Rooster7

I can understand questioning proposed theories by men about God, or even someone's interpretation of the Bible. However, as to whether or not God could or could not do something, that never enters my mind. God is God. How can I believe in God (as creator of heaven and earth, all powerful, all knowing, etc.), yet question the feasibility of an act, or a purported act, by Him because it defied science? God created science. He can bend the rules or even rewrite them.

Firstpusk, Thanks for the reference. kwc57, But the idea was that regardless of how they raise the child and what they teach it, it was God who was going to make the decision whether the child could be saved or condemned. Well, too some degree, I agree with that statement. I prayed for my child's salvation before she was born. I prayed that God would give her a believer's heart. I prayed that if she didn't have a believer's heart that He would change it. A person can know all of the right theology, do and say all of the right things, but those things do not bring about salvation. Basically, these things are works. It's God's grace that enables a person to believe with his heart that Christ died for his sins. Alas, not everyone responds. Why? I don't have all of the answers. Nor does God expect me to know all of the answers. Unfortunately, that puts in a bad position sometimes to convince others. But then again, if someone comes to Christ, it won't be because I did something, it will be because God revealed the truth to him through his Holy Spirit.

NJ, You could be my brother-in-law! Jewish guy (law degree) with two brothers. He married my (non-practicing) Catholic sister. And I thought that arrangement was rather unusual. Do all Jewish guys find Catholic girls to be attractive? Or, was it an act of rebellion? By the way, if you want to see a movie that will make you laugh your *** off. Go see "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". You might find some things in there that you can relate to.

While God may know ultimately who will accept and reject him, the question is, was it a freely made choice by man or was it a forced decision by God? I think all of man was given free will to accept or reject God. However, I also believe that God's power and foreknowledge has no limits. Before God gave man the ability to accept or reject Him, He foresaw who would seek and respond to Him. This is what I think the Bible speaks of when it uses the terms like predestination and elect. However, I am not a Bible scholar...my interpretation could be wrong. The book of Romans speaks to this question directly. It's a hard teaching and I don't pretend to understand all of God's ways. In fact, the Bible tells us, I believe it's in Proverbs, that God's ways are not our ways. We ought not think we can comprehend everything he does or why he does it. I am posting some key verses from Romans. It has been my experience that the readers of these verses react in one of two ways, they either get down on their knees and pray, or they reject the God of the Bible: Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Romans 9:10-21 OGE, I think your explanation is possible. As to your concern about genetic defects, remember God's hand is capable of doing as he pleases. Perhaps he just willed it not to be. I also have heard some people speculate that God made other people following the creation of Adam and Eve. I don't believe this idea contradicts any other Bible teaching.

Firstpusk, I think I've said almost everything I can say on this subject (probably a couple of times over). So, I doubt if I will be contributing much more in this thread. In regard to - I am sure you are proud of your son. Seems like a great kid. However, if he is going to come out and play, let him answer for himself. After all aren't we discussing giving the boys choices? My son can and does answer for himself (usually, very well). Nevertheless, in case you haven't noticed, I have a strong opinion on this topic as well. His participation doesn't preclude my own. If it makes you guys feel any better, despite the fact that I am convinced that most boys in my sons' troop feel as my son has described, I doubt very seriously if the current adult leadership would allow them to entertain a ban on women on campouts. I respect these leaders and I have no intentions of making an issue out of it (so long as the boys don't bring it up on their own). Furthermore, I have no intention of seeking around in the background and working the boys up into lather about it. My argument is based on principle. I have no personal designs for my sons' troop.

