DeMann

E Man,

Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Those guys are on burnout, and just don't know it. When things collapse around them, they will come running to you for help. And, they will collapse. In the mean time, just remember it is going to happen. Guys like that don't make it for long. In the mean time, get a copy of your favorite guidebook (activities, camp promotion, training, etc.) and make a few copies and then ask the new boy wonder to read it and explain to you how that is being implimented in your district. If he still won't see the roses, he won't make 253 more days, either.

thanks!

I had a friend recently give me a book, and am curious as to it's value. It is a GS book, but their threads appear to get little attention.

The book is "The Girl Scouts Triumph, or Rosanna's Sacrifice" by Katherine Keene Galt, 1921, the Saalfield Publishing Company; Chicago, Akron, New York. It is in superb condition.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Did I say it was a YPT violation?

No, I said to treat it like one. LIKE one.

Let's say you do 'card' the boy- whatever that is. and, next month he does it again. only, this time he gets the keys to the SM's truck and drives it into another tent. HMM.....

Do you think some of the adults here are gonna be considered LIABLE? most attorneys will say yes. a lot of juries will too.

What I said is that the Scout Executive will guide you through it. I did not say that anybody will get kicked out of scouting, although they just might. Personally, I would be furious with any adult that allowed it to happen, or was too slack in observation to have allowed it to happen. I would consider it a serious risk to my son. and, if the boy was simply given a card (again, I don't know what this means, but it does not lend itself to serious consequences by the sound of it)I would move my son to another troop the next day.

Who wants to defend someone who has put a boy at risk? What are you scared of when it comes to talking to the Scout Executive? Are you scared of protecting a boys safety?

think about it. The Scout Executive is trained in this sort of thing. And, he probably wants the boys to ALL stay in Scouting and become Eagles.

Land 'o Goshen!!!

(Can I say THAT?!)

Merlyn,

DUDE!!

Man! check this out: every application has the declaration of religious principal on it. Don't like it? Don't fill it out!

check this out, too: "For similar reasons, I regard the national office of the Boy Scouts of America to be a thoroughly dishonest organization"

"and that only covers the more egregious things, some of which are actual crimes. "

Hey, guy.... If you don't like it here, leave. Lord forbid(I did it again!) you be a part of an organization that is so corrupt. We won't make you come back! and... if it is your tax money that has you so worked up about... well... tell us what your address is and we will send you a check. Really. We will. won't we guys?

Treat this like a youth protection thing- call your scout executive about this one. He will coach you through it.

gentlemen!

let's stop spitting!

I am willing to bet that a) the committee is not active or in charge of the unit, b) the Chartering Organization is unable or unwilling to step in, c) the leaders are not trained, or else went to training not to learn but to get a patch (unless they have ignored what they have been taught), d) the leaders don't have the personality or ability to attract new parents/boys( they may be running the program in a way that is attractive only to themselves and not in an ideal fashion), e) no one on the district level is getting their hands in the mess in an active, understanding, and noninvasive way.

can it be fixed? sure. You could go to the principal and get a special join-night just for the weak pack, but I am willing to bet that the weak pack will not be able to retain the boys recruited. You describe a rather common problem. all Scout units will rise and fall with time. It is only because of the leadership they have- it surely is not the program. it is the people. pure and simple.

do you need another pack? sure you do. they all develop personalities, and each one is different and will attract different people. the average pack is around 20 boys. if you want more boys in the program, you need to give them more opportunities to join. hence, you need the other pack.

I just hope somebody will get their hands dirty with this problem before some boys fall out of Scouting and never come back. visiting here won't get the job done....

Publication 14-630 says that he is to provide professional coaching (to all those guys and gals that call him at all hours of the day and night, as well as propose plans and agendas for all areas of the district structure, suggest action plans for recruiting district personnel, and to give encouragement and inspiration to all scouters in the district. He is also expected to maintain regular contact with the heads of chartering institutions, keep district records up to date, arrange for council office services such as mailings, meeting notices, etc. and provide behind the scenes administrative skill. He also has to develop and maintain his own work schedule and work with and support all volunteers. what is not mentioned is that he is responsible for everything that happens in his district- good, bad, or whatever else it may be. He is ultimately responsible for every unit, boy, adult, and

FOS dollar raised. If he keeps the district growing, he gets to keep his job. If a volunteer screws it up for him, he gets to become unemployed. If he screws it up for himself, he gets the same thing. He is expected to work at least 50 hours per week. Many weeks the expectation grows to 70 or more.

