Who is in the Right?

[Alex]

No good deed goes unpunished. I say, lets ban all altruism. :shock:

Altruism does not have to stop. With money saved by lessening a tax burden, people can donate to whatever organization they want. If they truly believe that the organization is proper, then do it on their own.

 

[Pen]

And I think that's a fair point, and I can see the argument for not treating them specially, simply because they're promoting a specific ideology (that I assume many in San Fransisco don't like their tax dollars supporting).

But what I was adressing was calling the mentors moronic due to their ideology. For the most part the scouts teach the very best parts of citizenship and christianity (in my opinion), and to a very small degree they impart morals that I don't happen to agree with, but I'll be damned if the service these people provide is foregone simply because of a difference in ideas.

I don't disagree with you at all. AND I applaud the young man that I referred to for the value he placed in honesty, which I am sure he learned from his scouting experience.

I must have missed the "mentors are moronic" post, as I tend to ignore sweeping generalizations and hyperbole.

 

[jfuh]

Excuse me? The Boy Scouts have done spectacular things to keep boys on the right path with a good moral backbone. I was a boy scout, you know how many times we discussed homosexuality? NONE! NOT ONCE!

And these "moronic mentors" you speak of are doing fantastic work. Sure, they think homosexuality is immoral, but whatever, so do a lot of people, and it's mighty ****ed up to ignore all of the good they do because you differ in opinion from them on one particular issue.

What have you done to keep kids on the right path? Have you ever gone out and taught kids the value of honesty, discipline, and being a good citizen and a good person? Teaching kids the need for an education, the need to always be a good person, and the need to always be prepared for anything?

And I mean this dead seriously, the Boy Scouts of America is one of the best organizations in these United States, and I can't believe that you'd write off these people who VOLUNTEER their time to make children's lives better, make them better people, so that they not only improve their own lives, but the lives of those around them, just because the organization finds homosexuality immoral!

The article is not discussing the boy scouts of American now is it? No, they're discussing another crowd that uses the kids as a shield to advance thier own agenda. Next time read the argument presented before jumping the gun so quickly. The scouts I've referenced to are the ones in this article, not the boy scouts of america.

As for the "so do a lot of ppl" think homosexuality is immoral, so what? doesn't make it so.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Given the statutes on file in this city......is it justified to appeal this descision?

Sea Scouts appeal speech ruling
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - The Berkeley Sea Scouts asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to overturn a lower court decision requiring the group to pay berthing fees at the Berkeley Marina.

The California Supreme Court ruled in March that Berkeley did not violate the rights of the youth sailors connected to the Boy Scouts of America when it demanded marina fees because the group violates a city anti-discrimination policy.

The city revoked free berthing privileges for the Berkeley Sea Scouts because the Boy Scouts bar atheist and gay members, which violates the city's 1997 policy to provide free berthing to nonprofits that don't discriminate.

City officials told the Sea Scouts that the group could retain its berthing subsidy, valued at about $500 monthly per boat, if it broke ties with the Boy Scouts or disavowed the policy against gays and atheists.

The Sea Scouts, which teaches sailing, carpentry and plumbing, refused to do so and maintained that such an edict was unconstitutional.

NCLB had a clause to give the boy scouts tax dollars. If the Sea Scouts are affiliated with the Boy Scouts, they are probably entitled to tax dollars too under the law.

BTW- The Boy Scouts can bend up and sniff my anal vapors. :mrgreen:

 

[southern_liberal]

Yup. That's what I said in post 7.


Heh, moral relativism, best show around.

You can not choose what is healthy and what is unhealthy anymore than you can choose what minerals your body needs. Something is either healthy or it is not.

"I chose for my self that fire is good for me, and you have no authority to tell me otherwise." Then when I pull out a Zippo, light it, and try to nurse it like a drink, according to your moral relativism it will be a nutritious snack.

No, I'll burn my lips off.
Silly liberal, you're funny.

Actually, moral relativism is the only show. That's why there is a huge culture war; people aren't willing to let others decide their morals, and they shouldn't.

