littlebillie 10 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 "What if Caesar demanded Christians to murder and rape? " Well, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" certainly had some impact in Salem, and it wasn't from Caesar... Packsaddle, exactly right. If the government recognizes CIVIL rights and liberties of individuals regardless of lifestyle issues and all other things equal... THERE lies Caesar. And of course I'm talking our good ol' AMERICAN Caesars. Hitler, for crying out loud? What did HE have to do with the Boy Scouts of AMERICA? Keep it in context, please!!! I - at least - have greater faith in our government than that. And of course when we start to say well, what if, murder, rape, pillage - this is no real argument. The Bible is full of smiting and sacrifices, frankly, and there are limits to ordinary discussion and example. I think we all know that we all mean mature law-abiding tax-paying folk in any discussion. The issue is about where the lines are drawn. If it helps, I'll go on record as being against bestiality - oh, and and pederasty, either side of the fence. What else should we get out of the way in order to have meaningful dialog? Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Everyone, unpaid advertisement! While we're having all this fun, please try to divert some attention to a topic I just started in the Open Discussion forum. The topic is: funding for low-income boys. I really need your ideas and experience on this. And boys may actually benefit from your help. Carry on. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 "THERE lies Caesar. And of course I'm talking our good ol' AMERICAN Caesars. Hitler, for crying out loud? What did HE have to do with the Boy Scouts of AMERICA?" I didnt know we were to assume only American topics here, OZEMU, I guess littlebillie doesnt want to hear about scouting down'under. I do however, Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 packsaddle, ...If a Hindu quotes from the OT, do you consider this invalid? No, I wouldn't necessarily consider it invalid. But it would be suspect. That is to say, the Bible is not a collection of bits and pieces. The Bible is a history of the Christian faith and it builds on itself, from Genesis to Proverbs to the Gospels to Revelation. When taken as a complete and comprehensive teaching, it is very consistent. On the other hand, many folks have abused the Bible to serve their agendas. This usually accomplished by selectively picking verses while ignoring others. And incidentally, I have no aversion to the OT or the rest of the Christian bible, only to the hypocritical way some persons selectively employ these and selected other passages to justify their prejudices. Sorry for the digression. Good, then we stand on common ground. Sorry about making the assumptionit was a "knee-jerk" response to your Leviticus comment. I have no problems with questions but I can't answer them all. Rather, I am fascinated by those who feel they possess the truth. Why should one stake a claim to a faith (any faith), if they do not passionately believe it to be the truth? Those who claim the Christian faith as their own, but feel they have no right to speak as if they know the truth fascinate me. That is not meant as an insult. I just don't understand why any Christian would not have confidence in God's Word. And I am ready to receive truth from them if they can explain it in terms I understand. Like I said, I keep trying. I respectfully suggest that you find a church, which strongly believes in the sanctity of God's Word and teaches it through the use of small groups. If you've never done this before, I earnestly believe that you'll not only enjoy the experience, but also discover more about God and the Bible than you previously thought possible. evmori, Yes of course, the Oath and Law. I, for one, would also like to pay some attention to our Constitution. Speaking for Ed (I hope you don't mind)the Constitution protects the BSA's right, as a private organization, to establish membership criteria and it's own behavior standards. The fact that the LDS may have an influence on the BSA (great or small) is really inconsequential to the point. The BSA and the LDS are both within their legal rights as protected by the Constitution. littlebillie, Until your last post, I thought your comments were reasoned- if not well, at least resembling a fair rationale. Now, I am confused as to whom I am addressing. If it's the former, then I'm confident that you will realize that the reference to Hitler was to illustrate this simple point: One cannot always render to "Caesar" and remain faithful to his God. What if Caesar demanded Christians to murder and rape? " Well, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" certainly had some impact in Salem, and it wasn't from Caesar... What does the abuses of Puritans have to do with God's Word? Are you befuddled by the fact that some Christians (the Puritans) failed to live up to His Word? Or, are you suggesting that their acts were logical extensions of their faith? If you feel the bible endorses murder by Christians, then please