Rooster7

OGE, That was an interesting and somewhat convicting observation you made. I must admit I do go too far sometimes...(or at least, I feel as if I present some of my arguments a little too righteously). I am passionate about my beliefs. And certainly the same can be said about Bob White and some others. Despite some sniping here and there (including my own), it has become apparent to me that most folks on this board do mean well. I stand by my comments, but I don't think they accurately reflect my heart. It has never been my intention to get nasty or to demean anyone. I may have come close, in my attempts to make some points, but ultimately my desire was to convey a message, not ridicule others. We all need to stand back occasionally and do a little self-accessing. I don't think I'll get much support on this, but I think all of the above applies to yaworski and/or Zorn as well. I really didn't like some of the comments posted by Zorn, but for all I know it was yaworski's son defending his dad. Or perhaps, yaworski was utilizing Zorn as a means to provoke some conversations without tainting his own image as yaworski. Regardless, I wish him (or them) well and I hope he doesn't harbor bitter feelings. Peace.

If in fact yaworski and Zorn are the same person, I am disappointed. Frankly, I found most of the postings under yaworski to be well reasoned. Many times I agreed with him. However, I cannot say for a fact that I've read all of them. As for Zorn's postings, I have to agree with the consensus. Most of his postings seemed to be designed to rile folks. Regardless, if they were the same person, it was definitely deceitful and a bit odd to say the least. Bob White, While you may claim to be singing good riddance to yaworski, your post seems designed to bait him into coming back. I know if I were to say "good-bye" and someone trashed me afterwards, I would find it difficult not to respond. May I suggest, let him go gently into that good night. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, Actually, it appears that I was obtuse, not your post. Thanks for the clarificaiton.

OGE, I took great offense (and I still do) at Zorn's description of Christians...and worse yet, his portrayal of Christ. That was the premise for my previous post. Whether or not he has a right to post on this forum wasn't really my point. I am a little perplex by your subsequent post defending him. While I may agree that he has a right to post his thoughts here, I thought yhour selected quote was a bit odd. What have you proven? That I'm not a white supremacist? Not hardly, I just said that I'm not a neo-Nazi. Neo-Nazis shouldn't even use the term "Nazi" to describe themselves. Among all the bad, the Nazis were builders, engineers and lovers of art. The neo-Nazis only destroy. How does Zorn's opinion about NAZI's re-enforce his right to post?

Okay...you got me...I must admit it has been a while since I've read Genesis. However, despite the appearance of an inconsistency, I am not swayed. There are possible explanations. Like, God may not have created all of the creatures of the land at the same time. After creating man, he may have decided that there was a need to create these other animals. Or, as the verse is printed in my Bible, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." (NIV), one might assume that the animals were created prior to man then brought to him at a later time for naming. Likewise, their suitability as helpers could have been examined prior to man's creation. If either of these theories were true, then the verses from chapters 1 and 2 would still be consistent. I lean towards the latter explanation.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Zorn, In Genesis 2, God created man, then because man was lonely he started making animals. Finally he made woman. Are you making this up as you go along? Please provide the verse numbers. I think you've got something wrong.

I have to agree. The goal of any healthy debate is to gain supporters for one's viewpoint. Zorn doesn't seem interested in swaying anyone's opinion. His goal seems to be something else. While we all may be guilty of being short with others, I'm not sure Zorn has even identified his position, unless you believe denigrating Jesus' name is a position. From the beginning, his words were froth with hostility, and I don't think he's moved on to make any real points. I may not agree with tjhammer and some others, but at least they try to argue a point. Their goal is to debate, not insult or offend.

I think that a valid reason is an occupation that requires a certain tool. It amazes me how much unconditional faith people place in their governments, and consequently, how many individual freedoms some are willing to give away. News Flash...Imperfect people run governments.

Firstpusk, I enjoy debating with you. I hope this does not make you too upset with me, but I am compelled to say the following. Any time someone refers to their faith as a "tradition", I see red flags. It seems as if you're talking about your faith as if it's some sort of quaint aspect of your heritage. Maybe you don't feel that way, but how exactly does one equate religion or faith with "tradition"? Tradition does not inspire me. The truth inspires me. Your word choice implies that you're not very confident about defending your faith as truth. Just an observation.

