Boy Scouts

[Resha Caner]

I understand we're a minority, but I don't see that as a reason to acquiesce - especially if we actually think we preach truth. I would agree that some seem to think we have some kind of right to Christianity in the public schools, and often aren't helpful in these kinds of discussions. Establishing a right to pray is not the proper approach, IMO, but neither is giving in.

The truth is (and as I have experienced first hand) the ability for religious expression in a public school is quickly eroding. Though I realize it varies by where you live, we've reached the point where we are at the mercy of the benevolence of the school administrators. If they decide to press an issue, we are quickly losing any legal recourse for a response.

You seem to indicate that schools are somehow outside the religious community, and I would heartily disagree. Nor are they neutral, though they have perfected the art of subtlety - of turning up the heat slowly on the frog in the pot.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Openly gay just means they have homosexual attractions and they have admitted that publicly.

That is not what it means at all. It means they are gay and want others to accept it.

People aren't "openly adulterers".

Personally I think it's high time we admit that we can't "cure" homosexuality. I do believe it's a defect, one brought on as the results of the condition of sin in this world. It's also a defect in which they can choose not to engage in, just because they have the attractions does not mean they have to engage in homosexual activity or lust. They will just have to treat it as something they will struggle with for their entire lives.

It IS a defect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight its infiltration. I don't see groups of liars and adulterers clamoring for me to accept them and give them special dispensation.

But my epilepsy is a similar defect (in that in comes from the condition of sin and can not be cured.)

No, it's not. Epilepsy and your sexual preference are two very different beasts.


As I pointed out, the reason why it seems like we "target" homosexuality is because it's one of the few sins that people want everyone to accept as normal. Would you be okay with pedophiles suddenly claiming they're born that way and they can't be cured and therefore we shouldn't be prosecuting them? The principle is the same.

By the BSA opening their organization to openly gay boys, they are accepting the sin. I believe the only reason why they're not allowing openly gay men as leaders is because many parents would DEFINITELY flee the BSA thinking that pedophiles will be running it.

 

[Luther073082]

That is not what it means at all. It means they are gay and want others to accept it.

People aren't "openly adulterers".

Yes they want people to accept that they have homosexual attractions in which they can do nothing about. They can avoid the sin, but that doesn't mean the temptation goes away. Doesn't mean we should try and keep them away from everything.

It IS a defect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight its infiltration. I don't see groups of liars and adulterers clamoring for me to accept them and give them special dispensation.

Difference is that if someone has homosexual attractions they might not be able to do anything about that. Yet they are despised for it anyways. A person who lies or commits adultery can do something about that.

A person chooses to lie or commit adultery. A person does not choose to have homosexual attractions. There was never a single point in my life where I choose to like women, I just realized as I got older that I really liked how some women looked and I didn't have the same attraction to any men. I didn't choose to be a heterosexual, that is just how I ended up. In my conversations with people who have homosexual attractions, that is exactly what happened with them.

No, it's not. Epilepsy and your sexual preference are two very different beasts.

How are they? We where both born with it, outside of our choosing. The only difference is Epilepsy doesn't lead to a temptation to sin. Homosexuality does.

As I pointed out, the reason why it seems like we "target" homosexuality is because it's one of the few sins that people want everyone to accept as normal. Would you be okay with pedophiles suddenly claiming they're born that way and they can't be cured and therefore we shouldn't be prosecuting them? The principle is the same.

If a person says "I have a sexual attraction to children but I've never touched one". . . we should do our level best to help that person in any way possible and not try and throw them out of our community like they are something scary that we should fear. I'm not recommending you let your kids hang out with them. But that doesn't mean that we should try to push them to the fringes of adult society as well.

We don't prosecute them for the thoughts they have we prosecute them for the actions they do. We prosecute them for having child porn or for molesting children. Not because they are tempted to do so.

By the BSA opening their organization to openly gay boys, they are accepting the sin. I believe the only reason why they're not allowing openly gay men as leaders is because many parents would DEFINITELY flee the BSA thinking that pedophiles will be running it.

And there is no credible evidence linking homosexuality with pedophilia. 8th commandment

 

[Luther073082]

I understand we're a minority, but I don't see that as a reason to acquiesce - especially if we actually think we preach truth. I would agree that some seem to think we have some kind of right to Christianity in the public schools, and often aren't helpful in these kinds of discussions. Establishing a right to pray is not the proper approach, IMO, but neither is giving in.

