Don't allow gays in Scouts

  • Follow Letters

As a former Scout member, I would like to somehow vote for Scouting to maintain its current membership policy, and not bow down to pressure from the gay community to allow open or avowed homosexuals, or anyone who engages in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the Boy Scouts of America.

The Scout Oath calls for members to do their duty “to God” and to stay “morally straight.” The Scout Law states that a Scout is “reverent.” The majority of Americans adhere to the beliefs of the Holy Bible, in which the God of this Bible speaks against the homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, if the BSA changes its membership policy to include the gay agenda, then it must change its Scout Oath and Scout Law. If not, confusion would rule the BSA world.

If you cannot stand for something, you will fall for anything. This is not about judging others, but it has everything to do with what has worked all these years. And it is about fighting for one’s beliefs.

One solution: Let the gay community form its own Scouting organization. Then they would be acting like the BSA, whose agenda does not include merit badges for trying to force its beliefs/lifestyles onto the gay community.

William Getha

Evans

Comments (146) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
faithson
5133
Points
faithson 02/11/13 - 09:28 pm
2
2
Car

Read some Joesph Campbell to understand some of that, there are no updates to the basics.
ps; History is rife with monica luwinski's, we don't need the OT to understand that.

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 02/11/13 - 09:33 pm
2
2
burn, although Matthew speaks

burn, although Matthew speaks about divorce of hetersexual couples, His Word clearly states what His view is of marriage. You can't disgard verses 4, 5, and 6 just because you don't like or agree with them.

As for Paul, He was a message from God and as it also states in scripture that ALL scripture is inspired by God. So whatever Paul, or Matthew, or Jude or Moses wrote, it is The Word of God. You don't agree, that's fine....doesn't make it any less God's Word.

burninater you are under a misconception....I neither need to justify or defend the Word of God. You don't believe it...that's fine by me. Doesn't make you right but you are free to believe it.

faithson
5133
Points
faithson 02/11/13 - 09:34 pm
2
2
sorry ICL

that was just my first thought as I glanced all those references to the Good Book. I only find the 4 Gospels to be of use, but I appreciate your contention that there may be more.

faithson
5133
Points
faithson 02/11/13 - 09:41 pm
2
2
"As for Paul, He was a

"As for Paul, He was a message from God and as it also states in scripture that ALL scripture is inspired by God. So whatever Paul, or Matthew, or Jude or Moses wrote, it is The Word of God. You don't agree, that's fine....doesn't make it any less God's Word." Heard the exact same sermon last Sunday only it was the Pope who held all the cards. Had me reeling. Poor Theology makes for Poor sermons.

carcraft
25176
Points
carcraft 02/11/13 - 09:57 pm
1
1
Once again off the subject of

Once again off the subject of gays in the scouts and onto the prohibition laws of Leviticus, a topic ripe for distraction!

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 02/11/13 - 10:02 pm
0
2
"Neither Jude 1 nor Titus 1

"Neither Jude 1 nor Titus 1 specifically identify homosexuality either. "

LOL....as I stated earlier....I have proven through scripture time and time again that the New Testament speak against sexual immorality and you can keep denying it. Jude and Titus both speak about unnatural lust, sexual sin, going after strange flesh (which definite speak of homosexual conduct). It's not my word but God's Word.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 02/11/13 - 10:06 pm
3
2
No ICL, it is your word, not

No ICL, it is your word, not God's. You have chosen to interpret unnatural lust, or sexual sin, or going after strange flesh, as references to homosexuality. God's Word explicitly does not do so. The only place where God's own language can be determined to specifically refer to homosexuality, it is put in the same category as the eating of shellfish and the wearing of wool blend. I am sorry that fact bothers you -- take it up with God, not me.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 02/11/13 - 10:24 pm
3
2
If I were a racist, I could

If I were a racist, I could just as easily make the claim that unnatural lust, sexual sin, and going after strange flesh were obvious references to interracial relations -- and as with the claim that they refer to homosexuality, it would be my words, not God's.

If I were a classist, I could say these interdictions refer to interheirarchy relations.

