Rooster7

Perhaps a bit of a knee-jerk response on my part... Nevertheless - acco40, my point was and still is - We should be happy to have a President that apparently understands and appreciates the cost of a potential war. I believe - despite what others (liberals and some in the media) are trying to portray - Bush is not taking the lives of our military personnel for granted. He knows the costs. firstpusk (and acco40), this is a lame story. Even the media knows it. If Bush were guilty of anything (i.e., being AWOL for a year or anything similar), we'd all know it and Gore would be in the White House. If you need "Bush's people" to tell some story - to confirm this fantasy, then obviously the story is bogus. Do you really believe there is some sort of military cover up? Do you believe President Clinton would have allowed for such a cover up to take place? He's a democrat...remember. Was he so envious of Gore, that he'd allow Bush to steal an election he didn't deserve? He would have helped that investigation along if there were any truth to it. The fact is, this story is simple slander. As for Clinton and his sad story, he couldnt have set the record straight because the evidence was too condemning. He couldnt deny the facts. As for me being bias, you're probably right - I don't trust most of folks "leading" the Democratic Party. When Bush makes a fool of himself like Clinton, I'll come back to this forum to recognize your wisdom and beg your forgiveness for being so foolish. But I doubt that Bush will ever come close to imitating Clinton. Until then, I think you're the one who's placed too much trust in the wrong places.

acco40, As for the "shedding a tear" comment, I simply stated that I believe Bush to be a man who sincerely cares about our nation's military personnel. If you chose to believe that he staged his tears - fine. I can understand why you'd be skeptical, especially if you ever supported the likes of Clinton. As for the bull#$%&! article that you've posted, you can't believe for a second that folks are going to take it seriously. PLEASE, are you going to tell me that the Democratic Party - as desperate as they can be - couldn't uncover such an election-changing story on George W? Or worse, they sat on it and let George W. take the election away from Gore. Not likely. This is just another ploy being executed by the distressed, unconscionable caretakers of a feeble and impotent party. "had no memory of Bush ever reporting" "has not been observed" This is not documentation of wrong doing. These are simply the poor recollections of people who have been manipulated by liberal ideologues - some 30 years later. With supporters like you, Bush doesn't need any enemies.

I understood and appreciated your last post (even though I'll never understand why Clinton was so appealing to so many). Regardless, I just want to add one thing in defense of a man I truly appreciate - If George W. is as dull as some want to portray him - How did he come to fly a fighter jet? I don't care how much influence his dad might have had at the time, the military isn't going to let a slightly above average wanna-be fly a multi-million dollar jet because sonny thought it would be fun. Furthermore, an F14 is slightly more complicated then your typical BMW. Pick any jet pilot in the military and have a conversation with him...How many do you walk away from, thinking "Boy, that guy wasn't very sharp." And, if he's the coward and/or spoiled rich boy some want to portray him - Why did he chose to risk his life flying a fighter jet at all (I don't care what part of the sky he defended)? Flying a fighter jet is dangerous. Anyone who doesn't think so, just can't be taken serious.

Here's my take on this problem There's too much emphasis on the boys. I thought that might get your attention. Actually, I meant it. Here's what I'm trying to say. I believe, too many packs and troops work so hard to make the program appealing to the boys, they forget about the adults. Of course (let's all say it together now) - "Scouting is for the boys!" Yes, I know. But, if we want the boys to continue in the program, we should make it appealing to their parents as well. If the parents are behind it (i.e., "This program is really making a difference in my son's life!" or "This is something I can share with my son!"), there's apt to be a lot more enthusiasm for the program (or rather the next step up). I earnestly believe that the bridging numbers would increase significantly, if more packs and troops worked to gain the commitment and trust of the parents. If the parents are dispassionate about the program, their attitude is likely to spread their sons. And, even if the boys are fired up, a non-committed, disinterested parent may chose not to feed that fire. They may even force their children to give up Scouts in order to channel their efforts elsewhere. Now, for my disclaimers: One, I'm not siding with the parents of these boys. I'm just making an observation. Two, I'm not claiming this to be the number one problem for "lost Webelos", but I do think it is a big contributor. Some suggestions to make parents feel more welcomed and/or passionate about Scouting: 1) Don't guard all responsibilities and jobs like their gold. Spread it around a little. 2) Don't lord your knowledge and position over other adults (or kids for that matter). 3) Make sure all parents have an opportunity to visit their sons on a campout(s). 4) Show parents how their son's participation in Scouts will help him become a better person. 5) At least occasionally, find ways to involve the whole family. 6) Solicit the help of all adults (especially new families) and take advantage of them as resources (while they're still willing and interested). Don't wait until "you think their ready"That's usually code for - "It's my job and I don't want to share it". By the time some folks are asked, many are no longer interested. I don't know how systemic the problem I described is, but I've seen examples of the above in different packs and troops. So here's my mantra - "Get the parents involved - often and early".