Why would God provide a means of Salvation and give man free will to accept or reject Him if he already decided before the creation who he would accept and who he would reject? Please don't fall back on the old, "because the Bible says it". The Bible also says the other side too. SORRY - for jumping in DeMann, but allow me to take a swing at this: Before I answer, I must ask you - What other side? The Bible is very consistent. I don't see two sides presented in the Bible. Yes, the short and easy answer (and sometimes it's the only answer I have) is - The Bible says it. I believe it. There are a couple of mysteries that I feel very few men, if any, understand (of course, most scientists could say the same thing concerning most of their theories). For example, I think the concept of the Trinity is difficult, if not impossible for man to define. Likewise, the concept of eternity is beyond my comprehension (on the other hand, so is a finite universe)either way, I'm baffled. Unfortunately, that declaration opens the door for a whole bunch of folks to claim that there is no logic behind my faith. I think that is a false assumption, but its one I've seen some folks make. But I digressI don't think predestination is that big of a mystery. It's to glorify God. God created us to worship him. In order for us to truly worship Him, we must understand our relationship to Him. So, yes, God allows us to live our lives, knowing full well who will eventually come to Him. If He simply made the future happen, then we would not experience salvation, or understand our need for it. We wouldn't understand or appreciate our relationship with Him. We would not be able to worship Him from the proper perspective.

sctmom, Whatever our disagreements may be (and I don't think there are that many), it is obvious to me that you care for and love your son very much. I have no doubt in my mind that whatever means you use to raise him, he'll be fine. Grace and Peace be with you.

Firstpusk, I have no doubt that there are plenty of folks who abuse their authority, including Scoutmasters, Committee Chairs, and PLC's. Citing incidences of such abuse by people in those positions should not erode anyone's confidence in their own policies (just because they were created by people in similar positions). It proves nothing. If it did, we might as well start from scratch every year. PLC created policies are also reviewed by a troop's committee (at least, they should be). If the troop committee approves, then short of the CO getting involved and declaring otherwise, the policy should stand. As to the righteousness of such a policy, I think there's plenty of room for disagreement. Nevertheless, your opinion and that of thousands of others, does not outweigh my opinion and that of thousands of others. This is not the first or last time a controversial issue has divided a large number of people. This ought to give some folks a clue as to why we have a two party system. There ARE two sides to every story. Most of the time it is not so much about good verses evil, as it is about one's perspective of the world. Many of these divisions stem from one's worldview, and thus how we should approach the world. What I'm trying to say is - Don't assume that you have cornered the market on moral authority. Yes, all people are created equal. This we all agree. Yet, equal does not mean the same. If private organizations recognize this fact, and create programs to emphasize or take advantage of these differences, that's their right. Furthermore, depending on the program's ultimate goal, I believe it's the right thing to do. I do agree with you on three items concerning this topic: 1) The CO is crucial to whether or not such a policy can be adopted. If they're against it, then it's not going to happen. Conversely, if they're for it, there's not much others can do about it. Although, I gather from your post, you think some folks would sue. I don't see them being very successful. 2) The men of the troop should not be promoting the policy or forcing it on anyone. This is a policy that should come from the boys and/or the CO. 3) Regardless, whether a troop has a policy or not (of no women on campouts), the troop should not be teaching the boys that women are inferior. I disagree with these suppositions: 1) Troops that have such a policy, teach the boys that women are inferior. That's a huge assumption. At best, it's unfair. At worse, it maligns the character of the folks who oppose your opinion. 2) The CO has no legal leg to stand on. I think the CO is within its rights. BSA does allow some freedom for such policies. 3) Boys should not be trusted to make decisions involving controversial topics. Many have implied that if they get to make this decision, we open the door for them to make all sorts of other decisions (examples ranged from banning a particular person to a ban against African-Americans). Of course, these same folks are automatically assuming that this is a black and white moralistic choice. If I agreed with that assessment, I would agree that it's not the boys' choice. However, it's not as simplistic as some like to state it. Everybody on this board appears to be willing to recognize that there are differences between the sexes. No one, and in particular myself, has claimed that there are differences between the races (experiences within society being the exception). Consequently, when someone makes an analogy, which tries to show a parallel between a ban on women and a ban on blacks, he/she is being awfully insincere. It's not the same thing and we ALL know it. Jerry, I don't know your age, but I think you express yourself very well. For some reason, perhaps from a previous post, I thought you were a young guy (maybe even a Scout). NOTE TO ALL - Before I am accused of something, I want to remind some of you that my son is Youngblood. Even if I had not mentioned it in another thread several months ago, I imagine this news comes as no surprised. His values are conservative, although we still manage to disagree every now and again. I bring this to your attention because I don't want to be accused as being the next yaworski. My son and I do use the same computer on occasion, but we are NOT the same person. Lastly, so no one gets the wrong impression as to how I view my son's opinions (no malice intended for yaworski or Zorn), I like to think that Youngblood's opinions are intelligent, thoughtful, and well reasoned. His posts are designed to provoke thought, not anger.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