If I were a religious bigot, I could claim these were interdictions against the "strange flesh" of the Pentecostal! Or the Methodist! And on and on.

Ambiguous language can be used to justify almost any pre-existing conclusion.

This makes the fact that when specific language was used, and it equated homosexuality to eating food on the third day, for example, it becomes that much more difficult to justify man's interpretations of ambiguous phrases as having dramatically different meanings than God's own specific language.

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 02/11/13 - 10:25 pm
1
2
"I am sorry that fact bothers

"I am sorry that fact bothers you -- take it up with God, not me."

Sorry burninater, that's just your opinion and I don't have a problem with my facts. I've discussed it multiple of times with my Heavenly Father since this is a major issue in our society today and He's provided much scriptural reference not only pertaining to homosexual behavior but sexual immorality in general. I do believe someone who's within the family would have a better understanding of what my Heavenly Father considers a sin since it's all the same to those outside the family. Like I said, you don't have to agree or like it, doesn't change the truth.

myfather15
54180
Points
myfather15 02/11/13 - 10:28 pm
1
2
@Burninator

Ok, I'm going to waste my time showing you something that you obviously have no blue about.........The Bible.

Leviticus Chapter 11:11, God is telling us certain animals NOT to eat, because they are unclean and could make us sick. Watch WORDS very closely here;

"They shall be even an abomination unto YOU; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."

Pay close attention, did He say it would be an abomination to HIM? No, it didn't; He is telling us not to eat unclean animals because it won't be good for our health.

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Now, did He say abomination to YOU? No, He says it's an abomination which means an abomination against his RULES, hence against HIM? There is a HUGE difference between something he says is an abomination to YOU, and something he says in an aboimination to HIM. When you eat unclean meat, you might get sick; he is telling us which meats are good to eat. If YOU won't listen and decide to eat unclean meat and get sick, don't blame HIM!! But that doesn't make it a sin, because it was an abomination to YOU. How simple is that?

Read it in the Original King James Version; I'll even provide the link below for quick references on line.

"http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Leviticus&chapter=11&verse=+

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 02/11/13 - 10:31 pm
1
2
"Ambiguous language can be

"Ambiguous language can be used to justify almost any pre-existing conclusion."

Yes it can and that is why it is important to not take scripture out of context and that is why I provided several verses after consulting several commentaries which all report the same explanation on the word "strange flesh".

"If I were a racist, I could just as easily make the claim that unnatural lust, sexual sin, and going after strange flesh were obvious references to interracial relations"

"If I were a religious bigot, I could claim these were interdictions against the "strange flesh" of the Pentecostal! Or the Methodist! And on and on."

No, because "strange flesh" has nothing to do with religious faith.

No you couldn't (well you could) but it wouldn't be correct because of the meaning of "strange flesh" and sexual sin refers to sexual relations outside of marriage which has nothing to do with race. So your example fails to prove your point.

carcraft
25176
Points
carcraft 02/11/13 - 10:32 pm
1
1
Did homosexuals get stoned to

Did homosexuals get stoned to death during Jesus time? Were homosexuals acts considered immoral? If you answer yes then homosexual acts are condemned in the book of acts! It is hard to imagine that the Romans 1:26 to 28 is anything others than a condemnation of homosexuality!

myfather15
54180
Points
myfather15 02/11/13 - 10:33 pm
1
3
Burninator loves to twist and

Burninator loves to twist and turn scripture, whereby it loses it's true meaning. If you take just one word out of most scripture, it can lose the entire meaning.

Someone else loved to twist and misquote scripture; who was it? Satan and he tempted Christ himself with twisted scripture. So, do we expect any different? Secular leftists DEPEND upon Christians who are actually ignorant of the Word. Therefore they can actually use scripture itself against the Christians. When they misquote it or lie about it, those who don't know better, can't refute them. We should feel honored that Burninator is attacking using scripture; it means we are doing well. Remember, it doesn't matter how many battles they win!!

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 02/11/13 - 10:38 pm
4
2
Leviticus 11:41 "Every

Leviticus 11:41 "Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten."

Leviticus 19:7 "If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination."

I guess other people have no clue about the Bible either, myfather?