Fortunately, most of the country appears to differ with you gentlemen (given the recent elections). Throw all the insults you want, for the time being, sane people control the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives.

I have yet to see the movie, "A Beautiful Mind". If you're suggesting that a physical and/or mental illness can cause a person to do something that one cannot fully comprehend or appreciate, I guess I would have to agree. Torrettes (spelling?) syndrome pops into mind (no pun intended). Thus, I suppose it's possible for a person to have sinful behavior without sinful intent. However, to revisit your original supposition(s): What if the same chemicals and whatever that induced the sheep to be homosexual causes humans to be homosexual? That it is an environmental response to some as yet unnamed chemical? What if mixed breeding between ethnic groups causes it? I find it very difficult to believe that such a chemical (or illness, or breeding, etc.) could cause a person (with free will) to have homosexual urges AND to act upon them, and yet otherwise lead a normal life. That's a very narrowly scoped and profound impact. Also, I dont think its fair to compare animals (such as sheep) to man, because a) we will never know the thought process of a sheep, and b) man does have free will (at least in regard to his intentions). RobK, Amen, brother. Fboisseau, I agree with your post with one exception. Im not convinced that someone is a hypocrite if he preaches against a sin that he has yet to conquer. If he preaches against it and/or similar sins, and approves of his own failings, then yes he would be a hypocrite. Otherwise, every time you stumble (sin), you become a hypocrite. I dont think thats the case.

OGE, The point is Rooster, I don't see how Children can choose evil anymore than a sheep. I can't speak for the world, but I became aware of my sinful nature at a very early age. God knows our thoughts before we do. God sees everything. So, while we may have reservations, we are in no position to judge. He is holy and righteous. That is how I know Him to be. If I didn't see Him that way, He wouldn't be the God of the Bible. What if the same chemicals and whatever that induced the sheep to be homosexual causes humans to be homosexual? God's Word says every man has free will. I believe that. Regardless of what some folks might be predisposed to (chemicals or not), I believe every person has the capacity to control his own moral behavior. Littlebillie, RoosterVII I suppose that was some kind of "shot". Well, if you're uninterested in hearing my perspective on the matter - Why do you keeping asking questions? I never claimed to be the Pope. I never claimed to be without fault. However, I believe what I believe. I'll provide disclaimers if I'm not confident about something. However, much of what I'm relaying is basic Christianity 101. Please know that I restrict my consideration and support of the gay community to those adults who enter into loving consensual relationships with other adults. Take that as a given in considering anything I say about the subject. Good. Now, go back and look at your original statement. If those in the mainstream cannot control their own actions and urges, well - let him who is without the obvious cast the first condemnation. I picked two extreme cases of sin (rape and murder) to make the point. It's a matter of recognizing sinful behavior. The Bible doesn't teach us to ignore sin when we see it. The 'interpretations' to which I refer indicate that the original Leviticus was referring to lying with male temple prostitutes. And curiously, while bestiality is prohibited to both men AND women, regardless of the role of the males previously mentioned, the act seems to be forbidden to men only. I await further scholarship... You're losing mePlease clarify your question (no sarcasm or malice intended). "Dr Laura..." was not the target of my comments, but anyone who was not a virgin at their first marriage, or who has committed adultery, whatever. abstinence is easy to call for in others... from these I expect at the least verbiage that acknowledges that the burning of the flesh is difficult to ignore, and that many on both sides of the preferential fence stray. until you see the commonalities, you cannot properly understand the differences. My explanation for "Dr. Laura" can be applied generically. The fact is - we are all sinners. If being sinless is a prerequisite for advice giving, or preaching for that matter, there would be no preachers or talk show hosts. The question is - do these folks recognize their own sins? If they don't, then I agree with you - they have no business being in that business (advice show, preacher, etc.). However, if they do recognize their past behavior as being wrong, then I have no problem with them speaking to the issue. I wouldn't want any of these guys to be a pastor (because they've proven that they are susceptible to sexual sin). Nevertheless, falling prey to a sin does not disqualify someone from speaking about it. In fact, it probably makes them more qualified - at least in regard to testifying about the power that particular sin has for destroying lives. Finally, i must ask - did you choose the name Billy Bob for the ram because of Billy Bob the Thornton, whose marriage was destroyed by infidelity? No. I don't particularly care for most of his movies, but my remark was not intended to defame anyone.

