Missing Boy in the N.C. Mountains Found Alive.

[Tom Schindler]

i assume you've never seen a "Gay" pride rally, then. I certainly didn't suggest that homosexuals were freaks.

Is it any different than Blacks standing up demanding they be treated the same as whites?

Penn & Teller will never be on my list as keen sources of valid information, sorry. They are comedians for the love of Pete!

So are you saying a comedian is not smart enough to research facts and present them in a manner to prove a valid point?

I think homosexuality is a sin. I think it is a perversion of what God intended for man.

If homosexaulity is not a chosen lifestyle, but something caused by imperfection, is it no longer a sin but an abnormality?



Would that be any different than a child born with a disfigured arm? Would that child not be allowed to grow up and become a troop leader?





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BigBear says:

There are many people who suggest that if you don't accept homosexuality as a perfectly fine lifestyle you are homophobic or bigoted.

I can tolerate your opinion, and as I said before, I think the term homophobic is thrown around too much. Do I think you are a bigot?...nope, no more than I would think someone in the South in 1930 was bigoted if they had a low opinions of blacks. Those same people today with that same opinion I would think are bigoted. If things continue on their logical course, in 20 years or less, your opinions will be deemed bigoted by an overwhelming majority of society.



Stil, for me at this time, I can't help but encourage people like you to consider that homosexuality is neither a choice, nor a lifestyle. Have you read the link I gave to religioustolerance.org? You might want to look at it. What have you got to lose?



I had this same discussion with a very conservative Christian from my church. He too states that homosexuality is a sin, and that as part of our fall from grace, it is like any other sin that man can either chose to partake in or not. His belief is that our sin nature is our curse for disobeying God in the garden.



Okay, well, I'm sorry, but call me a bad Christian, but I just don't believe all of that. I do believe in the evidence that shows homosexuality is part of our makeup, not a choice. The Bible says God made us all perfect, so that means God made some people homosexual. Does that make me a "cafeteria Christian", you bet. I'm filling my plate with "love thy neighbor", "judge not lest ye be judged", and "God has made us each perfect"; and I am going to pass on adding to my plate portions of scripture that imply homosexuality is wrong to the same extend and fervor that explain eating pork is wrong.



TJR

 

[Steve M 2]

Hi all...



I have a unique perspective on this topic. I am a Cubmaster for the last 7 years, an Assistant Scoutmaster for the last 3 years (and just became the Scoutmaster), and an Episcopal Sunday School teacher for the last 10 years.



SO...



* The BSA condemns homosexuality based mainly on a set of archaic bylaws that were written 97 years ago. They remain, to this day, a private organization, and as such, BSA can set any guideline it chooses.



* The Boy Scout program grew as a grass-roots organization in Britain based upon a military field manual that was written for British soldiers in the African theatre of war. If you are shocked at the stance BSA takes on homosexuals, take a closer look at the military!



* BSA goes a long way to encourage spirituality. Not specifically Christianity... religious awards are available for many different faiths. An interesting fact is that a large percentage of troops are chartered by churches. This is where the real defining point will come.



* On my honor, I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.



"Morally Straight"... Nowhere in the scout manual does it say ANYTHING about homosexuality... it is implied, I suppose. But the chartering organization is who is ultimately responsible for helping shape a troop. If the church that charters the troop is open minded, then "morally straight" is the width of a super highway. On the other hand, if the chartering organization is a Catholic church, then "morally straight" is a path as narrow as the distance between the pews...



* I know straight and openly gay people. The straight ones are far more promiscuous than the gay ones. And just because somebody sleeps around, that doesn't automatically make them pedophiles either.



* On camping trips, adults are NOT permitted to share tents with children. Not even their own children! And women on a camping trip must have separate quarters as well.



* Back to the original topic... Our little buddy in NC....

I'm am thankful that he is back home safe. Not because he's a scout, but because he's a kid that was missing. Those stories turn out horribly bad too often.



