Rooster7

NJ, You quote the bible, but you do not provide any history or background to the verses. This is quoting out of context. To those folks who do not read the bible regularly, you have made a great case for your argument. For those who read the bible, and know the appropriate history, your argument seems foolish if not outright deceptive. The link that I referenced provides much more than the verses you quoted. It provides a 178-page biblical argument against slavery. It specifically refutes the pro-slavery "Christians" who referenced Leviticus to support their arguments. The author, Rev. John G. Fee, demonstrates how these verses were taken out of context. When Leviticus is viewed with proper respect to the true condition of these "slaves" (or more appropriately bondmen) and the history of the Jews, it is plain to see that these individuals were not slaves. He devotes over 30 pages to those verses that you so glibly quote. CHAPTER IV-SERVITUDE UNDER THE MOSAIC ECONOMY Argument from Lev. xxv. 44-46; its fallacy 30 Proofs that bondmen were not slaves 31 Word buy 34 Words possession and inheritance 35 Word for ever 38 Year of jubilee 39 Nature of the servitude 44 Voluntary with Jew and Gentile 44 Facilities for escape of servants 51 Their return forbidden 52 Legal protection of servants 54 Right of property secured to them 60 Design of this bondservice 63 No warrant for us at any rate 64 Prior to this chapter, Rev. Fee says in part: Now different relations or conditions should always be distinguished by different terms. Propriety and justice require it. And as "a definition of any thing is that which distinguishes it from every thing else," slavery is not defined, until it is distinguished from every thing else. Great confusion is made, and false impressions given, even by anti-slavery men, in calling the bond-service of the Mosaic economy slavery, when in reality it was something else. It was simple bond-service, in which children were bound [apprenticed] by parents until they should be "of age," and in the case of adult servants, they bound themselves for a term of years, as we shall show. And if it is insisted that these servants were placed in the hands of the Jew without their wills being consulted, we shall show that the Jew might not hold the servant so-in involuntary servitude. Mere bond-service is not slavery.* But slavery is that relation in which one innocent man, without his consent, is made, for lifetime, the property of another, or others. The slave is held in such manner that his person, time, labor, and all natural rights may be controlled by his master, irrespective of the wish of the slave. The question then is, whether this relation is sanctioned by the Bible. *A late writer, referring to some valuable articles which he had written, says: "We have sometimes used the terms slave and slavery in the preceding discussion, but any one can see that the Mosaic servitude had none of the characteristics of modem slavery." Why then, we ask, confound things entirely dissimilar by using the same terms? As long as our [pro-slavery] teachers [fraudulently] call the Mosaic servitude slavery, the people will be likely to infer that it is what it is called. I did not post the above quotes the first time because 1) I meant to spare other posters who were not interested in the details, 2) There are other and perhaps more convincing arguments presented in this book and I did not want to diminish them, and 3) I assumed you would read a little more, at least enough to know that what you were saying was not truly representative of the bible. It is out of context and without thorough analysis.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

How is anyone dealing with gay families at the schools? Not a problem at my kids' school...there are none. However, consider what is on TV these days...even television programs especially designed for kids. It wasn't more than two weeks ago; Rosie had a special on Nick dealing with the gay issue. She did a real nice job of selling it to your children. I'd be surprised if any kid even understood what it was about...other than "some people don't like families with two dads". It was all very "warm" and "fuzzy". This is why I don't let my kids watch TV without controls. The powers-to-be in Hollywood are very much against what I believe in and stand for. They are extremely clever. They know how to make my beliefs appear to be hateful and ignorant. Conservative politics and social values are attacked without shame. A good example of this is TV's "West Wing". Well done. Well acted. If I were 12, I'd probably be converted to liberal politics and values within half a season. Only problem is, I'm not 12. I know more about the real world than what TV is showing me on West Wing and other shows with liberal agendas. More importantly, I know God is real. My heart goes out to those children that are being influenced by such powerful and persuasive programs. They don't tell the whole truth. They paint very ugly pictures of the people who oppose them. So, yes, I agree - protect your children's innocence. Yet, when it becomes apparent that others are influencing them, then you should address it quickly and without hesitation. If you do not, others may instill values in your children, and they very well may not be the values that you treasure.