I'm not sure how or why you are drawing a correlation between the two (evolution and erosion). The Bible testifies that God created the heavens, the earth, man, and all living things (a testimony that contradicts a theory embraced by many of today's scientists - evolution). So, man and all that we know as nature, had spiritual beginnings...that is to say, God created them from nothing. To my knowledge, the Bible does not speak to erosion and many other things (discovered by man). But, so what? The Bible gives us a glimpse at God (creator, all powerful, all knowing, righteous, and loving), the history of man's rebellion against God, and instructs man how he may become reconciled to God (through Christ). The Bible never claimed to be the complete answer book for all things created by God. Some Christians might rightly suggest that Adam and Eve's sin triggered a downward spiral for all of creation. We know that Earth is not Heaven. All of God's creation, as it stands today, is subject to decay - all of it. Until Christ returns and we are made perfect in Him, erosion of the earth, and most notably of man's collective morality, shouldn't surprise anyone. Is it coincidence that the fate of man's physical world mirrors what the Bible prophesizes about man's spiritual world? "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Romans 8:18-21

sctmom, I understand. And I agree - by that definition, my faith practices rituals. However, by that definition, one could say they do these things ritualistically as well - Sleeping Eating Farting (or at least, some of us can claim that to be true)

Sctmom, Rooster writes that his denomination does not have rituals. Rooster, you sure about that? I agree you may not have ritualistic laws, but I bet you still have rituals. Rituals include grace before meals, the way worship service is conducted, and communion. The word "ritual" is not a bad word. Even saying the Pledge of Allegiance at a Scout meeting is a ritual. I guess it depends on what definition of ritual is being referenced. In the context I was referring to it - ritualistic law or ritualistic ceremony, which is usually a prescribed, repetitious, and exclusive means, which makes one holy and acceptable before God, my answer remains No. Christ alone makes us holy and acceptable before God. Grace is definitely not a ritual. My faith does not demand that I say grace. I try to say it when I remember toIts not one of my strong points. Regardless, grace is not a ceremony. Nor do my family or I say rote prayers before meals. We do pray and give thanks for God's provision. Worship at my church is not conducted as a prescribed and rigid ceremony that must be repeated in the same manner. Nor is it the only means one can use to recognize and praise God. It is simply a form of corporate worship. It is not a required ceremony. Communion, while encouraged by the apostles and the saints in the past, is not a required ceremony. By remembering Christs sacrifice and taking part in communion, we are able to get spiritually closer to God. Yet, it is not required for salvation. Furthermore, the ceremony is not rigid. There are various ways one can administer and take part in this ceremony. Rooster, could you explain how men influenced the sheep's behavior? I really have no idea. Liberals (not that you are necessarily of that ilk) can and have blamed all of the worlds environmental issues on man. Now, while I dont fully subscribe to that notion, I recognize humanitys influence on its surroundings and other animals. Surely, you can comprehend the possibility that somehow humanity has corrupted the behavior of some sheep. Some possibilities might include imitation, inbreeding, cross breeding (with other breeds and species), exposure to chemicals, exposure to disease, medical experimentation, biological weapons development, something inflicted on previous generations of sheep, etc. This list could be endless. Who knows? Im not proposing any particular theory as being valid. My point is Just because the behavior was observed, it doesnt mean God's desire was for the sheep to behave that way or that animals have free will. Littlebillie, If those in the mainstream cannot control their own actions and urges, well - let him who is without the obvious cast the first condemnation. Hmmm. How do you suggest we handle rapists? Murders? Does forgiving these perpetrators mean turning them lose on society? Christ spoke similar words, but was his intend to chastise society for having moral standards and a justice system to enforce those standards? I think not. His words were directed toward the Jews in the street who felt compelled to stone the prostitute to death (based on Mosaic law). Christ was demonstrating a flaw in those people's hearts. The law was still just, but those who were about to comply with the law were not. If you recall, the woman still needed to ask Christ for her forgiveness. Christ did NOT preach that adulterous behavior or prostitution was acceptable. (And frankly, I'm not convinced that Bible truly and in fact condemns such behavior - there are still translational issues that we're all familiar with). New interpretations popped up when society matured and decided they wanted Gods blessings for behavior they knew was sinful. These folks ARE moral relativists. There may have been some debates over interpretation prior to the 1900s, but none that would suggest homosexuality as acceptable. If you can find such an interpretation that predates the 1900s or even the 1950s, I would be curious to see it. Also, Id like to know what group or individual gave birth to it. Im sure it would be most telling. But even so, consider "However, because of His sacrifice on the cross, all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven" - if He forgives this 'sin', why then, why do others not? Romans says, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (5:20) Yes, but you are not portraying the problem properly. First and foremost, homosexuality, like all sins, is against God. As