littlebillie

ASM7, I know what I believe too, and I'm one of those who finds no conflict between God and science, in part because I hold no literalist view of the Bible. But I AM intellectually curious as to what the literalist take on erosion might be, esp. when considered with all that's been said about evolution. Honest curiosity, 's all. Evolution - ne kind of change affecting God's Creation - is dismissed or discarded, so I wonder how erosion, which wreaks change upon His Handiwork, is viewed?

Rooster7, YEs, some of that was certainly glib - but let's consider what happens IF God makes some people predisposed to a particular non-mainstream orientation. If those in the mainstream cannot control their own actions and urges, well - let him who is without the obvious cast the first condemnation. (And frankly, I'm not convinced that Bible truly and in fact condemns such behavior - there are still translational issues that we're all familiar with). But even so, consider "However, because of His sacrifice on the cross, all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven" - if He forgives this 'sin', why then, why do others not? Romans says, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (5:20) IF YOU BELIEVE HOMOSEXUALITY is in fact sinful, where's the compassion? Every one says "free will", but look at how that will was exercised by the very ones declaring that OTHERS should practice the abstinence that they themselves could not. Now, I AM not calling this 'hypocritical', just forgetful. The flesh is not weak, the flesh is flesh, made the way some say God intended... I don't hear, read or see ANY condemnation of single hetero Scouters who have relations, obviously outside of marriage. And here again, I do not cry hypocrisy, but inconsistency - I don't really think one can be a hyprocrite if one hasn't taken a thought thru to its logical conclusion. We are all laborers in the same vineyard - tho' some may pluck different fruit... Now. As to the sheep. Are they sinning? Or is they just is? Do animals have free will?

Scoutparent, So which Creation story gets into schools? Once one goes in, don't all of them need to be taught? After the Judeo-Christian Eden story, don't you also need to add Native American, Hindu, Wicca, etc? THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION. And what about those religions which, for lack of current practitioners, we now call myth? Do we need to teach those as well? If you don't teach them all, you teeter on the brink of Establishment!

firstpusk, thanks - and now another aside! anyone ever consider that when a fundamentalist speaks of animals, and a scientist speaks of animals, these are in fact apples and oranges? but since everyone's calling them grapes, the true source of all resultant and heated confusion is never addressed? Biblically, let's say that animals were indeed put here for Man. Scientifically, there's no evidence either way as to the "why" of an animal's higher purpose - science looks at the DNA and the body and - well, just looks at the standalone critter - and sees similarities and commonalities among the differences for all life, which (to me) should be a wonderful thing. Regardless that, however, "animal" when used to mean "something put here with the purpose of serving or feeding or amusing Man, regardless of physiology or genetics" is certainly different from animal meaning "another organism that occupies this planet and may or may not share one or many features with us, but which we make no claims about purpose." And of course, that's not even bringing in certain Eastern views that hold that all life is one and intertwined with all the rest of Creation. Anyway - since we never got our terms straight in the first place, how can we clearly discuss the matter? When you define a thing one way by a putative purpose, and another way by features etc, why - you're thru 2 very VERY different windows. and ya gotta wonder if the glass is skewing your vision...

I have in the course years met those who professed to be atheists who were in fact agnostic. What would such a clarification (assuming without any certain knowledge, I grant) do to anyone's perspective on the issue?

just where in the Declaration of Religous Principles does it say YOU, in signing this instrument, thereby profess a belief in God. Haven't we all known atheists that say, you know, it's really better for most folks to believe in God? I can see someone signing this in all good intent and sincerity who is an atheist. and as long as they don't go and "avow" that they're atheists, and don't proselytize - as it were - haven't they met the requirement as stated above? again, I'm not real clear what part flat-out says "I confirm hereby that I personally believe in God"? In fact, the verbiage seems designed to make certain tweak room...? anyone else? I alo know Scouters who believe that flag burning in the right circumstances is truly freedom of speech, but that doesn't keep them from saying the pledge - and they NEVER mention flag burning to the kids (which is the right and proper thing to do) - and they perform Flag Placements with full respect and even awe.

wind and solar energy. belief in a better tomorrow. indoor plumbing.

