Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Big_Dog

gay ex-scout, my loss americas gain....

Recommended Posts

Rooster, at this point I am just giving you an opportunity to show everyone else what you're really all about, and that's exactly what you're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ - excellent reply. It's really what I've come to expect. You infer an insult, but yet again, fail to be specific. Are we to assume the worse, but not hold you personally accountable for that assumption? That's what I call having your cake and eating it too. Nice job. NJ, you are the better man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster, right now I am just waiting to see how Hunt feels about your comments on his Biblical knowledge and your statements about who should and shouldn't claim to be a Christian, and whose faith is or isn't built on a "faulty foundation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hunt wants to argue that the Bible cannot be trusted, then I will say even more things that probably will offend him. The Bible IS God's Word. If it cannot be trusted, the whole faith of Christianity is called into question. I am offended when people tell me that the Bible is open for interpretation. Certainly there are more than a few verses that I cannot explain. However, there are a multitude of other verses that are very clear. Furthermore, I have never found God's Word to be contradictory. That being said, if someone dedicates themselves to reading God's Word, truth will be revealed to them. I know this is true because I have met hundreds if not thousands of believers that have done just that. There are very few teachings that we debate - Not because we're told what to think - But because God does reveal truth in His Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster7,

When I read your last post Im am reminded of one my favorite passages, I t comes to mind when I I get too certain in my interpretations of biblical truths. For now we see in mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 1Corinthians 13.12.

For example Big Dog wants us to look at Romans 1.26-27 I ask you to look farther to verse 29 were Paul condemns envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossips, slanderers. haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. All of his lists in the first chapters of Romans are to remind us we are all sinners. No none is righteous, now not one Rm. 3. 10b. We are convicted by. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Rm. 3. 22b-23.

I find it interesting that many Christians have a hierarchy of sin. Certain sins are greater than others and should be condemned more. If you study the totality of the Old and New Testament, you will find homosexuality mentioned only a few times but greed and mistreatment of the poor hundreds if not thousands of time.

The other passage that discussions of this also brings to mind is Matthew 7.1 ff., there are a lot logs in our eyes.

Also Rooster, the Bible is open for interpretation, thats why there are hundreds or maybe thousands of different Christian Church. Where you say there are maybe a thousand people you have meet that agree with you and I would say that there as many more out there that both agree and disagree with your beliefs. And they have dedicated themselves to the study of Gods word.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too offended by a suggestion that I might not be a "true" Christian if I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Most Christians have an idea of what core beliefs separate Christianity from pseudo-Christian religions. For mainstream Christians, it tends to be the divinity of Christ and the Atonement, while for more conservative Christians things like the inerrancy of the Bible are added. More liberal Christians might include anybody who follows the moral teachings of Christ. (Please note that I never said one way or the other what I think about the inerrancy of the Bible--I just said you'll never convince people of your point by just quoting the Bible unless you can first convince them of its inerrancy--a point that I think is bourne out in this thread.)

(Side note: by Rooster's definition, we do not live in a Christian nation, nor were many, if any, of the Founding Fathers Christians. Does that help with some of the other arguments here?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NWScouter,

 

When I read your last post Im am reminded of one my favorite passages, I t comes to mind when I I get too certain in my interpretations of biblical truths. For now we see in mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 1Corinthians 13.12.

 

If your point is, we dont fully comprehend God and his ways, I agree. If your point is, the Bible is vague then I think you are greatly mistaken.

 

For example Big Dog wants us to look at Romans 1.26-27 I ask you to look farther to verse 29 were Paul condemns envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, gossips, slanderers. haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. All of his lists in the first chapters of Romans are to remind us we are all sinners. No none is righteous, now not one Rm. 3. 10b. We are convicted by. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Rm. 3. 22b-23.

 

Absolutely true. My previous posts never said anything to contradict that teaching.

 

I find it interesting that many Christians have a hierarchy of sin. Certain sins are greater than others and should be condemned more. If you study the totality of the Old and New Testament, you will find homosexuality mentioned only a few times but greed and mistreatment of the poor hundreds if not thousands of time.

