Jump to content

Atheist in the Pack

Recommended Posts



Way to prove an important point (not brought up here but none the less true), that despite an extensive vocabulary one can still be ignorant and downright stupid. Although I do applaud your use of the thesaurus.


At no point was I backpeddling nor remending any of my comments. I was thanking some one for understand that my faith says that I am correct in my actions and that others are wrong, just as his says he is right and I am wrong.


I didn't simply say what I was thinking, I was asked a question and I answered it with honesty. I will not water down my answer because it might offend some one. Religion did not make me say anything, I say what I believe because I have faith that my beliefs are correct.


Even though you don't want to hear my opinions (I really don't care if you do or don't) you are not the devil incarnate. However, anyone who does not confess that Christ is the Lord and ask for forgiveness of their sin will go to hell.


I realize that so many people wish I would either not make these comments or at least put the IMHO so that I can protect myself from scrutiny but it is not my humble opinion. It is fact, if I did not believe this then what faith would I have, perhaps one like yours.


Educating your children about other religions is not my beef here, it is that so many people say they believe this or that but that they want their children to experience other religions so they can choose. How is that faith in your own beliefs? I don't want my kids trying out Buddhism or Islam becasue they are wrong. I want them to know that no matter what title you wish to attach or remove yourself from, belief in Christ is the only way into heaven.


If you choose not believe me, that is your choice but I have done my duty to God by letting you know what his word says. I am not simply taking the neutral, don't offend some one side, if my religion offends you, then simply don't listen, but don't expect me not to talk.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Of course you should kick him out immediately, just as you should kick out an 11-year-old Jew if you belonged to a no-Jews club. In fact, not kicking out the kid as soon as possible might give him th

"Pack, you are the man, dude." Are you calling ME the devil now?;) Hey, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I could have that much power but 'fraid not. 'Fallen angel', perhaps...maybe 'lost soul'...or some other mythical metaphor...but not the angel of darkness, what-ev-er. Probably best thought of as someone who sees forks in the trail and tries all of them to see where they go. (that's forks in the tRail, not tail)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Way to prove an important point (not brought up here but none the less true), that despite an extensive vocabulary one can still be ignorant and downright stupid. Although I do applaud your use of the thesaurus."


And way to prove my point. Since you obviously lack the ability to discuss such issues without resorting to personal attacks, then yes, I do believe I won't be listening anymore. Too bad the ignore user function doesn't work better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John 8:


"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.


So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.


And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.


When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?


She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."


There is a point at which spouting opinions should be over written by the words that are being taken "in vain".



Link to post
Share on other sites

ScoutMomSD, that story has always bothered me. Yes, the gambit worked this time, the time that actually made it into print. However, if Jesus had been standing in front of a group of men covered with pointed white hoods and white sheet robes and it had been a black man instead of a woman, I suggest the outcome might not have provided the same moral.

Jesus's gamble included several components including the assumptions that the men had consciences, that they HAD sinned, and that they THOUGHT that they were not without sin. If any of those assumptions had been violated, the woman was toast because Jesus only placed the restriction the FIRST stone, not the ones that followed. Thus Jesus gave his (albeit conditional) blessing for the men to go right ahead and stone that woman to death if they THOUGHT they met the conditions. He didn't condemn stonings outright.

Link to post
Share on other sites



What exactly is the purpose of quoting John 8? To whom and what context do you think it applies?




It is clear that you have no understanding of the Bible, perhaps knowledge but no understanding. Jesus knew exactly what would happen before He did or said anything. Secondly, all people have sinned and deep down we all know it, whether we choose to admit it on the surface or not. This was not a hate crime much in the manner that you described your alternate senario. The woman mentioned was caught in the act of adultery and by Jewish law she was to be stoned. They where not so much acting out of hate but rather taking vengence in accordance to the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction to previous post:

Yes, I guess I have met some whose religion will allow a mention of doubt. But it is still,hey, (as Paul said) 'come and see', my truth may well be a better truth than yours.



Personal experience:

I once worked with a young lady (well, we were both youngER then...) who was a devout Jehovah's Witness. We were both on the late night shift, not much to do but watch after the building. And we did discuss religion! It was interesting to me how we both professed belief in Christ as Savior, but how she refused to read anything I passed to her for consideration while she could pass to me stuff for me to read (Watch Tower). If I could tell her my material was "history" and not meant to "convert" her, then that was all right.

Verbal argument and comment, personal witness was fine, but she "was not allowed" to accept anything written, unless it was "history". Allowed by whom? Why, the Elders of the Temple, of course. The Bible was okay, but only THEIR Bible. No other religious work was "allowed". Biblcal argument was good, but not unless it matched the JW argument, verse for verse.