Well.... I wonder how he gets it done?

gee whiz....

I am glad I am not the new guy. By your own admission he is green as a gourd. If a member of the district committee or commissioner staff cannot recognize that, then they have no business being in their position. Talk to the Council commissioner about replacing a commissioner, or if you are the District Chairman, fire the committee member who plans to give him grief. Let the guy grow up on his own. The public will tell him about his handshake or beard. It seems to me that you folks are more concerned about a new guy than doing your volunteer jobs. Shouldn't you be concerned with next years FOS campaign and this fall's membership recruiting? Hey, this guy knows very little about how to get the boys signed up, and probably less about raising money. Show him who the best around are, and get them on the trail asap. His professional counterparts are going to work with him as well, but they will tell you that volunteers can be the best teachers.

Focus on what we are here for. the rest will fix itself.

the walnut hulls have the most dye- you can even use them green. the more you pound or boil them, the more the colorant is released. you can boil steel in the stuff ( like a knife blade) and allow it to cool, and if you have put enough colorant on it, it will look like a well seasoned pot. and, the blade will not rust except where it has been sharpened. a stroke of wax will make a knife virtually waterproof.

yes, it will dye leather very well. you can actually paint on the color, and when air dried, it will stay with it.

good luck

As I recall flint, chert and agate are all made up of superfine silicon crystals that precipitate out of the sea which was responsible for the formations you are talking about

MY POINT EXACTLY! Now, please explain how the shapes got there- there is virtually NO superfine deposits in the strata. Look at it with an open mind. You will see a blob of flint more than a foot thick, and extending ten feet across, and within the strata that contains it there will be no loose formation if flint. Just limestone on limestone. If precipitation is the correct mode of deposit, why is it in thick blobs or balls? In fact, why does it not show the shape of an aqueous deposit? If it is a silica-type microorganism shell deposit, why does it not show (when viewed with a microscope) the shells of microorganisms? If it is indeed a true deposit from an aqueous solution, what is the solvent for rendering it aqueous? --- answer? You have absolutely NO CLUE! Science has no answer I have ever heard for this. In other words, modern science can only discount things like this, not add anything of value to the question.

I am not sure how you got the processes so balled up. The formation of granite is the exact opposite. It is an igneous rock that cools slowly to form the characteristic crystals of mainly feldspar and quartz with some mica or horneblende.

Again, I ask you, can you melt granite and not change it chemically?answer- NO! in which case, it was not formed in the way you speak of.

After you asked about these you seemed to go on a total flight of fancy involving the big bang, punctuated equilibria and atomic explosions.

ok. You missed it. The atomic explosion thing was to remind you that science requires us to prove something by a test that can be measured and reproduced. The atomic explosion is the closed thing to the Big Bang that man can come up with, and it never renders anything except shattered and smashed bits. Certainly you saw the puntuated equalibrium as a cheap shot- I really should apologize for it. I simply tried to make it obvious that the common beliefs of science defy the common beliefs of how to prove such things. when it comes to the formation of the earth, modern science has way too many loopholes in the purported 'facts'.

Sir, your science cannot and I dare say never will be able to replicate the beginning of life or this world. Your beloved science can not begin to explain the wonder of life, if even found only in an amoeba. And, be sure of this, your science can never explain why life reproduces or dies. For anyone to believe that God had no hand, or even just a small part, in the formation of life and this earth, is for one to refuse to render to God the just due that is His. I, sir, would not want to find myself filling those shoes. One day you will look into the eyes of a human and will see that we are no accident. You will see that life has purpose, and it is much higher than you have ever known. And be sure of this, you will one day wish you had not held to the ideas of a mere mortal man rather than the truth of the living God. Ask any person who knows that death is near.

