Boy Scouts

Little Earl is, of course, correct. And expanding on his adultery example....think about the more traditional adultry...while actually still married. How many of these people that do eventually say they are sorry are honest? A good many, if not most, are just sorry they got caught. But people like Ivan still think of the homosexual "sin" as worse because of either ignorance of the "ick" factor.
 
A very simplified explanation of Christianity:
Claiming that some general sin is worse than another shows a lack of understanding of the Bible.

Everyone sins everyday. Everyone will continue to sin everyday for the rest of their lives. Moses, David, and all the of Apostles were sinners. No one except for Jesus (God) is perfect. All sin is equal. You cannot be forgiven unless you confess to your conduct as wrong and ask for forgiveness. A Christian will sin everyday of their life but they acknowledge their behavior as wrong, ask for forgiveness and try their best not to repeat their behavior.

You ARE NOT SAVED when you state that sinful behavior (lying, stealing, homosexual behavior) is okay and refuse to ask for forgiveness.

There is a difference between urges and behavior.

According to the Bible all humanity has sinful urges. All of our sinful urges are different. Almost if not everyone has had the urge to hit someone before after being made angry by that person. Most people are able to control that urge.

Some people have even greater difficulty controlling sinful urges (people are hit by one another everyday). Kleptomaniacs have an abnormal urge to steal. Despite the fact that they have a "natural" disposition towards theft, our society does not treat them any different in the criminal justice system from people who do not have the same great urge to steal. Homosexual sex is a behavior like anything else that one can choose to or not to engage in. According to the old AND NEW testament, homosexual behavior is a sin like any other sinful behavior. One can be forgiven for this behavior after confessing to it as wrong and asking for forgiveness. A person with the help of the Holy Spirit can stop this behavior. They will probably fail many times as most people do trying to stop any type of sinful behavior. The key to Christianity is confessing your sin and asking for forgiveness.

If you claim to be a Christian and believe homosexuality is okay, then you must acknowledge that you only follow what you like in the Bible. Acknowledge that you pick and choose what you agree with before continuing to express your beliefs. State that you only believe God's Word when you like it.

All sex is a behavior. No one HAS to have sex to survive. Some poor soul living on a deserted island in the Indian Ocean would not die from lack of sex though that is one of the many reasons living on a deserted island would suck. Many people in America attempt to find someone to have sex with everyday, fail, and yet survive. Sex is a behavior not a characteristic.

Logically, how can you prove if someone is heterosexual or homosexual? Because they say so? A heterosexual can engage in homosexual sex and a homosexual can engage in heterosexual sex. Some businesses give affirmative action points to people who claim to be gay. What a great scam opportunity! How can anyone prove they are gay? You can prove your race, hair color, eye color, height, etc. Does engaging in homosexual sex one time make you gay? Some people are married to someone of the opposite sex for 20 years before discovering they are "gay". Were they always gay? If the person was having an affair with someone of the same sex, would they still be gay when they were having sex with their spouse? I mean this could work in reverse. What if two people of the same sex were married for twenty years and then one began an affair with someone of the opposite sex? Would they really be "straight"?
 
My main reason for my response is that I am tired of people who are not Christians or are ignorant of the Bible claiming to act like they are experts on the faith or the book. It is very offensive.
 
^ lol

1. I was mostly speaking to people in general who make statements like "homosexual behavior" is only banned in the old testament. I have seen that ignorant statement repeated on hornfans over the years. John Stewart, who was not raised as a Christian, constantly repeats that on the Daily Show. I was not calling anyone out. I did find the argument about some sins being worth more than others humorous. The Bible says you are saved when you confess faith in the Holy Trinity through Christ and you repent from your sins. It does not say you are saved by sinning less than others or having different sins. The worst murders on death row can be saved if they believe and repent.

2. I have not claimed to be from any sect nor do i claim to tell any sect what they believe. I can only tell you what the Bible says which is the basis of all Christian faith. As I said many Christian choose to believe some things in the Bible and ignore others. I have simply said what God's Word says. I have not claimed to speak for an individual, a church or a denomination. Also I have simply stated the Bible views homosexual behavior as sin. I addressed the "interpretation" of it being okay as "I choose to ignore that part" because that is what is happening.
 
Anticipating the next challenge, if anyone wants to question what I have said about what is in the Bible, I welcome and encourage everyone to do the intelligent and logical thing one would do in a debate and fact check me. Read the Bible front to back so that you will have the proper information when arguing about its contents.
 
I would argue that what the boys scouts say in their various quotes that I posted earlier are more relevant than what is in the bible. While the BSA are a Christian orginazation, only they have the ability to clearly define what their standards are through their code of honor, etc. Homosexuality doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive to their ideals. If it is, then they would have come out and said so. Instead they came out and said the opposite.

