Let's put the God/morality issue to rest

[AZMike 173]

Usually, granny has us check our larger pieces of ordnance at the front door, especially since the 1998 reunion, aka "The Coconino County War."

[Trevorum 24]

Folks, I don't really know what 'flagging' really does so I just flagged the last few posts to experiment with it.

It seemed like a good time to try it out.

"Flag a post feature is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts."

 

Since the Super-duper Moderators don't seem to get these "reports", my guess is that only the Quasi-deity Moderator (Terry) recieves them.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I have made a couple of tries at writing a comment on the exchange between Eagledad and Merlyn about my religious beliefs, and on Eagledad's comments to me, but it was taking too long to write, so for now I will just say this:

 

I find it amusing that my religious beliefs are the subject of discussion. They are a little too complicated to describe in one sentence and I do not feel like getting into a whole discussion about them. I suppose that some of my beliefs are similar to those of the "Deists", but to say that I am a "Deist" isn't really accurate. That word sounds too much like I go to Deist meetings or something. I don't really like to label my religious beliefs. When people ask me what religion I am, I usually say either "Jewish" or "Reform Jewish", or if I wish to be more specific and it is clear that the person is asking about actual religious beliefs as distinct from my ethnic, cultural and traditional background (which is, unreservedly, Jewish), I might say "mostly Jewish." (I realize that that isn't very specific.) There is a lot of overlap between Deism and Judaism anyway, though even most Reform Jews believe that God plays some active role in the world. Not all, though. I celebrate the Jewish holidays with my mother and brothers and their families, and I celebrate the Christian holidays with my wife and her family, but I am there mostly for the peace and brotherhood and goodwill toward men and family companionship and food, rather than some specific religious belief.

 

At one point Eagledad summarized one of my earlier statements as saying that God created the universe and then packed it in, or something like that. I didn't quite say that. I honestly don't know what God did after he (using the conventional pronoun) created the universe. And at the risk of offending people, I don't think it really matters, or at least, it doesn't matter to me. But the point is, I have no reason to believe that God is active in this world, or that he gave mankind any moral commands, or that (again I don't want to offend anyone) God had anything to do with the Bible or any other holy books. And to respond to another of Eagledad's comments, I don't think that means God is "incapable" of having a relationship with mankind. I just don't happen to believe that such a relationship exists. Whether it would be within God's "ability" is really beside the point. (For me; I guess I keep feeling compelled to say, for me, although I notice that when many other people talk about their beliefs, they don't see the need to qualify them, maybe because they think their beliefs are the Absolute Truth.)

 

Somewhere along the line, Eagledad took something else I wrote and, I think, completely misinterpreted it and said I was showing "ignorance and pride" and some other things. I haven't gone back and seen exactly what he said, or what I had said first. But I think he was responding to something I didn't really say.

 

That's about it for now.

[Eagledad 2777]

Well said NJ, I don't think you change anything either of us said. I just can't understand how a person can believe God created the universe but isn't actively involved with man. That is the shortest way I know to say it. I admit that the bible is alive and active in my life, so your belief is a mystery.

 

As for the other thing, you said the BSA was not founded with god as an untouchable source of morality. I simply pointed out that was because that was the normal accepted view of god during the time the BSA was created.

 

A little history, the bible was the most common source for learning to read up into the Industrial Revolution because people couldn't afford a lot of books. So it's no mystery that the general population credited god with morals of the culture of the time. Of course the BSA has expanded it's list of acceptable gods, but that didn't change how the the oath and law are used to help scouts grow in character.

 

Hope that helps clear things up.

 

Barry

[packsaddle 753]

Uhhhh, which ones are unacceptable? I was under the impression that when it came to gods, it was 'anything goes' for BSA.

One more thing, do you think BSA started during the Industrial Revolution?

[Eagledad 2777]

 

>>do you think BSA started during the Industrial Revolution<<

 

 

LOL

 

Barry

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well said NJ, I don't think you change anything either of us said. I just can't understand how a person can believe God created the universe but isn't actively involved with man. That is the shortest way I know to say it. I admit that the bible is alive and active in my life, so your belief is a mystery.

 

As for the other thing, you said the BSA was not founded with god as an untouchable source of morality. I simply pointed out that was because that was the normal accepted view of god during the time the BSA was created.

 

A little history, the bible was the most common source for learning to read up into the Industrial Revolution because people couldn't afford a lot of books. So it's no mystery that the general population credited god with morals of the culture of the time. Of course the BSA has expanded it's list of acceptable gods, but that didn't change how the the oath and law are used to help scouts grow in character.