someone who is merely observing the sin of another, I am in no position to forgive or not to forgive. If I was raped, then I would be directly involved, and it would be appropriate for you to speak to me about forgiving such an individual. Second, while God is willing to forgive, you are failing to note an important prerequisite. Homosexuals refuse to confess their lifestyle as sinful. For the most part, they are not repentant. Their words and actions (as a collective group) indicate that they feel their behavior is righteous. Fortunately, God judges us as individuals. So, Im convinced that someone could be a practicing homosexual and repentant and thus, forgiven by God. Still, only God knows the heart of any one man. As is the case for all of us, its strictly between God and that one person. IF YOU BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY is in fact sinful, where's the compassion? I do believe homosexuality is a sin. And I do have compassion. But compassion does not mean ignoring the sin. If someone is an unrepentant homosexual, the most uncompassionate thing I could possibly do, is to ignore that fact. God calls us (believers of Christ) to admonish one another. We should not let others preach or believe that sin is something other than sin. Our silence will do more harm, and no good. Every one says "free will", but look at how that will was exercised by the very ones declaring that OTHERS should practice the abstinence that they themselves could not. Now, I AM not calling this 'hypocritical', just forgetful. The flesh is not weak, the flesh is flesh, made the way some say God intended... Im assuming that youre talking about Dr. Laura? Again, I am not familiar with this scandal. However, here are a few of my guesses as to why she might be as you describe her. Perhaps, it is this sinful past that motivates her. That is to say, perhaps the ugly memories of her previous sinful lifestyle; the painful consequences of her sin; coupled with new found wisdom from God, are all factors that drives her to be compassionate and righteous about her advice to others. Even if she was guilty of something today, that does not negate the truth of her words. Her sinfulness only robs her of the joy and peace that God calls us to, through obedience to Him. And if she fails to repent from those sins (to God, not necessarily the public), then she is not practicing what she preaches (i.e., she would be a hypocrite). I don't hear, read or see ANY condemnation of single hetero Scouters who have relations, obviously outside of marriage. And here again, I do not cry hypocrisy, but inconsistency - I don't really think one can be a hypocrite if one hasn't taken a thought thru to its logical conclusion. Again, youre missing the point. Ask yourself - Is there a large group of heterosexuals who are claiming that sex outside of marriage should be condoned and celebrated? I submit the answer is No. Perhaps large numbers of individuals are guilty of this sin. But, how many of these individuals form groups for the expressed purpose to publicly declare the behavior as righteous and acceptable? While many heterosexuals may be guilty, many also realize that the behavior is sinful and consequently, most of these folks seem to be repentant. But as I already mentioned, that is an issue between them and God. So what makes the homosexual community any different? The difference is for the most part, the homosexual community celebrates their sin and is demanding that the rest of society joins in that celebration. Thats is not a sign of repentance. Its a sign of rebellion and self-declared righteousness. If large numbers of heterosexual males started to preach that unrestricted sex with multiple partners was good and desirable, I would find that just as disturbing. If they formed a collation to be recognized as such and then fought for acceptance into BSA and other groups, Id be just as outspoken. Yes, there are many heterosexuals who embrace sexual sin. But, is anybody fighting for his or her right to be Boy Scout leaders? If your answer is "No, but these folks are already in BSA" then I submit that they are hiding. These folks are NOT announcing their perceived persecution as free loving heterosexuals. Why? Because they know IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT. They know that they too would be rejected, just like homosexuals. In summary, no - there isn't a big outcry against immoral heterosexuals - But there isn't a movement or group proclaiming their virtues either. We are all laborers in the same vineyard - tho' some may pluck different fruit... God decides who gets to be in the vineyard, not me. So, if you think I have gotten it all wrong, go ahead pick all the lemons you want. On the other hand, since I believe in Gods Word, I plan to pick only grapesStrangely enough, to my knowledge, grapes are the only fruit that one can find in a vineyard. We may not be able to change fleeting thoughts and sinful desires, but we can control our behavior. God will change our hearts if we accept Him. Think about it. OGE, Well, if children can choose evil, I dont see why sheep cant as well. Surely you cant be serious. Man was created in Gods image. Sheep were merely created to serve man. Do you honestly think a sheep goes through a thought process that includes pondering the moral implications of his thoughts and actions? Are you suggesting that a sheep worries about offending God? So, lets carry this out to its bizarre conclusion Billy Bob (ram) has his eye on Betty Sue (ewe) across the field. He actually endures a moral struggle as to whether or not he should take a roll in the hay? He contemplates whether it is right to force his will on her? Some sheep actually decide Nope, Im just not going to cross that line. Even without Biblical references to the contrary, I find that extremely difficult to believe. Sorry about the extraordinarily long postIm passionate about my beliefs (duh) and I wanted to address all of the previous comments. Thanks for enduring my rant.

