Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you like the Boy Scouts of America?

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    One of the best quotes from the Old Testament supporting the ambiguous nature of faith is, "I AM, therefore I AM". Really does not have to apply to any particular religious belief; simply says there is something, and it is simply a fact.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DeanRx View Post
      The EDGE method is good for teachers, business, military, etc... its a tested and proven learning tool.
      Well then, that "learning tool" explains the 7.7 trillion-dollar business bailout, and why so many people hate the public schools

      But "tested and proven"?

      If you "tested" EDGE objectively you would "prove" that even the BSA's top national EDGE experts can not use EDGE to explain something as basic to Scouting as the Patrol Method, without leaving out the Patrol Leader and any description of a working Patrol.

      What is worse, not a single Wood Badge Staffer or other EDGE trainer in the United States would notice them missing from, say, the Patrol Method presentation of Scoutmaster Specific Training.

      Um, oh yeah. The BSA's top EDGE trainers did do that, didn't they?

      Did anyone in any "local program" anywhere in the United States notice them missing?

      Originally posted by DeanRx View Post
      The requirements for each rank are . . . pretty close to those 100 years ago.
      If that was true, then why do the "leadership skills" types go nuclear when we suggest that the Boy Scouts of America (in exchange for our lucrative monopoly on Scouting) be "trustworthy" enough to "obey" the statute that we include all those requirements from June 15, 1916?

      For the same reason that we pay the morbidly obese a million dollars a year to mock that law, to promote Wood Badge, and to explain why it is wrong for the Boy Scouts of America to expect a twelve (12) year-old Boy Scout to sleep in a tent away from his mommy and daddy:

      Not a ten (10) or eleven (11) year-old Boy Scout, mind you, but a twelve (12) year-old Boy Scout!

      http://inquiry.net/leadership/sittin...ith_adults.htm
      Last edited by Kudu; 08-01-2013, 08:13 PM.

      Comment


      • qwazse
        qwazse commented
        Editing a comment
        EDGE haters unite, or untie, or something ....

        Funny thing about those computer games. The ones my kids (now ages 16-22) like the best, are the ones where the protagonist hast to start fires, gather gear, assemble a patrol, traverse terrain, sleep out, etc ...

        Every now and then they'll play the soccer or football simulations.

    • #18
      I like some of them.

      Comment


      • #19
        There is BSA and then there is scouting. These are 2 distinct philosophies yet that doesn't seem to be accurately reflected in how this poll is written.

        I certainly think that bsa needs to stop believing that leadership skills are more important than outdoor skills.

        Comment


        • #20
          Wow, Dwise1, I just saw all this and we could have an enjoyable discussion. Sadly my Scouter.com editor doesn't work well and you wrote A LOT. But I will give you this, when I speak of my God, I am speaking of a real living God. When you speak of any god, you refer to the actions of man. Until you can at least keep the discussion apples to apples, it will be hard to understand at least my side of the discussion. In simplicity, God is omnipotent, He is perfect. Man is neither, not even close. Oh as for the 39 books of the NT, you said you didn't even get to th epart where Lot was suduced by his daughters. That is in the first quarter of the first chapter of 39 chapters. Barry

          Comment


          • Eagledad
            Eagledad commented
            Editing a comment
            You are understanding the problem correctly and it is a browser problem. Barry

          • DWise1_AOL
            DWise1_AOL commented
            Editing a comment
            Originally posted by Eagledad
            Sorry. Quazse, I used chapter instead of book because I wasn't sure DWise knew the difference.
            So then another of your adolescent insults. Duly noted.

            Originally posted by Eagledad
            The text editor doesn't work.
            Could be some kind of incompatibility between the forum software and your browser. I now have little problem using Chrome under Windows 7. Though that might also depend on what kind of a mood the forum software is in.

            Chrome is free, BTW.

          • packsaddle
            packsaddle commented
            Editing a comment
            I'm curious. Are there any browsers that are NOT free?

        • #21
          I read some of your replies to my post and they are a bit out there. I think you must have me confused with someone else because I didn't write anything about the Civil War. I simply spoke a few words on just morality. You kind of went off in a lot of directions. By t he way I'm keeping this response simple, I hit return by mistake and as a result I'm typing this reply a second time. What a mess. My message was simple, as long as man follows man's morality, there will never be peace because man's morlity changes almost daily from ambitioin and greed. God is neither ambitious or greedy and His morality never changes. What did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit? That is a small example of character traits God ask man to display. Kind of like the Scout Law. Barry

          Comment


          • DWise1_AOL
            DWise1_AOL commented
            Editing a comment
            Originally posted by Eagledad
            I read some of your replies to my post and they are a bit out there.
            My minister did talk to me about my tendency to cast pearls before swine. Though he was referring to BSA at the time.

