Rooster7

Merlyn writes: Rooster7, lunch wasn't created as a 'cover story' to advance a religious practice; in contrast, 'moment of silence' advocates suddenly appeared after repeated attempts to have prayer in schools were rejected. What powers do you possess that enables you to decipher the unspoken motives of others? Regardless, its the impact/outcome on the collective group that should drive the Constitutionality of such matters, not the motivation of specific individuals or subgroups. For example, if I believe I have a religious right to procreate, the federal government shouldnt hinder my access to public health care. They should not be questioning my motives or how I came to the door of a public clinic. Its my business, not theirs. To think otherwise is inane and insane. This is the Big Brother mentality at its worst. And sadly, its the mentality that quite a few liberals seem to be adopting today. By your reasoning, if one can prove that an individual gains a religious benefit by some government sponsored event, facility, practice, etc., then the government has a duty to cease its participation in such an event, facility, practice, etc. This brings me back to my original argument (keeping in mind that its the extremes of an argument that proves or disproves its validity). So if one person can claim that lunch is their religious right then by your reasoning, the public schools should stop serving lunch. Merlyn adds: And if adding one moment of silence is OK, why not add 3 or 4? Is there something wrong with that? Because as a practical matter, interrupting the school day multiple times for moments of silence would be counterproductive to the collective group. On the other hand, one can argue that starting the day on a moment silence will allow/encourage the collective group (regardless of individual motives or desires to pray, meditate, or whatever else one can do during a moment of silence) to start the day more focused and committed. Some will scoff at that notion I dont.

Merlyn, I hate to go back two days and three pages (whatever it was), but I have to comment on the absurdity of your premise for ruling out a moment of silence for students to meditate or pray (or whatever else they may chose to do in silence). Your assertion being Muslims want to pray at multiple points during the day. Therefore reserving one time during a schooldays (vice multiple times) for a moment of silent mediation/prayer is prejudicial against them. Moreover, establishing a single moment of silent mediation/prayer is supportive of any/all religions that would endorse such an idea. Thus, given the aforementioned, the state-run school would be establishing a religion. To illustrate how silly of a notion this is consider this: Tomorrow, I create my own religion. I assume thats acceptable to you. In my faith, one must eat one meal at noon each day. Some non-religious folks call it lunch. Regardless, because it is now my religious practice to eat this meal, the public schools can no longer serve lunch at noon. Why? Because it would be a tacit endorsement of my faith, and would constitute the establishment of a religion. Im sure you have some great rationalization to justify one (lunch) and not the other (moment of silence), but I dont see how you can. Now, there be may some other reason to argue against a moment of silence (although I personally would like to see it become a practice), but separation of church and state is a huge stretch.

Good question. I'm confused by that myself. I think this is my 4th post since I "beamed back down to planet earth", and yet the count is 2010 (not 2004). So, perhaps while I was attempting to use the site again (i.e. my previously failed efforts due to account deactivation), several posts somehow got caught in a vortex or something.

OGE - nice hypothetical because it clearly demonstrates a situation that most of us would not tolerate. That said - I have to agree that a public school policy that sets aside a time for public prayer is probably not a good idea. However, what's wrong with reserving time for silent mediation and/or prayer (if that's how a student wishes to use the time)? This allows the faithful to do as they feel their religion calls them to do, and it allows time for atheists to ponder whatever they wish to ponder. It does not establish a religion. It does recognize differences. And it seeks to satisfy the rights of everyone. That said - I'm sure someone will still object... Why you ask? Because common sense rarely prevails when there is a political axe to grind. But lets be honest here who would be hurt if time was reserved for the students to do as they please in silence?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I don't intend to post as often as I use to, but I'm sure I'll find a few discussions that will draw me in (like a moth to fire, eh). scoutingagain, Yes - all of my boys are 18 or older. My current involvement in Scouting is zero. Perhaps I'll offer some help later, but life is too busy these days.