BUT.... the only mistake I saw on the part of the troop leaders was allowing him to "sleep in". If you are on the trip, you participate. If that means rising at 6 to eat breakfast and get ready to go on the trail, then EVERYBODY gets up at 6 and EVERYBODY goes on the trail.... I thought they acted very prudently once it was noticed that he was missing... they searched briefly to make sure that he hadn't just fallen asleep behind a tree or something... then they called in the Rangers. It's not the fault of the leaders that during their stage of the search, young Michael was likely ignoring their calls to him. He was, after all, AWOL....



* As I wrote in a follow-up e-mail to our troop parents upon Auberry's being found... "I hope in light of these circumstance, BSA reconsiders it's stance against public floggings!"



Sorry that this got so long...



I remain involved in the BSA programs because I believe in what we are doing. And in response to an earlier question, "Would you let your son go on a camping trip with a gay leader?" My reply... "It depends". There are leaders who are straight that I don't always see eye-to-eye with and question some of the things that they do. If a guy was gay, but a good guy and smart leader, then YES... no problem. We also require "two-deep leadership", which means that two trained adult leaders must accompany the troop at all times.



So even if a leader had "ideas", that doesn't mean he could act on them. Any more than any of us can act on "ideas" when dropping our kids off at high school and seeing the sen

 

[Tom Schindler]

* I know straight and openly gay people. The straight ones are far more promiscuous than the gay ones. And just because somebody sleeps around, that doesn't automatically make them pedophiles either.

That was exactly my point. Just because someone is gay does not mean whenever they see another man, they want to have relations with them.



Too many people think just because a man is gay means that whenever he is in a restroom, he is trying to look at every other man's private areas or he want's to play with kids.



Just because a scout leader is gay does not mean he is planning on rapeing those young boys. A straight guy has the same chance as a gay guy does.





Tom

 

[Jim Reeves]

The Bible says God made us all perfect, so that means God made some people homosexual.

Can you be specific as to where this is in the Scripture?



If God makes some people desire sex with those of like sex, does He make some people desire sex with children? Does He make people desire to commit rape? Does He make people desire to steal, and lie? Or does He make people, and by their own sin nature desire to do these things on their own? If he does make people desire to sin, then He is not who He says He is. I would certainly not call you a "Bad Christian". However, to me a "Christian" is someone who believes that Christ was who He said He was, that He did what He said He did, and depends on that for his or her own salvation. If that's the case, I can only believe that God can have nothing to do with the creation of sin. I certainly don't know for sure. All we can do is do everything we can to decide for ourselves.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BigBear asks:

If God makes some people desire sex with those of like sex, does He make some people desire sex with children? Does He make people desire to commit rape? Does He make people desire to steal, and lie?

Again, have you noticed the pattern of your examples. Before they were sins of choice vs a so-called sin of biology (homosexuality). Now your examples are sins that are illegal actions, and one so-called sin that is not illegal (again, homosexuality).



Even in your comparisons, homosexuality is not like the others.



You then questions about God creating sin. It becomes really, really clear if "man" were to stop labeling homosexuality a sin, then all sides begin to agree much more. For example, then homosexuality could more easily be seen as biological, and therefore part of God's plan and purpose for those that have it as a trait.



Or, maybe we all just think homosexuality is a trait, like blue eyes, and it just happens. But BigBear, you don't impress me as the kind of guy that thinks things "just happen".



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

F150 guy HEY!



I applaud you.



Like you, I disagree with the overall stance of the BSA on gay leaders, but value the organization in spite that single thing I find controversial.



I have filled out my fair share of BSA leader forms, and I can tell you right now, NO WHERE on the form does it ask if you are a heterosexual or a homosexual.



BSA, for the most part, in its actions has created its own informal "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The closest it gets to asking the pointed question is when it asks if there are "any aspects of your life that would prevent you from being a morally upstanding leader?"...(or something to that effect). To that I would say there are countless gay men and women that in good conscience, reputation and action could answer that question in the affirmative...moreso than the child and wife beating, adulterous, gluttonous, alchoholic, SOB types that can and do sign it in the affirmative today (no, that is not a generalization, just saying that SOME that join aren't the most morally straight people I have met).



