Hiromi

The problem may be that more inclusion speaks volumes- as does more exclusion. Maybe what BSA needs to do is just get out of the Values business all together and be an outdoor program par excellence. No oath to a higher being, no difficult language like reverence. This seems to be the trend any ways. From what I have seen, Scout law and the oath have been going the way of the uniform in BSA. Kids hate uniforms it seems. Kids dont want to live by some Victorian notion of honor and manners. Parents dont seem willing to enforce these standards with their boys so why should scouting? I think an overtly Sectarian scouting organization, or an overtly Nationalistic Scouting organization, may be the answer for some. Losing the uniform and the values program will make things a lot easier for everyone. My boys, on the other hand, seem to aspire to succeeding and participating in the Christian Soldier Scout model I have been going with. So BSA seems to be accommodating me and my CO and scouts parents and our unorthodox unit. As soon as she says I can't play this game, I may indeed consider a different scouting organization or forming my own. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

Maybe you're all right. I wish it were so. But I think that BSA needs to communicate better that it is what you say it is. I think that it may be wishful thinking that we can all find in BSA something to meet the various needs of the public in a scouting program. I think if BSA wants to both expand membership and to prevent Schism, they need to allow for irregular variations of BSA that specialize towards the values of different constituencies. But the way I see it there are two very distinct camps that are at odds over fundamental outlooks on the world, the environment, politics, religion, education, the role of government, values such as parenting and manners et al. So I tend to think BSA does not allow the diversity of options as it has been suggested. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

Beav, I tend to agree with you Beav. The scouts are definitely the baby in the bath water in this conflict. Boy scouting does have at its center both a progressive liberal streak AND a notion of conserving an idea of what is best and decent and productive about man and civilization. But the various emotional issues have tried to re-engineer basic tenants and assumptions about the role of Man in his environment. They have become hostile to the Judeo-Christian ethic and cosmology in a Nation where its majority is Judeo-Christian by sensibility and belief. We may have come to an impasse with two belligerent camps. I wish this were not so. But each side seems unwilling the compromise enough to agree on a national scouting program they all will embrace. Maybe we should think about a way to diversify scouting to accommodate different groups of people. Pappy

Lincoln needed to wage the bloodiest war in our history to maintain unity. I was offering a hypothetical peaceful solution so more Americans can experience National scouting. Pappy

LISABOB, Everything has become political. Schooling children, religion, consumption (Wal-Mart or Target?), Pro-life or Pro choice? Birth Control- Abstinence?, News Media Choice (CNN or FOX) - and yes- even what activity you pt your son into. I know many people who think BSA is a fascist organization. These same people think that George Bush and most Republicans are fascists as well. These people may be grossly incorrect in their view of BSA, but it is their perception. I know many people who think Christians are very stupid, ignorant, brainwashed, mean-spirited, closet fascists as well. I went to College with these people. They were my professors. I see these people in the professional world. They are out there in very large numbers. BSA has been politicized, whether you want to pretend that it is apolitical or not. And it has become politicized because everything has been politicized by a Left especially that has been educated in a Marxist Critical model of learning and understanding of the world. The conflict theory being peddled in the soft science departments (Sociology/ cultural anthropology, psychology, political science) of high schools and universities has been teaching generations of Americans and Europeans to view the world in a highly critical conflict model. This goes a lot to explaining the politicalization of America. Vitriolic language like The great Satan, The great Imperial power etc.. abound in youth culture and now in the adult media. And BSA is seen by this radical element as a Hitler Youth-type organization to replicate the Imperial Colonial model of the Aggressor nations. Pretend all you want- but that is the kind of nonsense that has gained sway at our educational institutions and its effect is now becoming evident. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

I saw the crack first form under your feet Old Grey Eagle- even though you were quick to point at all the other posters in the room in denial. LOL Just kidding. I wasn;t thinking of you Old Grey Eagle. This is a theoretical exercise. I don't have science to back up my claim about the cultural/ideological divide in our country- it is more of a gut instinct. I think John Edwards was right about two Americas - but just not in the way he described them. There are two camps in this country that feel that there is a cultural war being waged against them. There is a third and much larger camp that doesnt think in these terms. That is a simplification, I understand. But the BSA has to deal ultimately in some generalities about America if it is to best continue its mission. (This message has been edited by Pappy)

I would find it interesting to hear what you'all imagine a Red State/Blue State scouting organization might look like. I wrote those descriptions in haste and not as a fixed programme. And Lisabob, I think that what we have currently in scouting is more like that purple color you describe. But some people prefer red- and others prefer blue- and some of them really don't care for the other color at all. Pappy