Dung beetles are interesting and so are the theological ideas that the Egyptians had about them. Their concepts, however, have no scientific validity

I agree- except that they did not differ Science from religion; they commonly believed that praying to a dung beetle would change the weather and such. A very obvious mix of science and religion. Since you like to speak of not mixing the two.

Even granting the Book of Job an age on the old side, say 700 BC, that can in no way compare with stella from say the first dynasty in Egypt to around 3000 BC.

ok. Lesson time. The first literature did not show in Asia until about 2400 to 2800 b.c. that is about the time the old kingdom of Egypt showed up (2800 to 2250 bc.) commonly known as Dynasties IV to VI. This is the time in which their religious texts first begin showing up. It is also when the pyramids begin showing up. Their famous literature (classical if you will) showed up in the XII (that is the twelfth for OGE and other slow ones who cannot follow me ((nothing personal OGE- I like you)) ) dynasty which ran from 2000 until 1780 B.C. While this time is obviously before Abraham, I do think that I said that the book of Job is thought by some to predate Abraham. If I am correct, this would indeed predate Abraham. It is well within the realm of possibility that Job was originally written 2400 years BC. Since no known king/country/state is mentioned, the text does not rule this out.

Once again, there is the suggestion that you read Aramaic and have done your own readings and translations of the original texts.

yes, is school I did learn to read it. But it has been many years, and I am very rusty. However, I can still struggle with it, and do have access to an authority on the language should my textbooks not give me the clarity on the subject at hand.

think if the answers are yes, then both sides probably have a BUNCH of questions they'd like to put ot you! :-)

Is it worth me dealing with your questions? I do not know. You have not entertained one thing I have said to date. I can only see this leading to more debate. While you and I will not change our ideals and beliefs, I can only hope to shape the ideas of those who read this thread and do not have concrete beliefs. It would be fun to chase these so very many rabbits, but time is not a factor of which I have much of.

Actually, acceptance of an old earth was almost universal among both scientists and the clergy.

Hogwash. The clergy has never, as a whole or in majority, accepted the idea of the very old age of the earth. Those who believe in the literal word can trace the lineage of mankind back from the time of Christ to Adam, a period while questioned that still remains in the area of 5 to 7 thousand years. And, that is to the very first literal day of this earths existance. No, sir. It has not been universally accepted.

Acceptance of the transmutation of species was also commonly accepted.

Where do you find this one? This is also the stuff commonly found in hog wallows. The clergy has held to the literal translation of the Bible, that is not some new thing. The idea of evolution has been held my a small minority, my friend. Not the majority.

an interesting thought!

erosion is just what it is. Why could it not be a part of God's plan?

I am assuming (am I correct?) that you are also thinking of longterm erosion- like glaciers, breaking rock into sand, etc. I CANNOT speak for others, only myself. I don't think that some of those things were created over millions of years. I personally think that they were created in a radically different way. We will get to that later, though.

Please be more specific as to what you mean in your question.

Rooster, could you explain how men influenced the sheep's behavior?

Let me speak out of turn here. I dont know where these sheep originated from, nor do I know how they were raised. I would bet they had been run through some kind of commercial sheep operation. And I do know that I have shot a pile of Synovex into the ears of calves, and they dont always act like normal little guys after that. Sometimes, they get limp wristed after getting a dose of the stuff. FYI, Synovex is a VERY common growth hormone used in smaller calves to make them grow faster and muscle up better. We know that the addition of growth hormones in chickens is causing quite a concern for those who consume them. And, yes, sheep get their own dose of growing stuff, too. I have a feeling that we will not get to know all the details of this scientific study; you know, it is probably being done by some guy who is ultimately trying to prove the evolutionary theory or something.

, the act seems to be forbidden to men only. I await further scholarship...

the term man is commonly used to refer to mankind in general. See there, I did it. In our language, we have the word mankind to show that women and children are included, and they did not. Hmmm. This is where we must use the context of the text (no pun intended) to determine the true use.

Ps. Please dont use the excuse of not knowing the original language. There are more than enough translations out there. You dont have to hide behind the excuse of some hypothetical mistranslation of the original texts.

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and,

Ok. I ask you, how can you have an obligation to God and be an atheist?