provide a specific verse. And of course when we start to say well, what if, murder, rape, pillage - this is no real argument. The Bible is full of smiting and sacrifices, frankly, and there are limits to ordinary discussion and example. What are we supposed to derive from these statements? Are you suggesting, because the Bible tells some stories concerning people who did some bad things that anything Caesar asks us to do cannot be outside of God's will or desires? If it helps, I'll go on record as being against bestiality - oh, and pederasty, either side of the fence. What else should we get out of the way in order to have meaningful dialog? Try presenting some thoughts, which address specific points of contention in a logical order. If you want to prove to others and myself that my points are invalid, then please provide a true argument. Dissect my comments, analyze them, and then present information, which demonstrates them to be false. Your last post appears to be a rant with no basis of reasoning. Link to post Share on other sites
Twocubdad 665 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Slightly off the subject (so what else is new?), but the link It's Trail Day gave to the Foxnews story about banning religious groups from college campuses contained yet another link which many of you may find interesting. The site, at www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html is maintained by the Univ. of Missouri Law School. The site has several dozen pages featuring different Constitutional issues, like right to privacy, abortion, gun control, first amendment issues, etc. Each page has a short summary of the pertinent cases and then links to the actual Supreme Court or appellate court decisions -- no fluff, just the actual decisions you can read for yourself. BSA v. Dale is featured on the page "Freedom (Not) To Associate." Link to post Share on other sites
SR540Beaver 116 Posted January 7, 2003 Author Share Posted January 7, 2003 Rooster, You have to be careful using those kind of examples to illustrate a point in these threads. If you'll remember back earlier in this same thread I was raked over the coals and accused of comparing the BSA to the KKK. I too was just illustrating a simple point. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Littlebillie, I apologize for my comments, I got way to carried away, was trying to make a point and I think I totally obscured anything positive I was tring to do. KWC, how can you compare the BSA to the KKK!!!! .....what? didnt we just go down this path... oh you were just using an analogy? never mind Emily Litella Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Rooster7, I never mind when you speak for me. Thanks. My question is where are we NOT paying attention to the Constitution? OGE, Great one! I loved the original SNL cast! Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 evmori, When BSA refuses recognition of significant legitimate achievement by a boy (God and Country), simply because his church publicly disagrees with BSA policy, it goes against the 1st Amendment. And for doing this to a child, I consider them cowardly. Just a personal opinion. Rooster, One answer is that they don't proclaim the truth because they lack self-confidence and I sympathize with them. My favorite disciple is Peter (well-meaning but prone to error) but I also have great affection for Thomas (because of his doubt and skepticism). Almost every church I have ever visited in nearly every faith (20-30 or so) has claimed the truth as theirs. The few that are willing to admit possibilities are viewed in the pejorative by most of the others (kind of the way I usually feel). The rest are confident of the truth. They just don't happen to agree. Some of them are well-meaning but don't offer explanations, they just require agreement. Some are openly prejudiced or anti-intellectual. Some are snobbish and quite mean-spirited towards the others (you know, the old "a Methodist is a Baptist who can read" thing). If I picked one, the choice could only be based on my personal preference, as I have no other basis for judging one faith against the others. I don't mind if they think I am bad for asking questions, but I know children who are occasionally in tears because they are told they are 'going to hell' simply because they are in the 'wrong' church, and this bothers me. I must confess though, my first visit to one church was a delightful surprise to me (I didn't know they were snake-handlers). But I didn't assume, a priori, that they were nose-picking bozos. I listened to their services (keeping a safe distance) and found them fascinating...though I didn't understand. Thankfully I didn't have to perform any 1st aid. The snakes were cool, though. I keep trying. Link to post Share on other sites