My questions for you are, who are you to determine for everyone else what is morally healthy or unhealthy? Where did you get that authority?

unlike the minerals your body has to have to survive, morals and values can change, and most do as a person grows and go through life experiences, or not.

 

[southern_liberal]

Yup. That's what I said in post 7.


Heh, moral relativism, best show around...

"I chose for my self that fire is good for me, and you have no authority to tell me otherwise." Then when I pull out a Zippo, light it, and try to nurse it like a drink, according to your moral relativism it will be a nutritious snack.

No, I'll burn my lips off.
Silly liberal, you're funny.

Also I would like to add, what in the world is that analogy? How old are you? 12?. I can't even justify it with a debate. If you want to respond to my post, please do it with at least some hint of logic. That tantrum and analogy was beyond elementary. I mean really. And what does morals have to do with biological functions?

Futhermore, I would appreciate if you would answer my questions from my first response to you.

Thanks.

 

[jfuh]

The Sea Scouts of the Boy Scouts of America, so yes, it is discussing the Boy Scouts of America. It's the Boy Scouts of America that hold the official stance that homosexuality is immoral, and thus why the Berkley Sea Scouts lost their free berthing.

The city's stance?

City officials told the Sea Scouts that the group could retain its berthing subsidy, valued at about $500 monthly per boat, if it broke ties with the Boy Scouts or disavowed the policy against gays and atheists.

All the sea scouts needed to do was to disavow the policy, yet they refused to do so and insisted it as policy. WEll very simple, then you are a discriminitory organization that needs to pay for berthing. Was it the scouts themselves that made the inssitance on upholding the discriminatory policy? Or was it the sea scout mentors? The mentors lead by example, what kind of an example does this set for the scouts? That discrimination against gays and atheists is the moral way? Your past expereince said that such issues were never brought up, well neither were my expereinces, however in this specific case, not only is it brought up, it's brought up in a very negative way. The stance is indeed moronic as are all things discriminitory.

So it would seem that it is not I who jumped the gun...

A lot of people find homosexuality immoral. The catholic church as a whole thinks homosexuality is immoral. Now I personally disagree, but I wouldn't for a second think that finding homosexuality immoral makes someone a moron.

Of course, you're still jumping the gun, as my argument was specific to this case in point. yet you generalized my comment to include ALL of the scouts regardless of everything else. Sorry, but those who discriminate on irrational fears are indeed morons regardless of.
The catholic church thinks many things are immoral, but they do not discriminate and say homosexuals can not join as the sea scouts here specifically note. And who are we saying can not join? Kids, not adults, kids.

 

[zymurgy]

The atheist is the new Black.

More like the new catholic.

Everybody will use actions of one to paint a broad picture of the entire group as a hole.

 

[Jerry]

A liberal walks into a bar and says:

Also I would like to add, what in the world is that analogy? How old are you? 12?. I can't even justify it with a debate. If you want to respond to my post, please do it with at least some hint of logic. That tantrum and analogy was beyond elementary. I mean really. And what does morals have to do with biological functions?

:2funny:



No no, but really.....

Futhermore, I would appreciate if you would answer my questions from my first response to you.

Thanks.

Did I not?

The atheist is the new Black.

I'd like for you to elaborate on this please.

...and I did.

Or were you referring to my post 42 in the "born different" thread?

 

[Jerry]

More like the new catholic.

Everybody will use actions of one to paint a broad picture of the entire group as a hole.

Hmm...the atheist is the new Catholic? Well, considering how the Catholic Church has become the Whore of Babylon, just as it was written to happen in the last days in scripture so long ago, and the current Pope is a heretic, you may be on to something.

 

[Jerry]

Yeah, what morons, not changing their morals to match yours to get free stuff. Standing up for your beliefs, how ridiculous!

See, you're making the mistake of valuing other people's morals less than you value your own. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was people who think homosexuality is moral, but were being forced to disavow the policy for free berthing rights, they would be heroes for standing up for their beliefs. But since it's a moral that you disagree with, they're morons using kids as a shield.