 

Again, absolutely true. All sin separates us from God. My previous posts never said anything to contradict that teaching. But lets review this a little. Why do these posts on homosexuality and bisexuality disturb me? Is it because I feel these are the greatest sins of all? No. I realize I have my own sins, which deserve the same measure of condemnation. So whats the problem? The problem is I dont like sin being called a natural orientation. If I were prone to stealing, how would you feel about me posting thoughts that suggest stealing is perfectly acceptable? You would be outraged. You would speak out against it. Thats all I have done here in regards to homosexuality and bisexuality.

 

The other passage that discussions of this also brings to mind is Matthew 7.1 ff., there are a lot logs in our eyes.

 

Again, I dont disagree that I have committed sins of my own. However, I am not calling any one out in particular and accusing them of sin. I am simply stating that homosexuality and bisexuality are sins. Would you do any less if I started a thread defending adultery or some other sin.

 

Also Rooster, the Bible is open for interpretation, thats why there are hundreds or maybe thousands of different Christian Church.

 

First, many of these different churches are not all that different. Second, many of the others split on interpretation not because Gods Word is not clear, but because they prefer an interpretation that allows them to believe as they want to believe as opposed to accepting Gods will.

 

Where you say there are maybe a thousand people you have meet that agree with you and I would say that there as many more out there that both agree and disagree with your beliefs. And they have dedicated themselves to the study of Gods word.

 

I cannot speak for those other people who you claim have dedicated themselves to the study of Gods word. I can only testify concerning the people I have met in my life. And I did not say I met a thousand people who agree with me. I said I met hundreds, perhaps thousands of believers who take studying Gods Word seriously. Of them, I cannot recall a case where I was in serious disagreement with any of them concerning a fundamental teaching of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt,

 

Most Christians have an idea of what core beliefs separate Christianity from pseudo-Christian religions. For mainstream Christians, it tends to be the divinity of Christ and the Atonement, while for more conservative Christians things like the inerrancy of the Bible are added.

 

If you cannot trust the latter (the inerrancy of the Bible), then how can you be confident about the former (the divinity of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross)? Furthermore, if the Bible is open for interpretation (on matters such as homosexuality), how do you know what sins you are embracing? How are you convicted of your sins? How are you inspired to repent? After all, if the Bible cannot be trusted How do we know there were even 10 Commandments maybe there were only 5? Perhaps, everything written by Paul was just his opinion? Perhaps, the gospels are based on faulty recollection? You are opening a Pandoras box if you claim the Bible contains human error.

 

More liberal Christians might include anybody who follows the moral teachings of Christ.

 

So then these more liberal Christians are in fact pseudo-Christians by your own definition, because they fail to recognize the need for the Atonement. Is that not true? Isnt accepting the Atonement a core belief that separates believers from non-believers?

 

(Please note that I never said one way or the other what I think about the inerrancy of the Bible--I just said you'll never convince people of your point by just quoting the Bible unless you can first convince them of its inerrancy--a point that I think is bourne out in this thread.)

 

I tend to agree with this statement. However, I also know God can change the heart of a non-believer by simply prompting his children to speak the truth. If the truth was not spoken in love I apologize.

 

(Side note: by Rooster's definition, we do not live in a Christian nation, nor were many, if any, of the Founding Fathers Christians. Does that help with some of the other arguments here?)

 

Why would you want to debate the faith of our Founding Fathers and how will it further Gods kingdom to claim that they were not Christians? For a believer, you seem to be prompting some unusual debates that dont appear to serve God or his people.

 

I will recant this statement: If you dont believe the Bible is inerrant, you shouldnt claim Christianity as your faith. It is harsher than I intended. However, I am convinced that the Bible is inerrant. Furthermore, I believe - not trusting the Bible to be inerrant is a great stumbling block to those who wish to be close to God. Could it separate you from God? I cannot say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Rooster, I respect your response. Deciding what to believe is difficult--it's hard even if you do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. For example, I was reading recently about a debate over whether God ever changes His mind, and whether He has complete foreknowledge of all future events. Both sides were able to cite persuasive Bible passages to support their views--and this is a core issue for some people. As for the dig about the Founding Fathers--well, that was kind of a dig, but I think it's true that you can only label some of the Founders as "Christian" (Jefferson especially) if you use a very liberal definition of Christianity. What I think is that people who don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the atonement aren't truly part of the Christian religion, although they may follow a Christian moral philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Founding Fathers, in a letter about a month before he died (in 1790), Benjamin Franklin wrote:

 

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.