If you're saying, we should make every effort to preserve their innocence...that we should be careful about introducing some topics too early in life, then I agree. On the other hand, there comes a point in time where we need to educate and instruct our children before others do. It is our responsibility to teach them about morality, consequences associated with behavioral choices, and what our faith says about it.

NJ, On a more drastic level but going further back in time, slavery is specifically permitted under certain circumstances by the law handed down by God to Moses in the book of Leviticus. If you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slavery. Yes, the bible does reference slavery. However, if you want an honest interpretation, read it in context and don't add anything to those verses. For more on slavery and the Bible, reference this link: http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif I posted this back in May under the thread "A Rather Interesting Comment". Similarly, more and more people are accepting that to exclude people based on sexual orientation is not be an issue. (My God will be just fine with it, and if yours won't, that's your problem.) It would be best for society, and its premier male youth organization, if we could reach that point, and put this issue behind us, a lot sooner than that. It should come as no surprise that I vehemently disagree with this statement. The day this becomes reality, BSA will no longer be the uncompromising, character building organization that so many parents and boys have come to love. It would become just another organization that fell victim to political correctness.

NJ & TJ, I disagree with the implications that you have drawn from my previous posts. Yet, I see no use in trying to convince either one of you. If you believe in relative morality (changing values for changing times)...if you believe morality can be separated from God, then we ARE beating a dead horse. You will never understand my perspective. As for my so-called religious bigotry...I deny any malice. If this charge stems from the fact that I see God's laws as eternal, His righteousness as unquestionable, and urge all to seek His mercy and love, then I plead - no contest.

TJ, I suspect you haven't thought this question through to a logic conclusion. Do you consider a man, who watches pornographic movies of children alone, to be acting immorally? Do you consider a man, who fantasizes about rape, to be acting immorally? Do you consider a man who refuses to acknowledge God to be acting immorally? Personally, my answer to all of these questions is "YES". I know you might get hung up on the last one so why don't you focus on the first two. To answer your question directly, I believe moral or immoral behavior is NOT necessarily dependent upon "interaction with other beings". When one entertains (by that, I mean deliberately and willfully contemplates for his enjoyment) thoughts of immoral behavior, he is acting immoral. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