TJR

 

[Jim Reeves]

Again, have you noticed the pattern of your examples. Before they were sins of choice vs a so-called sin of biology (homosexuality). Now your examples are sins that are illegal actions, and one so-called sin that is not illegal (again, homosexuality).



Even in your comparisons, homosexuality is not like the others.

I'm certainly not the sharpest pencil in the box, so if my examples leave a little to be desired that doesn't surprise me much.



However, that is the crux of the matter to me. In my eyes, sin is sin. The man-made legality of it does not come into play for me. I certainly believe that something can be legal and still not moral. I never called homosexuality a sin of biology, because I don't believe that. I believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice for some and brought about by emotional and/or environmental conditions for others. And yes, I'm sure that there is loads of scientific research that says homosexuality is biological. The problem is there is just as much scientific research that says it's not, and we believe what we want to believe and dismiss the rest. I have read studies that show a physiological difference in the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual men. But the scientists who did these studies agree that it is not possible to know when this difference occurred. Was it at birth, or brought about over time due to their sexual preference? They couldn't say. When I read (and I paraphrase) "You should not lay with mankind, as with womankind. That is an abomination", it doesn't matter to me if man deems it illegal or not. I agree, if we all decided that homosexuality was not a sin, we would all probably get along better. Wouldn't change anything in God's eyes. We always feel a little better about doing something if "everybody's doing it" or "everybody agrees", but that is just an emotional crutch. "I know it's wrong to cheat on my taxes, but everybody does it". Whew, boy do i feel better. It's still wrong, but i feel better. I'll get along better with the others who do it. It makes everything alot more comfortable. But dang it, it's still wrong.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Again, BigBear, there was scientific evidence a few decades back that the black male was intellectually inferior to the white male and people could quote Bible scripture that would support this, and people could go back to their faith, their upbringing and their confiction to show them why what they felt was not only right, but widely held by their peers and much of society.



But that doesn't mean it is so.



Morality has changed over the years, even morality taught in the Bible. Consider divorce a good example.



TJR

 

[Fred]

Just a question regarding scientific evidence. Should we always believe it, or just believe it when it suits our arguement?



I'm not saying either (science) is right or wrong, really, but is science right when it "says" homosexuality is natural, but wrong when it "says"

that the black male was intellectually inferior to the white male

?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Also, BigBear, it is interesting that you quote OT, Leviticus.

18:22 in the King James Version states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

I say interesting because the book of Liviticus has several other laws, sins and abominations that have been discarded by man (including yourself I suspect) throughout the centuries.



Most Christians today view most of Liviticus as ancient laws and rules typically only revered by Orthodox Jews of today.



Likewise, Leviticus 20:13 is similar in it's scripture, except that it adds the death penalty as punishment.



As stated on the subject in the link below:

The Hebrew word "to'ebah" appears in both passages and is generally translated as "abomination." Some religious liberals interpret these passages as referring only to male Jews who engaged in same-sex behavior in Pagan temples. The term would better be translated as "ritually improper" or "involving foreign religious cult practice." Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, the same word is used to ban wearing of clothing made up from two materials (like cotton-polyester in today's world), or having a tattoo, eating shrimp, eating pork, seeding lawns with a mixture of grass types, etc. None of the passages invoking "T'ebah" are valid for non-Jews today.

So, if you are Orthodox Jew, I suspect you have a case that it is a sin. If not, then you are already taking a very lacks view of Liviticus law if you are like most other Christians. Logic would dictate that as times change the general Christian attitude on homosexuality will also change (and hint, it has and is).



TJR

 

[Jake Levin]

This is a very interesting and well argued debate (and by well argued I mean this hasn't turned into a name calling match. For this I appluad everyone! )



I thought I would share some of my own feelings on this subject.