acco40, My first post to you may have been a little on the rude side...I'm sorry about that, but your "Get over it" comment got to me. I think it misrepresents the folks in Scouting (or at least a good portion thereof) that support the policy we're discussing. You can label it as discrimination all you want, but you and others are being awfully inconsistent. If it's wrong for boys to say, "moms stay home", then it's just as wrong for BSA to say, "girls not allowed". It's not about men pounding their chests. It's about boys sharing time with men and celebrating their gender...Just like many women do. If people are tired of my ramblings on this topic, then I apologize. But understand this - I'm just as tired of the ramblings of others that are constantly "fighting for change" in society, yet never acknowledge the double standards, or worse, try to justify them.

Firstpusk, The "attitude" he is defending, is an attitude that many, if not most boys, have between the ages of 13 and 17. I challenge leaders to take an informal poll of the boys (don't try to influence their answer)...You may be surprised. These boys don't hate women. They just prefer to share their campout experiences with other males. Having said this, I agree with you on a several points. There are consequences for such a policy and a troop would be foolish not to consider them. Regardless, I think it is unfair to portray supporters of this policy as bigotted as some have implied.

acco40, I hate to be so blunt, but you have no idea of which you speak. First, no one suggested that the boys should or could exclude women from leadership positions in the troop. It was merely said that they should have input into some policies. One of which, if so desired by the CO and the boys, could be to ban all females from participating in troop campouts. My troop does not have this policy. As a man, I have no problem with this. I like women. They often have very interesting things to say. However, I would have no problem if the boys felt male only campouts were more desirable. I understand how the boys may value such an experience. For the same reasons girls are not allowed in Scouts (or rather Boy Scouts), I can understand why the boys would seek such a policy. Second, as to your last statement They can exclude women, men, blacks, Arabs, Jews, etc. as they see fit. However, there sure would be political and possibly judicial feedback! What feedback would that be? Do you think troops sponsored by Latter Day Saints allow non-members join? Do you think Jews are allowed to join such a troop? They are not. BSA permits COs to serve the community that they wish to represent. If you dont like that fact, heres my suggestion Get over it. Perhaps one day, your great, great grandson will be posting on an Internet forum such as this and add to your ramblings, In 2040, they allowed the first girl to enter Boy Scouts. Im sure that you would be very happy if that became a reality. For me, it would simply mean that the Boy Scouts of America no longer exists. Theres a reason why organizations are created to serve only specific subgroups of the population Its so those folks can celebrate their commonality. This doesnt mean theyre being raised to hate other groups. It means they are being raised to appreciate themselves. This is something that every liberal defends whenever a minority or an oppressed group is being discussed women, African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Jews, etc. I have no problem with that concept. I believe it is right. However, there shouldnt be a double standard. Males want to be around each other and celebrate their commonality as well.

Don't let up now...Looks as if God is answering our prayers...The purported evidence seems to indicate that the snipers have been caught. No matter what anyone else may say, hundreds of thousands of people in the DC, MD, and VA area are feeling great relief today. Praise be to our God.

If the boys don't like Scoutmaster Joe on the campout, can they keep him from going? Indirectly (emphasis here), I think the answer is - Yes. If this were an actual situation, I think it's time for the troop committee to find a new SM. The "Patton verses MacArthur" debate doesn't apply or belong in Scouts. Boys should look up to, admire, and like their Scoutmaster.

BAM! Looks like I can agree with something Firstpusk has to say after all!!! Emeril is the man! Even invited him to my sons' Eagle COH next year...wonder if he'll show.