            Originally posted by Eagledad
            I think you must have me confused with someone else because I didn't write anything about the Civil War.
            No, I'm not the one who's confused:
            Originally posted by Eagledad
            Except for the civil war, the United States has had a relativlye peaceful history because the guy with the biggest stick has been the Judeo Christian God.
            Your words exactly, character-for-character, since I had copy-and-pasted that from the forum so that I could work on my reply off-line.

            Originally posted by Eagledad
            I simply spoke a few words on just morality.
            Many more than just a few.

            Originally posted by Eagledad
            You kind of went off in a lot of directions.
            I was just responding to what you had posted. And, like in responding to a Gish Gallop, I had a lot to explain to you. Again with casting pearls before swine!

            FYI, the "Gish Gallop" was the name given to a favored debating trick^H^H^H^H^Hactic of creationist Dr. Duane Gish. Within a couple minutes he would rapidly rattle off several utterly false and deceptive claims to which his opponent could not possibly respond to effectively within the debate format (10 to 20 minutes to respond) because a proper response would easily take a few hours. And since a written debate precludes use of the Gish Gallop, most creationists will absolutely refuse a written debate.

            Originally posted by Eagledad
            My message was simple, as long as man follows man's morality, there will never be peace because man's morlity changes almost daily from ambitioin and greed. God is neither ambitious or greedy and His morality never changes.
            And just what exactly is God's morality? By that, I mean which parts of the Bible enumerate it and which parts don't? Obviously it has to include the long list of laws set down in the Torah, including forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist. Or would you prefer to leave that one out, since it offends our present-day sense of morality? But why should you allow our present-day sense of morality to overrule God's morality? The fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative/what-have-you rhetorics that I repeatedly hear is that God's morality is absolute. And yet I repeatedly see such Christians picking and choosing which parts they want to observe and which they don't. The reasoning/excuse I hear is that the Christ came to fulfill those laws, so they don't apply anymore, and yet those same Christians' calls for imposing God's morality on the rest of society includes those very laws that supposedly don't apply anymore. To the rest of us, that looks like blatant hypocrisy. Just exactly who decides which parts of God's "absolute" morality is to be observed and how exactly do they decide that?

            Which brings us to a necessary discussion, for which we can grant your premises for sake of this discussion, those premises being the existence of your God and that the rules of God's morality are in the Bible and the corrupting influence of Man (which I do not disagree with). Also for sake of this discussion, we will not address the problems of picking and choosing which parts of God's morality to apply, though we will still recognize that such picking and choosing does occur.

            OK, you want Man to follow God's morality. How will that happen? More specifically, who would implement it? God? Never has happened. Rather, it's always Man who does the implementing. It's always Man who forms governments and makes laws. It's always Man who creates and administers religions. And it's always Man who picks and chooses which parts of God's morality to implement. How did you describe Man?
            Originally posted by Eagledad
            If a person is truely willing to read the whole bible and understand it from a practical stand point, they will see that man at the core is corrupt, narcissitic and ambitious. The moral code they create is one of convenience that not only helps further their ambitions, but also typically ignores the meek.
            In your view, Man, being corrupt, creates laws to advance his own greed and ambition. So what will happen when corrupt Man creates laws to implement God's morality? The same thing that we have seen happen over and over again throughout two millennia of Christian history, Man using God's morality to create laws that advance his own greed and ambition while typically ignoring the meek. It has happened before and it will happen again. A shining example is in how corrupt Man used the Bible to make convincing arguments for slavery. The Bible is a wonderful tool for corrupt Man, since it can be used to support almost any position or cause.

            How then would corrupt laws based on God's morality be any different from laws based on Man's morality? Most importantly, corrupt laws based on God's morality would be immune to change, because to question those laws would be to question God Himself. Or at least that is how it would be viewed. OTOH, man-based laws are readily open to being questioned and either repealed or replaced. But nobody would dare to even consider questioning any God-based laws. Except for atheists, but they would be driven deep underground under a God-based government.