Biblically, why is there erosion? What kind of change is it, and is it supported by Scripture? Obviously, as a religous evolutionist, I see similarities - both involve change affecting God's Creation. And while the results of some erosions are obvious, we may never seem them in action. So I'm interested in the Creationist view - why, what, how? That sort of thing. And in a similar vein, since we can measure half lives, and have observed the conversion of elements as a result thereof, what does this mean? Again, I'm looking fr the Creationist take on it all. Thanks for any thoughts!

God, of course, gave us free will within certain limits. I cannot flap my arms and fly, no matter how much I will it, nor give up food altogether, breathe unaided underwater, etc. There are limits placed on the body that restrict will. Some of those limits affect our behavior beyond our control. I have no idea how many of the current posters may have had sex before marriage, abused themselves, whatever (and I don't want to know), but I do note that very few ever cry mea culpa when condemning the sexual lives of others.. Since just about everyone I know picks and chooses among the commnandments - I myself am wearing mixed fibers, tho' I refrain from pork (and there's a lot of interpretation among the baconophiles to justify that); I don't know any modern office worker that avoids women during the - well, you know. some thot's, is all...

"If there is no God my actions don't matter" is NOT a very well thought out concept. If there is no God, then we ARE animals, and if we are animals, we are cetainly social animals. among social animals certain behaviors promote survival of the species, and certain behaviors do not. As we are intelligent animals, we have codifed (well, overcodified, actually, but that's a different topic :-) our behaviors, and it DOES matter. Having no God is no license to run amuck. Indeed, a case can certainly be made that having no God means we all better make double sure that all offenders get punished and kicked out of the gene pool.... well, ok, that last goes a bit far, but the human community has too long suffered because individual rights are frequently placed above the rights of society. just a perspective...

acco40 - excellent point. as far as I'm concerned, smokers should not do so in front of the kids, and as for those parents who bring out a bottle of wine at a camp-out or beer on a hike... well, not the ideal model, anyway.

rlculver415, I asked about animals. assuming you noticed that, are you saying that animals sin, and choose to do so? I was really under the assumption that animals were without sin, never having eaten of the apple... if that is your real intent - that animals willfully choose to sin, and can sin at all - please confirm?

"but still not relevant to the debate regarding sexual orientation among humans" might more apprpriately be worded "but not yet shown relevant to the debate regarding sexual orientation among humans." that notwithstanding, why would God make animals homosexual? are they choosing evil? or...?

Gay Sheep May Help Explain Biology of Homosexuals ABCNEWS Nov. 4 By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Gay sheep that mate only with other rams have different brain structures from "straight" sheep, a finding that may shed light on human sexuality, U.S. researchers said on Monday. The differences are similar to those seen in some homosexual humans, but probably only go a small way to explaining the causes of different sexual preferences, the team at Oregon Health & Science University said. "We are not trying to explain human sexuality by this study," Charles Roselli, a professor of physiology and pharmacology who led the study, said in a telephone interview. "Whether this is a big component of what contributes in humans, that's still debatable." Working with a team at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, Roselli's team studied 27 sheep -- 10 ewes, nine rams that mated only with other rams and eight rams that mated only with females. The "gay" sheep are strongly homosexual, Roselli said. "They don't pair-bond," he said. "But they are exclusive. They don't court or mate with females. They only court and mate with males." First the scientists watched the sheep to be sure of their behavior -- something that cannot be done with humans. Then they took apart their brains. "There had been reports in humans that a certain area of the hypothalamus, the preoptic area ... was usually larger in males than females," Roselli said. This area was also found to be larger in heterosexual humans than in homosexual men. But the researchers had used the brains of men who had died of AIDS in their study, which meant the disease or drugs used to treat it could have had an effect on the brain. "With an animal model you can be more selective and do more controlled studies," Roselli said. The sheep had similar differences in their brains, the researchers told a meeting in Orlando, Florida, of the Society for Neuroscience. "In a sense we confirmed what been found in humans," Roselli said. The brain cells in this area also made greater amounts of an enzyme called aromatase in the heterosexual rams. Aromatase is involved in the action of testosterone, the so-called male hormone. This does not mean the gay rams had less testosterone in their brains, Roselli stressed. "It is not necessarily the activational effect of the hormone," he said. Other types of neurons are probably active -- they just have not found them yet. No differences in testosterone relating to sexuality have been found either in the sheep or in humans, he said. "It's not that gay men have lower levels of testosterone," he said. "And it's not the case with these sheep." Roselli believes that exposure to hormones while still in the mother's womb may affect the brain and cause differences in sexual preference, and more experiments will aim to show whether this is true.