I can tell you now, most boy scout groups would do the same, so all your comments about these guys apply for most scout masters. One of the main things the Boy Scouts aims to do is to teach the kids to have a moral backbone, so you can threaten to take away whatever you want, as long as they believe what they're doing is right, they're gonna stand up for it.

And it's terrible that you view that as a bad thing.


See, but you're criticizing them for a policy of the Boy Scouts of America. Essentially, what you're arguing would be similar to criticizing a particular liquor store for not selling booze after nine, ignoring that it's a county law. If you were to criticize the liquor store, you're also criticizing the county government, and you can't claim "No, it's only bad in this particular case".

So please tell me then, what is it that specifically makes those in this case worse than any of the other people who volunteer their time helping to send kids in the right direction and happen to believe homosexuality is immoral, and thus to be a scout you cannot practice homosexuality? I mean, if it's just these guys, what is it that separates these guys from everyone else?

galenrox,
Your fair-sighted logic and objectivity humbles me yet again.

 

[Jerry]

Actually, moral relativism is the only show. That's why there is a huge culture war; people aren't willing to let others decide their morals, and they shouldn't.

My questions for you are, who are you to determine for everyone else what is morally healthy or unhealthy? Where did you get that authority?

unlike the minerals your body has to have to survive, morals and values can change, and most do as a person grows and go through life experiences, or not.

Sorry, I missed this post :3oops:

Actually, moral relativism is the only show. That's why there is a huge culture war; people aren't willing to let others decide their morals, and they shouldn't.

People decide on a degree of compliance with a moral, not the moral itself.

My questions for you are, who are you to determine for everyone else what is morally healthy or unhealthy? Where did you get that authority?

What authority? What decision for another did I make?

Legally: At best my constitutional civil duty of casting my one vote is added into the mix with everyone else’s. I decide nothing.

Philosophically: God made the laws of nature, not me. It is He who decided what is beneficial to the spirit and what it not, not me. It is by his authority that His word is written, and by his command that I sheer it; not mine.

unlike the minerals your body has to have to survive, morals and values can change, and most do as a person grows and go through life experiences, or not.

God tells us in Malachi;
"I the LORD do not change.", and so neither do His rules.

Just as the body needs the same minerals at it always has in order to live, so do you need the same Spirit and Water as Man's soul always has in order to live.

It is not a change in morals, it is a change in compliance with morality.

 

[Dogger807]

Yeah, what morons, not changing their morals to match yours to get free stuff. Standing up for your beliefs, how ridiculous!

See, you're making the mistake of valuing other people's morals less than you value your own. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was people who think homosexuality is moral, but were being forced to disavow the policy for free berthing rights, they would be heroes for standing up for their beliefs. But since it's a moral that you disagree with, they're morons using kids as a shield.

I can tell you now, most boy scout groups would do the same, so all your comments about these guys apply for most scout masters. One of the main things the Boy Scouts aims to do is to teach the kids to have a moral backbone, so you can threaten to take away whatever you want, as long as they believe what they're doing is right, they're gonna stand up for it.

And it's terrible that you view that as a bad thing.


See, but you're criticizing them for a policy of the Boy Scouts of America. Essentially, what you're arguing would be similar to criticizing a particular liquor store for not selling booze after nine, ignoring that it's a county law. If you were to criticize the liquor store, you're also criticizing the county government, and you can't claim "No, it's only bad in this particular case".

So please tell me then, what is it that specifically makes those in this case worse than any of the other people who volunteer their time helping to send kids in the right direction and happen to believe homosexuality is immoral, and thus to be a scout you cannot practice homosexuality? I mean, if it's just these guys, what is it that separates these guys from everyone else?

But the whole problem isn't having different morality ... the problem is excluding potential members on merely having a different morality. This is discrimination and no moral base can be built on that. It starts strong but eventually people become intolerant of the intolerance. You can believe homosexuality and atheism are wrong all you want, but you may not penalize others for not seeing it your way.

And why do they exclude atheist anyway? Do they really think we have no morality, like the propaganda I hear so often from the religious?