Yes regrettably (perhaps for me more so than others) - Im back from my two year hiatus. I intend to be much more judicious in my postings this time around, but I cannot say how long that will last. That said - I hope everyone is still alive and well. I am alive that isyou can decide on the well part later.

test

Goodbye - Ive tried to do this twice before, but failed. At about the 700 post mark and the 1000 post mark, I gave grandiose speeches that enough was enough, and concluded with Im out of here. Now, having reached 2000 posts and nearly five years of membership (April 26, 2001) on this forum, I have to say enough is enough and Im out of here. I think this time it will stickIf for no other reason, I couldnt stand creeping back in here again, just to demonstrate my total lack of discipline. If you dont know who I am and what I believe by now, then my communications skills are sorely lacking. Truly, for those who disagree with me, theres no point in pounding my head against the wall. For those who agree, theres no point in me telling you something that you already know. Its been a pleasure to post to this forum (most of the time). There are numerous folks on this board who are more than the sum of their badges (so to speak) and I've enjoyed debating with you. Some debates turned a little ugly and I probably was not completely innocent from causing some of those occurrences. Regardless, I can honestly say Ive grown to like most of you, including some folks who steadfastly opposed my views. Honestly, five years is way too long to be posting on the Internet like this. In that time, Ive changed jobs, seen all three of my sons become Eagle Scouts, had two sons graduate from HS, had one graduate from college and get married, and seen my daughter learn to walk, talk, run, and talk back. I think its time to turn my attention to something else. Grace and Peace to you and your family, Mike (a.k.a. Rooster7)

Kahuna, Over the last 47 years of my life, I cannot retrace and identify everything that I discovered which points to the existence of God. But when I earnestly began my search for God, I already knew that He existed. It was a matter of who He was and how I related to Him. Any cursory look at the world presents some undeniable truths like love and hate are more than simple chemical reactions in the brain; And, good and evil are not just an expedient way to describe extraordinary eventsthey exist. The evidence of God is all around us and very easily identifiable if one is willing to look. The problem is, too many people prefer this world and the god that presently reigns over it, then the heavenly Father who offers us eternal life. I dont deny that the search for truth begins with what is, as opposed to what one might like to exist or what one might fear to exist, but I cannot deny decades of what Ive already come to see and know around meIt was the basis for my search. If Im up to my neck in fish and seaweed, I dont need to conduct a search for very long to discover that Im standing in the ocean. The evidence of God is everywhere and in everything.