OGE, Gotya...I suppose I was just being hyper sensitive to sctmom's retort. She seems to be of the thinking that people who support such a policy dislikes women. Usually that's not the motivation behind a policy like this. At least not as I envision the boys' viewpoint on this issue.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Sctmom, While I can and have agreed with you on a number of issues, I firmly believe that the boys are entitled to create this kind of policy (if they so chose). Furthermore, I feel it is wrong and self-serving for a woman leader to force her will over that of the boys. Scouting is for the boys, and if they believe that they can enjoy each other's company better by excluding women, I say it's their choice to make. If my belief puts me on the wrong side of the fence, so be it. By the way, "the system" didn't create meso if my attitude is considered a "failure" of some kind, I guess people will have to blame my mother and father. Personally, I feel they did okay. But then again, I'm biased.

"...If I truly respected the beliefs of others, I would make sure that any Scouting activity that served cheeseburgers [or pork chops, say] would also have an alternative dish for those whose dietary requirements kept them away from the cheeseburgers." I agree with that definition of respect. It doesn't force me to respect the actual beliefonly the desire of the individual to be faithful to his religion. I have no problem with that concept. However, if you carry this out for every member and every faith, a troop could expend a lot money and other resources trying to show their respect to all. It's not likely, but given a large troop with a healthy cross section of religions, it's definitely a possibility. Now THAT'S tolerance and respect. When a Jewish Cub Scout is confronted with a pepperoni pizza, let's face it - that's ignorant at the least, and really ugly at its worst! I agree again. For the most part, people should be conscientious and make accommodations whenever possible. However, I feel compelled to point out, there are a couple of double standards or double-minded philosophies in practice today that flies in the face of this idea. One, I find it more than a bit ironic that some individuals (not necessarily you) expect folks to be aware of these kinds of religious practices/beliefs and to make the appropriate accommodationsyet at the same, expect people to keep their mouths shut when it comes to discussing their religious beliefs. Personally, I'd like to see a little more discussion in Scouting about faith. It's talked about in the most generic terms, but no one wants to have an open discussion about religiononly that they "believe in God". God forbid if someone actually said out loud exactly what his or her faith professed to be true. We can't have any of that. Someone might get upset. As Scouts and Scouters, we claim to be open-minded. After all, we allow almost anyone to join. Sure, but what's not said, most everybody wants folks to keep their religious beliefs to themselves. That doesn't sound tolerant to me. Two, from my experience, the same folks that will remember to buy the mushroom pizza for the Jewish kids will blow off conservative Christians who are offended by Halloween. I've seen this before, even on this board. For some, usually other Christians with strong liberal leanings, there is great concern displayed when it comes to accommodating the beliefs of minorities. That's great and I appreciate the fact that people don't want others to feel alienated. On the other hand, I've seen these same folks ignore or rebuke conservative Christians that voice concerns regarding their teachings. Apparently, a number of folks believe, if one professes to be a Christian, he/she is entitled to access the legitimacy of religious beliefs professed by other Christians. If it was merely for debate, I wouldn't have a problem with this attitude. In fact, it's a good thing that Christians challenge each other. However, these folks have set themselves up to be the watchdog of the "majority". Majority is in quotes because I'm not sure liberal Christians and conservative Christians can even claim that they are practicing the same religion. Quite often, the conservative Christian is labeled as narrow minded or bigoted. Why? Because their literal, evangelical beliefs conflict with someone's liberal interpretation. If we are going to be concerned about having alternative foods for the Hindu (i.e., tuna vice hamburger) and the Jew (i.e., mushroom vice pepperoni), then what do you tell the conservative Christian who's beliefs won't allow him to participate in a troop's Halloween party? Let's be consistent. Either we accommodate everyone or no one. If this idea is extended to some (minority or not), but not to others, it loses all of its moral authority.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I had the same situation and it got to a senior scout exec, and he came to visit the troop I just left, after the Scoutmaster took me to one side and told me "confidentially" that the boys didn't want me to go to summer camp with them. He did it on his own. I found out later that the boys thought I was the one who didn't want to go to camp. Even those of us who argued that the boys have a right to create such a policy, which would banned women on campouts, would not support this SM. Obviously, he lied. Obviously, he is wrong. Don't be half-hearted, cos everything you do will become a measure for every other woman who comes along. Again, if you're describing a fight against a man (SM, CC, etc.), whose creating policy to suit his own desires, I agree completely. If you're describing a fight that would deny the CO or the boys' their right to create such a policy, I say take your feminism elsewhere.

