DWise1_AOL

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. That talk of circumcision should have been a clue. This letter was written early in Christ

Why not? True, "Fruit of the Spirit" is the proper term, but you have not called it anything but "Fruits". In every single one of your posts in this topic you have repeatedly and persistently called it "Fruits of the Spirit." I cannot find a single instance where you yourself have used the proper term, but instead always called it "Fruits of the Spirit." In fact, in the very same message, to which I'm responding now, in which you chastise me for having followed your lead by called them "Fruits of the Spirit" (which, as I recall, I had even copy-and-pasted from your own message), you just c

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 standa

My minister did talk to me about my tendency to cast pearls before swine. Though he was referring to BSA at the time. No, I'm not the one who's confused: Many more than just a few. 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

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.

I agree. Plus it can be temperamental, apparently depending on the health of the forum software itself. I actually had the experience of trying to edit what I had written in the middle of a line and the editor kept throwing me back to the end of the line. Very frustrating and difficult to do anything constructive. It seems to be working better now, FWIW. So instead of using the built-in editor, use your own favorite text editor and then copy-and-paste from it into the forum. Very simple and easy to do. Just start entry of a comment or post and instead of typing the message you paste

Yes, that is true. A monolithic society always has it easier. But we are not a monolithic society. So what's your solution to that? Have somebody "with the biggest stick" force a single set of rules on all segments of society? Well, yes, throughout history the "biggest stick" approach has been demonstrated to work for a time. Prussia in the German Empire (das Zweite Reich), the British Army in India, Hitler in dem Dritten Reich, a procession of leaders in the Soviet Union, Tito in Yugoslavia, Sadam Hussein in Iraq, countless theocracies with their own versions of inquisitions. Even when

What does that mean? Even Google doesn't recognize that word. That was 50 years ago. Both I and my religious views have matured since then. I still have a copy of an interesting brochure that was posted at our church. It was about a book, Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God, by Rabbi Jack Bemporad and Michael Shevack. They point out that most people have childish ideas about God because those ideas were formed in their childhood; since most people do not think about and challenge their beliefs as they themselves mature, their beliefs about God never mature and thus r

From the Bylaws of the BSA, POLICIES, Section 1 immediately following the DRP: Your position was firmly based on BSA Bylaws. And yet again BSA is in violation. Doesn't help to know that, does it?

Conforming to BSA's officially pubished policies is one thing. Conforming to BSA's flagrant violations of its own rules is another. I'm not sure where the leaders you mention reside. BTW, I was "outed" by a BSA National spy on CompuServe, so you might want to consider COMSEC.

sailingpj, at bsa-discrimination.org's page, http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/lambert.html, they state: They may well have overstated a few things there, but a push to impose a particular sectarian interpretation is clear. In 1985 when the "Supreme Being" wording caused the expulsion of Life Scout Paul Trout, BSA backed down when faced with hundreds of letters of protest and CSE Ben Love explicitly declared that wording a "mistake". Six years while still under Ben Love, that "mistake" was being enforced again to expel non-theists and thousands of letters of protest, as well as obj

Well, if you post BS you shouldn't act surprised when you get called on it. Like your kangaroo analogy, which stinks of the BSA BS lie of "we're not excluding anybody, but rather they are excluding themselves." But at least you now appear to be trying to actually discuss.

Khaliela, your story is a new low, even for BSA. I won't even try to guess the reason they gave you, because they never give the reason. All they say is "you do not meet the high standards of Scouting". But being told personally that it was because you're not Christian? Did you seek reinstatement within BSA? Your letter should have told you that you have the right to have your case reviewed. That review would have gone up to Regional and even to National. Yes, it's rather like the old Soviet system of government where the review board just rubber-stamps what National hands them, but y

It wasn't a local ambush, but rather it came straight down from National. No professional in BSA does anything without orders from National. DEs have standing orders to report all contacts up the chain and I'm sure that those orders do not stop there. What happened in my case was that BSA had a spy planted in the Scouting Forum on CompuServe who printed out all "suspicious" postings and passed them up to National. Believe it or not, BSA presented those printouts as evidence in federal court in Chicago for the trial of Welsh v BSA. My very first message posted there was among those pri

Well, what is your interpretation of the DRP? In the absolutely nonsectarian manner that is required by the rest of BSA's officially published policy (see the interpretive statement in the Advancement Guidelines, the Reaffirmation of Duty to God from 1991, and the official statements of the Relationships Division from 1985 and 1994), or in a definitely sectarian manner as is used by supporters of BSA religious discrimination?

Moosetraker: My experience was not as a youth, but rather as an adult leader. The problem with going through the courts is that you need to find a specific law to base your case on. The Welsh case was based on the federal Civil Rights Act, as I recall, which required him to have BSA found as a place of entertainment or something like that. Because of that, a narrow definition would invalidate the case. It appears that in the case of the Randall trial which was based on the Unruh Act, the same problem applied. It appears that there is no law that requires a private organization to a

Bullshit! Officially published BSA policy says that your own religious standards do not apply to others not of the same tradition. What part of that do you not understand? Bullshit! Your very refusal to discuss the various possible definitions indicate your desire to force one particular highly sectarian definition. You very clearly only want to allow a narrowly CHRISTIAN definition to that term. Hardly "absolutely nonsectarian" at all. What part of that do you not understand? Because it is not specific enough. You can just mouth meaningless mum

I am going against what some UUs themselves believe here. UUs like to harken back to the Arian Heresy from around the Nicean Council, where Trinitarianism was chosen over Unitarianism. IOW, Unitarianism was basically a revolt against Trinitarianism. But that "heresy" (for what can you call a heresy that has been accepted as dogma?) died out at that time along with its supporting Scripture (outside of whatever has survived that purge). Then in the 1400's or 1500's there arose in Transylvania (no, I am not kidding you) a Unitarian movement. Then later in the early 1700's or earlier, a

Khaliela, what is the official BSA definition of "God"? Theists believe in literal supernatural beings called "gods". Non-theists, AKA "atheists" do not believe in literal supernatural beings. Khaliela, what is the official BSA definition and interpretation of "Duty to God". Does that official BSA definition and interpretation of "Duty to God" require belief in the supernatural? NO IT DOES NOT! Khaliela, you have your own personal definitions and interpretations of "God" and "belief in God" and "Duty to God". Those are yours and you are bound by them. They are not mine an

See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording: This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in.

What? You have never played the game of "God is whatever you say it is" with a BSA professional? Oh, you really have no idea what you're in for! Now mind you, BSA acts without warning, expelling you before you ever know that any problem exists. That is how it happened to the Randalls, despite a unit den leader spoiling the surprise with a cryptic phone call. In my case, I suspected that something was up, so I initiated the call, which pulled our council's SE out of a meeting about me. At some point, we arrived at THE GAME. He said, "God is whatever you say it is." So, knowing so

King Ding Dong, the answer must depend on what the policy is. If the officially published policy is so meaningless that you have to be subjected on all levels by whatever that particular BSA professional personally believes, then why even have an official policy? For example, on another forum is a member who is a "TRUE CHRISTIAN " who repeatedly spews out virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric. So if you are a Catholic and your BSA professional is a "TRUE CHRISTIAN ", then you have just been expelled from Scouting. Is that what you are arguing for? If not, then why even make that argument? Al

No, that is not true. OK, that is indeed what officially published BSA policy says. But that is not what BSA practices. Which is the source of all the problems. If BSA is being so Christian, I wonder why they haven't bothered to read the Gospels to see what Jesus was supposed to have thought about hypocrites.