Packsaddle, Do you want to know my opinion about the Da Vinci code too? What about Paradise Lost? Hansel and Gretel? When does it stop? If you believe in the Bible and its teachings, then you'd know that this kind of non-sense will never stop. Because Satan will find ways to garble the truth, especially for those who are willing to buy into it. Even if I could dispel every doubt about everything written that deals with the God of the Bible, tomorrow somebody will produce something else and there will be just as many skeptics. No, I'm sorry...I don't have the time for that kind of non-sense.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Before coming to Christ, if ever I believed that the source of my faith was fallible - I would have looked elsewhere. That is, I did not choose to believe in the existence of Hell, because its a place that I want to know existsreserved for those who are not Gods children. Even believers have occasional moments of self-doubt regarding their salvation. The prospect of Hell is daunting. So why would anyone want to believe that such a place is real? If this was a simple matter of picking a faith that one feels comfortable with, then I would have remained a Catholic (although they too believe that Hell exists). I had already embraced and participated in the rituals which my religion had prescribed for me. I could have stayed the course and continued in my faith. In some strange way, I did feel connected to God. Yet, my faith seemed shallow, if not - nonexistent. I did not feel as if I was worthy to stand before God. I felt accountable for my sinsthat judgment was impending. Given that I was a practicing Catholic, and one who believed in and embraced the God of the Bible, I had no reason to feel that way. When I finally asked for Christ to come into my life, it was more out fear then a proclamation of love although, I do love Christ and the life He calls us to live. My point for sharing these thoughts is this I did not choose the path I followed. God revealed His truth to me. I recognized it, was condemned in my heart, repented, and found freedom through Christ, His son. This is how I came to be saved. I realize that you may not believe or appreciate this testimony. But I ask you to consider this Do you really believe that your God exists? Or do you choose to believe in a god that you have createdbecause he does not condemnbecause it is safebecause it allows you to sleep at night? I know God exists, and I know who He is. I understand why there is a Hell. And because of that, I understand and appreciate the gift that Hes offered us, and accept it with a very grateful heart. I cannot explain to you exactly how I came to know Godother than getting on my knees and praying. For many, I know that my words will be interpreted as arrogance. However, I offer this for you to ponder. If you cannot speak confidently about your faith, why do you embrace it? Faith is not believing in God when there is no reason to do so. Faith is knowing God. Its recognizing the truth when it is spoken, even when many do not. Do you know what it is like to truly worship God? Have you ever praised God in song and truly felt His presence? Do you understand and appreciate His love for us, or do you merely presume it? Ive stood before God and praised him with an open and contrite heart. I know what it is to feel His arms around me. Ive cried tears of joy, because Hes given me a peace that surpasses all understanding. And while these are emotional responses, they are responses that were not in me prior to knowing Him. Im not trying to convince you of anything but this - the path to God is not a path which is found out of convenience. That path is discovered when one responds in earnest to Gods promptings. If you confess your sins and seek Him with a sincere heart, he will place you on that path. If you reject Him as God the Father, then He will allow you follow a different path, one that leads condemnation.

To those who believe in the Bible If we are all Gods children, then how do you explain Jesus words? Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:42-47 Truly, I believe God gives everyone the opportunity to seek Him and to repent of their sins. However, not everyone does. As I read Scripture, those who refuse to recognize their sinful heart and to seek Jesus to atone for their sins, are not Gods children. The above verses speak to this point rather clearly. "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know mejust as the Father knows me and I know the Fatherand I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my lifeonly to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." John 10:14-18 Again, the above verses imply that there are those who will not know Jesusour listen to his voice, and thus will not be of his flock. If you in fact believe that the Bible is Gods Word, and still have doubts, then try reading Romans 9. I ask that you provide another explanation, other than there are those who will seek Him His children, and those who will not who are not His children.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I guess the real question is: Are we sure that we are one of His children? Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. Luke 8:42 & 43 Also, I think while God uses earthly models such as our relationships with our children to teach us lessons about love and forgiveness, we cannot assume that these models parallel our relationship with Him. We, as earthly fathers, are flawed beings - very often more flawed than our children. This is not the case with God, our heavenly father.

LongHaul, Absolutely. His love was and is expressed through His gift to us, the blood of His son Jesus. However, if it were not for Jesus sacrifice on the cross to atone for our sins, I believe our condemnation would be just. Or if we reject his gift, I see no reason why we should expect to escape His wrath.

Trevorum, Okay...your Tooth Fairy analogy threw me. So you believe in a god who will not hold people accountable. I'm just trying to understand how one can defend the practice and not feel accountable to a Holy and Righteous God. If you don't believe that such a God exists, then I understand why you are comfortable with your stance. Again, I'm not trying to define who you are...I'm trying to understand from where you are coming.