For that matter, try page 54, in the explanation of Scout Law Reverent: "A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.... I don't have my Scout book in front of me, and frankly, I don't have it memorized either. Regardless of what the Scout book says, this is how I've always interpreted BSA's policy of religious tolerance - We are expected to respect the rights of others to believe in something different than what we believe in as the truth. For example, Hindu's believe that cows are sacred. I respect their right to believe that, but I'm still eating my cheeseburger for lunch. If I truly respected the beliefs of others, I would not eat that cheeseburger. In short, while I respect the rights of everyone to believe in whatever they so chose, I don't respect the actual beliefs. If Scouting allowed pagans to become Scouts, would you expect me to respect the belief that trees are deities? You've criticized ScoutParent for being critical of a religious belief (or to be accurate, a scientific theory that contradicts her faith). You claim she (as well as others on this boardno doubt, myself included) is being intolerant and disrespectful of others. I disagree. She's only voicing her opinion about a belief. She has not persecuted anyone. Nor has she denied anyone their right to their beliefs. If you think my definition of respect is too narrow, then you should change your actions to fit your words. Otherwise, your words will ring hallow. Here are a few suggestions - Do not allow folks in your troop to eat beef (to show respect for the Hindus) Do not go camping on Saturday or Sunday (to show respect for Jews, Mormons, and Christian denominations) Plan outings so that Muslims have an opportunity to pray seven times each day. There's a zillion other ways you can prove your respectbut you get my point. If you have to respect the belief itself as opposed to the person, than it becomes rather problematic. Not to mention, counterintuitive to your own faith. My God is a jealous God. He does not want me respecting any other Gods. If page 54 actually says what you've noted, than I hope BSA makes a text change soon. I refuse to believe that it was their intent to demand that we all become Universalists. If by "respect", BSA means we should make allowances for individuals to practice their faith, that's all fine and well. However, they cannot possibly mean we must suppress our beliefs and accept others as being valid. That just doesn't make sense. "Denver Jim" I find your remarks to be without much forethought. In the name of religious tolerance, you criticize people who debate the validity of evolution. Yet, in your eyes, in order for these same folks to redeem themselves, they must keep their religious viewpoints to themselves. To that, I simply say - Your logic amazes me. You would have made George Orwell proud. My faith is strong enough to hear the opinion of others. Neither my God, nor my faith, are harmed when others express opinions that oppose mine. If the faith of others is just as real (and not just a pretence to be offended), then one must assume that their faith is just as strong, and their God just as powerful. They should be able to withstand and tolerant my right to express my opinions. Furthermore, should we not agree, my faith and my pride does not compel me to persecute these people. I respect their right to believe as they chose. I am able to tolerant their unbelief.* My faith allows me to respect, and even to befriend, most people. I expect people with different faiths than mine to respect me in the same manner. *Now, some folks may take offense to this statement. To them I ask - Does your faith represent what you believe to be true about God and the world? Or perhaps it's merely a moral code or something that you consider to be a part of your culture? If it's the former, then you should not take offense. If you know the truth and I don't, then pity medon't be "offended". If it's the latter, perhaps you take offense because you do not want to confront another truthyou have no real faith. You don't know God. TJ, if you're trying to relate this topic "back to Scouting", then you should drop your Don Quiote act and leave homosexuality out of the discussion. BSA has a firm policy statement. ScoutParent doesn't need to justify her opinion on this issue.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

DeMann, To answer your question (per your email to me), go to this link - http://www.scouter.com/forums/forumcode.asp