            Please note that this is what would happen whether or not God exists, the Bible is the literal Word of God, or those rules in the Bible are God's morality. That is what would happen whether your religious beliefs are right or whether mine are. The only real difference between us on this question is that you somehow believe that Man can be perfect, whereas I do not believe that. Just as I cannot believe in the infallibility of Man, unlike biblical literalists.

          • DWise1_AOL
            DWise1_AOL commented
            Editing a comment
            Originally posted by Eagledad
            What did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit? That is a small example of character traits God ask man to display. Kind of like the Scout Law.
            I came across that in my fundamentalist Christian training as a kind of fellow traveller. And it has come up a number of times in on-line discussions.

            Yes, they are ideal qualities as are the qualities of the Scout Law, but the comparison seems to end there. The qualities in the Scout Law are ideals to which we are aspire, but in the theology that I was taught and which was the context of the other on-line discussions, the Fruit of the Spirit is not something that we can aspire to but rather is something that we acquire through the Spirit. IOW, the qualities in the Scout Law are standards that we are to work towards acquiring, whereas the qualities of the Fruit of the Spirit are just something that's supposed to happen to Christians. Now, the story may well be different in other of the myriad forms of Christian theology, but that was what I was taught and have always heard. It was the same story with morality, for which I can find no place in Christian theology and which fundamentalists have told me is supposed to just happen when you're saved -- needless to say, I'm not buying that, but that's their story and they're sticking with it.

            And it turns out that this "it's supposed to just happen" view of the Fruit of the Spirit has played a role in many Christian youth eventually leaving the faith and even religion altogether. Various conservative Christian youth ministries and conservative polls arrive at figures of 65% to 80% of young people raised in the conservative Christian faiths (including fundamentalists and evangelicals) losing their faith by the time they reach young adulthood with many if not most of them leaving religion altogether. In testimonials on ex-Christian forums, I have seen the issue of the Fruit of the Spirit raised a number of times, wherein the individual could not understand why it wasn't working for him/her, leading to uncertainty and insecurity about actually being saved, etc, which then led to other problems. It's like I keep trying to get creationists to understand, that they need to be careful what they teach their kids because their kids will take it seriously and will come back to them when they discover that it doesn't work.


            But was Paul right about what the Fruit of the Spirit was? After all, he was writing that when Christianity was just starting out and was listing ideals, whereas we have had nearly two millennia of practical real-world observations of Christianity in action. And in that time, what fruits have we found? Bigotry, intolerance, oppression, tyranny, hypocrisy, willful ignorance (especially prevalent in "creation science"), just to name a few. I could ask whether, according to Christian doctrine, a good tree can bring forth evil fruit? But that would just be more pearls cast before swine.

        • #22
          Barry, what you say may be true but the only morality I get comes from my fellow man. Exactly what is the conduit that you received your morality education from God? Even the Fruits of the Spirit (Galations) can be argued that this came from man. Just because a man tells me that it came from God does not exhibit proof to me. That's why "faith" is such a big deal in almost 100% of religions. P.S. Yeah, with Internet Explorer any "enter" kicks me out too.
          Last edited by acco40; 08-14-2013, 06:00 PM.

          Comment


          • #23
            Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

            Comment


            • DWise1_AOL
              DWise1_AOL commented
              Editing a comment
              Originally posted by qwazse
              Like Paul said in the next sentence "Against such things there is no law." By implication every law is for such things.
              Sorry, but I don't see where you get that interpretation. You read the next sentence, but have you taken the time to read the entire chapter? Galatians Ch. 5. My electronic copy is from King James.

              As you read Galatians 5, you will notice that Paul keeps referring to "the law". Do you know what "the law" refers to? Do you even have any idea? Oh, that's right! You're the one who doesn't want anybody to know what words mean. You're the one who wants everyone to operate in ignorance.

              Originally posted by Galatians 5
              5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
              Christ shall profit you nothing.
              5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
              that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
              5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you
              are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
              5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of
              righteousness by faith.
              5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any
              thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

              . . .

              5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only
              [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love
              serve one another.
              5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in
              this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
              5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye
              be not consumed one of another.
              5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not
              fulfil the lust of the flesh.
              5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
              against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:
              so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
              5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the
              law.

              . . .

              5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
              longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
              5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
              5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with
              the affections and lusts.
              5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the
              Spirit.
              That talk of circumcision should have been a clue. This letter was written early in Christian history at a time when Christianity had been a Jewish religion and now Gentiles were joining. As a result, there was a controversy over whether the Gentile Christians would also have to be Jews and follow the Law, which is Mosaic Law as given in the Torah, including the practice of circumcision.