Eating ants, or leftovers on the third day, like homosexuality, is an abomination to the LORD.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 02/11/13 - 10:42 pm
4
2
Yes, myfather, I am in league

Yes, myfather, I am in league with Lucifer! Me and him and the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus have a master plan ...

We're going to put presents under the pillows of gay men, AND YOU CAN'T STOP US!

Mwahhahahahahaha ...

------

But in all seriousness, when someone quotes exactly what the Bible says, it's twisting scripture, but when someone attributes implicit meaning not expressly in scripture, it's God's Word? Absolute rubbish.

RMSHEFF
15735
Points
RMSHEFF 02/11/13 - 10:37 pm
1
3
Bruno

Genesis 2:24 24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." This is God's original design....from the point of the fall everything became corrupted by sin. Just because the bible tell the story of men taking many wives or concubines does not mean God endorsed or approved. Much of God's word tell what man did not what God approved of. One man with one women is clearly God's design throughout His Word. He also hates divorce which is also sinful.

RMSHEFF
15735
Points
RMSHEFF 02/11/13 - 10:46 pm
1
2
MyFather15

You are correct. I noticed Burninator like to take a sentence from one passage and combine it with another sentence from an unrelated passage in another chapter to make a point. I guess you could get the Bible to say anything you want if you use his hermeneutics.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 02/11/13 - 10:49 pm
4
1
I've discussed it multiple of

I've discussed it multiple of times with my Heavenly Father since this is a major issue in our society today and He's provided much scriptural reference not only pertaining to homosexual behavior but sexual immorality in general.
----
That's funny, because in my conversations with the Heavenly Father, He has specifically asked me to try to address ICL's erroneous understanding of Scripture, and ICL's mistaken understanding of his conversations with the Lord.

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 02/11/13 - 10:51 pm
4
1
RMSHEFF, could you cite an

RMSHEFF, could you cite an example of that? I think you may be mistaken, and I would hate to think you have borne false witness.

carcraft
25176
Points
carcraft 02/11/13 - 10:51 pm
1
1
Burninater, still haven't

Burninater, still haven't commented on Romans, and Acts!

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 02/11/13 - 10:54 pm
2
3
burninater....here we go

burninater....here we go again. In Levitucs 19, the reference in verse 7 is concerning food given as a sacrifice.

"5 “‘When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the Lord, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. 6 It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; anything left over until the third day must be burned up. 7 If any of it is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not be accepted. 8 Whoever eats it will be held responsible because they have desecrated what is holy to the Lord; they must be cut off from their people."

This had nothing to do with eating left over food other than the fact that they did not have refrigerator and after about 3 days the food would go bad and become impure.

As for Leviticus 11:41, my Bible says "And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten" Not sure what version you are using that says "swarming" but the words "creeping" refer to insects and bugs that creep which consist of small particles, unfit for nourishment, and most of them live on unclean, rotten food, and dung. Also in the sores and flesh of animals, laying their little eggs or excrements, corrupt their food, honey, syrups, etc. Yeah, just thinking about it, I'd say that's an abomination. YUK.

myfather15
54180
Points
myfather15 02/11/13 - 11:00 pm
1
1
Wow, Burninator; I didn't

Wow, Burninator; I didn't know you read and write Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Chaldean, very impressive. But I didn't see you qoute "Exactly what the Bible says". I'll keep and eye out for your post in Ancient Hebrew, which Leviticus was written in.

Also, you just prove my exact point. The word "Swarming" isn't even in there. I believe in the King James, which is the MOST recognized version in the World, the word is "Creeping".

In Chapter 19, God is speciffically addressing sacrifices, not everday food. He established clear rules for sacrifices and expects them to be follow. Also, blood sacrifices were done away with, with the greatest blood sacrifice of all time, Christ's.