Or maybe their afraid the atheist children may teach the other kids to think rationally.

Personally, I've always seen the hostility religion shows to the non believers as one of the biggest clues that the religion is nothing more than a superstion used to control people.

Standing up for what you feel is right is comendable, but not if your standing on others in the process.

I think your using an apples and oranges analogy here.

 

[southern_liberal]

Sorry, I missed this post :3oops:


People decide on a degree of compliance with a moral, not the moral itself.

What authority? What decision for another did I make?

Legally: At best my constitutional civil duty of casting my one vote is added into the mix with everyone else’s. I decide nothing.

Philosophically: God made the laws of nature, not me. It is He who decided what is beneficial to the spirit and what it not, not me. It is by his authority that His word is written, and by his command that I sheer it; not mine.

God tells us in Malachi;
"I the LORD do not change.", and so neither do His rules.

Just as the body needs the same minerals at it always has in order to live, so do you need the same Spirit and Water as Man's soul always has in order to live.

It is not a change in morals, it is a change in compliance with morality.

See you need to learn the difference between faith and fact. Your faith tells you what's in the bible is authentic; and that's fine for you. But much of the bible cannot be authenticated. Not to mention, there are so many different interpretations (denominations), that who is to say which is right or wrong. So arguing how you believe God wants us to behave is not applicable.

Fact is, people are different. We all have different religions (some of us identify with no religion) Some of us are conservative, some of us are liberal. some of us like ice cream, some of us don't. Some of us has been exposed to other cultures, some of us have preferred to stay in our comfort zone. Some of us feel the need to help those less fortunate, some of us feel it's not their responsibility to help others and so on and so on. What I'm saying is, there is no way a uniform code of morals can be applied to all 6 billion or so people on this planet. It is sheer arrogance to think it can. And as I have stated before, that is the root cause of the culture and international wars that are raging on this planet.


You speak with such fervor in expressing that you KNOW that there are a set of morals that are absolute. What I'm trying to help you see is that's just not so. In stating that a person is or isn't in "compliance" with a moral, is to suggest that their are firm sets of morals that all people must follow, and to some extent, that is true( i.e. the "morals" that are law), but not entirely true.

 

[Jerry]

See you need to learn the difference between faith and fact. Your faith tells you what's in the bible is authentic; and that's fine for you. But much of the bible cannot be authenticated. Not to mention, there are so many different interpretations (denominations), that who is to say which is right or wrong. So arguing how you believe God wants us to behave is not applicable.

Stone.
It is quite literally written in stone.
It stands in the midst of the center of gravity of all of earth’s landmass, for the whole world to see. It serves as a sign and a wonder -- a witness to the Lord of hosts.....and yet you still deny that no such thing as God or His laws can be validated.

Such system and symmetry is contained within the Torah. The words themselves speak the building blocks of DNA, the nature of free will and physics that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of through Quantum theory.

Before making up your mind on the issue of God, I recommend that you learn of the Great Pyramid, of works such as that of Stan Tenen and similer.

Fact is, people are different. We all have different religions (some of us identify with no religion) Some of us are conservative, some of us are liberal. some of us like ice cream, some of us don't. Some of us has been exposed to other cultures, some of us have preferred to stay in our comfort zone. Some of us feel the need to help those less fortunate, some of us feel it's not their responsibility to help others and so on and so on. What I'm saying is, there is no way a uniform code of morals can be applied to all 6 billion or so people on this planet. It is sheer arrogance to think it can. And as I have stated before, that is the root cause of the culture and international wars that are raging on this planet.

Don't you see? The "uniform code of morality" is as applicable to all 6 bill. people as easily as the laws of physics.

Just as the US Constitution applies to all US citizens regardless of preferences in ice cream or bed mates, so does God's law apply to all people.

You speak with such fervor in expressing that you KNOW that there are a set of morals that are absolute. What I'm trying to help you see is that's just not so. In stating that a person is or isn't in "compliance" with a moral, is to suggest that their are firm sets of morals that all people must follow, and to some extent, that is true( i.e. the "morals" that are law), but not entirely true.