              Obviously, through straightforward reading of Galatians, "law" refers to Mosaic Law which Jews were required to follow and which Paul described as a prison from which Christ had freed them. The dichotomy that we see throughout Galatians is between living in and following the Spirit through faith or following the flesh through observance of Mosaic Law. Straightforward reading also shows that the Fruit of the Spirit can only be gained through faith in Christ and by walking and living in the Spirit.

              So please tell us who has faith in Christ and walks and lives in the Spirit? Observant Jews? No. Non-observant Jews? No. Muslims? No. Hindus? No. The growing numbers of the unchurched, which includes atheists, agnostics, followers of no religion, and those who are just not interested in religious matters? No. Who else but a Christian could possibly qualify as having faith in Christ. And wouldn't it only be a sub-set of Christian denominations that practice walking and living in the Spirit?

              I had concluded earlier (*** DISCLAIMER: Since this is a quotation, it has not been altered. Thus it includes the terminology that Eagledad has hypocritically objected to. ***):
              Originally posted by DWise1
              First reason why: Fruits of the Spirit (FotS) explicitly only applies to Christians. In the USA, only about 73-76% of the population self-identifies as Christian. So in the classroom, FotS would only apply to three-quarters of the students. What about the other 25%? You'd have to tell them that it doesn't apply to them, since they're not Christian. You would effectively be telling them that those ideals are not for them So what are you tell them to aspire to?

              Second, FotS has nothing to do with trying to develop those traits, but rather they're just supposed to magically happen to you. Every time it's been taught to me, it was taught that we cannot take action ourselves to develop those traits, but rather it can only come from the Spirit. What good would teaching that do? The kids don't have to even try to emulate those traits, but rather just sit and wait for it. And the non-Christian kids will never receive those gifts, so what kind of terrors are they supposed to become?
              To me, straightforward reading of Galatians supports my position. I cannot even begin to imagine how one could twist it to agree with your position.

              Of course, it is entirely possible that there is a denominational theology that would support your position. If there is no other ultimate truth, Christians will interpret that Bible in any possible way that is needed for it to support their theology. And the massive splintering of Protestant Christianity and their myriad doctrines offers a clue how far they will take it. All I know is the interpretation that was given to me by fundamentalists and what I read in a straightforward manner in Galatians.

              Interestingly, Galatians appears to also be the source of the doctrine that Christians are not subject to the Law and has led to their practice of picking and choosing which laws to follow.

            • qwazse
              qwazse commented
              Editing a comment
              Thanks for the Sunday reading. Do zealots take things out of context? Yes. Am I a zealot? I don't think so.

              I have some vague familiarity with the law and Pauline epistles. In the passage you quote Paul is not excluding the pagans of his day from anything. Rather, he is dissuading folks from "playing the Jew" in hopes that a simple surgery will make them right with God. Or, that it would somehow make them a better Christians than those who aren't Jewish enough.

              Those many divisions you speak of were fomenting before Paul even started dictating his letters.

              But, your desire to put tremendous theological weight on the chapter blinds you to the overarching theme, that is "Y'all are reading my letter 'cause you believed Jesus payed a hefty price for you. Now why can't y'all be nice? Who's gonna complain about that?"

              It is NOT saying that non-Christians can't be nice. That's a liberal reading of the passage. And yes, my fundamentalist friends often don't like it when I accuse them of taking liberties with scripture.

            • DWise1_AOL
              DWise1_AOL commented
              Editing a comment
              Originally posted by qwazse
              Do zealots take things out of context? Yes. Am I a zealot? I don't think so.
              Do Hindus drink water? Yes. I drink water. Does that make me a Hindu. I don't think so.

              IOW, you don't need to be a zealot to take things out of context. All you need is to want to force a source to say something that it does not say and which somehow serves your own dishonest motives. The term for that is "quote-mining".

              Originally posted by qwazse
              In the passage you quote Paul is not excluding the pagans of his day from anything. Rather, he is dissuading folks from "playing the Jew" in hopes that a simple surgery will make them right with God. Or, that it would somehow make them a better Christians than those who aren't Jewish enough.
              Read it again, this time without an eye to quote-mine. It's not just the surgery that he's talking about, but rather it's keeping Kosher and the rest of observing Mosaic Law; there's more to Mosaic Law than just circumcision.

