this just in...

[Rooster7 11]

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.

 

[littlebillie 10]

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. There are limits placed on the body that restrict will. Some of those limits affect our behavior beyond our control.

 

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..

 

Since just about everyone I know picks and chooses among the commnandments - 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.

 

some thot's, is all...

[Rooster7 11]

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.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster says:

 

The issue is - Is homosexuality a sin?

 

If "sin" = "an immoral act": No. I'm glad I was able to clear that up. Wow, in one word I was able to resolve the entire issue!

 

In short, I (or others) don't have to publicly confess our own sins in order to call a sin - sin.

 

No, but when a whole succession of people make their careers out of calling sin sin, and it then turns out that they have not practiced what they preached, as it were, I think the rest of us have the right to be suspicious of others who make that their business, and I think it does weaken the credibility of the message. If it's not clear who I am talking about, I am talking about Jim Bakker and the church secretary, Jimmy Swaggart and the prostitutes, and "Dr." Laura and the nude photos on the Internet. 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?) 90 percent of the time she was (is?) on the air. (I don't know if "Dr." Laura is still around, on my talk radio station they replaced her with "the consumer advocate show.")

 

Furthermore, when we recognize the sins of others, we are not claiming to be judge and jury. We are only acting as witnesses.

 

I don't buy that for a minute. You are judging what is sin.

 

There is a huge difference between ritualistic law and moral law (unless you're Jewish).

 

"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." 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.) Rooster, we just don't live up to their moral standards. How does it feel to be a moral relativist?

 

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.

 

Just out of curiosity, in what chapter and verse did Jesus say that?

 

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?

 

And doesn't your denomination have its own rituals?

[Rooster7 11]

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.

[SR540Beaver 116]

If one believes in Christian Election or Predestination, then doesn't one have to believe that God made us the way we are....heterosexual or homosexual? If our life and fate has been predestined, we can not change it even if we wanted to.

[evmori 11]

Homosexuality is a sin. Read your Bible! If you don't own one, you are missing out on the greatest book ever written!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7 11]

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.

[sctmom 11]

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.

 

Rooster, could you explain how men influenced the sheep's behavior?

 

[littlebillie 10]

Rooster7,

 

YEs, some of that was certainly glib - but let's consider what happens IF God makes some people predisposed to a particular non-mainstream orientation. If those in the mainstream cannot control their own actions and urges, well - let him who is without the obvious cast the first condemnation. (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). 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)

 

IF YOU BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY is in fact sinful, where's the compassion? 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...

 

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 hyprocrite if one hasn't taken a thought thru to its logical conclusion.

 

We are all laborers in the same vineyard - tho' some may pluck different fruit...

 

Now. As to the sheep. Are they sinning? Or is they just is? Do animals have free will?

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Well, if children can choose evil, I dont see why sheep cant as well

 

OGE

Matt 7:1-5

[Rooster7 11]

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.

[sctmom 11]

Rooster,

I thought that's what you meant about men influencing the sheep, but wanted to be clear. You are right it could be chemicals, inbreeding, or any number of things. One study does not make something a new "law".

 

I understand that you say you don't have rigid ceremonies in your denomination. My point is that ritual doesn't just mean something that is dictated to you nor does it mean you must do it to be saved. It can also mean something we do over and over. I also understand that in Old Testament times many of the rituals were laws and were "required" to get closer to God. Also, some "rituals" conjure up images of witchcraft. I guess I just tend to use the broader definition of ritual, being something we do in a certain way on a regular basis.

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

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)

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)