I agree with Nessmuk's assessment of Scouting in the Thread Scouting Philosophy Divisions ". I don't wish the BSA to have a schism, but I also don't wish to be a member of and promote a movement which goes against my fundamental ethics and beliefs..I predict BSA will very likely see a major schism (like a 50 /50) if there is an elimination or major relaxation of our stance on one or more key issues like religious beliefs and God or acceptance of homosexuals as members..Oddly I don't think such a schism will reduce the impact or presence of scouting, but will likely draw many people towards the movement more strongly. I see this in action as many parents I know don't want to be in Scouting because it in reality is too wishy-washy and "caught on the fencepost".. ------Nessmuk I think a schism may be inevitable and maybe even preferable if we consider our nation and where it has been heading. A schism will, in my estimation, reflect the cold civil, cultural, and ideological war that seems to currently being waged in our country with no end in sight. I suggest the formation of two new branches of Boy Scouts of America branching off the current BSA or replacing it altogether, calling them , for this discussion thread, The Blue State Boy Scouts of America, and The Red State Boy Scouts of America. The Blue State Boy Scouts Liberals, especially of the radical variety, might be attracted to a scouting that mirrored more of what the European and Canadian scouts are doing. They can be lax on uniforms, have no mention of God in their oath or law, have homosexual and transgender families feel at home, emphasize the zero trace environmental aspect of ladder day scouting, an emphasis on the critical role of America as it pertains to injustices against the working man, the native American, the Races other than White, its intervention overseas, and its contribution to pollution, global warming, and energy over-usage.. This might also attract liberal professionals, college professors and teacher families, and Liberal Church groups and generate new liberal FOS contributions. The Red State Boy Scouts Conservatives, especially the social conservatives, on the other hand might be more attracted to an overtly patriotic and God & Country scouting with an emphasis on uniforms with an exceptionalist view of U.S. History. In such a scouting the boys would learn of Mans contribution to understanding of the physical world through science, agriculture, philosophy, art and architecture, etc... There would be a special emphasis on civic duty and the ceremonial rites of the flag, traditional BP scouting, and male adult leadership in both the Cub and Scout ranks. There might be a focus on the building and pioneer skills aspect of scouting. This might also attract military families, blue collar tradesman families, recent immigrants who have conservative and religious roots and want their boys to assimilate and learn English, and Conservative Church groups, and Conservative FOS contributions. I think both of these two might draw more form a base that is equally repelled from scouting in its current incarnation. It could be an overall gain for scouting in general. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

"A scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful to his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion." It is better to go through life looking up to things that we love and respect, because they are better than ourselves, than to go through life looking down upon ideas and people as inferior to ourselves. This is a statement of two extremes, and almost every one's outlook lies somewhere between them. When we go through life with the habit of respect for wise ideas and good people, we do it because we feel the value of the wise ideas that make good people strong and reliable. It is not that we want to curry favor with these people, or that we want them to think well of us, so much as it is that we lov the effect of strength and happiness that an upright spirit brings with it, and we long to get possession of their secret for ourselves. If we are earnest and persistent in this matter, we shall find out that such strong people are much the same as we are, except for the fact that they have done more work in conquering their selfish tendencies, and so have acquired a greater power in the service of what is good. Men of all religions believe that God is good and the source of all good in human life, an that we are all free to receive goodness from Him just in proportion as we conquer evil and obey His laws. When, therefore, we reverence the good in other people and try our best to live up to it ourselves, we are reverencing God, for obedience is the first point of reverence. In the same way, although it may be expressed somewhat differently, men of all religions believe that God is the All-true and wise, as well as the All-good, and that all the pure truth in human minds comes from Him. When, therefore, we have respect for the truth and a love for seeing things just as they are in His sight, we are respecting and revering His own Spirit. And when, seeing the truth, and giving up our own prejudices for the sake of it, we work with all our might to carry it out in obedience to His laws, we are living what is called a spiritual life, because "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in Truth." Men who love what is the right can always work together in useful ways and do good work, without regard to the particular and detailed opinions which they associate with their own religion; and it seems unreasonable to expect every one to have the same ideas or opinions about such matters. Men of all the different Christian sects and churches, and of all the other forms of religious belief, may differ from one another honestly in matters of opinion, and yet work together in a common spirit of obedience to God and His law. In the old days, it was considered right to try and force your beliefs on other people by threats and persecutions; but, as people have learned, through their own mistakes, to respect the sincere and honest convictions of those who differ from them, this mutual respect has become more and more an essential part of most religions, and the old ideas of domineering intolerance have very much diminished. It has been found out that religion flourishes most where intolerance does not exist at all. Loyalty to that form of religion from which we receive the most help to keep us straight is an important duty under the scout law, and it is a violation of that law to try and proselytize, or draw off any one from his own church or peculiar form of religious observance. There is room for all honest and sincere religious beliefs in the Boy Scout Organization, and it is recommended that troops be formed in connection with churches, as well as other organizations, under the direction of the parish priest or minister, with such spiritual advisers and under such conditions as they may provide. There is no room in the Boy Scout Organization, however, for the spirit of intolerance which does not recognize the right of every man to his own convictions in matters of religion, and therefore we should exercise the greatest care and consideration in not doing or saying anything which might hurt the feelings of other people in matters which to them are sacred. When we go through life looking out for things that are better than we are, and act from their influence as fast as we recognize and appreciate their goodness and beauty, we ourselves are constantly growing toward that good, as we bravely put away the weak and evil things that become more clear to us by contrast; when, on the other hand, we are absorbed by a sense of our own superiority, or, in other words, "suffer the swelled head," we shut out from our minds the possibility of reverence and form the habit of contempt in its place. As has been said before, there is nothing more belittling and destructive in the world than the habit of contempt; when much indulged in, it ends by acting like a boomerang, and the scoffer finds himself ultimately discouraged and forlorn. For contempt, like other an d more obvious vices, ends by losing all its attractions and finally turning on itself. Reverence toward God and everything that is good corresponds, in a way, to courtesy toward all people whom God has placed within our reach. It was said in the chapter on " A Scout is Courteous" that true courtesy brings with it a cheerful happiness that combines with the dignity of service. We may say in the same way that reverence brings with it a deep and lasting joy associated with appreciation and gratitude for all the great and lovely things of life." From The Scout Law in Practice by Arthur A. Carey, copyright 1915, by Little Brown and Company, Boston MA Submitted by Pappy