I find it laughable that somehow there haven't been many secretly gay scouts in leadership positions over the years; but let's say there have only been a small handful. What about this ruling is going to lead to a large influx of gay 16-18 year old scouts? To get to that level you have to start at an age much to young to be considering ones sexual orientation. Maybe a few more will stick with scouts instead of feeling pressured to drop out, but I consider that a good thing. I don't feel that it's in the best interest of anyone for gay scouts to have to choose between an activity they have done for more than a decade and revealing the truth about who they are.
 
I'm glad someone has at last stepped forth with a definitive, unassailable interpretation of the Bible. I suppose the nearly two thousand years of squabbling and intellectual pursuit can at last come to an end. What a glorious day! No need for denominations anymore! One very humble person has it all figured out!

Jesus hates the homos because they won't repent and, uh oh, you know what that means.

highway-666.jpg
 
Interpreting the Bible isn't that hard. Some verses can be difficult. In those cases the verses don't affect much doctrinally.

To the subject of homosexuality, there really isn't a way to reasonably interpret the Bible to say it is not a sin. Usually someone points to a command in the OT that seems a little strange (especially outside of context) and says well if being gay is a sin then you can't do ___ (the strangely prohibited thing) either. That is not an interpretation at all. It is sophistry and obfuscation.

The story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah depicts homosexuality as sinful. Leviticus gives specific commands against. Then in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 you get NT passages that are clearly stated and unequivocal.

None of this means anyone has to believe that being gay is wrong or a sin. That's fine. Believe what you want, why you want. Just don't say the Bible is ambiguous. It's not.
 
Then building homosexuality into the nature of some humans seems like something God wouldn't have done. I have no doubt that homosexuals who say that they are that way by immutable nature are telling the truth.

I have not doubt that homosexuals behave as good and as bad as everyone else and are only distinguished by their sexual attraction to same sex persons.

I have no trouble or doubt about seeing them as equals in every way. In fact, I feel a little embarrassed that such thing need even be said.

Anyone using the writing of any book penned by man (as all books are) to condemn, stigmatize or move against these people in anyway are moral deviants as far as I am concerned.

I wonder where Jesus stands.
 
Well RV, the Bible describes all men as sinners. Read Genesis 1-2, then 3. God didn't create any sin. Mankind fell. So you are right. God didn't build that into human nature. But it is there due to the fall. I agree too with your statement. But then God extends grace and faith and things happen. I know that from my life and others I have talked to.

I also don't disagree with the statements in your second paragraph. As far as humans define good and bad, regardless of category, there are good and bad people, but isn't sexual behavior part of the equation? If so, what do you consider good? Consensual? I agree. But is that it?

I also don't have a problem seeing gays as equal. All people are made in the image of God. We all reflect the divine. But we are distort that perfect image in certain ways. Homosexuality is one of those distortions according to the Bible. I distort the image in several other ways, but my version of distortion is no less wrong. Just one more way I am equal to a person who is homosexual.

Yeah. Well we are all pointing the finger now aren't we. You are also right. The Bible is written by men. Sinful men on top of that. But again, a perfect God can deliver a perfect message to us, even through sinful men. That is why He is perfect. 2 Timothy 3:15-16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 speak of how God does this. Now if you don't want to believe the statements. No problem, but that doesn't mean we (Christians) are following something merely written by men. We aren't.

Good question. I encourage everyone to ask themselves this question. Where DOES Jesus stand? Literally in heaven at the right hand of HIs Father praying for sinners like me (also found in the Bible). I don't think he prefers heterosexuals to homosexuals. He has chosen both. However 1 Corinthians 6 makes a revolutionary statement. "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." That is the hope of the heterosexual and the homosexual. I know I have no other hope. I have sinned a lot.
 
Both HTown77 and Monahorns have stated (or certainly implied strongly) that Bible verses concerning homosexuality are clear and not open to alternative interpretations. I therefore link and quote the following to dispute those claims. You certainly will disagree with this Reverend's opinions, but I will argue that her interpretations are not hers alone and are just as valid as any other.

Here is a link to some of her writings Link

It will only take anyone 2 or 3 minutes to read that link. I will give some quotes below:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Matthew 19:4-6
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that as the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Romans 1:26-27
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

1 Corinthians 6:9
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Corinthians 7:2
“But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”
 
I have stated you can interpret homosexual behavior as not sinful but your "interpretation" is based on picking and choosing what you wish from the Bible. When you interpret homosexual behavior as okay, you are saying "I am choosing to dismiss those parts because I do not agree with them." I am not telling you how to interpret the Bible. I am just pointing out you are doing exactly what I said. You have decided homosexual behavior, in your view, is okay so you are dismissing the parts of the Bible condemning it and trying to justify your dismissals.
 
EasternHorn, the quotes you use don't really address what is said in the Bible passages. She just adds qualifications to what she thinks the Bible passages can mean based on her understanding of ancient culture and how it is different than modern culture.