DeMann, First, I am supporting the creationism theory, not denouncing it. You're not viewing my words in context. My comment was a criticism of Zorn's statement, in which he implied because Jesus did not mention "creationism or the scientific method", he was either indifferent or may of have even claimed evolution to be true. (See "The Origins of Man" thread). I should have posted my reply to OGE there, but I thought OGE was referencing it in this thread. Apparently I managed to confuse both of yousorry. Second, I am fully aware of the Holy Trinity. I realize that Jesus is God, but he is also a separate person from God the Father. Thus, it is called the mystery of the Holy Trinity. I believe it, but I don't think any man is capable of summarizing or even understanding it very well. By human logic - God created the world; Jesus is God; and there is only one God; yes by that logic - Jesus created the world. But this assumes we (man) can understand the Trinity...I don't think we can. If you extend that same logic to other Biblical events, like when Christ was on the cross and said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" - He was talking to himself. Do you believe that to be true? It seems you must if you want to remain consistent. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, I thought your post about Zorn providing an excellent reply was in reference to "The Origins of Man" thread, in which Zorn said (in response to me): "Unless I missed something, Jesus didn't say much about creation or the scientific method." If not, I'm sorry I caused confusion. If so, please see my post again, because I feel his response to me was weak. Regardless, I have no quarrel with you OGEI rarely do.

OGE and Zorn, yet when another poster asked how you resolved the words of "your Lord and Savior" on a topic, you answered the question with an excellent reply. Not to nitpick, but it wasn't an excellent reply for these three reasons: 1) My post was directed to a specific believer (kwc57). Not Zorn, who has made his position clear, which is he does not believe Jesus to be the Son of God. 2) He ignored the fact that I presented my position as a hypothetical. I qualified my statement by saying "What if" 3) The OT speaks to the creation of world. It's not logical, and a little less than sincere, to invoke Jesus' name on a topic for which he did not address. Nevertheless, Jesus' teachings did not negate or deny the OT.

By the way, before this becomes distorted, there are many policies and rules that I agree with. In particular, le Voyageur mentioned three: Two Deep Leadership Safe Swim Safety Afloat So, if someone wants to debate something specific (say, like the ban on paintball), I'm willing. But, please don't assume that I (and everyone else) am arguing that all BSA policies are flawed. We're not.

Mike F, Excellent post and in my opinion...Right on the mark! I also found myself agreeing with yaworski and Ed (two of my favorite guys on this board). The bottom line is, despite the contentions of some, BSA is susceptible to politics and capitulation just like any other organization. I believe, the reason the logic behind some of these rules are not published, is because the logic would be extremely weak, or it would expose BSA's penchant for surrendering to certain groups (i.e., over-protective mothers, anti-military, environmentalists, etc.). Having said this, I still think BSA is a great organization and the best thing going. It's just that I fancy myself to be objective, even when it comes to people and organizations that I like. For example, I like Bob White (I really do), but I don't think he's objective when he talks about BSA policies. Having said that, I'm sure we will be hearing from Bob soon. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Has the CM assumed the role of the CC as well? Or, are you presuming that she should because she's the CM? The point is, unless the CM has indicated that she will perform the function of the CC, no one should assume that she will, or even expect her to try. Her main focus should be the pack meetings. Special events, finances, purchasing awards, and other similar functions are the responsibility of the pack committee. If a pack committee does not exist, the CM should not be blamed for that fact. If she's receiving accolades for the work of others, I can understand your irritation with her. Nevertheless, if she's coordinating and presiding over the pack meetings, then she's doing her job.

I didn't follow my Dad's advice about not arguing religion or politics. I know many folks claim this motto for themselves. I'll never appreciate this sentiment, since these are two of the most important things we can discuss - Who or what should we worship? Who will we trust to govern our lives? These discussions may not always be fun, but I think they have value. Most other conversations are pretty shallow.