SR540Beaver 116 Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Pack, You will be wasting your time if you try to find proof for ANY religion. Religion is a matter of belief and faith. I believe that God created the world, I believe there is a heaven and a hell, I belive Satan exists, I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, I believe that Jesus is God in human form, I believe in His resurrection. I believe that Jesus died as a sacrifice for my sins and that salvation comes only thru him. I believe that the Bible is the word of God and is His revalation of Himself to man. Can I prove any of this? Nope! I believe it based on faith. I choose to believe it. The proof to me comes from seeing God working in my own personal life that is in accordance with what the Bible reveals. First comes faith, then comes proof thru personal experience. But I can't prove my personal experience to another person. I can only encourage them to take the step of faith for themself. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 kwc57, I have no problem with what you say or your beliefs unless you or any other believer becomes judgemental as a result (as I feel BSA has become). Your beliefs (and mine) are not superior to those of anyone else. Otherwise I tend to defend the underdog. I seek proof in neither religion nor science as neither is capable, as you say, of providing it (proof). One of the reasons I like science, though, is that it is neutral in these matters and, in itself, does not cause harm to others. At its best, the same can be said of religion. However, I do delight in the occasional conundrum emerging from scientific investigation. I know there are persons who, not understanding science, use it to support destructive ideas (racial and other prejudices, for example) and I question those as strongly. Link to post Share on other sites
littlebillie 10 Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 OGE - apology noted, and appreciated. And in turn, let me make my own. Since we're talking California judges, and the BSA, I was pretty offput by citations of Idi Amin, Hitler, etc. By no means was i trying to offend anyone in Australia, which great country is home my mother's ashes, to my father, to my brothers, and my inlaws and my nephew... any suggestion otherwise is of course misdirected. Rooster7 - "...then please provide a specific verse." I refer to Exodus 22:18 (interesting that elsewhere in this thread Leviticus 18:22 was cited!) But please don't think that I find in this justification for murder. Others, perhaps, but not I. Since it's in the Bible, I know some may believe both in witches and the need to kill them, but I am NOT a literalist... as y'all know! "What are we supposed to derive from these statements? Are you suggesting, because the Bible tells some stories concerning people who did some bad things that anything Caesar asks us to do cannot be outside of God's will or desires? " no - but I AM suggesting that discussions of rape and pillage and Amin and Hitler take this discussion beyond the realm of reason. once we start doing that, then it opens the door the ridiculous. from the civil rights of gays to the Holocaust? I turn me away from that path. This opens the door to serially citing ALL the wrong done in the name of the Bible - misunderstood tho' it may have been - as argument against the Bible. I seen no need to go there, and have no desire to go there. So - in brief answer to your question, what are you to make of this? Let's not cite ridiculous extremes without being aware that they are ridiculous. Rooster, if you truly believe that Hitler could happen in this country, under our Constitution, I apologize for characterizing your belief as ridiculous. I do NOT believe a Hitler could arise, however. And THAT'S my point! packsaddle " When BSA refuses recognition of significant legitimate achievement by a boy (God and Country), simply because his church publicly disagrees with BSA policy, it goes against the 1st Amendment. And for doing this to a child, I consider them cowardly. Just a personal opinion. " absolutely right - it means the BSA DOES pick and choose among religions. It's always been my understanding it was a Mormon/BSA disagreement about race that led to racial changes in the LDS - I guess they're hoping lightning will strike twice...? everyone else - sorry if my tirade about extremes was itself extreme - the comparison of the US to Hitler was a little too much for me. I'm alright now, tho'! PS Just what IS Laraine Newman up to these days? Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 littlebillie, I think, ahem, it might have been Gilda Radner. Link to post Share on other sites
littlebillie 10 Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 thanks, pack - yeah, Gilda DID play Emily. I had benn bouncing off the SNL ref earlier on and totally wondering what happened to LN? I remember her hosting a movie some years back - midget Western called something like "The Terror of Tiny Town", and then she disappeared from view. Heck, I see Garrett Morris more than her! Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Gilda was Emily Littela and Lisa Grubner "oh Todd, thats so funny I forgot to laugh" and the little girl that jumped on her bed, I forgot her name. Unfortunately, as we all know ovarian cancer took her way to young, Lorraine Newman most famous charactor was Connie Conehead, "We come from France" (This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now