It is so. I know it to be fact. I study the evidences and I see it in people everyday.

 

[Pen]

That must be a wonderful gift! :smile:

I agree, and I believe as a christian that it's wrong to respond to his doubts by casting him out. But we're all sinners, and I have trouble with deducing a lack of value in so many who contribute so much due to a misstep that, in one way or another, we all make.

As a mod team member, you don't have the choice. :good_job:

 

[southern_liberal]

Stone.
It is quite literally written in stone.
It stands in the midst of the center of gravity of all of earth’s landmass, for the whole world to see. It serves as a sign and a wonder -- a witness to the Lord of hosts.....and yet you still deny that no such thing as God or His laws can be validated.

Such system and symmetry is contained within the Torah. The words themselves speak the building blocks of DNA, the nature of free will and physics that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of through Quantum theory.

Before making up your mind on the issue of God, I recommend that you learn of the Great Pyramid, of works such as that of Stan Tenen and similer.


Don't you see? The "uniform code of morality" is as applicable to all 6 bill. people as easily as the laws of physics.

Just as the US Constitution applies to all US citizens regardless of preferences in ice cream or bed mates, so does God's law apply to all people.


It is so. I know it to be fact. I study the evidences and I see it in people everyday.

Just for the record, I'm a Christian, and my faith in God and belief in Jesus is based on my personal faith. I have no expectation at all for my faith to become someone else's facts. That said, I also see contradictions in the bible as well as much in the Bible that cannot be verified, so I understand those who do not believe in God. So therefore, your moral standards, and your belief that God's law applies to all, based on your faith in God, is not a fact for them. Nor should it be.

I would reccomend you read "The Orion Mystery: Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids" by Robert Bauval if you think the Pyramids holds evidence to the existence of God. I love research. Could you please provide me with the passages in the new testament that speaks of DNA and the location of the stone Tablets?

 

[earthworm]

Actually....had they dropped affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America.....they would have maintained exempt status under the Laws of the city. They were informed of this....and declined, prefering to make a political point it seems.

In my mind...this IS discrimination:

"No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have religion." From the book "Scouting for Boys" by Robert Lord Baden Powell (founder of the Scouting movement).
* "The Boy Scouts of America maintain that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God." Boy Scouts of America, Bylaws.
* "Any organization could profit from a 10-year-old member with enough strength of character to refuse to swear falsely." Editorial, New York Times, 1993-DEC-12, commenting on the Boy Scouts' exclusion of a young Atheist.
* "If a youth comes to a Scoutmaster and admits to doing wrong, like stealing, lying, cheating or vandalizing, the normal procedure is to counsel the youth privately and sympathetically...If the youth admits to being a homosexual, the Boy Scouts' policy is to instantly terminate his association with Scouting." Findings of fact, in a DC court case 1
* "Obviously, the Boy Scouts can accept and reject whomever they wish. But officials should bear in mind that they, like the Christian Right and the Anglican bishops, are disserving the nation's boys -- mere children -- when teaching them to hate fellow humans." Bill Maxwell, St. Petersburg Times, 1998-AUG-9"

The Boy Scouts are right in maintaining moral standards and in discriminating against those without any values...
Berkeley is wrong for passing these so-called anti-discrimination laws..

Much of what is above is taken out of context or is one man's opinion...

Maxwell is good at twisting the truth, if not outright lying - but what can one expect from an atheist...

 

[jfuh]

Yeah, what morons, not changing their morals to match yours to get free stuff. Standing up for your beliefs, how ridiculous!

See, you're making the mistake of valuing other people's morals less than you value your own. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was people who think homosexuality is moral, but were being forced to disavow the policy for free berthing rights, they would be heroes for standing up for their beliefs. But since it's a moral that you disagree with, they're morons using kids as a shield.

I can tell you now, most boy scout groups would do the same, so all your comments about these guys apply for most scout masters. One of the main things the Boy Scouts aims to do is to teach the kids to have a moral backbone, so you can threaten to take away whatever you want, as long as they believe what they're doing is right, they're gonna stand up for it.