"...wonder if Rosa Parks should have just started her own Bus line..."

DeMann "It is considered to be one of the finest examples of poetry in the Aramaic/Chaldee language, and from a gramattical stand point, it is." Once again, there is the suggestion that you read Aramaic and have done your own readings and translations of the original texts. Still, it's only a suggestion - can you confirm this? Do you read Aramic, as you've advised others to learn, and have your read the original texts as you advise others to read? I think if the answers are yes, then both sides probably have a BUNCH of questions they'd like to put ot you! :-) Thanks!

DeMann, sorry to be dense,I STILL can't tell from your post if you read Aramaic yourself and have reviewed original sources, which was the basis for my question - assuming that you knew the one and read the other, I was asking about the validity of the position that the word 'day' in current versions was in fact something else originally, based on your own direct reading? regardless that, however, your comment "Evolution excludes the necessity for God" does not address the possibility that God DIRECTS evolution, for His own reasons... I cannot believe in a Supreme Deity Who would be incapable of Evolution. and regardless THAT, what is the literalist position on erosion?

my apologies for the following confusions... sctmon "Mr. Lambert is not a child. He signed an adult volunteer form." I probably wasn't clear - I was making a general statement about kids, atheism and Scouting, not Mr. Lambert. I was trying to make the point that these kids might be seen to be at risk, and so possibly deserving a more Scout attention than less. Sorry for any confusion. Bob White "I appreciate that you think an ethical athiest can join..." What I actually wrote was "BUT, even though I personally think that an ethical atheist should be able to join (if God can be Mother Nature, He can also be Responsible Citizenship in an Ethical Community Human Societist! :-) and would benefit from the program, I certainly have to grant that there's a lot more to the arguments against atheists in Scouting than gays." I was hoping that this would convery the message that I think they should BE ABLE to join, but I acknowledge that the arguments against atheists are in fact stronger (in my view) than the arguments against gays. Regardless, and again, I think these kids need Scouting MORE, and wish there were some robust way to accommodate them. I respect the calls that SCOTUS has made, but even so, I also believe that Exec should consider some changes... and thanks... tjhammer, thanks for the kind words, means a lot coming from one of the stalwarts like you.

ScouterPaul, You've listed how one reference defines it, and I have other definitions that leave out the dark side ('enemy' and 'anarchist' :-), but the question in my mind is what does the BSA mean when it bans "avowed homosexual" or an "avowed atheist". What's the intent - that's it's oke to be either of these as long as you keep your mouth shut? Or what? Then, however the BSA uses it, what are the implications thereof?

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God (it is capitalized).....The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life." Well, so far there's no confirmation by a signee that they're not atheist. is there other verbiage elsewhere that clarifies this? (sorry, couldn't find a copy online) also requiring clarification - is "the organization or group" mentioned supposed to be the "chartering organization or group"? and does it define it as such elsewhere? this would seem to suggest at the least that a public school in fact CANNOT be a that group or organization (even if a group of parents can). Is that in fact the legal state of things? so far the citation seems to have some flex room...?

Actually, I'm more interested in the use of the word "avowed", as used in the following excerpt from another - record-setting? - thread: "We've asked him to search his heart, to confer with family members to give this great thought before any decision is made," said Brad Farmer, council Scout executive of Chief Seattle Council, Boy Scouts of America. "If he says he's an AVOWED atheist, he does not meet the standards of membership of our traditional programs and as such cannot participate. We would return his registration fee to him and wish him the best." And of course the phrase "avowed homosexual" is well known. How does the BSA use "avow"? What is meant? Is it... oh, y'all know! Is it a loophole for either side, is it entrapment, or - well, what?