First, the BSA. They are an organization that is doing something good for kids. Although I don't support their stance on homosexuals, I would still persuade my sons to be boy scouts if I had any. They try to teach boys to be upstanding citizens along with the ability to take care of themselves in whatever situation they find themselves in. Unfortunately for me, they disbanded the troop I was in before I became a boy scout due to "poor decision making" by the fathers that took us on the camping trip one year.



Gay and lesbians. The stigmata that follows them and makes people scared that they molest little kids is because they are considered deviants. They deviate from the "preceived" norm of 1 man and 1 female. Because it is a sexual deviation, they get lumped into the category of sexual deviates, ie pedophiles. This is a mind set of people and the way they have been taught by parents, teachers, priests, and every other influenctial person in their life. Just like my grandfather being a racist and using racial slurs even when he liked someone. It had been ingrained in him since childhood. I was raised to tolerate people from all walks of life. (my parents where children of the 60s.)



Religion. First off there is a golden rule which is the most important part of all. Due unto others as you would have done unto you. In my mind that means treat everyone the way you want to be treated. If you want people to accept you as you are then you must accept them as they are. There is no room for a double standard. Accept me b\c I am XYZ but I wont accept you b\c you're WXY just doesn't cut it in my book. This is the 1 main moral everyone should live by.



BigBearCarolina (BBC) you said :

Or does He make people, and by their own sin nature desire to do these things on their own?

Since you seem to be a very christian person and try to live by the teachings of god, then you would know that according to the bible, God created everything. There was but a void before he created the heaven and earth, darkness and light, GOOD and BAD. Based upon this, God also created the Garden of Eden AND he created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If God created everything, then he must have created sin as well.

Quote:



The Bible says God made us all perfect, so that means God made some people homosexual.





Can you be specific as to where this is in the Scripture?

Again, by taking the bible as law, then in Genesis it is said that god created man in his own image. If god is perfect, then we were created perfect as well. If we are not perfect, then God created us imperfectly. That to me would imply that he was not perfect....



Now for the part that might not agree with most of you. The Bible is not the Word of God. The bible is a collection of stories, written by man. The only thing supposedly written by God were the ten commandments. Anyone see the Ark of the Covenant lately? If we go back to the premise that man is flawed, then what could make us think that the book is not flawed? It was written originally in an ancient language, aramaic, translated many times till it became what it is today. Considering most people have a hard time remembering what happened yesterday in exact detail, I am hard pressed to believe the events in the bible are described exactly as they happened. 4 gospels in the new testament, 4 different versions of the life of Jesus. Sounds like they are all baised towards the authors point of view. I also personally feel that the book was written in such a way as to give great power to the church. They say they are the messengers of God follow<

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Fred,



I am just saying that there was a time when our learned people (scientists) would say that the learning and mental abilities of a black person, or a white woman for that matter, were inferior to that of a white women. Science ultimately proved them wrong on both parts there.



People are so skeptical of science because, well, it evolves. They are so skeptical that even in the face of "compelling" scientific evidence, they are often unwilling to even consider it and instead hold to matters of tradition and faith.



P.S. The Earth is over 6000 years old.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Jlevin accurately and unemotionally finds one of several "thought and logic traps" that can be created if you attempt to take the "word of God" in the Bible as literal. The contradictions become too many to ignore and it requires a lot of backpedaling to make it all make sense. Back to Penn and Teller, they give one the fodder to claim much of it is BS!



I seriously think people should consider the Bible for what it most clearly is (my definition and I will quote it because I have a overblown opinion of my words here <grin>):

The Bible is a book written by man, to serve man's purposes to organize a religion and to document stories passed down throughout history. Some of these stories were documented earlier in ancient scrolls; scrolls that we know are the basis of many books of the Bible. Some of these scrolls were omitted in total, because they clearly didn't serve the purposes of those assembling the book (e.g. scroll that could have lead to the book of Judas); others had significant parts removed and portions downplayed (like the role and importance of Mary Magdalene).