              And Paul is not talking about pagans, which is to say the non-Christian Gentiles. He is only talking about the two different kinds of Christian, Jewish and Gentile. So yet again I ask you, would a pagan, a non-Christian, have faith in Christ and walk in and with the Spirit? Those are the requirements for receiving the Fruit of the Spirit, so how could someone who does not even begin to meet those requirements receive the Fruit of the Spirit? Instead, according to Paul, they would be following the flesh and so they would receive the fruit of the flesh, which he does enumerate.

              You really should actually read Galatians and not just imagine what you'd like it to say.

              Originally posted by qwazse
              But, your desire to put tremendous theological weight on the chapter blinds you to the overarching theme, that is "Y'all are reading my letter 'cause you believed Jesus payed a hefty price for you. Now why can't y'all be nice? Who's gonna complain about that?"
              But whom is he addressing it to? Christians. In what way is it meant to be applicable to non-Christians? None that I can see.

              Originally posted by qwazse
              It is NOT saying that non-Christians can't be nice. That's a liberal reading of the passage.
              Actually, yes it is saying that. Since non-Christians would not meet the clearly stated requirements for receiving the Fruit of the Spirit, they would instead receive the fruit of the flesh, none of which includes being nice.

              Of course, it is absolutely ridiculous to say that non-Christians can't be nice -- actually, the case is more the opposite in that it can be very difficult to find a Christian who is nice. But that view of non-Christians is a modern one and not a Christian view. What Eagledad proposed is to include the Christian view to the education of all our youth, including the non-Christians. That proposal, while made with good intentions, would have disasterously bad results.

              Think about implementing that education. You want to have your "liberal reading" applied to that education. Would that happen? The fundamentalist and other theists would instead insist that their interpretation, the straight-forward reading, be used. The ensuing battle over teaching religious doctrine in the public schools would split the community further apart than religion already has.

              And even if that education were to be implemented with your "liberal reading", our children are not stupid. And they can read! And they will read Galatians in a straight-forward manner -- I know that because that is how I had read the Bible when it turned me into an atheist. And when they have read Galatians, they will see what it really says and that you are trying to teach them nonsense.

              That is why, despite Eagledad's lie, I strongly disapprove of teaching the doctrine of "Fruit of the Spirit". I do strongly approve of teaching those positive qualities along with several other positive qualities. I could even agree with mentioning that most if not all the religions also identify those as positive qualities. I just see it as an incredibly enormous mistake to teach them with Galatians 5.


              Originally posted by qwazse
              And yes, my fundamentalist friends often don't like it when I accuse them of taking liberties with scripture.
              Here's a thought. Talk to your fundamentalist friends about your "liberal reading" of Galatians. Tell us what their reaction is. For that matter, also show them what I have written about it.

              For that matter, share our exchange with your minister and ask him what he thinks.

              I have to trust you to be honest in presenting our exchange and that you won't quote-mine it. But since you are a Christian, long bitter experience informs me that my trust is misplaced.

          • #24
            So much anger, so much anger.

            Comment


            • DWise1_AOL
              DWise1_AOL commented
              Editing a comment
              Originally posted by Eagledad
              So much anger, so much anger.
              So much hypocrisy, so much hypocrisy.

              You have been insulting me repeatedly from the start. And after being unable to support your own statements and position, you turned and chastised me for something that you freely do yourself (ie, "Fruits of the Spirit" instead of "Fruit of the Spirit"), displaying your hypocrisy in the process.

              This is not anger, but rather lack of tolerance for hypocrisy. You are the one who had just lashed out again in anger. Please do something about that beam in your eye.

              PS
              I also cannot abide liars. That is a major part of the problem I have with "creation science". And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy.

              You lied about what I had said. I cannot see any way in which your gross misrepresentation of what I had stated so clearly as being anything other than your deliberately lying about what I had said.
              Last edited by DWise1_AOL; 08-18-2013, 01:24 PM. Reason: PS

            • packsaddle
              packsaddle commented
              Editing a comment
              "And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy." Creationism? How is that doing damage to Scouting? You lost me on that one.

              Look, if you guys think either of you has a chance of convincing the other, you need to rethink your approach. As an alternative why don't you find a 'common enemy' or something like that. Set aside these major differences and find out what you agree on first, and then work from there. If you like you can make me your common enemy. What can I do to 'elevate' myself to that level? I can be incredibly annoying. I can recite bad poetry. I'd sing if I could,...that would do it for sure. Just let me know how I can help...you know 'helpful'.