red feather To support the exclusion of this boy based on the translation of the Bible, Mein Kampf, or the teachings of any philosophy is abhorrent. We are here for the boys, anything else is for campfire discussions. Because I referenced the Bible to support my feelings on an issue, I have to believe that you were in some way referring to my post. If so, you've completely distorted my opinion. In fact, I don't think anyone has said a particular boy or group of boys should be prohibited from entering Scouts because they matched a certain profile. Although, I will defend BSA's right to set standards (i.e., belief in God, etc.). I am not Bible literate, but have observed that any stance or philosphy will use it as a source to support either side of the discussion. A leader once told me that there is a phrase and I paraphrase 'suffer the children to come unto me', I know it is not the correct words but isn't that kinda what we are about? Working and volunteering to help the kids who need scoutng. Agreed. However, my point was and still is, there comes a time when one needs to examine his efforts from a practical standpoint. Am I making a difference? If not, could I be making a difference elsewhere? No one is arguing (with the possible exception of ZornI'll let him talk for himself), that certain boys are not worth the effort. I am arguing that a boy can be unresponsive, and further efforts may well be a waste of time. It depends on the specific situation. kwc57 It is late and I'm tired...I'll try to make sense. Yes, I am a Christian. See the Origin of Man thread for a run down of my background. The problem with typing messages in threads is that there is no tone of inflection. It was something of an attempt at humor. Fair enough. Christians are often mocked for making references to their beliefs when defending a particular stance on an issue. I find it exceptionally frustrating when a self-professed Christian responds in the same manner. The implication is - even believers doubt God's Word and/or believe that His Word is open for anyone's interpretation. I accept your explanation that it was an attempt at humor. However, I feel it sends the wrong message to others (i.e., note Zorn's comments following your post). You mentioned where Jesus says to shake the dust from your feet if your message is ignored and move on. I was just contrasting something else he said when he said to go out and COMPEL people towards God. I find the Bible as a whole very consistent. However, a verse taken out of context (not saying you or I did that) can be used to say or support anything you want. If you watch the political analysis shows on the cable news channels, you see the talking heads spin individual quotes of politicians everyday. You can do the same with the Bible or any other text for that matter. I understand and agree. Nevertheless, in the future, if you think my Biblical reference is weak, please ask me to explain and/or to come up with more references to support my claim. I felt your response (which was to provide another verse without explanation) was flippant and did not counter my argument very well. If you truly believe that the God of the Bible wants us to never give up on any child, then I ask you to provide more references and an explanation of how those verses support your claim. And again (and hopefully for the last time)I NEVER stated or implied that we should not make an effort to help every childI ONLY said that there comes a point in time when it becomes painfully clear that the effort is not going to be fruitful and your time would be spent better elsewhere (on another child). Agreeing with or backing Zorn isn't my cup of tea. Personally, I don't see how you can be an effective scout leader and totally ignore the religious aspects of it because it does not suit you. That would be like telling scouts they don't need to be honest, that it is over rated. All of the aspects of scouting compliment each other. Without each one in place, it is like an 8 cylinder engine running on 7 cylinders. I'm not sure why this was addressed to me. With exception to the one point, I have found some of Zorn's statements as offensive as anyone else. In fact, the more he posts, the more I wish I had made my statements in another thread so I could completely disassociate myself with his postings. Scommon, There were a few posts that seemed to be advocating that position in my opinion. I was just posting response to them. I think the reason most of us got involved in Scouting was that we thought we could make a difference in another persons life and still hold to it. Okay. I don't really think we're in disagreement. Please see my response to kwc57 in this same post. Zorn, Such typical arrogance. Who says that I'm not religious? Just because I don't subscribe to your silly notions of religion, basing my philosophy on the teachings of an executed criminal. You may be religious, but you're certainly not trying to show God's love here. Even if Scouting didn't have a religious aspect to it, your comments do not reflect many of the other 11 points of the Scout law. In particular, I see no evidence of you being kind or courteous to anyone. A man who, if he came today, would be reviled and ridiculed by you and yours for daring to claim that is the son of the Creator. You're probably right. Of course, this fact would in no way change the outcome of His work. We would be just as forgiven. Christians do not claim to be without sinthey just claim to have a Savior. By the way, since we have the Bible as God's inerrant Word, most Christians would refuse to accept such a man presenting himself as God. The Bible foretells of Christ's second coming, and it won't be merely as our Savior. He will be Judge as well. His status as God's son will be very self-evident.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

scomman, I agree. Yet, I haven't read any postings in this thread that supports these things. But perhaps I missed something...

scomman, So...people who don't think as you do, support NAZI Germany. Is that your point? What exactly to do you think posters are saying? I think you're going a little over the top. Firstpusk, I will concede that I may not have been fair with my response to you. I'll leave it at that. And yes, if Zorn had made his latter comments first, I probably would not have aligned my thoughts on the subject with his.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

kwc57, You don't have to agree with my understanding of the bible. However, if you're a believer, why would you mock any one for quoting the bible? Disagree with my conclusions; sureI may be wrong about how I'm using God's Word. I never claimed to be perfect. However, you seem to be agreeing with Zorn - that the bible says whatever you want it to. I strongly disagree with that statement. So, here's my challenge to you. Take the bible verse that you claim is a counter to my argument, and explain exactly how it contradicts my conclusion. You're using this verse rather glibly. "Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in" Are you implying that this is an edict to never give up on any one individual? Seems weak to me. If you think as Zorn does, that the bible is open for any interpretation, then why believe any of it? Firstpusk, It's possible, but I doubt it. I'm as compassionate as the next guy. I love kids. But I'm a realist, and I think God's word supports my conclusion regarding this issue. Zorn, It's funny. For some reason, I thought you were Christian. It appears that I was wrong about that.

