Scouting’s suicide

[FKA Reader]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Can anyone translate?

I think his ex-wife must have gotten custody.

[FKA Reader]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
The Charter has already been sued under state law, and the issue has already been decided in the US Supreme Court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699....
Several states do indeed have statutes or appellate court holdings protecting sexual orientation as a suspect, or quasi suspect class, including California, Connecticut, Massachussets, and New Jersey.
I'm guessing the National BSA is responding to complaints from those who would like to see the matter be decided at the local level.
woof

In fact, the Office of Civil Rights actually has a defined function of defending the BSA against attack on account of their anti-gay policies.

I think that the BSA has actually backed itself into a very bad corner. They took a strong stand against gays for political reasons--no doubt believing that this would counter the trouble that they were facing due to having failed to deal adequately with child-abusing adults in their ranks over time. Now they are beginning to realize that they look ridiculous. The kid who was denied Eagle Scout, and the lesbian den mother were clearly not endangering anyone.

And it is clear that the country as a whole is becoming more knowledgeable and more tolerant of people who are gay. Some of this is a result of families (including the woman who started PFLAG) who decided that they were simply NOT going to throw out their children who are gay--or pretend whatever they used to pretend about people in the closet.

This is not the only relevance problem faced by BSA, but it is a big one.

[FKA Reader]

Adif understanding wrote:

<quoted text>I would suggest you are a complete moron then. Its not difficult to understand if you look at the entirety of it. What you did if we were to compare it to the constitution was essentially declare senators are picked by state legislatures in an effort to discredit a statement or idea that all right are inherent in the people.

I know people who have studied the Bible extensively, as well as those who have studied the law. Understanding of both are enhanced by a study of context, intent, history and such.

Recently heard a scholar speak about the Apostle Paul and some of his conflicting pronouncements about women, marriage, etc. His take--supported by study--had to do with the various folks who copied over Paul's words either misinterpreting, or willfully inserting their own understandings and beliefs to soften what were some fairly radical, and feminist, views.

Certainly persuasive, and helped to explain some conflicts in the words.

I have heard other views, as well. Another minister suggested that Paul's beliefs about the role of women in the emerging church developed and became more liberal over time.

But, simple?

Not so much.

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
So, when did you choose to be straight?

The minds of normal, rational humans logically deduce their sex based on the standard equipment provided them by Nature's chromosomal sexual identity which is embedded within their every cell.

Further, where will the delusions end and what will be their ultimate impact on society? Is 23 genders enough? And how will the BSA accommodate them all?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/gend...

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
I know people who have studied the Bible extensively, as well as those who have studied the law. Understanding of both are enhanced by a study of context, intent, history and such.
Recently heard a scholar speak about the Apostle Paul and some of his conflicting pronouncements about women, marriage, etc. His take--supported by study--had to do with the various folks who copied over Paul's words either misinterpreting, or willfully inserting their own understandings and beliefs to soften what were some fairly radical, and feminist, views.
Certainly persuasive, and helped to explain some conflicts in the words.
I have heard other views, as well. Another minister suggested that Paul's beliefs about the role of women in the emerging church developed and became more liberal over time.
But, simple?
Not so much.

In other words, you reject God's ability and biblical promise to preserve His own Word for all time.

Following that thought to its natural conclusion...if God is powerless to preserve His own written message to mankind, then the Resurrection is rendered moot.

[FKA Reader]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
The minds of normal, rational humans logically deduce their sex based on the standard equipment provided them by Nature's chromosomal sexual identity which is embedded within their every cell.
Further, where will the delusions end and what will be their ultimate impact on society? Is 23 genders enough? And how will the BSA accommodate them all?
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/gend...

So--you became straight when you deduced that you were a boy? Or when you figured out the mechanics of male-female intercourse?

What were you before then?

[FKA Reader]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, you reject God's ability and biblical promise to preserve His own Word for all time.
Following that thought to its natural conclusion...if God is powerless to preserve His own written message to mankind, then the Resurrection is rendered moot.

No--sorry.

God's Word is God's Word.

And man's understanding (including the God inspired writings of the Bible) is man's understanding--fallible.

Corinthians 13
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
So--you became straight when you deduced that you were a boy? Or when you figured out the mechanics of male-female intercourse?
What were you before then?

Obviously, you are not of a normal, rational mind.

To put it simply -- even for the Darwinists -- the lack of necessary tools for procreation is a means for believing homosexual behaviors to be abnormal. Where natural selection reigns, homosexual practitioners meet a biological dead end.

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
No--sorry.
God's Word is God's Word.
And man's understanding (including the God inspired writings of the Bible) is man's understanding--fallible.
Corinthians 13
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The Word of God -- known as the Holy Bible -- is infallible.
That include's the letters penned by the Apostle Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as did all biblical authors.

[Duke for Mayor]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, you reject God's ability and biblical promise to preserve His own Word for all time.
Following that thought to its natural conclusion...if God is powerless to preserve His own written message to mankind, then the Resurrection is rendered moot.

Huh???

I think what she said is that people inject their own biases into their work.

woof

[-tip-]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh???
I think what she said is that people inject their own biases into their work.
woof

Reader is alleging -- in direct contradiction to God's own promise -- that portions of the Word of God [interestingly, those addressing women...LOL] were miscopied through the ages and are, therefore, unreliable.

How convenient.

[Che Reagan Christ]

-The-Artist- wrote:

<quoted text>
At the time the Constitution was written, there were no qualifications required to be one of those positions. Further, the Bible cannot be amended or changed by judicial review.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Che Reagan Christ]

Adif understanding wrote:

<quoted text>I would suggest you are a complete moron then. Its not difficult to understand if you look at the entirety of it. What you did if we were to compare it to the constitution was essentially declare senators are picked by state legislatures in an effort to discredit a statement or idea that all right are inherent in the people.

The person who wrote this sentence,

Adif understanding wrote:

<quoted text> What you did if we were to compare it to the constitution was essentially declare senators are picked by state legislatures in an effort to discredit a statement or idea that all right are inherent in the people.

just called me a moron.

[Duke for Mayor]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
The Word of God -- known as the Holy Bible -- is infallible.
That include's the letters penned by the Apostle Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as did all biblical authors.

Yeah, but there's these other guys out there who claim they got the real deal, and that thar book is a bunch of hooey.

woof

[Che Reagan Christ]

It is telling that the folks who own the most rigid, narrow minded, hateful and just plain empirically wrong opinions are the most hardcore Christian absolutists.

[FKA Reader]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously, you are not of a normal, rational mind.
To put it simply -- even for the Darwinists -- the lack of necessary tools for procreation is a means for believing homosexual behaviors to be abnormal. Where natural selection reigns, homosexual practitioners meet a biological dead end.

tip, we've been here before. This is where you reach an intellectual dead end.

[-tip-]

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, but there's these other guys out there who claim they got the real deal, and that thar book is a bunch of hooey.
woof

I understand your position.
However, Reader professes to be a believer.

[-tip-]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
tip, we've been here before. This is where you reach an intellectual dead end.

Then, please engage your self-professed intellectual superiority and outline for us the natural reproductive potential between two same-sex humans.

[Duke for Mayor]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand your position.
However, Reader professes to be a believer.

You don't understand my position one iota. That's quite evident.

woof

[-The-Artist-]

-tip- wrote:

<quoted text>
Then, please engage your self-professed intellectual superiority and outline for us the natural reproductive potential between two same-sex humans.

Sperm donors, surrogate mothers.

Wait, you are telling me that XX/XX and XY/XY cannot reproduce naturally?

Seems Darwin must be a bigot!