Everyone thinks they preach truth. So let's just let the government do it's job and be neutral, which means no freaking 10 commandments in court houses and no organized school prayers or bible readings.

I'm more afraid of a government that gives up it's neutrality. Otherwise it won't be too long before your son is learning all about the sacraments of the church from a Southern Baptist.

The truth is (and as I have experienced first hand) the ability for religious expression in a public school is quickly eroding. Though I realize it varies by where you live, we've reached the point where we are at the mercy of the benevolence of the school administrators. If they decide to press an issue, we are quickly losing any legal recourse for a response.

You seem to indicate that schools are somehow outside the religious community, and I would heartily disagree. Nor are they neutral, though they have perfected the art of subtlety - of turning up the heat slowly on the frog in the pot.

Maybe it depends on where you live, because in Indiana I've heard no complaints.

 

[Resha Caner]

Everyone thinks they preach truth.

That sounds like the reply of a relativist. I wouldn't have expected it. Are you not convinced of the truth of the Lutheran church?

I'm more afraid of a government that gives up it's neutrality. Otherwise it won't be too long before your son is learning all about the sacraments of the church from a Southern Baptist.

I am well aware of that possibility, though the teachings of atheists, Muslims, etc. concern me much more than the Baptists. Anyway, that's part of life - to be ever vigilant.

Maybe it depends on where you live, because in Indiana I've heard no complaints.

Well, like I said, this is not the place for details. Suffice to say I had a lawyer on retainer until last August. I'm in Illinois - your neighbor. Trust me. It's coming.

 

[Luther073082]

That sounds like the reply of a relativist. I wouldn't have expected it. Are you not convinced of the truth of the Lutheran church?

I am convinced of the truth of the Lutheran church, but I'm not convinced we need to force it on people who don't want to listen or hear.

Just as I do not like the JW's beating upon my door trying to convince me of what they believe in despite the fact that I have no interest of in hearing from them, I have no interest in chasing down someone who has no interest in hearing from me.

Having been a former atheist, I can tell you that attempting to force feed people your faith and attempting to make them deal with it in the schools and the courthouses has the opposite of it's desired affect.

As far as being relativist, I think we should certainly apply Christian moral standards to those who are in our church. And we should certainly teach anyone who's unsure of their faith or wants to learn about our faith. But not to chase down or harass those who have no desire to listen. We will leave God to judge the rest of the world.

I am well aware of that possibility, though the teachings of atheists, Muslims, etc. concern me much more than the Baptists. Anyway, that's part of life - to be ever vigilant.

I say Southern Baptist because they are the largest denomination in the US. So if the government starts allowing Christian teachers to start preaching and teaching their faith inside of public schools, it's going to be the Southern Baptists, and not us that will win out in the end.

See I can choose my church, and so I can choose to have my child taught by the church the doctrines of the Lutheran faith. But I may not have the resources to choose my school. So I'd prefer schools just stay neutral so that I can teach the faith at home and in the church.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am convinced of the truth of the Lutheran church, but I'm not convinced we need to force it on people who don't want to listen or hear.

Just as I do not like the JW's beating upon my door trying to convince me of what they believe in despite the fact that I have no interest of in hearing from them, I have no interest in chasing down someone who has no interest in hearing from me.

Having been a former atheist, I can tell you that attempting to force feed people your faith and attempting to make them deal with it in the schools and the courthouses has the opposite of it's desired affect.

I had meant to include a comment about the 2 kingdoms. It is part of Lutheran teaching to say that goverment has a role which is separate from the priesthood. But that doesn't mean preventing government officials from expressing their faith.

I understand many people don't like it. Jesus didn't say to only preach to those who like it. I'm not talking about force-feeding anyone. I realize that is ineffective. But the more who hear the Word the better, and so we need to be a tool of the Spirit no matter where we are placed - even if we are placed in a school where it's against the rules. I'll mention Joseph here. He didn't force anyone to listen, but neither was he in a place receptive to the Word. He did, however, allow the Spirit to use him in the situation.

And, BTW, I think it would be a mistake to pass a law that makes it illegal for the JW to come to my door. When they come, I invite them in. It is an opportunity - both for them and to teach your children something.

 

[Luther073082]

I had meant to include a comment about the 2 kingdoms. It is part of Lutheran teaching to say that goverment has a role which is separate from the priesthood. But that doesn't mean preventing government officials from expressing their faith.

Who is to say they can't pray in private?

