Jump to content

Don't ask, I'll tell...


Recommended Posts

ASM7,

 

There are some people who find public displays of affection even between heterosexual couples as disgusting, rude and tasteless. There are also some people who are willing to beat gay people sensless or even kill them....even if they don't show a public display of affection. I'd say it has more to do with self preservation than shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rooster,

 

So if God's Word does not call something a sin, are we to fill in the gaps for Him? I disagree with your pedophile example. While the Bible does not mention pedophilia specifically, it would be covered under sins such as adultry and pre-marital sex. Sex outside of a marriage is considered a sin regardless of who it is with according to the Bible. It hits the root, not all of the variations. I'm aware of the difference between a bondservant and a slave. The Bible mentions both. But if you'll look in Exodus and Leviticus, you'll find a number of God given laws concerning slaves. One even concerns what food is permissable to eat for slaves bought by Priests. Since these are the books where God was laying down the law to His people, one would think that He would say that slavery was a sin instead of just giving laws for their treatment. While God does not specifically endorse slavery as a good and desirable thing, He certainly never said it was a sin to enslave a man. God is pretty black and what about what is prohibited and what is permissable. Why would God remain silent on what the world considers an horribly sinful act? I can't accept that God simply forgot.

 

Please don't think I'm being disrespectful or argumentative. This sincerely is a question that has always perplexed me. Mankind finds this practice a sin, yet the Bible is silent except to speak on how to treat a slave. I would think that if God found slavery sinful, He would have said, "thou shalt not enslave men instead of thou shalt not beat the men you enslave".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep reading Leviticus.

 

Leviticus 19:19

Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

 

Lev. 20:19

Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

 

Lev. 20:26

Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or sorcery.;

27: Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ASM7 - Rooster's already established that some versions of the Bible have mistranslations. The Leviticus question is one of long standing - some say it speaks of male temple prostitutes... (Rooster's not one of those, just for clarification :-)

 

so.

 

Quixote, my point is that some 'infiltrations' may be justified. If you choose to make something more of that, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you, I know. You may not think tj is justified in doing so, and you may believe the FBI was. I - obviously - think tj AND the FBI were justified. It's not to say that the BSA and the KKK have similar goals - we've already covered the shared umbrella issue earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

kwc57,

 

Go to the link below, I think you'll find that it answers your questions. Or, give me a specific verse and address your concern about it, and I'll do the research for you. Regardless, the Bible clearly teaches that people should not be treated as if they were property.

 

http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif

 

sctmom,

 

Why do you quote the Old Testament as if you have no faith in its credibility or any understanding of the history it details? Have you studied the Old Testament? Do you understand Gods Laws, His Righteousness, and why there was a need for the Messianic Priesthood? Do you understand that prior to Christ that there was a spiritual wall between us and God?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster says:

 

Do you understand that prior to Christ that there was a spiritual wall between us and God?

 

Rooster, do you understand that your question (it's really a statement) is offensive to Jewish people? Jews do not believe that there is a wall between them and God.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is from the following website of Jewish people who think very differently from you, NJ. To them, your secular views are probably very offensive.

 

 

"through disobedience, man fell from his first state and became separated from God (Gen. 2:17; 3:22-24). Therefore, according to the Scriptures, all men are born with a sinful nature (Ps. 14:1-3; 49:7; 53:13; Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:9-12, 23; 5:12)."

 

 

http://www.mjaa.org/StatementOfFaith.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

ScoutParent,

 

I've never met a non-mjaa Jew who thought that the MJAA were in fact Jewish. At best, they are described as confused Christians, and at worst - well, pretty much as some of the nastier things attributed to tj! Sneaky, deceptive, outsiders imposing themselves on a group to force their own belief system on others...

 

of course, if you insist that they are a legitimate group for Jews, then I'd have to guess that you'd also accept the UUA position as legitimate for Christians.

 

So for that - I thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ, You're probably rolling your eyes right now. This tower of Babel will likely top 15 floors easily.

ScoutParent I want to thank you for choosing a small organization formed more than 5,600 years after the beginning of Judaism to represent the views of all Jews.

However, here I want to defend being offensive. I should not think anyone in this thread is surprised that nearly all of us are offended by certain things. Just not the same things. I think this is fine. This issue (TJ) is not about being offensive or offended. It is about fairness and justice, topics on which we continue to disagree.

If we refrain from expression just because someone finds it offensive, few of us will be able to express much.

For example, most of us find cannibalism offensive, but in certain extreme circumstances we understand how it is justified. Most of us (I hope) would conclude that cannibalism is immoral in our society. If someone observed that Christians practice this in a ritual manner, it could deeply offend and possibly cause a new thread to form because such an immoral practice is in conflict with BSA values. But as far as I know, laws are not broken by the ritual, and Christians can pass the background check. If TJ passed the check, that should be sufficient. If someone is offended, they can complain loudly (as shown in this thread) and offer counter arguments...or they can pout. All of it is fine with me as long as our rights are not trashed...because someone is offended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with ASM7. This is all sickening. Most of the posters are relativists. Meaning....truth is left up to an individuals interpretation. Being gay may be a choice but it is the wrong choice. Nature says so...the Bible says so and no sugar coating or relativism will make the truth of that go away. I have a word for Mr. TJ...QUIT! When and if the BSA allows gays I will stand up and do the right thing...I'll QUIT!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan W,

 

You need to understand that the truth you and I know from the Bible is not the same truth the rest of the world knows. There are more of "them" than there are of "us". That does not make them right. They don't claim their truth to spite us, they believe it and they don't believe our truth anymore than we believe theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

TJ- you'ld be welcome at our fire anytime.

I have been sitting here reading this thread for a while and just couldn't keep my mouth shut any longer. I have a problem with National's policy concerning homosexuals in scouting. If a leader (either gay or straight) is discussing their sex life in front of scouts- that is the problem, not the leader's actual sexual preference. As a married female leader, is it any more moral for me to talk about what goes on in the privacy of my own bedroom than it is for TJ. I think not- what is private should stay that way. Being gay should not be equated with being a pedophile and National's stance sure comes across that way. I guess no one reading these posts watches South Park- National should take a hint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...