A 16-year-old Eagle is worth a dozen 12- or 13- year old Eagles in my book. Interestingly, I have found almost the opposite to be true. In my troop, it has been my observation that the younger Eagles (15 and under) take the program more seriously, and participate in Scouting longer and more earnestly. The older Eagles (16 and older), while still very worthy and likable, tend not to be as dedicated. Of course, my older son was the exception (he got his at 16). Many of these boys stopped participating in Scouting (sometimes for more than a year) and then came back to get their Eagle as an apparent afterthought. It was like, "Gee, I'm going to graduate soon...I'm Life (or Star) and there's only six more badges to earn...I'm going to get Eagle and put it on my resume". I don't know what these boys were actually thinking, but I don't see the same fire that these younger Eagles show. I've discovered that the younger they are, the more they seem to treasure and appreciate the honor. As for their learning ability, that appears to be different with each Scout. I've known some 13-year old boys that impressed me as much or more than most 18-year olds. Also, it really bothers me when these last minute Eagles don't have their acts together. There's a lot of pressure on the SM, merit badge counselors, and committee members to get him through. There's no time for course adjustments. These leaders must either make an extremely difficult decision or "push" someone through that's not necessarily giving their all. We all like to believe this doesn't happen. Alas, one does have strong suspicions when a boy earns 4 to 6 badges in four months and completes his project just days before his eighteenth birthday. Also, many times these boys are not participating on outings, or even showing up for troop meetings. Just when they should be trumpeted as the example (i.e., "Follow John's leadHe knows what he's doingHe'll be an Eagle in a few months."), these kids can hardly be found. So, I have to wonderwhy put down the younger boy? I'd rather have a dozen 13- and 14-year old Eagles than a dozen last minute Eagles. On the other hand, if they drop out after they get Eagle, then those young boys won't help your troop much. I haven't seen that happen though. JMHO. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Animals can perform perverse acts, but they will not be judged as moral beings because they do not have free will. To the point, animals act out of instinct and as a result of stimulus found in their environment. They do not ponder the moral significance of their actions. Why or how an animal might come to commit a perverse act is an interesting question. It probably has many answers. First and foremost, there are other influences on this planet aside from God. Man alone has a great capacity to find creative ways to spread perversity unto others (including the animal kingdom). Satan, while dismissed by many (even self-proclaimed believers of Christianity), does exist and has influence on this world. When you say there is perversity in nature, isn't that saying that nature is unnatural? Not at all. Man is a part of nature too. Are you saying, by definition, nothing can be considered perverse or unnatural because we all belong to the natural world? This is probably what some folks would like to hear. However, I am saying - God created the world, but Man and Satan have found ways to corrupt it to their pleasing. I'm not going to be able to explain every specific example that you might be able to find. I can say fairly confidently that the examples you site are rare. While I cannot explain every mystery in the world (such as: why are some baby's born to die, or why some are born with a horrible disease, or why some strange little monkey in Africa was observed to display "homosexual behavior"), I do know this - there is good and evil in this world. God has given us the ability to recognize this fact and to respond to him. If you want to pretend this is not true, that's your prerogative. I intend to go through life with my eyes open and on my knees in prayer. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I respect a person's right and freedom to worship whoever and whatever they want. I believe that a person should be able do so without harassment or fear. However, my respect does not mean I must respect what that person believes. Very often, another person's faith is counterintuitive to my faith. How can I respect a faith that contradicts mine? That does not make sense. I do respect a person's right to disagree with me and to believe in something different. Nevertheless, in an open forum such as this, I will speak the truth as I see it. I don't believe any of the statements I have made were false. By "respect", are you saying that I should allow every statement made about one's faith to stand as is, unchallenged? If so, then I stand guilty. I hope that is not how most people define respect. Otherwise, we might as well stop this exchange of ideas. Reverent also means respecting the faiths of others that you don't agree with. I disagree. How would I be reverent, as a Christian, if I respected Paganism? Your statement sounds good on paper, but upon further review, it really doesn't make sense. I am reverent towards my God, and my God only. My God, as I understand Him, would be upset with me if I did any differently. If a person of another faith were to conduct a prayer, I would listen quietly and without interruption. However, my silence and respectful manner should not be interrupted as respect for what the person believes or says. My respect would be for this principle - a person should be allowed to believe and worship as he sees fit, without harassment or fear.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