Trevorum, Okay, thats pretty clearI understand how you sleep at night. As I said, if you dont believe in God, the question was moot. Packsaddle, Rooster7, what you seem to miss is that a lie in one's heart is still a lie. Im not sure how that factors into my questionunless youre incapable of viewing this issue in any other way than what youve already proclaimed. As to individual accountability vice that of a legislative body, if you defend the practice than I think youre accountable. Not unlike those who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust victims. But we are probably more accountable, because we live in a country whereas expressing opposition to abortion will not cost you your life. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

You know, if I felt as some posters here have already indicated (i.e., "Nope, not in my court", "Seems ridiculous", etc.), I would at least have some reservation in the way I expressed my opposition. If you do not believe in God, then what I'm about to propose is moot. But consider the possibility that your opponent may be right and you have to stand before God (or "stand before your god", if that's how you rather it be expressed). Here is that possibility from my side of the fence: If I'm wrong, I'm pretty confident that God will understand that while I may have been misguided, my intent was to protect a life that I thought He created. I truly doubt that such a defense will be necessary, but I have no concern about uttering it. How would this conversation play out from your side of the fence? "I thought a woman's 'reproductive rights' out weighted the possibility that a life you created would be killed"? I'm just curious. The possibility of this conversation does not bother you? You feel confident in such a defense of your thoughts and actions. You do not believe there is a god...or you feel confident that God will not pass judgment on you - even if your opponents are right (i.e. abortion is the killing of a life created by God). Have you ever pondered this possibility?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

These strike me as inconsistent with each other. Either we are searching for Truth or we are searching for God. If we search for God and don't find God, the search is over. If we seek Truth and we find God . . . I suppose on the surface they are inconsistent...unless one has searched for the truth and found God, in which case they would be one in the same. I think the search for God is not an easy one is not because God is hiding from us, but because we are afraid to find Him. For various reasons, I believe that is true. God does not make the search difficult, we do.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I feel that is a pre-emptive dismissal of the genuine search for spiritual enlightenment by such people. In contrast, I would offer that such people may well have contemplated your theology and rejected it in favor of a belief system that is more explanatory, more satisfying, and/or more, well, believable. I suppose it is unfair, since I cannot determine what an individual actually thinks or desires. Even when someone proclaims something aloud for all to hear, we have to assume that his words reflect his heart. However, terminology like spiritual enlightenment and belief system or protests that religion was unsatisfyingas I see it, these terms and that kind of complaint reflects a person who is not looking for God, but for something else. The pursuit of truth is not a belief system or a spiritual journey which promises personal satisfaction for the seeker. Truth is truthit is what it is it doesnt have to provide one with all of the answers nor bring one into communion with all of creation. A conventional paradigm is that ones faith is a vehicle for personal satisfaction and/or to find a set of values for one to clutch. I think this is why so many are blind to real faith. Before I came to God, I first recognized other truths like the existence of good and evil, love and hate, and my own sinful state of being. I never would have found God, nor recognized his righteous and love, had I not first recognized these other truths. They did not promise me any answers or personal happiness. The search for God is not an easy road as some would like to believe.

People believe what they want to believe. Who am I to say they are right or wrong. You are, presumably - a thinking, rational human being, who can ingest information, juxtapose it against the facts as you have come to trust them, and come to a logical conclusion. While we are all fallible, that fact should not stop one from forming or expressing reasoned opinions. If we do not distinguish between reasoned opinion and unreasoned opinion, then all opinions will be given equal weight. This is an injustice, not just to those individuals who hold reasoned views, but to anyone seeking the truth. Scientologists, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists all believe things that I don't agree with. However, its their right to believe it. This above statement is completely different than the first and I agree with it. While I maintain the right to disagree with a particular viewpoint, I respect the right of others to hold that view. In other words, I will not harbor ill will towards those who do not understand and believe the same things that I do. However, I maintain my right as a thinking person to disregard, even hold in contempt, viewpoints which are unreasoned and/or represent values which are contrary to my own. If Scientologists want to embrace Ron Hubbards view of the world, that is their choice. You certainly wont see me trying to persecute them for it. Yet, I can and do find those beliefs to be inane, and my opinion of those who embrace such a view is worsened. That is, when someone tells me that they have embraced as truth, a version of history and a belief in God that stems from the imagination of Ron Hubbarda man reputed to have made this quote: "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion" I have to conclude that this person is extremely gullible or ignorant or both. Similarly, if someone tells me that they believe in Satanism, then I have to conclude that such a person has embraced evil. Again, not something that will enhance my opinion of that individual. Still, it is their choice. My Godmy faithdoes not call upon me to harass these persons or to do them harm. I am called to speak the truth. We are thinking personsand we should draw distinctions when there is plenty of evidence to do so. To discredit allor to give credence to all, simply because one is overwhelmed by an abundance of claims, is not a reasoned approach. In fact, when folks defame all faiths as being superstitious I find this to be most ironic, because most folks have not done enough searching to make such a claim. So why do they make that claim? Why do they brush aside all beliefs in God as being equally superstitious and thus unworthy of their pursuit? My conclusion is this: Their superstitious nature makes them fearful of an honest search one that will show them the one and only true God. They are afraid of the truth and how it will affect the rest of their lives.