 

Hope that helps clear things up.

 

Barry

Barry says to me:

 

"As for the other thing, you said the BSA was not founded with god as an untouchable source of morality. I simply pointed out that was because that was the normal accepted view of god during the time the BSA was created."

 

I went back and found what I actually said, which was:

 

"So if the BSA policy on religion was founded on the basis that you say it is, I don't belong in the BSA either. But it isn't, and I do."

 

I can see how you got one from the other, the problem is that I was a little careless with my verbs. I said "was founded", and then I said "is" (isn't) when I really meant to be speaking in the present tense both times. Regardless of what the thinking was in the 1910's, if the CURRENT basis for the religion requirement is that there can be no morality without God, it doesn't make any sense, because the BSA allows in members who do not believe that God is the source of all morality. I meant to be speaking about the present day, and as you point out, "the BSA has expanded it's list of acceptable gods."

 

As for the Oath and Law, the vast majority of the principles stated in them do not require a belief in God -- especially if you believe, as I do, that it was mankind that came up with the idea that it is good to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, etc. etc. (along with the Ten Commandments and all other statements about what is lawful/unlawful or good/bad), all by ourselves. Obviously, if "avowed atheists" were to be permitted in the BSA, "reverent" would need to be redefined or at least clarified. I think an atheist can still be "reverent", similar to the way that our hypothetical "Deist" can. "Duty to God" would need to be addressed. Do you need to believe in God to promise to do your duty to God? I guess that would be an issue. The Declaration of Religious Principle would need to be changed. I think all of these obstacles could be overcome if there was a consensus to try to overcome them, but there probably isn't, at least for now.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>

 

Regardless of what the thinking was in the 1910's, if the CURRENT basis for the religion requirement is that there can be no morality without God, it doesn't make any sense, because the BSA allows in members who do not believe that God is the source of all morality.<<

 

 

Doesn't make any sense?

 

 

NJ, the BSA trys to be more open minded and tolerant of other faiths, whatever they are, so as to be as inclusive as possible. Culture changes and the BSA tried to be as accepting as they can to allow as many families to participate in the scouting program as they can. Should we really expect postings from National stating opinions on the teachings of every new faith brought in and out as families join? It's hard enough just getting leaders trained. How many scouts do you know have been challenged because the BSA ideals started with God being the final authority on morality? I don't know how National would respond to your question now, I know whatwas tought to me as a scout and what is still traditional for most faiths including Judaism, or the Judaism my friends practice.

 

 

Since this has somehow turned into such a discussion, I was reading a paper the other day by some expert saying that we are raising a generation of narcissistis (spelling) because we teach our kids today that they are the final authority on their behavior and morality. They are learning that if you don' t like the rules, do what you want because it's your morality. Something to that effect. I doubt you will find many teachers who would disagree with this author.

 

 

Adults today seem to give youth boundaries that they make up as they go and change at the drop of a hat. The advantage of an untouched source is that we personally don't become the end all of moral behavior. We give credit or blame to an untouchable source and live with it. It never changes and the community as a whole is accepting of the same boundaries. Poor, rich, short, or tall, we follow the same expectations of society. There is a saying of trainers in the animal word, more training gives more freedom. That more guidelines we follow, the more freedom we have to living in a civil society.

 

 

Now of course as the culture changes, some rules change, but on the whole if we work those changes within the ideals of an untouchable auhtority, than we know the boundaries and freedoms expected of everyone. And if we don't, we can expect a rebuke by society.

 

 

A society of narcissist can't function as a whole of community because their is nobody to rebuke anybody when they cross the line. At some point the guy with the biggest stick will have to put their foot down to prevent stop the chaos, which means no freedom. So while you see individual morality as more freedom in our nation, I see it as giving the stronger having more power over the weak.

 

 

Barry

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

To be as "inclusive as possible", don't have ANY religious requirements. The very fact that the BSA has religious requirements means that some people won't meet them and be excluded. So "inclusive as possible" is nonsense.

 

And if your unchangable source of morality never changes, why was slavery acceptable in the past but not now? Why do Christians disagree about homosexuality? Don't they all have the same unchangable god? Should gays be put to death, as your god demands? That's a pretty big stick.

 

By the way, I can think of few things more narcissistic than believing the creator of the entire universe is a personal friend.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

>>

 

Regardless of what the thinking was in the 1910's, if the CURRENT basis for the religion requirement is that there can be no morality without God, it doesn't make any sense, because the BSA allows in members who do not believe that God is the source of all morality.<<

 

 

Doesn't make any sense?