Firstpusk, get off the train. You want to defend your evolution ideas? Ok. Try this shoe on for size. As I travel this great state I live in, I find limestone deposits that are ten or more feet thick that contain fossils of mollusks (term used loosely here). Also, contained within (completely!) there are deposits of flint that range in size of several inches to more than a foot thick. My question is this,explain the deposits of flint- were they deposited in a molten state, or were they deposited in a liquid state, and if liquid, what kind? how did they get there and become contained in an obviously aqueous environment that contains living organisms? How do you dissolve silicon in water? If molten, why do they change color/break down when heated, not being able to be melted and returned to their present state of shape, color, and texture? If molten, explain why there is no damage to the mollusks covered by the flint deposits?

Ok. We know that for crystals to be formed, a compound must be dissolved in some form of liquid. Please explain the formation of the granite as found throughout the Rockies. What liquid held the Granite in suspension? How can we redissolve granite today without damage to the granite itself?

You may use punctuated equalibrium if you want to; heck, its ok if you want to use some kind of big bang in your scientific explanation. But remember, in big bangs, the closest thing we can use to replicate it (remember the definition of a fact in the scientific community) is an atomic explosion, and in those, everything is left as powder; all the large chunks are fractured and broken. Please explain the large ones left by the current evolutionary theories of our origin.

I hope that I do not ask too much of you. I have my own personal theories, but you refuse to allow me to bring them to the table. I am curious what yours are. And by the way, this thread is about God and a guy who told others that he regarded Him as real, when he really did not.

geeze....

the original text tells us that it happened in six days- days as we know them today. one revolution of this ball we now stand on. You can beg to take the easy way out, and scream at the top of your lungs that it evolved, but the text says a day as we know it. You can keep the argument of millions of years if you can put them into one revolution of the earth. that's it. For you to pick and choose the parts of the Bible you want to believe, is for you to discount all of it. you see, the only criteria for discounting any of it is some particular person's own, misguided but well intentioned decision. And if it is ok for you to do that, then it is ok for me to do it too... and I might decide that all kinds of immorality are just fine, and (these are your rules, not mine) that now becomes the truth. the problem with that idea is that God made the rules, not man. and as such, we cannot change what the Book says, we must accept it even if we don't like it.

that brings up another thing. too many times I see people say things like "I just can't believe God would do that" or "I don't see God as being like that". to that i want to ask, 'and who are you to define God?' you see, we must accept him, and not try to define him. we can never begin to understand the being that brought life into existance. think about it. LIFE. what is it, just some chemical reactions? no. it is Life. and since God made it, we must accept it, and HIM, as he is; not as we want to see him.

ps. Job is believed to be the oldest written document in the middle east. 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. It is thought that Job (the man)may even predate Abraham. and, evidence shows that Abraham lived long before the 'great' Egyptians you like to speak of. Oh, yeh. since you like the Egyptian science stuff, are you into dung beetles and that kind of stuff too? are their beliefs about them true also?

here's an interesting thought:

until 1492, mankind thought that the earth was flat and nothing was under it. however, several thousand years ago, a man named Job said that God formed the earth and hung it on nothing (26:7). In fact, in the next verse, he even told us that the waters are bound up in clouds..... is that scientific?

Now, if I can just find that passage that tells us that the water rises to the clouds, rains upon the mountain, and follows the river to the sea to begin again....Is that one in Psalms, or Job also? hmmm......

Littlebillie,

I really need to see your Bible. In mine (Revised King James Version), the words ages and eons are not found in the book of Genesis.

age is indeed used, but only ten times. seybah is used 4 times, and means grey, grey haired, or old age. yowm is used 77 times, but 5 times it comes from a root word refering to the hot time of a day, or to be hot during that time, or to mean a season. In the Chaldee language, it refers to a day as we know it. Here, it appears to mean a period of time such as a year. In context, it appears to refer to old age in a person by being a period of time such as a year (died being stricken with yowm ((old age, lots of years, etc.))..).

yowm is used and interpreted as a day as we know it as well. As such, it appears 72 times in the book of Genesis. The description of the creation of the world uses the word in the context of actual days as we know them. This same word is used identically in other OT passages, such as Ex. 20:8,remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, vs. 10But the seventh day is the Sabbath

layil (or leyl)is used for night, and appears 28 times in the book of Genesis. Its definition is literal night, but can also mean the time of midnight. ereb is used once in Gen. 49:27, and it can mean dusk or late evening, but here is translated as night as well. Night is also a definition for this word.