Does that mean the Bible is worthless? Nope, not at all! There are MANY, MANY truths there to live a life by in that #1 selling book. But ultimately, that life is best spent, IMHO, seeking those truths in such a way that whenever confused by what is contained within using the one command as a guide and a tie-breaker to lead you, and that command is: LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

TJR

 

[Steve M 2]

Just remember... when you buy a new Bible... God Himself does not get a royalty check. Humans do.



If God chose to tell us anything directly, do you really think He'd pick self-righteous, bad toupee wearing dudes on late-late night TV?!?!?! No... He would send George Burns

 

[Jim Reeves]

jlevin75 '02 and TJR



I also have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion, but based on the last few posts, have come to the conclusion that our theology and beliefs are sooooooo far apart that I don't see much sense in taking it further. If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then you can't possibly believe in Christ. If you don't believe in Christ, I don't see how you would consider yourself a Christian. If you don't consider yourself a Christian, we'll always have very different opinions about alot of things. I live my life based upon my belief in God. Good luck and God Bless.

 

[Bill V]

Just remember... when you buy a new Bible... God Himself does not get a royalty check. Humans do.

Actually, rightly or wrongly, most Christians would say that when you buy a new Bible, God Himself does, in fact, get a contribution towared the ultimate royalty payment--the salvation of your soul. So your statement can be viewed by believers as being incorrect.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BigBear said:

If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, then you can't possibly believe in Christ. If you don't believe in Christ, I don't see how you would consider yourself a Christian. If you don't consider yourself a Christian, we'll always have very different opinions about alot of things.

Well it all comes down to what "the Bible is the The Word of God" means now doesn't it?



Clearly God is infallible, correct? I think we can all agree to that. Therefore God’s words and the word of God must also be correct and without error and contradiction, right?



So, if the Bible, and all of it is the word of God, and both God and his word and therefore the Bible are infallible and with contradiction or error THEN one need find only ONE error or contradiction in order to conclude that either the Bible is NOT the complete and true word of God, OR that God himself is flawed. That's not blashphemy, just logic working within the rules set up by the dogma created by man (and remember, what you hold true on Earth among two or more of you in my name will be so in heaven).



But we needn’t hypothesis. The Bible has many contradictions and has several things within that we know not to be true today. Jlevin gave an example.



Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the Bible is flawed, as any other book written by man. That leaves the Bible as the "inspired word of God" as scribed by man, a very fallible being. That still allows it to be "the word of God", but recognizes that it was penned by man, with man's fallibilities. I have no issue with that definition of the Bible, and it needn't mean that God nor Christ not exist.



BigBear, go to the website I have linked a couple of times if for nothing else then to take away the reality that there is a whole moderate and liberal side to Christianity that does not view things the way you do, but they are still Christians.



I inspire you to go to the site because your last post came off a little as "Well we are done talking now because clearly you guys aren't "Real Christians"!", which, no offense, is a pretty over-used line by conservative fundamentalists.



TJR

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

Great discussion here guys. I find it amazing that a posting on a boy getting rescued in the woods by a dog turns into a discussion on homosexuality. With that said, all I have to say is that Jesus the Christ did not Judge, Condemn or Criticise anyone - Why should we?

 

[Jim Reeves]

I'm sorry, TJR, if I didn't end my last post to suit you. Since I do consider myself as a "conservative fundamentalist", I probably do come off that way at times. I hope so. I guess I was very confused about your statement earlier that you considered yourself a Christian, and then later stated quite clearly that to you the Bible wasn't the word of God. We obviously have very different ideas of what being a Christian means. I consider the Bible as being the inspired word of God. Written physically of course by men, but controlled by God for content. Maybe one of us is right, but I'm pretty sure we both aren't. You are obviously an intelligent person. I don't consider myself intelligent, but I do try my best to be honest and fair. I certainly don't consider myself to be better than anyone, Christian or not. I am Christian through the grace of God, not through anything I have done. I will definitely check out the web site you mentioned earlier. Who knows, I might learn something. I know I have today. Thanks.