NJ, It is, however, worth noting that primates, unlike humans, do not pass their days judging and condemning the behavior of their species-mates, with the probable exception of that very important commandment, "thou shalt not steal my food." Yes, this is an admirable traitI believe the Ostrich actually buries his head in the ground. Are you suggesting that society should have no standards by which individuals should be judged? Should we do away with our justice system? I suppose if you saw a man and woman making love on the sidewalk, you wouldn't judge their behavior as indecent or condemnable. How open-minded of you You do see how ridiculous your implication is, don't you? Reform Judaism. Interesting. I believe the key word here is "reform"or is revised more accurate. Does that mean that Orthodox Judaism is a second-class religion? After all, your version of Judaism is ignoring its original teachings (to meet the demands of contemporary life). As for your "interpretation and mores of the day theory"pleasewe all know what changes were made. In short, your faith was altered to give yourselves freedom from God's law. If BSA used your standard for acceptable principles, then they would have none. The fact that BSA allows so many faiths to join, gives testimony of their desire, to include as many boys as possible. However, they cannot be expected to give up their moral principles simply because one or more of these faiths chooses not to subscribe to them. You joined BSA of own your free will. No one held a gun to your head. If BSA's principles do not agree with your particular faith, then you can refuse to join or resign. Nevertheless, they have a right to pick the principles that they believe in. If what you mean by "biology" is that sexual activity is "perverse" if it cannot lead to procreation, then a whole range of activity engaged in by many heterosexual couples, including married couples, is "perverse" in your view. Yeah, right barren women and impotent men are perverse (I don't think so). Either you really believe that's what I'm saying, in which case; it's understandable why you don't get it. Or, you don't really believe that's what I'm saying, in which case; you're so desperate you'll say anything to discredit the truth. Let's try this - I believe any sexual behavior, which demeans your partner (wittingly or unwittingly) and rebels against God's plan for sexual intimacy within a marriage is perverse and immoral. littlebillie, You just won't admit that you misunderstood my original statement. Try to stay with meconsult a book on human biology. Study it. Tell me how homosexuality plays a role in the procreation of the human race. I am suggesting, even without the book, that common sense will tell you that homosexuality does not play a role. It is a perversion of God's plan. I'm sorry you took my original comment (make an examination of the world around you) so literally. Yes, if you examine the world, you can find perversity in the animal kingdom. So what does that prove? Since you apparently want to go down that road (using the animal kingdom to justify a behavior), why are you pointing out an exception (the bonobo) as if it's common. Better yet, why aren't you supporting everything else that animals' do? Some animals will mate other species. By your logic (animals do it), this would be justification for bestiality. Why don't you defend it as well? Perhaps, it's because you and others would realize just how inane it is to look at animals and talk as if its okay to model their behavior. Finding an example of a behavior in nature is not proof that it is natural (especially for humans). Wowmy break didn't last longSorry, I have a real hard time not responding to obvious distortions of truth. On the other hand, this will grow old eventuallyeven for me.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

littlebillie, Yes...they were smug comments, but yet they seemed appropriate. Sorry, I grow tired of people justifying immorality. Point to all the apes, monkeys, and chimpanzees you want, I'm not going to change my mind. I guess I don't see them as relevant. TJ, For the record, I don't have the energy to engage you in a never-ending debate. DD was more, well let's just say dedicated than I. I stand convinced that we both know that the behavior is immoral. Why you want to justify it is beyond me. On the other hand, if you don't recognize there is a God, then I guess its entirely possible that one can find nothing immoral about having sex with another man, or even one's food. OKAYBreak timeLet's see how long I resist the urge to respond to you guys. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

littlebillie, 1. Apes are not monkeys. Monkeys are not apes. And the green vervet had probably not indicated that it wished to be hunted as a food source by and for humans! Congratulationsyou know your primates well. 2. The bonobo is indeed threatened - mostly by human encroachment. To hold this against it seems a little too self-servingly pat and regardless, it's lasted THIS long as a species, right up to right NOW, so whatever it's style is seems to have worked until humans decided to take over their habitat! Those horrible humansfirst they have the nerve to have a growing population, and now they won't accept our orientation. 3. Odd, isn't it, how folks challenge you to look to nature for models, but when you do so, other folks say that nature isn't valid. Odder still is how folks refuse to look at a challenge in context. I believe the subject was "human procreation" and perversity. Why do you insist on bringing monkeys into the bedroom? 4. Not sure what the question about Africa per se is supposed to be, but I hope its not about any human population? Could you clarify? Not sure what you mean by "hope its not about any human population". The question stands by itself. 5. EVOLUTIONISTS say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from chimps. Anti-evolutionists, tho', say that evolutionists say other things. Either way, there's no reason why we should be studying the behavior of chimpanzees to determine what is normal and/or moral for human beings. The concept is ridiculous. Unless of course, you think chimps and human beings are on the same level. Hope this helps clear up a few things!!! Hope this helps clear up a few things!!!