            • DWise1_AOL
              DWise1_AOL commented
              Editing a comment
              Originally posted by packsaddle
              "And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy." Creationism? How is that doing damage to Scouting? You lost me on that one.
              As far as I can tell, creationism has nothing at all to do

              Look at that sentence: "And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy." What does "it" represent, what does it stand in for? It stands in for: "when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy". Common English sentence construction. Hopefully you won't want me to graph it for you, given the lack of graphics support for such an effort.


              And I don't think your offer would work. After all, I've agreed with them on a number of things but it makes no difference to them. And now with qwazse's latest post, I very seriously doubt whether he even knows what we're discussing.

          • #25
            Bring us back to why we should like the BSA (or not) ...

            "First reason why: Fruits of the Spirit (FotS) explicitly only applies to Christians. In the USA, only about 73-76% of the population self-identifies as Christian. So in the classroom, FotS would only apply to three-quarters of the students. What about the other 25%? You'd have to tell them that it doesn't apply to them, since they're not Christian. You would effectively be telling them that those ideals are not for them So what are you tell them to aspire to?"

            Putting aside how many Christians actually have a clue about the Fruit of the Spirit (let alone it's context or that it is singular) and that it may possibly apply to them as they build their communities (a much smaller figure than DW's generous count above) ....

            There are probably far fewer people who have said the Scout Law even once. Certainly not most women (not even our Venturers, yet). So, much less than 50%. How popular does an institution have to be before it becomes part of of an American school student's lexicon? I've heard the occasional public speaker refer to it. Membership statistics aside, has it become a bit of a national Icon? So much so, that if the institution continues its decline, will it be an inexorable part of our history books?

            Or is it just a blip on the radar of progress?

            Comment


            • DWise1_AOL
              DWise1_AOL commented
              Editing a comment
              Originally posted by qwazse
              Bring us back to why we should like the BSA (or not) ...
              I have tried, but it's Eagledad who's led us astray here.

              Originally posted by qwazse
              Putting aside how many Christians actually have a clue about the Fruit of the Spirit (let alone it's context or that it is singular) and that it may possibly apply to them as they build their communities (a much smaller figure than DW's generous count above) ....
              OK, you want to lead us further astray.

              I agree that a lot of Christians don't know enough about their religion. Usually they've grown up in it, had "put in their pew time" as Mike Doonesbury put it, know everything they're supposed to do say in the rituals, but they never really learned anything about it. A similar situation has been described to me about the effects of the phenomenal growth of fundamentalism during the "Jesus Freak" movement of circa 1970, in that the churches had to abandon the traditional program that took several years of study in favor of bringing everybody up quick by telling them what to believe backed up with a smattering of Bible verses pulled out of context; it's been suggested that creationists' affinity for quote-mining and their inability to see anything wrong with the practice is because they had learned to do the same thing with the Bible.

              It is my position and it has always been my position that everybody should practice their own religion, but at the very least they need to know everything that they can about their own religion. That is why I was proactive in our pack in promoting the Religious Emblems Program. That is also why I will challenge believers to examine their own beliefs and to not be afraid to question those beliefs, because that is the only way that they can test whether they have misunderstood something. For a neutral example, think of the young school girl who didn't want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because she was afraid of the four witches: "... and to the republic, four witches stand, ..." When all that they've done was to put in their pew time, then the most that they learned about their religion was as a child. Too many believers, not just Christian, have childish ideas about their religion and about their god because they formed those ideas in childhood and never returned to question those ideas as they themselves matured. Again, that is discussed in Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God, by Rabbi Jack Bemporad and Michael Shevack, one of the pearls I had cast before Eagledad.

              Originally posted by qwazse
              There are probably far fewer people who have said the Scout Law even once. Certainly not most women (not even our Venturers, yet). So, much less than 50%.
              True enough, I guess. So what does that have to do with anything?

              Originally posted by qwazse
              How popular does an institution have to be before it becomes part of of an American school student's lexicon?
              What does that have to do with anything? It most certainly has absolutely nothing to do with what we've been talking about, which is whether a specific Christian doctrine, Fruit of the Spirit, has any merit to be taught to all students, Christian and non-Christian alike.