My first introduction to the idea that there is more than one Bible. And that the Bible may be inerrant, but some parts of the Bible are more correct than others. Depends on who is doing the declaring. Nuances.

I could certainly come and visit her religious service, but she would never come to visit mine.

She would not set foot in any building "dedicated" to any other religion. Well, this did present a problem, when I invited her to my birthday party, since first off, they don't celebrate BDs(!) (parties are okay, just not BDs) and second, since a Quaker Meeting for Worship can rightly be held anywhere at all ("wherever two or more are gaithered..."), even the Community Hall of our Meeting (where the BD was to be held) might be seen as a religious building.

But she was a very good person, and I had large respect for her, as she expressed the same for me on more than one occassion.


But were we both Christian? Some might not say so. Were either of us convinced of the other's version of Christianity? Nope. She saw mine as having little or no "authority" behind it, I saw hers as having too much human and maybe not enough spiritual behind hers. But I saw hers as being sufficient for her and I think she suspected mine as being sufficient for me.

But still hers was more right than mine to her... And I decided that was alright in the end. Perhaps she felt sorry for me as being 'doomed' but I felt no such pity for her.

Doom, is , after all not mine or your decision.


What was that about 440,000 select?


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my last post as I'm going to unsubscribe form this hread.


HEY, look at the header it says "Scouter Network". I have no interest in politics or religion, I have an interst in Scouting. There are so many fine blogging threads outside of Scouting -- I wish all those who just want to read their own small-minded, biggotted, insular, hateful crap would go there.


BOY SCOUTS know: "..... to help other people at all times..." and "A Scout is ... helpful, friendly, courteous, kind...." Too bad few posters know those phrases.


Adios, jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Jesus knew exactly what would happen before He did or said anything."

Hence mere mortals should not attempt this approach. If what you say is true then what is the difference between this story and a parlor trick where the magician has a secret way to make something appear to be what it isn't? I thought the lesson was one of Jesus's wisdom in guiding the men to see the right thing to do. Apparently not. I definitely do not understand the Bible the way you do.


"all people have sinned and deep down we all know it, whether we choose to admit it on the surface or not." What is your evidence that you can make this claim for every person on the planet? What makes you omniscient?


"The woman mentioned was caught in the act of adultery and by Jewish law she was to be stoned. They where not so much acting out of hate but rather taking vengence in accordance to the law."

I guess that makes it all rightily dightily then.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim-dont go. I know, as Judge Milian says "been there had a cup of coffee and come back"


A friend of mine, a fellow Girl scout mom to a 13 year old, moved here (CA) from Colorado about a year ago. I cut and pasted the OP's beginning thread and her comment "its a shame, its not about the scouts but about the parents".


Jump in or not, what we who disagree need to realize is that these opinions exist and whether or not you hear it, they exist to a greater degree within the local and national Boy Scout leadership. To me its educational and makes me think. There are a few folks (not that many) in our pack who I vehemently disagree with on their opinions and personally I feel weird going to meetings at LDS centers which are supposedly for scout leadership.


What I have learned is that its about the boys and all the other is just carp, respelled. I do it for my son and to heck with the rest. And I am going to do it in the way that works best for me and my den and pack. And our results to date are pretty awesome (as my daughter would say). We are 10 times the size that was started when the current Webelo's were tigers.


Also remember that the most vocal are many times not the most widely held opinions. The presidential elections were a resounding reinforcement of that fact.



Link to post
Share on other sites



First of all, the Bible is not a story it is history. To address the difference between what Jesus did and a cheap parlor trick is that with parlor tricks that outcome is controlled. Jesus knew the outcome, He did not force things to happen they he wished, he simply knew what would happen if He possed the ultimatum.


Jesus did show the men what the right thing was, He opened their eyes to the fact that everyone has sinned, we have all made mistakes, so don't jump on some one for their faults while overlooking your own.


My evidence that all have sinned is Biblical. The Bible directly says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is omniscient, He does know exactly who has done what. I do not personally know about everyones sins I simply believe God when He says that all have sinned.


I am not condoning the acts of the people in the aformentioned passage, I am explaining what was going on. The purpose of knowing that these people where acting according to the law plays into account regarding their motives. Their motives where much different then those you used in your parallel, I was simply making a point that your comparison was not an accurate one.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be a very bad spokesman.


The one that got me the most was when he talked about "praying to" saints. Of course Catholics pray through them. A huge difference. Offers no defense for the proud Churches - the houses of God. Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence holds that God is ACTUALLY in every Church and the building glorifies Him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...