The Bible doesn't comment on sexual orientation. It deals strictly with behavior. When a prohibition against a man laying with a man is given without qualification that is the point. The prohibition is made without qualification. All of the reasons she gives for homosexuality not being a sin is extra-biblical. That form of faulty interpretation is called eisegesis where you take your own biases and inject them into the text you are reading in order to draw conclusions. If I am to consider something reasonable from the Bible I want to see the idea, principle, or statement in the Bible. With regards to the acceptability of homosexual acts, it is not there.

About the story of Sodom, who says that the people of Sodom were not guilty of homosexuality. Again, I think a reasonable interpretation would be to say that they were guilty of all those things: rape, inhospitality, pride, greed, and homosexuality. Why take one of the things mentioned in the account of the Sodomites and extract it from the list of things they are guilty of? We get a brief description of these people showing God's desire to destroy the city. In that description one of the things described is homosexuality. No reason is given in the account to exclude that one sinful characteristic from the others.

Leviticus deals with actions and never once references the sexual practices of other Mediterranean cultures. Again, the author takes an idea and superimposes it onto the text. From reading Leviticus all one gets a sense of is that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin in God's eyes. There is never even an inkling that having a loving, sexual relationship with someone of the same gender is acceptable in the text.

Paul's writings are the same. They deal with actions with absolutely no reference to an issue of domination/submission in sex. She is making an argument from a vacuum. Paul does give historical context though in Romans 1. He links homosexuality to people rejecting God and worshiping creation over the creator. So some cultural reference is given but it is not the context superimposed by this author.

That is why I said no reasonable interpretation. Of course anybody can say anything they want about Biblical doctrine. That doesn't mean what they say is legitimate or reasonable.
 
You all are having a fascinating discussion about homosexuality and the Bible, and I'm really enjoying it. However I don't think that's the real issue with BSA. Regardless of the rules, a gay person can be a scout and a leader, because orientation isn't an obvious characteristic (like race).

As with DADT, the real issue is the ability to openly discuss one's homosexuality in the context of BSA activities without fear of consequence. Like I said, I'm enjoying the discussion, but it's somewhat of a diversion.
 
LTS,
The BSA did come out and say so...several times. They have voted several times to ban homosexuality. It has only been since major donors (Intel, chief among them) have threatened to stop supporting the BSA that they have caved. As recently as 18 months ago it was voted on among the leaders and unanimously voted down.

Perhaps the reason that it is not codified in the law, oath etc is that it never seemed necessary to have to state it over the last 103 years. And you're right, kids usually start this program well before they have any idea of their sexual desires so it is unlikely we'll see an 'influx' of gays but the older scouts are models to the younger scouts. They are THE leaders in troops. Who they are and how they are is the point. The 17 yr old that is still in the troop is likely a patrol leader or about to achieve his eagle. Both of these things are treated as aspirational models for the youngest scouts (10-14 yr olds). What changes with this, is that 'gay' now becomes part of the aspirational model.

In addition, we all know the gay community is not done twisting the knife. They will continue to pursue inclusion for adult gay members as well.

BSA will now suffer a slow death. 10 yrs out, membership will likely be only 30-40% of todays numbers. We've got over 9 yrs in scouts with my oldest and it is a tough decision, not because I'm in any way accepting of the vote but simply because my oldest is so close to eagle. There are many that are in this boat, some will chose to finish out a year or two as long as 'gay' doesn't leak into their troop but the numbers of new scouts coming up through cub scouts is going to take a serious hit. Don't let the immediate numbers fool you. Even if the exodus from BSA is only 30%, the more telling number will be how many new cubs join in the next two years.

They've done tremendous harm to the BSA with this vote.
 
As for the marriage/divorce hypocrisy...I agree. It is religious hypocrisy and I can only speak from my experience but I only know of 3 families in our cub scout pack and boy scout troop that are divorced/remarried. Which is about a 7-8% rate compared to society at large of what ...50%+ now. I think that is a testament to the kind of life most of these folks aspire to.

And no, we didn't try to ostracise the divorce/remarried. But I have railed against no-fault divorce and the 'single mom' badge of honor on this site before. Acceptance of gay as normal and gay 'marriage' are just a little more corrosion of what should be the core of society... the traditional nuclear family headed by a father and a mother.
 
I guess we'll know in four months. That's when all the kindergarteners roll in and most cub packs get a new crop of Tigers.

Not to mention all of the churches that are going to debate rechartering the BSA units that are sponsored there.
 
I will admit allowing remarried and not homosexuals is a bit hypocritical. I think there are practical reasons for it, but I also agree that divorce/remarriage is way too common and accepted. I will point out that only one of the divorced couple would be guilty in remarriage because adultery is acceptable grounds for divorce in the Bible. Just an aside.

All that being said, as a Christian, I would allow my (theoretical) son to be in the BSA if he wants. I don't think there is any more probability that he would be mistreated now compared to before the decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top