And it's terrible that you view that as a bad thing.

Terrible that I view discrimination as a bad thing? Terrible that I view ppl insistent that homosexuality is a sin as morons?
Your flaw is that my argument here never generalized on all other boy scout groups. But specifically to the case in point.
You hardly know of what value I place on what, I made a clear simple argument against the sea scouts and thier discriminitory tactics, facing the kids within the bay area into thier shield. There's nothing appraisable about discrimination.
Like I said, the catholic condones homosexuality sure, but it does not say god does not love gays, nor does it refuse acceptance of homosexualities into the community as is here in this case. This is discrimination. The only argument you have against me in point is my calling the mentors of THIS group morons and generalizing it to include the entire organization. Even putting words into my mouth for stating that aside all the good they do I condone them when I've done nothing of the sort.
It was the sea scouts that brought up the legal suit, it is they whom want to remain exempt from the berthing fees yet it is also the sea scouts who clearly have a discriminatory policy and refuse to disvow it.

See, but you're criticizing them for a policy of the Boy Scouts of America. Essentially, what you're arguing would be similar to criticizing a particular liquor store for not selling booze after nine, ignoring that it's a county law. If you were to criticize the liquor store, you're also criticizing the county government, and you can't claim "No, it's only bad in this particular case".

So please tell me then, what is it that specifically makes those in this case worse than any of the other people who volunteer their time helping to send kids in the right direction and happen to believe homosexuality is immoral, and thus to be a scout you cannot practice homosexuality? I mean, if it's just these guys, what is it that separates these guys from everyone else?

Did I say it's bad only in this case? No, but what was the stem of my original argument? The mentors of the sea scouts who had to instead of taking thier violation in stride and paying for berthing they filed a legal suit stating that they should remain exempt regardless of. That then is indeed moronic and using the kids as a sheild.
The volunteer basis or their motives for the kids is compeltely irrelevent to the point in question or what was posted by the OP. Your argument with me is not over the topic of the thread but of a specific point I've brought up of my opinion over the progression of the group in question. You're attempting at nothing but to draw me out into an argument of value and morality.
In which case then I have 2 simple questions:
1. You feel that regardless of, discrimination of homosexuals and atheists is justifiable because the majority of the population agrees it's amoral?
2. Discrimiation of gays and atheists is justifiable because the principles of the groups is for the good?
If you answer yes to either of those two then we have an argument, otherwise you're arguing only for the sake of argument and nothing of my premise.

 

[jfuh]

But the whole problem isn't having different morality ... the problem is excluding potential members on merely having a different morality. This is discrimination and no moral base can be built on that. It starts strong but eventually people become intolerant of the intolerance. You can believe homosexuality and atheism are wrong all you want, but you may not penalize others for not seeing it your way.

And why do they exclude atheist anyway? Do they really think we have no morality, like the propaganda I hear so often from the religious?

Or maybe their afraid the atheist children may teach the other kids to think rationally.

Personally, I've always seen the hostility religion shows to the non believers as one of the biggest clues that the religion is nothing more than a superstion used to control people.

Standing up for what you feel is right is comendable, but not if your standing on others in the process.

I think your using an apples and oranges analogy here.

Bingo, finally, someone that understands the argument being presented.

 

[talloulou]

The whole thing is really just ridiculous because this particular instance is dealing with little kids who are interesting in learning about boating. Neither the Boy Scouts or the Sea Scouts ask you if you are a homosexual or an atheist when you sign up as little kid. Neither group has in depth discussions about God or sexual orientation. They do have a pledge that promises to do Gods duty but that is so vague it could mean anything and if you are that uptight about it why would you have your kid join the group in the first place?

I do think it sucks that the Boy Scouts have a stance against homosexuals but they are basically a christian group and though times are a changing things change slowly.

The city of Berkely is completely within their right however I do think common sense suggests we should pause and consider how and when to fight our battles and in my mind targeting groups for children just is not the way to go. Even if the Boy Scouts decided they loved and supported the gay community how much would that really change what goes on in the scouts? From what I can tell not very much so what is the point in forcing the issue with them?