kwc57, You should read the book of Romans. It has a lot to say about predestination and God's sovereignty. I think it is a very powerful book. It has been my experience that many Christians like to ignore this book because they dont want to deal with its teachings. If you truly believe the Bible is Gods Word, the book of Romans will drive you to your knees.

Now of course there are other professions that seem prone to this sort of thing, like politicians, but the difference is that politicians who are involved in sex scandals generally have not made their careers out of judging the sex lives of others, like Bakker and Swaggart did to a degree, and as "Dr." Laura did (does?) I dont know the details of these peoples purported transgressions. I cant comment on specifics. I can say this. The fact that they were caught acting immorally, does not make their proclamation about other peoples sex lives false. It doesnt even make them hypocrites necessarily. Now, if they claimed that their acts (of adultery) were morally acceptable then you could claim otherwise. Nevertheless, I personally believe that these folks should never be allowed to be pastors again. As for Dr. Laura, I dont know anything about this scandal. Shes not one of my favorites. I dont like her style, although I think most of her advice is fairly on the mark. You are judging what is sin. Yes, I am. I never said I wasnt judge the behavior as sin. I said I wasnt judging the people accused of the behavior, in regard to guilt or whether or not they are good or bad people. The law (right and wrong) is already known. Judges determine whether or not a person has broken the law and dole out a consequence. Im merely bearing witness to the fact that homosexuality is wrong. "Unless you're Jewish" is right, or more precisely, unless you are an Orthodox Jew. I don't think they view the 600+ commandments (i.e. the rules in Genesis and Leviticus other than the "10 commandments") as just "ritualistic." Yes, as I stated (I wasnt be factitious when I made my first post). I am aware of their belief. Rooster, to them you are probably an immoral guy because you don't follow all the commandments. (Me too, of course, and it's worse for me because I am Jewish.) Maybe. I dont know what Orthodox Jews say about gentiles. Regardless, its their right to feel that way. Rooster, we just don't live up to their moral standards. How does it feel to be a moral relativist? The moral standards of my faith have not changed. Nor have I ever try to justify immoral behavior by rationalizing it as acceptable by societys latest standards. I dont believe an Orthodox Jew would label me as moral relativist perhaps a gentile or simply an unbeliever. Regardless of what they think of my morals, they are not relative and I think most Orthodox Jews would recognize that fact. My moral values are constant. Can I always live up to them? Thats another question. Just out of curiosity, in what chapter and verse did Jesus say that? The book of Hebrews was written specifically to the Jews of the day. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.'" Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. Hebrews 7:11-28 I'm also interested in that phrase, "the last priest." I know that you are no longer a member of a denomination that has priests, but in those that do, does that mean that a priest gets to change the rules as well? See the verses above from Hebrews. You should read the entire book. You may find it interesting (or not). And doesn't your denomination have its own rituals? No. If you want to argue about something specific, let me know.