Sure do, only one true way like I said. I understand completely. Perhaps, but my point was not just to say that there is only one truth - or one waywhich I certainly believe. The second half of my point is that there is a fish buried under all those nuts and vegetables. Many charlatans may exist, but their existence does not void the reality of the true God. Or to use another analogy - the existence of many snake oil salesmen does not negate the veracity of real medicine. Nor does the existence of many snake oil salesmen add to their own value or subtract from the value of real medicine. Only a fool would accord all of them and their claims equal respect, simply because some of their claims have popular appeal.

Trevorum, Your comparison is actually right on the mark. The only difference, Ron Hubbard didnt use the Bible as a springboard for his science fiction. With that said, the Mormons that I have met, are some of the most likeable and loving people on this planet. Unfortunately, I see them as following a God that sprang from the mind of Joseph Smith, and only exists today through the minds of those that have been drawn into Mormonism. DanKroh, I understand that you were just echoing what you read elsewhere and did not necessarily endorse those words as your personal thoughts on the matter. Sorry for the mix up...I didn't intend to link you to their teachings. Packsaddle, You know, if I threw an assortment of nuts and vegetables into a frying pan with a fish, cooked it up, and threw them all onto one serving plate thered still only be one fish. Do you understand what Im trying to say?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Mormonism is considered a Restorationist movement, which may or may not be considered Christian by other more traditional Christian movements. They certainly consider themselves Christian, since they seek to restore the Christian Church as it was before the Council of Nicene. I find that analysis of the Mormon faith to be highly suspect. It seems pretty incredible to say they are trying to restore the Church as it was before the Council of Nicene (325 AD), when much of what they believe comes from books that were published by their prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., who lived and died in the 1800s. So with that said, I view the Mormon faith as a cult more than anything else. I cannot see how they can be perceived as a Christian faith. And the idea that they want the Christian faith returned to where it was hundreds of years ago is somewhat laughable. If I wrote the Book of Rooster, and used it to expound on the Bible, would you be willing to call that a Christian faith? If so, I have a bridge in New York that you might be interested in buying. Regardless, fundamentally, many of their beliefs do NOT align themselves with Biblical teaching. There are many, many teachings of the Mormon faith that are totally alien to any Bible believing faith (Protestant or otherwise). Anyone who thinks that the Mormon faith is closely related to, or has authentic roots into the Christian faith, has not looked very closely at what they actually believe. In fact, Id say they havent looked at all.

Trevorum, Why bring Bush's name into this? Are you trying to imply that he endorses such behavior? The current administration is comprised of individuals, presumably all human...and all prone to the failings that beseech the species. It certainly doesn't excuse Claude Allen for his poor behavior, but it doesnt condemn President Bush either. I find your linkage of the two to be in poor judgment, if not poor in taste.

If I tried to run my unit with the religious content many of the posters here think are part and parcel of Scouting, I would have a mutiny on my hands. I'm a little lost as to what you think "many of the posters" are saying. Can you give an example of the "religious content" that these posters are promoting that would cause such a mutiny? My guess is, you have painted a picture which only exists in your mind.