I understand many people don't like it. Jesus didn't say to only preach to those who like it. I'm not talking about force-feeding anyone. I realize that is ineffective. But the more who hear the Word the better, and so we need to be a tool of the Spirit no matter where we are placed - even if we are placed in a school where it's against the rules. I'll mention Joseph here. He didn't force anyone to listen, but neither was he in a place receptive to the Word. He did, however, allow the Spirit to use him in the situation.

And, BTW, I think it would be a mistake to pass a law that makes it illegal for the JW to come to my door. When they come, I invite them in. It is an opportunity - both for them and to teach your children something.

I'm not saying we stay quiet about our beliefs. But we don't need organized prayers in schools or 10 commandments in court houses.

And when someone is acting in a role as a teacher or judge or something in that nature, they shouldn't talk about their faith at the time they are doing their job.

 

[Resha Caner]

Who is to say they can't pray in private?

They can, but it's about more than private prayer.

I'm not saying we stay quiet about our beliefs. But we don't need organized prayers in schools or 10 commandments in court houses.

I don't see why that's a bad thing.

And when someone is acting in a role as a teacher or judge or something in that nature, they shouldn't talk about their faith at the time they are doing their job.

It's bad for a child to see an expression of faith from an authority figure?

 

[Luther073082]

They can, but it's about more than private prayer.

Then what is it about

I don't see why that's a bad thing.

What the organized prayers and the ten commandments? Because not everyone shares our beliefs.

What if a Muslim wanted to put up Qu'ran passages in the courthouse and you had to go be judged there. Would you feel that you would get a fair trial?

It's bad for a child to see an expression of faith from an authority figure?

It is if they hold a different faith from me.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then what is it about

I think we were discussing open expressions of faith.

What the organized prayers and the ten commandments? Because not everyone shares our beliefs.

And? I thought we agreed it was good to speak truth.

What if a Muslim wanted to put up Qu'ran passages in the courthouse and you had to go be judged there. Would you feel that you would get a fair trial?

It depends on the issue and what country we're talking about. I have a degree in history and studied the Byzantine/Ottoman empires (i.e. Turkey). Strict Muslims hold to what is called "sharia", which classifies someone like me as a "dhimmi" who must pay a tax called the "jizya". It means I have no rights at all in a strictly Muslim court. They wouldn't even hear my case. The jizya is essentially a bribe (protection money) paid to Muslims to leave Christians alone.

So, assuming I was even let into a court that posted sharia, I would assume I'm in a fairly liberal country where sharia means about as much as the 10 commandments mean in the U.S. - which is nothing. As such, I might have a fair chance at winning.

But I know that's not what you were getting at. Of course I don't want sharia posted in my court house. I want Biblically-based legal principles. But I'm not going to exclude the Bible just to avoid the possibility someone might post sharia. That's what the devil wants, for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So, what if I did end up under Muslim law? Shrug. I don't know that I'd be much worse off than I am now depending on what degree of it I would have to endure. That's my point. Once you remove the Bible, whether the law was inspired by the Enlightenment (which is the case for the U.S.) or something else makes little difference to me. It sets upon a flawed foundation either way.

It is if they hold a different faith from me.

Public schools already teach things I disagree with. I don't see the difference. You deal with it.

The rewarding part comes when your son shares his faith with his biology teacher ... no self-righteous bluster where he disrupts the classroom and disrespects the teacher ... just a quiet moment when he expresses his view. It makes a dad proud.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh Luther. What I meant was that pedophile and homosexuality are both sexually based sins. Don't throw the 8th commandment at me when you clearly don't know what I'm talking about.

I think you need to talk to your pastor about homosexuality being a choice. I think you've been misled on that point.

Now...to be clear, I didn't start this thread to totally dissect the immorality of homosexuality. I started it because I am genuinely curious as to how the LCMS will handle this. I stand united with them if they choose to disassociate themselves, and I believe they SHOULD do so.

 

[Luther073082]

Oh Luther. What I meant was that pedophile and homosexuality are both sexually based sins. Don't throw the 8th commandment at me when you clearly don't know what I'm talking about.

I think you need to talk to your pastor about homosexuality being a choice. I think you've been misled on that point.

Now...to be clear, I didn't start this thread to totally dissect the immorality of homosexuality. I started it because I am genuinely curious as to how the LCMS will handle this. I stand united with them if they choose to disassociate themselves, and I believe they SHOULD do so.