pack330 I don't believe in discrimination to anyone. That is what makes this country of our so great. What I'm saying is let God judge who is bad or good. We are here to make a difference. Does society discriminate, yes but its not right. That is why we have discrimination laws to protect those who this happens too. Yeahwe shouldn't discriminate against anyone or anything. In fact, we shouldn't even lock our doors at night. I mean that could really hurt the feelings of some neighborhood gangs. When my daughter gets older, I'm going to encourage her to go out with everyone - even those biker dudes down by the corner. After all they should be trusted until they prove otherwise. In fact, I think I'll encourage her to hitchhike across country. And you know whatif anything should happen; I won't be upset because it's not my job to judge who is bad or good. I want to make a difference. I want those biker dudes to feel good about themselves. In fact, tomorrow, I'm going to ask the governor to open the doors to our state prisons and let all those poor folks out. Wait a minutethen all those horrible people who discriminate will also get out. Do we still teach the boys to do the right thing, of course. We are not here to judge anyone. Just exactly how do you teach what the "right thing" is, if you don't discriminate or judge? When you teach a boy not to hit, aren't you indicating that those people who hit are wrong? Are you not judging them or at least their behavior? One more questionwhat color is the sky in your world? Sorry, but your statements do not reflect reality.

TJ, I'm not looking for scientific evidence. In fact, I have even distanced myself (in the post a few up from this) from the scientific/genetic argument. All I've asked, which is consistent for months, is for you to prove your assertion that homosexuality is immoral, and do so without forcing your God, or your Bible, or your opinions on to me and my organization (my Scout troop). In essence, this statement is proclaiming that BSA should not have any moral principles that could possibly have religious roots. I think that supposition is ludicrous. So, only atheist can determine BSA's moral code? Otherwise, people of faith would be "forcing their religion on you". Sorry, whether you like the roots of BSA's moral code is irrelevant. Whether BSA is a dictatorship by committee or a democracy is also irrelevant. It's currently their moral code. The fact that my faith teaches me that BSA has it right does not mean BSA needs to change their stance (legally or morally). I'm entitled to agree with them. BSA is entitled to subscribe to a set of moral principles. They do not have to explain their roots or justify those principles. Members are free to join or resign as they see fit. As for your pretence of proof, I answered that in my last post. I'll make a deal with you. When you can show me the moral difference (in terms of perversity) between a homosexual and a man that "enjoys his food", I'll continue this debate. They're both "victimless", but they're both perverse. Do you think you can convince us that having sex with food is normal or at least acceptable? You don't need proof. God has given us everything we need to know.

Studies of the bonobo shows lots of unstressed, non-population related homosexual contact. That's interesting. So, they did a study on some rare pygmy chimpanzees in Zaire. Isn't it strange that these chimpanzees are on the threatened species list? Was it complete non-sense when the origin of the AIDS epidemic was attributed to monkeys in Africa? Hmmm. I really don't know. Sowe should decide whether or not a particular behavior is moral by studying chimpanzees to see whether or not they subscribe to that behavior? I thought the evolutionists proclaimed that we evolved from these guys? If we are the evolved specifies, why do we need to ask them? Perhaps, what's really wrong with the human species is that we ask too many questions. Maybe we should be more open-minded. We're too judgmentaltoo discriminating. Love everyone. Love everything. If it feels good, do it. Be your own God. Perhaps, I should bow out of this conversation. I think I have reached my quota of free thought and expression.