littlebillie, Your arguments are classics. I've heard them all before, although not necessarily by you. Let's examine them one at a time - God, of course, gave us free will within certain limits. I cannot flap my arms and fly, no matter how much I will it, nor give up food altogether, breathe unaided underwater, etc. Obviously (was it even worth mentioning) - "free will" means one is free to embrace beliefs and desires of his/her own choosing. God will not hindered or control those beliefs and/or desires. It does not mean God enabled every man to fulfill his desires. Thus, we cannot fly like birds or swim like fish because we have the will. Please, if that was a fork in the road, it was clearly a road we did not have to travel down. There are limits placed on the body that restrict will. Some of those limits affect our behavior beyond our control. Really? Besides those functions, which are required for individual survival (i.e., breathing, eating, "restroom stops", etc.), what behaviors are you absolutely compelled to do? What behaviors do you and your friends find to be "beyond our control"? Since we're talking sexuality, are you suggesting a heterosexual has "limits placed on the body that restrict will"? What exactly does that mean? Are heterosexuals compelled to have sex with the opposite sex? If we are compelled "beyond our control", why is rape illegal? Obviously, we do have control over of our bodies and our wills. We may not have control over every thought or desire, but that does not mean we cannot control our behavior. I have no idea how many of the current posters may have had sex before marriage, abused themselves, whatever (and I don't want to know), but I do note that very few ever cry mea culpa when condemning the sexual lives of others. Why should they? The issue is not who has or has not committed a sexual sin? To my knowledge, no one on this board has claimed to be without sin, sexual or otherwise. The issue is - Is homosexuality a sin? The answer to this question does not depend on the guilt or innocence of others. You've implied that these folks (referred to generically as "the current posters") are hypocrites. That's ridiculous. Sinners are not necessarily guilty of hypocrisy. Those folks who claim to be without sin are hypocrites. If/When self-professed adulterers condemn the behavior of homosexuals while claiming they are without sin, your argument might have some weight. But even then, it would only apply to those specific individuals (who seem to be non-existent on this board). Otherwise, these kinds of statements are red herrings. I'd be willing to bet a month's wages that every poster on this board (probably the entire Internet) is guilty of one kind or another of sexual sin. The only person we have to confess our sins to is God. In short, I (or others) don't have to publicly confess our own sins in order to call a sin - sin. Furthermore, when we recognize the sins of others, we are not claiming to be judge and jury. We are only acting as witnesses. Since just about everyone I know picks and chooses among the commandments - I myself am wearing mixed fibers, tho' I refrain from pork (and there's a lot of interpretation among the baconophiles to justify that); I don't know any modern office worker that avoids women during the - well, you know. Perhaps the previous was meant to be entirely tongue in cheek. If not, allow me to say - hogwash. There is a huge difference between ritualistic law and moral law (unless you're Jewish). Prior to Christ, God gave very specific commandments to his people (Jews) as to how they must approach Him. These laws are the type of which you speak - clothing, eating habits, when a man and woman can be together, etc. Christians know these laws as ritualistic law. Christ was the last priest. He represents us in heaven and enables us to approach God. These rituals are no longer necessary. Moral laws still remain (i.e., thou shall not). However, because of His sacrifice on the cross, all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven - so no more sacrifices need to be made. Any Christian who picks and chooses the commandments (moral laws) that he wants to follow, is not following God. He is following his own sinful desires.