Kwc57, Great! I am happy to hear, as a fellow believer, that you do not place limitations on God. This is my biggest pet peeve for some folks that claim to be Christians and evolutionists. On the one hand, they say they believe. On the other, they say they have to believe in evolution because, "How else could God have done it?" That construct is pretty weak. But I digress, because you obviously acknowledge God's power and ability. So, where are we? I for one, have no huge argument with you. I don't agree. I think you're wrong. But, I don't necessarily think you're denying God because of your belief in evolution for other species and/or your belief of a very old earth (millions of years). However, just as food for thought, let me throw this out for your intellectual amusement. What if God created the earth in six literal days? What if none other than God confirmed this as fact to you? How would you reconcile the "undeniable scientific facts" against the word of your Lord and Savior? It's an exercise, so please don't debate itJust give it some thought. Before you read my theory, take five minutes to come up with your own. Here are some of my thoughts I believe that there may well be scientific evidence to suggest the earth is very old. However, I'm not compelled to believe that it's conclusive. God may have created that very evidence as a test for his people? Who's to say? I'm not suggesting that it's a test to validate faith, but it could be a test of one's resolve in His Word. Is it not possible that God created the earth in a few days, but provided some evidence to the contrary? Or Perhaps the scientific community is simply missing a piece of the puzzle. Do you find it impossible to believe that the scientific community might one day discover that their process was flawed? Or Isn't possible that many folks, who don't want to believe in God, spend their life trying to prove he doesn't exist? Perhaps a legacy of unbelieving scientists has corrupted the scientific community in general. If nothing else, they have created a bias environment within their own community, which encourages theories that deny God's existence? There are so many possibilities. I don't fault people for believing in scientific theories, but I'm not convinced that science is unreliable. I don't care how many scientists are involved, the fact remains - flawed, sinful human beings postulated the theories and created the processes to prove them. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that man would devise a system to cast doubt about His existence. In fact, it seems rather predictable to me. Now, given my premise, did you come up with any plausible theories on your own? Or, are you going to tell me (in the hypothetical) that despite God's assurances, you couldn't provide one reasonable explanation for the contradiction. Simply put, I know God exist. I know the bible is His Word. I wasn't raised in my faith. God gave it to me. It makes much more sense to me, to reconcile what I know (the bible) against what I'm uncertain of (the latest scientific theory) as opposed to the other way around. However, I find no fault in your faith. You may even be right, although my heart (as well as my mind) tells me otherwise. I was hoping to give you something to think aboutBut perhaps you've already explored that avenue. Peace. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Firstpusk, I defended Zorn's original comments. The fact is that some kids aren't worth the effort. Our society thinks that children are precious but they really aren't. There are children that cannot be saved and will never become a useful member of society. His words were blunt, and perhaps poorly presented, but I agreed with his basic premise - Children can establish themselves as evildoers as easily as any adult. All people (adult or child) should be held accountable regardless of their age. And, many times, regardless of one's effort, a child will not find the right road. Zorn's harshest thoughts, which I do not agree with (most especially, as they were presented), came after my first post. To associate me with those particular words (of his choosing not mine) is misleading. Most of my criticisms were directed at one of your first statements. There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved. I've already explained my thoughts on this remark. I can only assume that you purposely chose not to respond to the criticism and associated my post with Zorn's comments because you are incapable of defending your stance. Yes, Grace is great. We all need it, but only God can give it. Our job is to spread the word and to be an example. However, God's Word says this too: Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." They went out and preached that people should repent. Mark 6:10-12 In other words, Christians are instructed not to bang their collective head against a wall, but to go and find others willing to listen. I see this teaching as useful for other applications other than the preaching of the Gospel. It seems to me, it applies to stubborn children as well. If they don't respond, then I will trust them in God's hands. My efforts will only continue so long as I see a sign of hope or potential. Otherwise, I will not bang my head for extend periods of time. It's not healthy for anyone, and it's wasting time that I could be spending with others. So, having said the aforementioned, kindly remove your foot from my butt. I don't find it necessary, nor do I agree that it is an "act of Christian love".

le Voyageur, Based on your self described persona, I'm glad all of our disagreements have been via the Internet. Although, even then, I have found some comments to be rather sharp and pointed.

kwc57, I may or may not enter this debate to argue the merits of the so-called scientific evidence. Regardless, as a window into the mind of another believer, this statement befuddles me. Each day could have been 100,000,000 years for all we know. That sure fits better with scientific findings. That would also allow for the Earth to "evolve" into it's present state as we are now seeing how stars and planets form over 100 of thousands and millions of years. No matter what the scientific findings may indicate, your last sentence seems to be implying that God needed this time. Are you saying that God could not have created the earth in six literal days? Are you suggesting that God has limited capabilities? If so, your definition of God seems to be rather weak. If you were not suggesting this, thenwhile I still disagree with the theory of evolution, I would not find fault in your faith. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved. Just so it's clear. My criticism of this statement concerned the supposition that the proper human efforts will always direct children onto a proper path. On the other hand, this statement does reflect our status as children of God quite well. Salvation is for all who seek Him. God's grace is not limited. However, man's capability to invoke change in others is limited. Free will is not a catchy Christian saying; it's a reality.