Also, I'm glad your in line with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, because they are the only ones will be able to help you, very soon. As I stated in my earlier post; Our Savior is far more capable of saving, than theirs. It's coming very soon, then you can tell Him to His face how you feel about Him and the tooth fairy. Prophecy revealed through scripture is coming true DAILY. It's just sad people like you can't strengthen your faith with such. But you despised it because you don't like the rules. I just had this conversation the other day with someone; whether people are really atheists. He told me he couldn't understand how people could go against God and they must NOT believe. I told him, even if they do believe, they HATE Him (God), because they despise the rules he has in place. They want to be able to do WHATEVER they want, without His ridiculous rules. I know several atheists myself and have talked with them in depth. Most have told me they just can't force themselves to believe, but most admitted they have serious concern whether there is a God. Most have told me, sometimes they do think there is, but then something happens which causes them to have doubt.

RMSHEFF
15735
Points
RMSHEFF 02/11/13 - 11:02 pm
1
1
Here is one

You posted: Leviticus 11:41 "Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten."

Leviticus 19:7 "If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination."

I guess other people have no clue about the Bible either, myfather?

Eating ants, or leftovers on the third day, like homosexuality, is an abomination to the LORD.

Do you really think the verses you quoted have anything to do with Eating ants, or leftovers on the third day, is an abomination to the LORD.

InChristLove
22459
Points
InChristLove 02/11/13 - 11:02 pm
1
2
"That's funny, because in my

"That's funny, because in my conversations with the Heavenly Father"

Now, burninater, you know it's a sin to lie....I do believe you have made it well known on here that you do not follow the scripture and according to the fruit of your spirit (or I should say the lack there of) I'd have to come to the conclusion that you might know of Him but you do not Know Him personally so it is impossible to have a conversation with Him. If you are having a conversation, it might be with Lucifer. Then again you know the Tooth Fairy likes to impersonate.

myfather15
54180
Points
myfather15 02/11/13 - 11:04 pm
1
1
Here you go Burninator, I

Here you go Burninator, I messed up the last link; so here it is. You should use it, instead of always misquoting.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

burninater
9396
Points
burninater 02/12/13 - 12:04 am
2
1
Myfather, I was quoting the

Myfather, I was quoting the Revised Standard Version.

I challenge you to establish that the King James Version is a superior, or more accurate, translation.

RMSHEFF, do I really think that what the Bible says is what it means? Yes. And strangely enough, ICL's characterization of those two verses in his/her 9:54 corroborates my interpretation. Finally, the quotes you repeated back to me are directly from the Revised Standard Version. Don't worry -- I don't expect the lack of character that accompanies false accusations (such as that I misquoted Scripture, when I did not) to extend to apologies.

ICL, regarding your 9:54 -- excellent. You've specifically defined these two things God considered to be abominations. Yet you continue to neglect to address the fact that these two things are EXPLICITLY put in the same category as homosexuality. Why, other than the cherry-picking of the Lord's Word, are there not movements to exclude the immoral third day food eaters from the BSA?

And regarding your 10:02 -- you know NOTHING of the relations of others with God. Do not presume to characterize mine. You are mistaking your presumption to knowledge with that of God's.

dahreese
4703
Points
dahreese 02/12/13 - 12:00 am
2
1
The bible
Unpublished

Interesting, and pathetic, how so many of you quote a "bible" without having a foundational understanding of its origins.

It did not exist at all until the year 312.

It's contents were argued back and forth for months between priests, royality, politicians and "christians" before it was declared the "word of god" and a closed book (nothing has been added or removed since that year although it is well known by biblical scholars to contain letters not written by Paul - oops!).

Homosexuals are born who they are just as "straight" people are born who they are and you were born who you are.

You couldn't "become" a homosexual even if you wanted to and neither can homosexuals "become" straight.

You can participate in a homosexual affair if you are straight, or a straight affair if you are homosexual, but after that's over with, you're still who and what you were before the affair.

I am the father of five children, two of whom are homosexual and three who are straight.

And the majority of you above who are so piously quoting the bible don't know what you're talking about - about the bible nor about homosexuality.

myfather15
54180
Points
myfather15 02/12/13 - 12:42 am
1
1
@dahreese

Exactly WHERE did you get your information the Bible didn't exist until the year 312?

