Jump to content
Eagledad

Why the BSA should have stayed away from the transgender trend, part 2

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

Even granting that, it still makes religions useless for deciding moral questions.  Christianity literally had centuries to call slavery immoral, yet failed to do so.  Aquinas was OK with slavery and plenty of popes endorsed it and some owned slaves themselves.

How did you know slavery is bad?

Is there not one good act by man?  How would you know? How could the hideously flawed man even conceive right from wrong without a perfect timeless measuring stick. Knowing right from wrong is proof of God because only God is timeless and perfect. How else would even the atheist know slavery is wrong.

6 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

All of them?  There are over 30 examples.  Whataboutism doesn't wave away how worthless religion is for determining morality, it only shows that you're trying to deflect the issue.

"Worthless" is an emotional adjective. An opinion without base or definition. Emotion is the flawed mans moral response to life. Emotion is fickle and measured only in the moment. What felt good yesterday feels bad today.

Because God's morality is timeless and consistent, even an emotional atheist can know right from wrong.  

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

How did you know slavery is bad?

Go right ahead and argue that it's good.

 

33 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Is there not one good act by man?  How would you know? How could the hideously flawed man even conceive right from wrong without a perfect timeless measuring stick. Knowing right from wrong is proof of God because only God is timeless and perfect. How else would even the atheist know slavery is wrong.

This is just silly.  Morals are opinions.  Gods have nothing to do with it.

34 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

"Worthless" is an emotional adjective. An opinion without base or definition. Emotion is the flawed mans moral response to life. Emotion is fickle and measured only in the moment. What felt good yesterday feels bad today.

That's why religions keep changing what is moral or immoral.  Christianity said slavery was fine for centuries.

 

35 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Because God's morality is timeless and consistent, even an emotional atheist can know right from wrong.  

How did the SBC change then?  They didn't claim their god showed up and corrected them.

And your assertion is no different than saying "elves" give people their morality.  It's just baseless assertions.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

Go right ahead and argue that it's good.

How do you know it's bad?

 

10 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

This is just silly.  Morals are opinions.  Gods have nothing to do with it.

Or course God does, read the Bible. It's hasn't changed.

 

12 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

That's why religions keep changing what is moral or immoral.  Christianity said slavery was fine for centuries.

Religion is made by man. Man lets emotion rule and changes religion. But we only know that because God doesn't change. 

 

14 minutes ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

And your assertion is no different than saying "elves" give people their morality.  It's just baseless assertions.

No elves in Bible. You can go check right now. Or tomorrow if you like because it doesn't change.

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

How do you know it's bad?

Go ahead and argue that it's good.

 

54 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Or course God does, read the Bible. It's hasn't changed.

So slavery is moral?  You can buy slaves from other countries and leave them as property to your children?

 

54 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Religion is made by man. Man lets emotion rule and changes religion. But we only know that because God doesn't change. 

But you're getting that from religion.  Humans wrote the bible.

 

55 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

No elves in Bible. You can go check right now. Or tomorrow if you like because it doesn't change.

I see you didn't understand my comment.  There ARE unicorns in the bible, and false animal husbandry.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

How did you know slavery is bad?

 

Barry, I'm a Christian and a Conservative and I agree with you on the transgender issue and I could not agree with you more that the BSA has most definitely lost its moral compass and caved in to special interest. 

There's absolutely no validity and no merit for defending slavery though.  Not in any way, shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SSF said:

Barry, I'm a Christian and a Conservative and I agree with you on the transgender issue and I could not agree with you more that the BSA has most definitely lost its moral compass and caved in to special interest. 

There's absolutely no validity and no merit for defending slavery though.  Not in any way, shape or form.

Barry isn't defending slavery, he's asking a question, namely, how do we know something is bad.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

I see you didn't understand my comment.  There ARE unicorns in the bible, and false animal husbandry.

Ah, I see what you are saying, the 10 Commandments were written by the finger of, well unicorns. Hmm, OK

Merlyn, I'm curious, do feel you present an intellectual point of view? 

Thanks for the visit, but we must move on.

Bary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like there may actually BE some universal constants: the I&P forum is still prone to going off topic and heading toward lack of decorum. I guess some things don't change. At least it's not Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Ah, I see what you are saying, the 10 Commandments were written by the finger of, well unicorns. Hmm, OK

Merlyn, I'm curious, do feel you present an intellectual point of view? 

What, like your nonsense replies?  I give back what replies deserve.

PS: what you have are humans claiming their god wrote the ten commandments.  It's still humans all the way up.

Edited by Merlyn_LeRoy
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

Go ahead and argue that it's good.

 

So slavery is moral?  You can buy slaves from other countries and leave them as property to your children?

 

But you're getting that from religion.  Humans wrote the bible.

 

I see you didn't understand my comment.  There ARE unicorns in the bible, and false animal husbandry.

Where is there anything at all scouting related in this discussion.  Merlyn LeRoy has long represented anti anything that he feels is bad and often at the cost of other people's beliefs and personal values.  Sadly, it often degrades into ugly name calling and insults.  This discussion chain should end.  It lifts up no one.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Merlyn_LeRoy said:

I'm not saying only Christianity is worthless in deciding morals, ALL religions are like that.  They are based on assertions that try to be unquestionable.

And oh dear, "hate speech", when I'm replying to assertions that atheists can only be moral due to religion.