acco40, I agree. I will admit that my original comments could have been stated more diplomatically. However, they did not constitute a verbal attack either...likewise for Bob's comments. If you don't want people to scoff at your ideas, then you need to present a coherent message. No one on this board is obligated to keep his/her opinions to themselves. In fact, to the contrary, we are encouraged to share and debate ideas. So, if you want to conduct a poll (whether you post it here or call my home), I'm going to ask why. I may even challenge your response. If that's too much for someone to handle, or if I'm going to be labeled un-Scout-like, so be it. My conscience is clear.

God creates us all, individually. I didn't say it, but I certainly believe it. As for those folks that we don't approve of (in regard to their behavior), God didn't create their behavior. We are each accountable for our own actions and thoughts. In case you have forgotten (perhaps you just don't know), God gave us free will too.

acco40, You're capable of finding the answers yourself. I'm not sure what to believe about the theory of evolution. I just know that the evidence is not all that compelling. Furthermore, I don't believe it testifies to God's power (as some have stated). Because of my belief in God, I place no limits on what God is capable of doing. The Bible's account of the Earth's beginnings is perfectly reasonable to me. As to whether or not the Bible is clear, perhaps you are not praying when you're reading God's Word. Why don't you try it out one day (if you haven't already)...You may be surprised as to just how clear God's Word can be.

Animals were not created in God's image...And they do not have free will. Per my understanding of God's Word, they cannot sin. However, nor are they suitable for salvation. They were created to serve man. They do not worship or glorify God (except as a testament to His creativity, power, and foresight). They simply exist. As for their odd behavior, I am certain that man directly or indirectly influenced it.

I partially agree with NJ. I agree BSA should NOT accept some goofy excuse for a religion as "belief in God". Personally, I would prefer BSA to exclude Pagan religions and the like ("The Force" or some other kind of nonsense). I'm probably in the minority. So those of you who disagree and can feel good - knowing that BSA will probably continue to accept those kinds of religions.

yarrow & Others, If you honestly perceive this woman as a victim of some sort of verbal attack, please tell me where you live. I want to move there. It must be Utopia. Around these parts (D.C. area), we call this a healthy exchange of ideas. If someone is seeking the cooperation of others that person should expect some probing questions. Unfounded personal attacks are ugly and un-Scout-like. However, there were no such attacks made on Annalisa. In fact, I submit that Annalisa was the one who went on the offensive. But in America where the double standard has become the norm, I shouldn't be surprised that the aggressor is being portrayed as the victim. Incidentally, I find it rather amusing that yarrow infers that Colorado is progressive and notes, "Maybe it's our pioneering past where men and women respected each other more." I find it amusing because according to Annalisa, Colorado is repressive and notes, "They may be able to hold the same positions as men in Scouting, but I have yet to see a woman in a paid position, unless she's working the cash register." So, apparently, while yarrow may be sympathetic to Annalisa's purported rude treatment on this forum, she has not had the same experience in Colorado. According to Annalisa, I am - embarrassing, disgusting, a "good ol boy", and a "disgrace to your uniform" So, please enlighten me. Exactly what insults were hurled her way to justify this kind of response? If mere questions about her motivates justifies this behavior, I am glad I did not actually call her any of the things she called me. Since I am being chastised anyway, let me share a thought. Note - don't use these words as justification for her behavior because they're coming after the fact - not before. I appreciate and work with many intelligent women. I respect them as equals. In some cases, they are my superiors. But Annalisa is a walking billboard for the 60's stereotypical feminist she claims not to be. She picks a controversial topic for an "unbiased" study, yet the moment someone dares to question her motives, she runs from the fight screaming victimization. In an effort of her own choosing, supposedly to further the cause of women, she re-enforces the very stereotypes she probably abhors. If this had been a campfire, I probably would have been admonished (by men and women alike), for making the lady cry. But what exactly have I done to deserve the portrayal of male chauvinist? I simply treated her as an equal and challenged her to provide a reasonable explanation as to what she was trying to accomplish. In return, she not only failed to provide an answer, she attacked me (and others) for simply asking the question. For this, I am suddenly accused as being the mean-spirited aggressor. How ironic! This thread is a microcosm for what's wrong in this world today. Reason and logic are secondary. Emotion and manipulation rules the day. Why present information and facts, when one can simply label his or her opponent as some sort of pariah. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Robk, That was an excellent post. It was concise and well-reasoned post. Please do not bang your head against the wall when others fail to grasp the obvious.