This is why I, and many others, see the formation of the earth as literal days. The words and phrases used are the same as used in places that require us to see them as actual days.

It is very important that when you read the Bible, you understand how and where what you are reading is coming from. Some translations are there to make the wording easier to follow, and there are some that just plain rewrite the thing. I personally like the Revised King James Version, the New American Standard, or New International Version. Those will get you where you need to be. I have personally seen one printed by a particular religion that has just plainly re-written the actual text. That is scary. The best way to understand what the Bible says is to learn to read the original language, and then read it for yourself. But..since most of us dont have the time for that, it is best that we depend on the next best thing, an English version that wont steer us wrong. Yes, parts are difficult to understand, but that is ok. There is more than enough to keep the average person busy with the parts that are easy to understand.

If man evolved, then there is no afterlife. Or, if there is, then God is not necessary, for either the here-and-now, or to obtain that afterlife. Evolution excludes the necessity for God, and thus, man does not need him, any where or anytime. To believe in both God and evolution is to attempt to hold both sides of the fence, neither one being sufficient for the holder of those beliefs.

I apologize for my absence. Work called, and I had to go. I will now attempt to answer Littlebillie and his question on Aramaic.

Divine election? As in predestination? How are you relating that to creation?

I am not equating it to evolution- to topics that seem inconsistant within the Bible. My point is that I dont feel that the Bible has any inconsistancies in it.

Read these quotes from scientists that promote evolution and begin investigating the "evidence" for evolution on your own:

Here we see what is cautioned in the Bible, the teaching for doctrine the traditions of men.

You didn't answer my question, though, are we to eject all non-creationists? Is that your wish? It's a YES or NO question and you won't get a grade. no, if I thought that, I would have been glad that Zorn hit the rocks. I still pray for that guy; getting rid of anyone solves little or nothing. Helping them helps oneself.

As for the Bible, I like some parts more than others.now, this is what I was looking for. You have decided for yourself what is truth and what is not. How can man decide for God what is right and wrong? Is this determined by what we like or want to hear? Why cant the Bible just be truth, and it be up to us to accept it and live by it?

I see the biblical creation as something unaddressable by science. yes, a science made up by mankind. Like the Bible states, this is a case of the pot asking the potter why he has made him as he is. It is not up to us to determine what does or does not work- God has done that. If you look to the Bible, you will see proven scientific fact long before mankind ever addressed it.

Do you really think everyone on earth agrees on right and wrong? no- and that is my point exactly- only God can determine what is right and wrong.

Do you want everyone to be like you? GOD FORBID!!! Can you imagine how terrible this place would be? No, I like the diversity that already exists here. I just wish that everyone here knew who God really is and accepted Him as just that.

I get the impression that DeMann, for example, sees science as some kind of enemy and I am still trying to understand such response. No, science is not an enemy. It is my friend. I usually use science in one form or another every day. But, to say that science is smarter than God is ludicrus. He gave us a life manual (the Bible) and it has all the information we need. For us to add to it, take away from it, or change it is for us to play God with our lives and the lives of others.

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars." (p. 479) Charles Darwin how interesting; this man can know the mind and purpose of God, and has decided what God can, would, and could do! Darwin has now defined God with his own finite mind!

I could be wrong, but I think the answer you will receive is one of black and white. If you believe that man evolved, then you MUST believe that God did not create man. If God did not create man, then God had no need to provide salvation for a creature that evolved.

Dude! You took the words right from my mouth! I wanted to say that! But thats ok. I wasnt here to do it! Thanks!

First and Littlebillie: I will try to deal with your posts tomorrow- I must leave town on business.

But science simply assumes that there exist rational explanations for observable phenomena.

How about.uh.lets say..GRAVITY. Are emotions simply chemical reactions? Is life just a series of chemical reactions? These are observable phenomena; they just dont have any rational explanations!