As for the atheist crap that is just weak and pitiful. There are tons of groups and gatherings for kids that make no mention of God so join those if the very word God offends you. Otherwise we really place ourselves in a situation where we are practicing reverse discrimination.

Galenrox is competely right. I hate racists. All of them. That is me hating on a group. Everyone has a point where they draw the line and their tolerance ends. Using children to wage a PC war though is just sad.

 

[Jerry]

Just for the record, I'm a Christian, and my faith in God and belief in Jesus is based on my personal faith. I have no expectation at all for my faith to become someone else's facts. That said, I also see contradictions in the bible as well as much in the Bible that cannot be verified, so I understand those who do not believe in God. So therefore, your moral standards, and your belief that God's law applies to all, based on your faith in God, is not a fact for them. Nor should it be.

I would reccomend you read "The Orion Mystery: Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids" by Robert Bauval if you think the Pyramids holds evidence to the existence of God. I love research. Could you please provide me with the passages in the new testament that speaks of DNA and the location of the stone Tablets?

A fact is a fact. A truth is a truth. It is not a relative, subjective thing. A thing either is, or it is not. The fact that many people do not take the time to learn scripture and see the error in their sight, to understand why they subjectively perceive contradictions, changes nothing.

If a truth "is not a fact for them", then that only means that they do not understand, not that the truth is not a truth.

On the bible itself, any non-original or genuinely exact copy of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts is not the written word of God. It is Man's recreation of that written word, not the written word itself, and as such will inherently possess errors because of translation; if nothing ells.

To say that any English scripture has errors and contradictions means absolutely nothing, because the written word of God is not in English.

***
Robert Bauval aye? I’ve seen him in some of Graham Hancock's work.

I never claimed that the NT spoke of DNA or stone tablets, so to my view you are either requesting evidence for a claim that I did not make or you wish to start a discussion on where the Arc of the Covenant is.

I'm not prepared to do either.

 

[Dogger807]

Man, I'd say that the desire amongst certain christians to paint all atheists with the same brush is quite similar to your desire to paint all christians with the same brush.

What you're saying, essentially, is a private group, that exists mainly to the purpose of teaching kids morality, is wrong because they exclude those who unrepentently do what they perceive to be immoral. Am I correct?

When it comes down to it, I agree. I think it's wrong that they discriminate against homosexuals and atheists. But that is because I believe different things to be moral than they do.

You said, "Standing up for what you feel is right is commendable, but not if you're standing on others in the process". It would be nice if everything that was right didn't hurt anyone, but this world is far too complex. If you're standing up for something, you're standing up against something. And if you're standing up against something, you're inevitably standing up against someone.

Inevitably, if you admit that there is such a thing as morality, then you have to admit that there will be people who will be doing things that are immoral. Since morality is among people very subjective, there will be differences of opinion on who is doing something immoral, and thus if we allow ourselves caught up in the subjectivity, there is no objective way to determine who's discriminating, and who's standing up for what they think is right.

For example, say you started a group that was intended to teach morality to children. Would you be at all discriminatory against people of different beliefs on morality? If a kid grew up, went through your program, did everything, and if not for some belief, possibly that all atheists are heathens and must be converted, he would reach some position of authority, would you still put him in this position of authority?

I'd assume not, just as much as I probably wouldn't put someone sharing your lack of respect for people of faith in a position of authority.

In any moral question, some people think the practice is ok, and others don't. To the people who find the practice ok, excluding those who do this practice may seem like discrimination, while to those who do not think it's ok, it may seem that the group is merely standing up for what's right.

And it's hypocritical to call for people to be tolerant of your morals being different from theirs while you are not tolerant of theirs being different from yours.