              Sorry, but that is a very stupid question that you just asked. Which makes me wonder whether you even have any clue at all about what we've been talking about.

              Yet again, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

          • #26
            "Oh, would I'd been rammed and eternally clammed Ere I perched on this whango tree."

            You can bet your nooties bil! will find an umptum lorn!

            Comment


            • #27
              I'd like to echo Packsaddle's opinion (not the whango tree thing, which is probably better then pack singing), only not just for the current circle of death. Back in January I put up a thread that referenced a bible story about how arguing to pulverize your opponent is not only wrong (people got swallowed up by the earth!) but also a waste of time. Arguing to understand each other and learn from each other, however, is fine. The difference is subtle but we need to back off, or at least be courteous when we cross that line. Since January we've crossed a lot of those lines.

              What we're arguing about is whose beliefs are better, or wiser. There's an old saying that, to paraphrase, says wisdom without good deeds is not wisdom. We're arguing about wisdom and seem to be ignoring the good deeds. So how wise are we?

              The amazing thing is that the beliefs we're arguing over have helped every one of us to do the right thing for the boys. We wouldn't be here if we didn't think we were helping kids. We're all doing good deeds.

              The arguing is not a good deed. It's not helping us deal with single parent families or helicopter parents or selfish kids. In fact, it's causing problems. Eammon nearly left. What about AZMike and Beaveh? Anyone else we haven't heard from lately? Scouting in general and this website in particular should be a place where people help each other out. Sometimes it's hard to be friendly, courteous, and kind, but maybe we should just suck it up and take the high road. The kids might appreciate it.

              Comment


              • Eagledad
                Eagledad commented
                Editing a comment
                While I fully agree with the point of your post, there has been no debate, argument or even really a presentation of ideas in this discussion. Read from the very first post and I think you will agree the discussion can at best be described as rehash of Alice in Wonderland. Just the rant as a result of bad grammer should expose the bizarre nature of tone. LOL, then we are entertained by Packs proclamation that we no chance of convincing the other. Of WHAT?, misspelling. Lets at least keep whats left of this discussion honest, there was no attempt to be less than friendly courteous or kinds by most of the participants. In fact, in light of how the discussion (discussion?) actually layed (grammer again) i think there was a tremendous display of friendly, courteous, kindness as well as peace, patience, and self control. Barry

              • DWise1_AOL
                DWise1_AOL commented
                Editing a comment
                Pearls before swine.

            • #28
              The Wise One (@AOL.com) arbitrates truth, logic, and grammar for forum posters. If enough of us poke fun at him, maybe he'll stop calling us liars when he has trouble with the forum software, and contribute something meaningful to the scouting discussion.

              In the spirit of MattR's post, here's something helpful:
              Swine don't like pearls. We much prefer corn. Corn is cheaper, more readily available, and more digestible. If you take a good corn mash and serve it to pigs fermented, we'll be REAL friendly.

              Comment


              • packsaddle
                packsaddle commented
                Editing a comment
                Now I'm humming an old Dillards song that I can't get out of my head, "What's time to a hog?"

                Thanks a whole lot, guys.
                Edit to add: "...what's a puddle to a duck, what's the old cow think, when you load her on a truck, what's time to a hog?"
                and no, I'm not trying to be annoying yet.
                Last edited by packsaddle; 08-19-2013, 12:31 PM.

              • DWise1_AOL
                DWise1_AOL commented
                Editing a comment
                I am not trying to arbitrate truth, but truth must be served! You side yourself against seek truth. That is what your religion requires of you, so I cannot speak against that. But my own religion requires me to seek out the truth, so of necessity my posts must seek out the truth while your own posts must avoid the truth. OK, that is how it is, even though it seems evil to me.

                But I have to ask you just what you mean by this: "The Wise One (@AOL.com) arbitrates ... grammar for forum posters." Just what the frak are you talking about there?

                And I only call liars those who deliberately tell lies. Like Eagledad. And that has absolutely nothing to do with forum software, but rather with Eagledad's deliberate decision to deliberately lie. And that is for him to resolve, not for you and your irrevelant platitudes.

            • #29
              This thread, IMHO, was still-born from the beginning and just as I was thinking that some kind of special grace had finally sent it to well-deserved oblivion, someone rolled away the stone and now it's threatening to stay undead, stumbling through the forums like a zombie. Please don't let zombies into this forum. Don't reply to this thread any more. Don't feed the zombie. Thank you.

              Comment

              Working...
              X