I'm tired of feeling like I'm Jerry Springer Then don't act like youre on Jerry Springer. You are the one crossing the line here, not us. No one has accused you of being embarrassing or disgusting. "Shame on you....you're a disgrace to your uniform." Please, come down off your high horse...these are your insults and your quotes. So, if you're the person you say you are, I suggest you read your own posts before casting stones our way. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Sorry, you just don't understand what "religious discrimination" means. Read some actual court decisions. kwc57, if I was you, I'm wouldn't waste the time. Common sense should rule the day. Unfortunately, not everybody uses it, and sometimes even our courts fail to exercise it. Regardless of what a particular court may have said, a more judicious and intelligent court is apt to agree with your interpretation one day (if they don't already).

I'm sorry if you have been embarrassed. I didn't feel my comments were all that over the top or harsh. Although, I think your response is an overreaction and a bit hypercritical. Your survey question begs another question - "Why?" You can't expect us to be so naive that we might believe that you have no preconceived notion as how this study might conclude. Your instructor, HE or not, is beside the point. What can such a study possibly hope to achieve? You say you have no agenda, yet in a previous post you noted - on paper, BSA does treat women equally. However in the real world BSA does NOT. You base this on your 9-year experience in two states. That's hardly a reliable sample to make such a bold proclamation. You go on to say - They may be able to hold the same positions as men in Scouting, but I have yet to see a woman in a paid position, unless she's working the cash register. So again, based on circumstantial "evidence", you've assumed the worse about the organization. Why should I believe you your intentions are noble? I'll let you read the paper when I'm finished, then you can be as opinionated as you want. Until then, please guide your comments to the question at hand. Why should Bob and anyone else cooperate with a study, which seems bent on making a political statement that differs with our opinion of BSA. And by the way... it is not a survey that I am doing. It is a 20-page thesis that covers and studies the pros and cons of women and girls in the BSA program. If there's no agenda, why even mention girls. They can't be participants or volunteers. I have been in Scouting for nearly 9-years and have seen many women in my council quit because of the "good ol boys" attitude by those in paid positions in scouting. Many women? How many? Quit positions? What positions? Because of the "good ol boys" attitude? Exactly what attitude is that? Did you ever hear the other side of the story? How did you come to determine the attitude of these men? Your comments are infused with resentment. You may or may not have an agenda, but I'm hardly convinced that your study will be unbiased. More importantly, as Bob White has noted, what could you possibly hope to achieve? All I see is more ammunition for those folks outside of Scouting who want to change BSA into something it was never meant to be.

If I close my eyes, cover my ears, and repeat to myself over and over, "Be open minded...Be open minded...Be open minded", I can almost envision an objective study which takes into account BSA's traditional values and it's goal to develop the character of young men. Otherwise, back in the real world, this sounds like a thesis with a very specific agenda (or an axe to grind). Sorry, this isn't Kansas

Extremely impressive. If your troop is near the caliber that your web site suggests, then you must belong to a very special group. If you're ever in the Washington D.C. area, let me know. I'd love to have you visit my troop one day.