In part, I'd assume Merlyn posts here in the hopes that - among the others who just read and never respond - Exec looks in from time to time, for input, to feel the waters, to see if anything new or useful gets said. So in another part, Merlyn would then parry each and every objection raised here, in the hopes that he might reach that quiet audience with some new logic or old piece of news that may have escaped them to date. Now, I'm just guessing here, mind. See, he's not in it for the immediate discussion, but the long term results. And of course once folks simply start asking him to leave, or questioning why he's here in the first place, well - it may seem to some that he's made his point to the degree that no one can counter him, and that asking him to leave is the next best thing. Personally, I'd say that an atheist kid, or a child of atheist parents, needs just about everything else Scouting has to offer a LOT MORE than a kid whose upbringing has included mainstream religious instruction, and that rather than denying these kids, Scouts should reach out to those who dwell, if you will, in the inner city of the soul... BUT, even though I personally think that an ethical atheist should be able to join (if God can be Mother Nature, He can also be Responsible Citizenship in an Ethical Community Human Societist! :-) and would benefit from the program, I certainly have to grant that there's a lot more to the arguments against atheists in Scouting than gays. OK, ok, ok - that's all side salad. Merlyn's here because he's speaking his conscience, and this is one of the very few appropriate venues for his input. ...probably it'd be more meaningful to ask him if he participates in any other pro-atheist activities, than if he was ever a scout. more appropriate to establishing credentials, i'd say. and since the BSA has chosen not to seek to find definition as any kind of religous organization, even generally, why then, there will be points to be made! just a perspective... I could be wrong about Merlyn. And I could be mistaken in my own views - I'm not perfect or omniscient. so - just a perspective.

"avowed" atheist, "avowed" homosexual. does this mean we in fact have an "official" don't-ask-don't-tell organization? I am not aware of any Charter, by-law or other verbiage that definitively and specifically bans gays (I don't consider 'position statements' on a par with the instruments listed) or atheists (tho' there are ritual statements addressing this issue, where is it explicitly written - de jure, as it wure :-) ? Now, I'm NOT raising those already well-discussed issues; instead, what does anyone think "avowed" means? is it in fact "don't ask, don't tell", or is it don't be obvious, or don't politicize, or...? Well, what? my concern is that the "avowed" test is an invitation to deceptions at many levels. I could be wrong, tho' and I'm very interested in what "avowed" means. The preamble to the GSUSA constitution mentions God, and I think the membership practice is to leave it up to the individual to decide if they in fact have a "spiritual side" sufficiet to meet the membership requirements. I know that's seen as atheist-tolerant, but I'm not convinced it's the best approach for youth...? Thoughts?

somebody mentioned the charter... the following is taken therefrom: "The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." Note "boys". Note "patriotism, courage, self-reliance". Note that it doesn't say "some boys" and it doesn't specify "religion" "reverence for God" or "spiritual nature" (or heterosexuality, for that matter, but I think that's a different board :-). Now some may say, "God's a kindred virtue", but remember, it was junior officer and squareshooter training in original concept, and I'd suggest that the fact that only tacking on "kindred virtues" at the end of a non-religious list, and not specifying religion at all, makes an important point, and frankly, since the Charter is in many ways our legal "heart", it may be time for Congress to revisit the wording of that intrument. Regardless that, however, I also note that throughout my Scouting life - Cub and Boy, thru Eagle - God has always been made present. The kid made a mistake in not addressing his failed faith earlier, with family, with leaders, with whomever. But he DID address it at his COR, and that was to his credit - he knew that by doing so, he might have not gotten the Eagle. But he did. If anyone deserves criticism, it was the members of that Court. If I show up somewhere, hat in hand, and say, hey, I don't meet the requirements and I am then told, oh, hey never mind the requirements, come on in - well, those guys set precedent in all of this, and possible legal precedent. If Executive does nothing about it, then there's a bunch of other issues that'll get raised, by allowing that precedent to stand. So here's where it can get interesting!

vegetarian baked beans can have hot dogs added; hot dogs can be meat, or tofu - why not bring both? baked potatoes can have cheese melted on them, assuming they eat dairy - and chili added for everyone else. indeed, you can make beans only chili, or tofu chili, when it comes to that, and even tofu's edible when it's been chili-ized! if these are no animal stuff whatever vegetarians, then the issue also requires a bit of common sense caution. you won't be able to assume that, say, cookies are ok because they don't have bones - look for milk or butter, etc. falafel's another filling nutritious not too hard to do at a camp-out item. it's only going to be spaghetti forever if there's no imagination. Waht's not been mentioned is if the parents are militant vegetarians, or vegetarian at all...?