Rooster7, I repeat, science does not address God in any way. It does not refute God or religion nor does it support God or religion Perhaps science (as a field of study) does not seek to do eitherhowever, this does not mean that science does not support the existence of God. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. It is totally consumed with the rational world and has plenty of questions there without tackling those that are solely a matter of faith. There's no rational reason to believe in God? God's existence is solely a matter of faith? Faith is a matter of obedience. It's not a blind confidence. That is to say, one demonstrates faith when he/she follows God's will. For example, when a believer makes a sacrifice for God (i.e., performs a ministry) with no worldly promise of a reward. Faith is, knowing that God will reward that obedience. Faith is, knowing that Jesus has enabled us to stand before God with confidence. Faith is NOT, "belief in a god when there are no signs of his existence". This is a non-believers definition of faith. Believers know that God is real. This is not a matter of faith, but Grace. A Grace that allows one to see God's presence is everywhere. The evidence is overwhelming. Once, we were blind, but now we can see. If some persons who sincerely feel that science is in conflict with religion but there simply is no such conflict, only a personal perception of such. I don't believe science is in conflict with religion. I believe that many scientists interpret the facts that conflict with the truth. Someone claimed that many Christians (and/or others of faith) refuse to accept facts when they do not conform to their religious view. I submit that many scientists refuse to recognize facts that do not conform to their worldview (as defined by previous generations of "scientists"). Am I saying all scientists are blind? No. I am saying that since the early 1900s, the scientific community has grown increasingly hostile towards religion. As a collective group, I don't trust their tainted interpretations, or even many of their so-called discoveries (i.e., bones from the "missing link" that turn out to be that of a pig, a carbon dating method which is refined as new evidence shows discrepancies, etc.). The true believers of science (as defined by the present day community) claim that variations are a matter of refinement. They accept these inconsistencies as part of the scientific process without a doubt in their minds concerning the purity of the hearts and minds of these scientists. They don't blink an eye when the Hubble Space Telescope takes a picture and shaves four billion years off the age of the universe. The true believer trusts the scientific community because scientists only deal in "facts". It doesn't matter if the facts change from one year to the next. True believers accept the new facts as fact, because they truly have faith. So, yes, I think many folks do treat science as a religion (as a non-believer defines faith). What's the difference between their religion and mine? Mine doesn't require blind faith, only Grace. Disclaimer: You can believe in evolution and God. I just don't think there's any reason to believe in both.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Okay, twice in one thread where I've been burned on my Bible knowledge. A more prudent man would have re-read the entire book of Genesis more carefully. Unfortunately, I was hastily in my reading. Serves me right for my - "Even if your supposition was correct (and it's not)" - comment. If I had just left off "and it's not", God probably would have been more gentle with me. Perhaps God was, because NJ was rather restrained in his response. So NJ, I concede that it does appear as if the Sun was created on fourth day. Nevertheless, (without the large font this time) if your definition of God is similar to mine (i.e., God has no limits except those that He chooses to impose on himself and/or those that define His character), then I don't think there was a need for the Sun to exist prior to the forth day. As I tried to say more simply in my first post, if you believe in God, you shouldn't be concerned with barriers that science purport to exist. If those barriers apply to God (i.e., limit His power), then God is not God.

NJ, Actually, from my reading of Genesis, God created the Earth and the Sun on the first day. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day." (NIV) Genesis 1:1-5 Plants did not happen until the third. Regardless, going back to your statement: And by the way, while we're at it. Genesis 1 also says that God created the Earth, and plant life on Earth, before the Sun was created. Do you really believe that? And if so, what scientific evidence is there for that? Even if your supposition was correct (and it's not), you don't seem to be able to grasp the "God concept." That is to say, God is GOD!. He's capable of doing anything he wants, even those things that science says he cannot do.

I understood the first time...and I appreciate your words. We're in agreement. I was just adding my own thoughts on top of yours. I wasn't trying to defend my self as much as I wanted to explain to folks how I viewed other posters and the intent behind my participation in this forum. If anything, my last post was meant to be self-critical. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I carry a knife occasionally (Smith & Wesson SWAT knife - folding 4" blade). My three sons like knives as well. I don't allow my youngest (13-year-old) to carry one. He is quick to let his emotions dictate his actions. He has a very bad temper. I don't think he would ever pull a knife on anyone. However, until he is mature enough to reasonably control his temper, I refuse to permit him to carry a knife. In all other aspects, knowledge, skill, etc., he is qualified to carry one.