Merlyn,

As far back as we have been able to document human groups, there is evidence of religious practices. Even if you discount that, there have been well documented religions for several thousand years. All atheists today have been raised in a climate where there have been thousands of years of religious traditions. No atheist exists in a vacuum where they were not exposed to moral values derived from religious traditions. You cannot make a cogent claim that atheists have moral values that have not originated in religious traditions because they have all been exposed to religious moral values. So unless you want to take a lot of young children and drop them on an uninhabited jungle island and see what their moral system is 20 years later, there is no group of people who were not exposed to religion derived morals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlyn !  Welcome back, old curmudgeonly friend.  Nice to see some new debate here in the "Faith and Chaplaincy" forum, oh, wait...

None the less, let's get some things straight, not to say agreed between us:  

1)  Faith is not based on logic. (some) God either touches you or not. Us Quakers say one is "convinced" , even if one is a birthright Friend.  The proof of existence of a "Higher Authority" can never be totally logical.  There is a reason to call it "faith". One person's coincidence (or evolution?) is another's personal small miracle (or evidence of intended design ?). 

2) Jesus was not a Christian.  Gandhi started out as Hindu, but he liked to say he was "irreligious".  Martin Luther King Jr.  certainly based most , if not all his leadings on Biblical principle, to the consternation of many other religious leaders (again, see the SBC).  

3) Not all "Christians" follow Christ, as evidenced by Merlyn's example of the Southern Baptist Convention. (how is it other people seem to know more about our history than we do?) . If Jesus is your example, how to reconcile certain churches'  political stance (another discussion) ?

4) If one is pressed to give a reason for an action (or inaction), often religious faith is quoted/blamed/mentioned/used. If it is time to be Drafted into military service, a "higher authority " and social history is needed to claim Conscientious Objector status. No draft board in my ken would accept "I just don't want to kill " (see Arlo Guthrie) as a reason not to serve in the army.  Buy and sell human slaves?  Yep, justification is found in the Bible and Koran.  Equality under God's eyes also  available for reference. 

5)  The Sabbath was made for man.  Any congregation is populated with fallible humans. Even the Humanist Association.  The ideals espoused by any given faith (was Nazisim more a faith than a political system?)  can be ignored or subverted by the proponents of it. Catholic Bishops?  United Methodist Circuit absorbing failed (by their definition) church property? 

6) The BSA is both a product of tradition and the times.  The fact that the Scout Promise (similar in every country if not identical) has remained the same for a hundred years means something. That is the ideal, perhaps not the reality. Now the Scout Law HAS been redefined slightly over the years, but the "ideals" are the same. 

7) Every person is left with some religious teachings from their upbringing.  Even Merlyn.  The parents/guardians  teach by lesson,  example and discipline. The children are left , whether the parents realize it or not, with something to accept or reject.  As William Penn once observed,  ""It is a sad Reflection, that many Men hardly have any Religion at all; and most Men have none of their own: For that which is the Religion of their Education, and not of their Judgment, is the Religion of Another, and not Theirs.""     We do have to make our own way in the world, no matter how it got here. 

See you on the trail....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fred johnson said:

Where is there anything at all scouting related in this discussion. 

I think the BSA's decades-long disparagement of atheists both by word and deed contributes to the slurs against atheists in this forum.  You know, like when scouts write things like "Merlyn ... You're the Stalin of the web era", as if I'm equivalent to a mass murderer.

Oh, that was you who wrote that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

As far back as we have been able to document human groups, there is evidence of religious practices.

Yep, and they don't agree on even basic questions.  And when religious tenets on morality conflict, either one side admits their god is wrong (or doesn't exist), or both sides dig in and insist their view is the only correct one.  This is not useful in deciding morals.

 

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

All atheists today have been raised in a climate where there have been thousands of years of religious traditions. No atheist exists in a vacuum where they were not exposed to moral values derived from religious traditions.

And all religions today have been exposed to new and conflicting moral values, which is why religions like the SBC used to support slavery but now don't.  Society changed them.

 

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

You cannot make a cogent claim that atheists have moral values that have not originated in religious traditions because they have all been exposed to religious moral values.

And vice-versa.  Christianity definitely supported slavery for centuries, until it was changed due to societal pressure.  But I was replying to this statement of yours:

"Like you, I do not believe that atheists would have a moral code without religions that define right and wrong. "

Right there, you're saying atheists would not have a moral code, period, without religions that define right and wrong, which is a very different claim.

 

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

So unless you want to take a lot of young children and drop them on an uninhabited jungle island and see what their moral system is 20 years later, there is no group of people who were not exposed to religion derived morals.

Drop them with a bible and tell them it holds all absolute morals that they all must follow and see if they contradict the bible and decide that slavery is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SSScout said:

1)  Faith is not based on logic.

That's a good reason to not use faith-based assumptions to decide morals.

 

31 minutes ago, SSScout said:

3) Not all "Christians" follow Christ, as evidenced by Merlyn's example of the Southern Baptist Convention.

What?  When did Jesus condemn slavery?

 

33 minutes ago, SSScout said:

If it is time to be Drafted into military service, a "higher authority " and social history is needed to claim Conscientious Objector status.

Wrong.  See Welsh v. United States (1970) and Seeger v. United States (1965).  The law was written as if a "higher authority" was required, but the supreme court ruled that CO status could not be exclusive to only god-believers, or only to people who belonged to a religion that taught pacifism.  By the way, the plaintiff (Elliott Welsh) was also the father of Mark Welsh in Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America (1993)

 

39 minutes ago, SSScout said:

The fact that the Scout Promise (similar in every country if not identical) has remained the same for a hundred years means something.

The UK explicitly allows atheists now.  WOSM still hasn't said anything about that, as far as I've heard.

 

39 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Every person is left with some religious teachings from their upbringing.  Even Merlyn. 

This is the same old lie that "if my religion teaches X, anyone who also says X got it from my religion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×