Is there anything specifically in Lutheran doctrine which teaches that the orientation of homosexuality in and of itself is a choice? Because quite frankly that makes no sense. Homosexual acts are a choice, the orientation is not. Why would a person who believes that homosexuality is wrong choose to have homosexual attractions that they are not going to act upon.

As far as the LCMS disassociating itself, my problem is that they should have done that a long time ago when the Boy Scouts started allowing in people who pray to false Gods. At this point doing so now looks hypocritical.

 

[Luther073082]

And? I thought we agreed it was good to speak truth.

Not in every case. Problem is that people disagree as to exactly what the truth is. . . and those people have just as much right to not have their kids being taught what you believe to be the truth as we have the right to have our kids not taught what they believe to be the truth.

We talk about religious freedom, but we arn't going to have religious freedom unless we are also willing to give religious freedom to others. And among those things is not subjecting their children to preaching in public schools.

I will bring my child to church to hear preaching because I am able to make that choice as to what sort of preaching they will hear. And just as I would not have other's preaching another faith to my children, I would not want them to listen to the preaching of my faith in that setting.

Freedom, including freedom of religion means allowing others to have that freedom and not just claiming it for oneself.

But I know that's not what you were getting at. Of course I don't want sharia posted in my court house. I want Biblically-based legal principles. But I'm not going to exclude the Bible just to avoid the possibility someone might post sharia. That's what the devil wants, for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And what exactly do you mean by Biblically based legal principals. I hardly see any rules for court procedure in the new testament. Not unless you want to go with the Jewish law on it.

So, what if I did end up under Muslim law? Shrug. I don't know that I'd be much worse off than I am now depending on what degree of it I would have to endure. That's my point. Once you remove the Bible, whether the law was inspired by the Enlightenment (which is the case for the U.S.) or something else makes little difference to me. It sets upon a flawed foundation either way.

Who said that enlightenment legal principals are flawed. The law is for the government to operate, not for the church. Scripture makes this very clear.

Quite frankly I like our legal principals as they are.

Public schools already teach things I disagree with. I don't see the difference. You deal with it.

And they typically do so on the basis of science correct? This is where they learn their faith and learn what science has to say and allow them to figure out which is more correct or work out an understanding in their minds.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Is there anything specifically in Lutheran doctrine which teaches that the orientation of homosexuality in and of itself is a choice? Because quite frankly that makes no sense. Homosexual acts are a choice, the orientation is not. Why would a person who believes that homosexuality is wrong choose to have homosexual attractions that they are not going to act upon.

We are all tempted in some way or another and we all choose to either give in to that temptation or fight it. What we're talking about here isn't people who are fighting the temptation, but those who have given into it and want others to embrace it. I have friends with homosexual attractions who don't act on them and don't even call themselves gay.

We are talking about openly gay people here, the unrepentant ones. Or are you in the habit of accepting sin just because you think it's a "defect"?

As far as the LCMS disassociating itself, my problem is that they should have done that a long time ago when the Boy Scouts started allowing in people who pray to false Gods. At this point doing so now looks hypocritical.

It could...I'm not saying I disagree with that notion. But what you're seemingly saying is that because they didn't leave after the first straw, the second straw doesn't make a difference. So just stay in the organization as they whittle away God's word?

 

[Luther073082]

We are all tempted in some way or another and we all choose to either give in to that temptation or fight it. What we're talking about here isn't people who are fighting the temptation, but those who have given into it and want others to embrace it. I have friends with homosexual attractions who don't act on them and don't even call themselves gay.

We are talking about openly gay people here, the unrepentant ones. Or are you in the habit of accepting sin just because you think it's a "defect"?

That isn't who we are talking about at all. Being gay is an orientation, essentially defining what sexual temptations you face, not necessarily a sexual behavior. Just like being straight is an orientation, which defines what sexual temptations you will face, not necessarily a sexual behavior.

It could...I'm not saying I disagree with that notion. But what you're seemingly saying is that because they didn't leave after the first straw, the second straw doesn't make a difference. So just stay in the organization as they whittle away God's word?

First of all they arn't "in" the boy scouts, they just allow them to use their facilities.

Secondly, as I said if they disassociate themselves, they should apologize to all involved for accepting the prayer to false Gods for decades. Because there is a hypocrisy here. . . we where ok with praying to false Gods but if a boy admits he has homosexual temptation suddenly we're up in arms.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That isn't who we are talking about at all. Being gay is an orientation, essentially defining what sexual temptations you face, not necessarily a sexual behavior. Just like being straight is an orientation, which defines what sexual temptations you will face, not necessarily a sexual behavior.