First of all standing against someone is different than standing on them. Secondly I'm not even saying that they can not discriminate in their membership. What I am saying is they can not discriminate and receive tax payer dollars. (or free berthing )

No mater how you twist the word..... penalizing someone for something they are is discrimination. It doesn't mater whether you believe what someone is is immoral or not it is still discrimination. It doesn't mater whether it's race, gender, religion , or sexual orientation. It doesn't mater who these sea scouts are discriminating against, they do not deserve free berths if they discriminate. I don't care if they are discriminating against women.... Jews.... blacks... Spanish speakers... or even christians, my opinion of the subject is unchanged.

Galenrox I know you to be a fair individual. However the argument you present though I've seen before several times in different incarnations. Against black..against Jews (by the 3rd Reich ) and in prodistant vs catholic debates . Believing on group is immoral by your standards does not give the right to persecute that group.

And no I don't paint all christians by the same brush. I do however find myself more and more willing to pit myself against religious groups forcing their "morality" on others.

 

[Jerry]

First of all standing against someone is different than standing on them. Secondly I'm not even saying that they can not discriminate in their membership. What I am saying is they can not discriminate and receive tax payer dollars. (or free berthing )

No mater how you twist the word..... penalizing someone for something they are is discrimination. It doesn't mater whether you believe what someone is is immoral or not it is still discrimination. It doesn't mater whether it's race, gender, religion , or sexual orientation. It doesn't mater who these sea scouts are discriminating against, they do not deserve free berths if they discriminate. I don't care if they are discriminating against women.... Jews.... blacks... Spanish speakers... or even christians, my opinion of the subject is unchanged.

Galenrox I know you to be a fair individual. However the argument you present though I've seen before several times in different incarnations. Against black..against Jews (by the 3rd Reich ) and in prodistant vs catholic debates . Believing on group is immoral by your standards does not give the right to persecute that group.

And no I don't paint all christians by the same brush. I do however find myself more and more willing to pit myself against religious groups forcing their "morality" on others.

Now if only the Sea Scouts were "persecuting" anyone or "forcing their 'morality' on others", you would have a good point.
However, since they are not, you don't.

 

[tecoyah]

And so....it continues:

"Philly set to evict Boy Scouts council over discrimination
Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA - The city plans to evict a Boy Scouts council from its city-owned headquarters or have the group pay a fair rent price unless it stops discriminating against gays.

The Boy Scouts' Cradle of Liberty Council, the third-largest in the country, has been embroiled with the city for more than three years over its policy that forbids gays from being scout leaders.

City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. wrote a letter to William T. Dwyer III, president and chief executive officer of Cradle of Liberty Council, stating that the council's "discriminatory policies" violate city policy and law, and that city officials have not been assured the group will not discriminate.

The letter also says that unless the city gets a "fair-market rent agreement," the council will be evicted.

The organization has made its headquarters on a half-acre property in the upscale Philadelphia Art Museum area since 1928, when City Council voted to allow the Philadelphia Boy Scouts to use the property rent-free "in perpetuity." Despite paying no rent, the scouts pay for the upkeep of the building.

Council spokesman Jeff Jubelirer questioned the timing of the city's move.

"With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of Philadelphia's children every day," Jubelirer said, "it is ironic the administration chose this time to destroy programming that services 40,000 children in the city."

Dwyer declined to comment until the organization's "lawyers and decision makers" had time to look over the letter. He did say he was surprised by the letter because he believed the sides "were still working."

The executive director of Philadelphia's Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights said members of her group worked with the parties during negotiations.

Stacey Sobel said she's pleased the city is taking action and would rather the Boy Scouts not discriminate.

"If they are going to discriminate, the taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing it," Sobel said.

Boy Scouts of America's policy forbids gays from being scout leaders. That position that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and affirmed by the national council in 2002.

In 2003, the council in Philadelphia voted to adopt a nondiscrimination policy regarding gays. However, weeks later the group dismissed an 18-year-old South Philadelphia scout who publicly acknowledged he was gay.

Following that incident, the council said it would bring its policies in line with Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws.

Dwyer did not immediately return a message from The Associated Press, and a phone rang unanswered at the organization's national headquarters in Texas on Saturday."

Seems the rest of the country agrees with our little poll to an extent