Now, you did place the word "Bible" in quotations, therefore maybe you are refering to the exact term Bible. But, if you dig a little deeper you will find that the "Tanakh" or the "Septuagint" existed long before Christ was born. Christ himself quoted it many, many times. When people would ask Him questions, many times He would answer "Have ye not read?" He quoted MANY of the prophets of the old testament.

Then you say "It's contents were argued back and forth for months between priests, royality, politicians and "christians" before it was declared the "word of god"

I remind you, there is NO ONE more critical of pastors, priests, royalty, politicians and YES, even so called "Christians", than God Himself. He has WARNED us thoughout the Bible to beware of them and NOT listen to them. Yes, there were SEVERAL books omitted by MEN; they are called the aprocrypha or lost books of the Bible. MEN have always thought they KNOW better than God. MEN said these books didn't ALIGN with THEIR beliefs, so they omitted them. But those who LOVE God and want to seek His truth, have all the resources we need, to FIND that truth. I have a copy of the Aprocrypha and read it often.

Also, are trying to say that WE think Paul wrote all the books of the Bible? Nothing could be further from the truth, but I'm sure that doesn't bother you. Paul was an apostle of Christ and CHOSEN by God. So his writings are very important and YES, he did write the majority of the New Testament, but WE never said he wrote all of them.

myfather15
54180
Points
myfather15 02/12/13 - 12:40 am
1
1
Burninator is just another

Burninator is just another typical liberal who HOPES we pay no attention to his OWN WORDS.

Blasting ICL for her 10:02 post, when she did nothing but READ his own writings. Comparing God to the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, doesn't show a strong faith in the REALITY that is God. So, it would be perfectly acceptable to question your "Conversations" with God, since you believe Him to be the same as mythical characters.

Ok, Burn; since you believe the version of the Bible YOU quote is so great, lets do a little experiment. Do you remember in Elementary school how the teacher would tell one child a sentence, then the child spoke the sentence to the next, and so on through the entire classroom? By the time the sentence got around the entire class, it was NOTHING like the original. Thats factual; each NEW translation, gets further from the original meaning. So it is with the Bible; each time it gets translated into NEW versions, that are SUPPOSED to be more understandable, it's transliterated rather than translated. Thats is factual, ask any religous expert. Also, ask anyone who speaks and writes another language. There are ALWAYS words in other languages, that there is NO english translation for and vice versa. So those translating the Bible, into the english had a hard time getting the exact meaing. God has always allowed MANKINDS imperfections. Why? Because He KNOWS those that love Him, will SEARCH the scriptures and find the true meanings, because its still there, it just takes a little effort on YOUR part. He doesn't just GIVE everything to people. But I know liberals have a serious problem with having to work for anything.

The Original King James Version Bible, is the MOST used version in the entire world, look it up. It's also the most recognized version amoung scholars. Why? Because of the teacher experiment. The OKJ version is the orginal version translated from the 1611 KJ version, which was almost unreadable in english because of poor translations and poor vocabulary at that time. So, EACH translation that has spawned from the OKJ (NIV, RSV, etc) are translated from the OKJ version, so therefore how is it they can be more accurate? The best way to understand the true meaning is to be fluent in Ancient Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, Chalean, etc. If you don't have time to learn these, then get an OKJ version and a concordance to give you the meanings in the original languages. Thats the only ways, end of story.

faithson
5133
Points
faithson 02/12/13 - 12:45 am
1
1
Paul was a convert

Paul had a conversion experience upon watching the martyrdom of Stephen. He never met Jesus but took up the cause and was a contemporary of Simon Peter. He was instrumental in the propagation of 'jewish' Christianity throughout the Occident. He never intended his letters to his underlings to be con-screwed as 'sacred', this being done by later men when putting together the 'sacred scriptures'. His point of view was prejudiced by his Jewish upbringing and He had many teachings that were 'his' interpretation of events when Jesus taught the Apostles, his understanding tainted by the Jewish concept of sacrifice to god for the sins of man, a position you will not find in the teachings of Jesus.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Paine plans furloughs, salary cuts, layoffs

Paine College President George C. Bradley on Friday announced the college will implement furlough days, salary reductions and layoffs to save $2.4 million over the next fiscal year.
Search Augusta jobs