Yeah...I'm kinda done talking about this with you, because you're starting from the wrong precept. We're not talking about people who just say they're gay and that's it.

First of all they arn't "in" the boy scouts, they just allow them to use their facilities.

They are most certainly "in" the scouts. I have several friends who are troop leaders...one or two of them are pastors. And their kids are in the scouts as well.

Secondly, as I said if they disassociate themselves, they should apologize to all involved for accepting the prayer to false Gods for decades. Because there is a hypocrisy here. . . we where ok with praying to false Gods but if a boy admits he has homosexual temptation suddenly we're up in arms.

I get that you believe an apology is necessary. I don't agree with that.

And again, we're talking about more than just admitting a temptation.

 

[DaRev]

As far as the LCMS disassociating itself, my problem is that they should have done that a long time ago when the Boy Scouts started allowing in people who pray to false Gods. At this point doing so now looks hypocritical.

As I had stated before, if a congregation hosted a BSA troop it was to operate in such a way that does not contradict Lutheran teaching. If that troop had a non-Christian chaplain, for example, that troop would need to find another location to meet. That has been the understanding. The LCMS was not going to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Prayer to Islam's Allah or modern Judaism's god is not a universal thing in the BSA, meaning that not every troop prays to false gods. The issue with homosexuality is very different. Apples to oranges. The acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by the BSA is a universal practice. Such a policy makes their prayer to the true God hypocritical and in contradiction with the word of God. My prayer is that the synod do the right thing and disassociate itself with the BSA.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not in every case. Problem is that people disagree as to exactly what the truth is. . . and those people have just as much right to not have their kids being taught what you believe to be the truth as we have the right to have our kids not taught what they believe to be the truth.

We've already discussed this. You're repeating yourself. Where did I ever say I would force a religious teaching on someone? To be honest, I think my approach is freer than yours in that you seem to propose freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.

I take it you didn't like my answer that I realize this means a Muslim might be allowed to speak of - even post - their religious ideas.

Freedom, including freedom of religion means allowing others to have that freedom and not just claiming it for oneself.

But let's focus on this statement. Is religious freedom an American idea or a Biblical idea?

And what exactly do you mean by Biblically based legal principals. I hardly see any rules for court procedure in the new testament. Not unless you want to go with the Jewish law on it.

I'll not say I agree with everything on this site, but it provides some food for thought.
Herbert W. Titus: Biblical Principles of Law

One thing I would agree with is that Biblically-based legal principles would begin by acknowledging that God is the lawgiver, not man.

Who said that enlightenment legal principals are flawed.

I did. With that said, the Christian heritage had a significant influence on our legal system, so it depends specifically upon one's objection.

And they typically do so on the basis of science correct? This is where they learn their faith and learn what science has to say and allow them to figure out which is more correct or work out an understanding in their minds.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying public school students in the U.S. deal with their disagreements regarding public school teachings on the basis of science? I don't think they do. Even if they did, I'm not sure that's a good model ... but before you suggest I am anti-science I will note that I am an engineer by profession (the history thing is a hobby).

 

[Luther073082]

We've already discussed this. You're repeating yourself. Where did I ever say I would force a religious teaching on someone? To be honest, I think my approach is freer than yours in that you seem to propose freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion.

I take it you didn't like my answer that I realize this means a Muslim might be allowed to speak of - even post - their religious ideas.

If you are ok with that, then that is fine. Personally I think religion should be something that the government just avoids.

But let's focus on this statement. Is religious freedom an American idea or a Biblical idea?

More of englightenment idea. We where not the first to come up with the idea, just one of the first to put it into good practice. The Romans tried to practice freedom of religion, however since they always demanded a sacrifice to their gods, they failed miserably.

One thing I would agree with is that Biblically-based legal principles would begin by acknowledging that God is the lawgiver, not man.

Can't read through that whole thing, but I would prefer the government avoid the topic. Or else we quickly decend into theocracy, which is a system that has worked well for absolutely no one.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying public school students in the U.S. deal with their disagreements regarding public school teachings on the basis of science? I don't think they do. Even if they did, I'm not sure that's a good model ... but before you suggest I am anti-science I will note that I am an engineer by profession (the history thing is a hobby).

I'm saying whatever the school teaches that you disagree with the church should teach what it believes and the student will eventually determine what they believe.

I'm essentially saying that teaching of scientific models that you may disagree with is not the same as teaching religious faiths.