Studies of overpopulated non-human systems (most famously, rats from "psych 101" :-) show a marked increase in homosexual behavior. Studies of overstressed non-human systems. First, I believe the key word in your statement is "non-human". If you want to expand my reference to include the entire animal kingdom, then you're opening the door to every behavior known to man. The fact that you can find certain behavior in nature (i.e., rats) doesn't make it natural or moral. I was referring to the basic biology of human procreation. When one recognizes the functional purpose of sex, or to be specific - human procreation, it is plain to see that homosexuality is a perversity. Second, what does "overstressed" mean? I have an idea. Could it be that the "researcher" introduced the rats to some very overcrowded living quarters? Did the researcher artificially create extreme circumstances to induce a behavior in lab animals that he/she wants to normalize? If I am correct, one can make an argument that cannibalism is natural as well. After all, rats have been known to resort to that behavior when they are "overstressed". TJ, you refer to pedophilia as a "red herring". On the one hand, you trumpet homosexuality as normal because you claim no one can show you scientific evidence that it is not. However, you do not show the same consideration to pedophiles. What if the child is consenting? Where is your scientific basis for the perversity of pedophilia? Every breath we take, we come closer to knowing the truth. Every breath we take, we come closer to meeting God. When that day comes, there will be no more debates. If homosexuality is a "test" from God (as some folks have suggested), then I stand confident that the test is not about "tolerance". The test is not whether or not one is willing to "accept differences in others", rather it's whether or not one is willing to submit and serve a Holy and righteous God. Whatever you do and say today will affect you tomorrowthat's just common sense. To the extent that it's within my power, I intend to walk a path today that I can be at peace with tomorrow. Using that standard, I am convinced that God condemns homosexuality and calls for his people to speak out against it. Scientific proof? Yes, the mantra of the immoral and desperate. If the prerequisite for an immoral act is the identification of a victim aside from the perpetrator, then many behaviors can and would be justified as moral. Having sex with your food would have to be considered as acceptable as any other behavior. Have you considered sexual relations with the dead? Hey, if she was your lover in life, why not the afterlife? How about sex in public places? At the very least, you could open an "adults only" club. Prostitution? Hey, a woman should be able to make a living as she sees fit, right? Repeat the mantra of "scientific proof" and let your mind wandergo ahead it's easyyou can justify many, many behaviors.

TJ, How broad of a scientific poll have you conducted? Have you ever asked pedophiles if they chose to be attracted to children? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that pedophiles did not make a conscience decision to be attracted to children. Yet, I'm also willing to bet that you condemn their behavior. How come? Please try to remain consistent with your original pretence of "choice". Now, I know where you are about go...a natural tendency would be to point out the victimhood of the children. That's a fair direction, but it ignores the fact that the pedophile did not have a "choice" about his orientation. What if the child was a willing participant? Does that make the pedophile any less sick? What evidence is there that homosexuality is wrong (i.e., perverse behavior)? How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you. Am I a heterosexual by choice? Hmmm. Interesting question. Can't really say. I guess I'll have to give you that one. Okay TJ...I refuse to disappoint you. I know you're waiting for this reference. Just so there's no mistake about it...I do believe God designed us to be heterosexual. Furthermore, I honestly believe that anyone who truly seeks God will know the behavior is wrong. That should give you enough ammo for a while. REGARDLESS, I also believe there is plenty of physical evidence that more than suggest homosexuality is a perversity.

All behavior is by choice. I'm a heterosexual, but nothing compels me to have sex or to behave in any particular manner. This has been hashed out thoroughly in another thread. My memory fails me. Somebody please give us the thread title so we don't have to do this all over again.

Oh, one other thing...as you noted, religion has been evoked to justify a lot of misdeeds over the course of history. It is a little difficult to address that statement because it has many implications. Regardless, as a Christian, I will say this. The bible (God's Word) has never justified these misdeeds. Certainly men have twisted scripture to serve their needs. I would not argue with that assertion. However, God's word has been constant. It would be inaccurate and unfair to equate the wrong doings of "religious" men with the religion itself.

littlebillie, While I did express disbelief, I believe you are responding directly to llwyn's comments ("what is your point?"). As for whether or not your particular story was ever common to all of BSA (even prior to the 60's), I still have doubts. Lastly, "growing" is good...but that does not mean every belief or value held in the past was wrong or needs to be evaluated. Racism is bad, no doubt about it. America has grown over the years. We have worked to change that stain on our society. However, please don't use that as a springboard to proclaim homosexuals as victims of unjust discrimination. I know you didn't say it, but it sure seemed to be inferred. There's a big difference between race and sexual behaviorlet's not confuse the two issues.