Packsaddle:

On a different thought, does anyone have any idea of what all this has to do with Scouting? Have I missed something

How about the 12th point of the Scout Law? Are you going to try to take God out of that one?

3) How can you tell what to believe and what to disbelieve in the Bible? Can we believe none of it?

3. As I have contended elsewhere, a person's beliefs are theirs and deeply personal. You should look to no other person nor depend on them to form or justify your personal beliefs.

Now, talk about skirting the issue. I contend that the Bible is historically and factually correct, and NJ calls it a pre-scientific parable written by ancient man to explain creation. . You seem to agree. I know what you say, but I see what you mean. You discount the creation account (dont say you do not- you disagree on the amount of time in a day) and run from defining how you discount parts of the Bible. Yes, I want you to tell me how you can choose the parts to disagree with.

4) How is right and wrong determined?

Your answer: 4. You will get different answers from different persons and in different societies.

Is this moral relativism? Honey, I was relatively faithful to you while on that trip to Jamaica. In our troop, thats how we define Trustworthy

NJ:

Have you ever seen the Arora Borealis? Do you know what it is made of? Now, think if you will, of that thing on a grander scale. And hung out in space such that a shadow is cast on a planet from it. Then, by telling it to (be careful now, you dont want to play God) to come together, make a ball out of it. Hmmm.. sounds pretty much like the sun to me ((yes, guys, I know.different elements in use here. Follow me on the principle!)) this example is consistant with the record.

It's really not consistent((the Bible is inferred here)), either with itself or with the known facts,

Where do you get this one from? Show me one and lets see if I can handle it.(you can even go into Divine Election, if you want to!)

Rooster: you are right on.

seems to me Zorn is the kid he suggested giving up on and throwing out of the troop. (he is the guy purporting that, am I correct? I did not take time to reread the posts.) I won't give up on him. I hope he makes a change for the better. man, couldn't he give an evolutionist FITS if he really wanted to????

To littlebillie:

- was the word really originally "eon" or "age"? This is a serious question,

I must ask, in what verse are you talking? How do YOU define eon and how do YOU define age? give me those, and I will try to help you.

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday"

2 Peter 3:8 says, "But, beloved, be not ignorant

of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

So can we at least say that the 6 days of Genesis may give us up to 6000 years? At least?

No, sir, I dont think so. The above quoted verses are to show (when you take them in the context in which they are written) that time is irrelevant to God. Remember, Gen. 1 uses the phrase,and the evening and the morning were the ----- day.. the use of both evening and morning are in the singular, and are used elsewhere in the description of days as we know them. The same original words are used, thus requiring us to see them as days as we now know and experience them.

To Firstpusk:

If you hated every minute of it, how likely is it that you would be able to accept any evidence regardless of how compelling it may be? Is that discomfort still not allowing you to look at the evidence?

I did indeed question it and actually lean towards it when in college. Early on, It actually looked reasonable. That is why I do not fault you for falling for it. But, those ad absurdum questions that just beg to be answered so that a foundation can be laid just would not leave me alone. And then, the study began in earnest for some factual basis. And, yes, faith came into the picture. You, sir, must believe in evolution only on your faith. Again, I contend that there is no proof of it.

I apologize if these questions are a bit too personalI have been pretty tough with you. I admit it. I apologize if it has offended you or your religious sensibilities.

you owe me no apologies. I am not offended. Not even in the slightest. I also contend that you have not offered any proof, and that YOU have ignored questions. I use as my basis of fact the Bible, and you discount it. I have asked how you can do that, only to get no reply. The simplest of questions are the most hard hitting- the concept upon which evolution must begin. And it is those very questions that the evolutionist must remain silent on, for any answer he or she must give will come from God; there is no other possibility.

Let me again ask:

1) why did the first living organism reproduce? Did it have DNA, RNA, or some form of a Chromosome? Did it use mitosis or meosis?

2) At what time did man become man and not animal anymore?

3) How can you tell what to believe and what to disbelieve in the Bible? Can we believe none of it? (this is the ONE question I really want you to answer.)

4) How is right and wrong determined? A higher power? Or is it some common belief among man? If so, how is right and wrong determined?

You see, there is no separation of the life and the spiritualit is intertwined throughout. You cannot have one without the other.