 

I love the part about soon having the opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I wish more people had the attitude toward religion that Franklin had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the part about soon having the opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I wish more people had the attitude toward religion that Franklin had.

 

If we wait for our deaths to know the truth (with less trouble), what benefit will it be to us as living beings? What if the truth indicated that a change in ones heart was necessary? While Franklin recognizes Jesus example, he doesnt seem to understand that Jesus taught us that we must be pure in heart to be presentable before God. If he had studied it, he would have realized we cannot meet Gods expectations by our own efforts. This realization would have prompted Franklin to inquire more about Jesus divinity and how he reconciled those who believe in Him to God the Father. Waiting for the truth to be revealed upon your death will no doubt be less trouble, but it could be costly as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched (lurked) this thread and others like it. Never really sure where and when I should butt in. Anyway, here are a few of my loose ramblings. None are directed to anyone in particular and are not meant to be confrontational.

 

1.) I do not believe God put murders, rapist, etc on this earth. God made man/woman in his image and I do not believe God is any of that. God also gave us free will, the ability to choose. The ability to choose among other things, between right and wrong. Also the ability to chose to follow Him or not. Are not relationships between people more meaningful when they are freely chosen and not forced into existence? So, this I believe is what God wants. For us to freely and truly want a personal relationship with Him.

 

2.) I also believe that God wants us to choose to be as much like Him as we individually can. And He has given us His Word as the blueprint to reach that end. I believe His Word is the Old and New Testament. I also believe that any Scripture pulled out of context can be interpreted many different ways. And I must be discerning when faced with such situations.

 

3.) I believe that so labeled homosexuals are people. They are people created by God like all of us. To me, by choosing homosexual behavior they have chosen to not to abide by Gods Word, but they are no less or no greater sinners than those people who are gluttons, alcoholics, adulterers, fornicators, thieves and murders (these behaviors and choosing to do them are all wrong in Gods eyes). I also believe that the avowed homosexual is no more a proper moral role model for Scouts as the obese Scoutmaster, or the ASM that is cheating on his wife, or the CC that shows up to meetings with alcohol on her breath. None are proper role models.

 

4.) I also believe that because of Adam and Eves choice to disobey God, we are all sinners and only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ having died for my sins, does God forgive me of my sin.

 

5.) Just as I believe that God is the soul (pun intended) judge and we should not burden ourselves with trying to do Gods work, I believe we are charged with lovingly and compassionately helping each other to avoid falling from Gods grace. If we have just passed a rock slide on the highway, would we not flash our lights to warn approaching motorist of the dangers?

 

6.) I believe I am nowhere near perfect or without sin. It is a daily struggle for me for I enjoy the taste Jack Daniels and Coke. I enjoy the company of women. I can easily choose to indulge in both (since my dad was an alcoholic and I am an avowed heterosexual). But I have made a commitment to my wife blessed by God and a commitment to God by accepting Jesus. But just by accepting Jesus does not erase the temptations, I still have to resist and not give in, knowing it is wrong. However, it is knowing that if I fail, God will still love me and when I ask for, He will accept my prayer for forgiveness.

 

My heart aches for the atheist and those that avowedly chose not to follow God's word. Not that Gods wrath will befall them, but because I believe they are missing out on a very special relationship with a loving and forgiving God. This relationship with God cannot be compared to anything that man can try making to replace it. Neither Philosophy, alcohol, drugs nor sex, can replace the void created by the absence of a relationship with God.

 

Just a few of my ramblings.

 

Peace

 

SM406

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"no more a proper moral role model for Scouts as the obese Scoutmaster,"

 

That would disqualify nearly 50% of the Scouters out there, male and female.

 

 

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×