OGE, Our differences have been frequent and occasionally heated. Yet, I have noticed this admirable trait of yours. You have on more than one occasion offered an apology without qualification or disclaimer. That ability does not come easy for me. I appreciate and envy that quality. I offer this prayer for you (in all sincerity): Whatever damage or distrust self-proclaimed Christians may have inflicted upon your faith, I pray God heals it and gives you the ability to forgive those individuals. While I appreciate the brotherhood that we share as Scouters, the brotherhood that we share as Christians should rein supreme and be an example. Peace.

Via an email from DD to me: BTW this yaworski guy is not me, I don't name call. I'm still locked out even though my profile says "new member". He went on to further explain, If name-calling is accurately describing ones behavior then Im guilty, but I took great care not to gratuitously name-call... He did NOT ask me to post his thoughts (although I did get his permission). I will refrain from doing so in the future, but since his name was being "thrown around" I thought it was appropriate.

1) We were NOT discussing the Scout. There is an obvious distinction here. The boy would be (or at least should be) a different matter. 2) In regard this comment, "Some of you may remember the days when a kid without a dad was not truly welcomed". I'm 43. How old do you have to be to remember this being the norm? Somehow I find that contention difficult to believe.

I am not going to add to my previous thoughts on this subject. However, I must recognize NJ for this comment: I assume your keyboard has a backspace key, something that my mouth lacks. :) Good one...there's been an occasion or two when I wish had one of those "backspace keys" for my mouth ;)

OGE, Rooster, from all the you have written exchanged I believe you have shown yourself and/or declared yourself to be a Christian whose faith in the bible is unshakable. If I am wrong about this, I apologize up front. I don't know how "unshakable" my faith is, but yes, I do like to think of myself in the manner you described. Nevertheless, you've missed my point. You criticized me because I said these "parents" (two dads) shouldn't expect to "feel welcomed" in a particular troop. You indicated that we (Scouts and Scouters) should accept and respect everybody regardless of their beliefs. In my reply to you, I tried to convey two thoughts: 1) One's beliefs about life (and the afterlife) very much defines his/her character. When someone embraces homosexuality as natural and moral, then he/she is subscribing to a set of principles that opposes many long-standing faiths. These faiths are the basis for a moral foundation. The "two dads" in the original question, should not expect folks to ignore their own faiths and welcome two homosexual adults with open arms (as if this were a simple and common disagree about "preference"). Many, if not most (Christians, Jews, and Muslims), see homosexuality as a very ugly and depraved sin. These "two dads" represent many of the things that we don't want our children to be or to follow. 2) Despite your claim of acceptance and respect for everyone - regardless of belief (or as you said, "regardless of anything they believe, don't believe, sexual orientation, etc."), your first inclination was to attack my faith (or perhaps per your perception, a false faith). I found that to be a little hypocritical. If you accept me as a conservative Christian, then attack my ideas, not who I am (i.e., my particular faith). When issues of punishment and discipline come up on this forum, it does seem many avowed Christians are the ones who want to do a lot of booting out of the program, setting expectations beyond BSA requirements and have no patience for a troubled boy. It seems like the more "committed" the Christian is, the less tolerance is shown. I disagree with your description. I find most Christians to be extremely compassionate. Yet, that does not mean we are not practical. That is to say, we believe in consequences for one's actions. Furthermore, we believe if some hard lessons are not learned early in life, then it leads to bigger mistakes and bigger consequences later in life. So who is the less compassionate one? Is it the man who allows a boy to go down a road without consequence, which ultimately, leads to his destruction as a man? Or, is it the man who presents a boy with a consequence, which ultimately, permits that boy to alter his course in life and go down a different road? You portray conservative Christians as out-of-control disciplinarians. This is not about tolerance; it's about learning and becoming a man. How do I think Christians fell if I offend them? I guess I could say that I thought they were supposed to turn the other cheek, but that would be snippy as well. Again, despite your claim, your inclination is to find fault (or rather perceived fault) with my faith or the people who subscribe to it. Or in this case, you make a flippant and distorted reference to a Biblical verse, inferring that if we don't like it we should be quiet. God commands me to restrain from attacking someone, even when I may have cause to (as the world sees it). However, this does not mean I must refrain from pointing out hypocritical criticisms of my faith.