 

 

NJ, the BSA trys to be more open minded and tolerant of other faiths, whatever they are, so as to be as inclusive as possible. Culture changes and the BSA tried to be as accepting as they can to allow as many families to participate in the scouting program as they can. Should we really expect postings from National stating opinions on the teachings of every new faith brought in and out as families join? It's hard enough just getting leaders trained. How many scouts do you know have been challenged because the BSA ideals started with God being the final authority on morality? I don't know how National would respond to your question now, I know whatwas tought to me as a scout and what is still traditional for most faiths including Judaism, or the Judaism my friends practice.

 

 

Since this has somehow turned into such a discussion, I was reading a paper the other day by some expert saying that we are raising a generation of narcissistis (spelling) because we teach our kids today that they are the final authority on their behavior and morality. They are learning that if you don' t like the rules, do what you want because it's your morality. Something to that effect. I doubt you will find many teachers who would disagree with this author.

 

 

Adults today seem to give youth boundaries that they make up as they go and change at the drop of a hat. The advantage of an untouched source is that we personally don't become the end all of moral behavior. We give credit or blame to an untouchable source and live with it. It never changes and the community as a whole is accepting of the same boundaries. Poor, rich, short, or tall, we follow the same expectations of society. There is a saying of trainers in the animal word, more training gives more freedom. That more guidelines we follow, the more freedom we have to living in a civil society.

 

 

Now of course as the culture changes, some rules change, but on the whole if we work those changes within the ideals of an untouchable auhtority, than we know the boundaries and freedoms expected of everyone. And if we don't, we can expect a rebuke by society.

 

 

A society of narcissist can't function as a whole of community because their is nobody to rebuke anybody when they cross the line. At some point the guy with the biggest stick will have to put their foot down to prevent stop the chaos, which means no freedom. So while you see individual morality as more freedom in our nation, I see it as giving the stronger having more power over the weak.

 

 

Barry

Eagledad, I don't have time to respond to all that. I even agree with bits and pieces of it. But to address your last point: Is this a new thing, the strong having power over the weak? I think that is the story of much of human history, and sometimes the strong have used religion as a weapon. But I think that is how you and Merlyn started this conversation, and I have no desire to go around-and-around about it again, so that's probably my last word on the subject.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Uhhhh, which ones are unacceptable? I was under the impression that when it came to gods, it was 'anything goes' for BSA.

One more thing, do you think BSA started during the Industrial Revolution?

The period between the 1860s and the start of World War I is referred to as the "second industrial revolution." The birth of scouting falls within that period. Further, the reasons that BP founded the Scouting movement could be traced to the changes in society brought about be the industrial revolution.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Uhhhh, which ones are unacceptable? I was under the impression that when it came to gods, it was 'anything goes' for BSA.

One more thing, do you think BSA started during the Industrial Revolution?

The period between the 1860s and the start of World War I is referred to as the "second industrial revolution." The birth of scouting falls within that period. Further, the reasons that BP founded the Scouting movement could be traced to the changes in society brought about be the industrial revolution.

[acco40 95]

About the only thing the BSA has stated is that one may not be "Godless" - what ever that means.

 

By the way - Polygamy - not immoral but the burden of one wife is enough for me. If I was married, simulataneously, to two different women, would the women be considered to be in a gay marriage? Bacon eating - that action is heavenly. Gay marriage - see polygamy.

 

Now my question, when Pope Benedict the sixteen steps down, will he now be allowed to make mistakes?

[packsaddle 753]

Uhhhh, which ones are unacceptable? I was under the impression that when it came to gods, it was 'anything goes' for BSA.

One more thing, do you think BSA started during the Industrial Revolution?

"the reasons that BP founded the Scouting movement could be traced to the changes in society brought about be the industrial revolution."

In that spirit, I could just as well trace it to the development of language and symbolic logic as well as the rise of agriculture, and the inventions of fire and the wheel, lol.

[AZMike 173]

About the only thing the BSA has stated is that one may not be "Godless" - what ever that means.

 

By the way - Polygamy - not immoral but the burden of one wife is enough for me. If I was married, simulataneously, to two different women, would the women be considered to be in a gay marriage? Bacon eating - that action is heavenly. Gay marriage - see polygamy.

 

Now my question, when Pope Benedict the sixteen steps down, will he now be allowed to make mistakes?

Yes. He was allowed to make mistakes before, too, just not on matters of faith and doctrine. Popes have less and less room for movement with each Pope, however, as what has been settled has already been settled.