship God from afar. Their relationship with God was strictly regulated. Those who failed to follow these regulations often died (by God's hand). Christ has torn the curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. His obedience to the cross not only paid for our sins (past, present, and future), but it also enabled us to have a more intimate relationship with God the Father (without ritualistic sacrifices or the need of the Messianic Priesthood). Maryland oystermen can breathe easy for now. Likewise, so can the Chesapeake crabbers.

packsaddle, As a believer, certainly you know the difference between dietary laws, ritualistic laws (derived from the Messianic Priesthood), and moral laws. Christ freed us from those dietary and ritualistic laws. We are still bound by moral laws. Near as I can tell, the term "abomination" is reserved in Bible for those transgressions, which reject God as Holy and Righteous - in particular, in regard to the Hebrews when they did not make sacrifices properly and/or reverently. Perhaps the word you are looking for is detestable. As in Leviticus 18:22 - 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' But since you have an aversion for Old Testament law (even though, in this case, we are referring to a moral law), I recommend that you look in your New Testament. Here's what you'll find - The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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. Furthermore, 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. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-32 I cannot conceive how a self-professed believer can label homosexuality as anything but a perversion. Before you rebut that, I recommend, as a self-professed believer, that you re-read the above very carefully. It has ramifications not only for the homosexual but also for those that deny God's truth. BTW, I don't fear homosexuality or the homosexual. I fear God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7 (This message has been edited by Rooster7)