I agree with Nessmuk's assessment. I think a schism may be inevitable and maybe even preferable if we consider our nation and where it is headed. It will, in my estimation, reflect the cold civil war that seems to currently being waged in our country with no end in sight. Maybe a thread could be titled- Blue-State BSA / Red State BSA. The Blue State Boy Scouts Liberals, especially of the radical variety, might be attracted to a scouting that mirrored more of what the European and Canadian scouts are doing. They can be lax on uniforms, have homosexual and transgender families feel at home, emphasize the zero trace environmental aspect of ladder day scouting, an emphasis on the critical role of America as it pertains to injustices against the working man, the native American, the Races other than White, its intervention overseas, and its contribution to pollution, global warming, and energy over-usage.. This might also attract liberal professionals, college professors and teacher families, and Liberal Church groups and generate new liberal FOS contributions. The Red State Boy Scouts Conservatives, especially the social conservatives, on the other hand might be more attracted to an overtly patriotic and God & Country scouting with an emphasis on uniforms with an exceptionalist view of U.S. History. In such a scouting the boys would learn of Mans contribution to understanding of the physical world through science, agriculture, philosophy, art and architecture, etc... There would be a special emphasis on civic duty and the ceremonial rites of the flag, traditional BP scouting, and male adult leadership in both the Cub and Scout ranks. There might be a focus on the building and pioneer skills aspect of scouting. This might also attract military families, blue collar tradesman families, recent immigrants who have conservative and religious roots and want their boys to assimilate and learn English, and Conservative Church groups, and Conservative FOS contributions. Both of these two might draw more form a base that is equally repelled from scouting in its current incarnation. It could be an overall gain for scouting in general. Pappy

Hello fellas, I don't want to reiterate my former thoughts on this subject posted on various threads throughout this site, but why should a boy listen to anything anybody says if authority stems from the biggest baddest adult in the room? If authority is not derived from God, then our founding documents are just colorful nonsense and we are merely renegades and rebels of the British Empire. If what you are saying is correct, then Jesus was either a liar, totally mad, or both. Unless of course, you play the card that says that someone put words in his mouth he never uttered. Then it is a conspiracy of the Dan Brown DaVinci Code pedigree. Either way- it boils down to a really unsavory view of mankind and a lower view of the universe. By your trivializing of belief what do you offer the scout in its stead? If you put the Judeo Christian religion on the par of Wickans and the tooth fairy, then you are arguing for relativism that undermines not only Boy Scouting, but the underpinnings of our civilization. Why should man be good to his neighbor? Why should a scout follow the laws? What does honor mean? What good is a good deed in an indifferent universe? Willful atheism in not benign. It is insidious because what it negates is what is best and true. When a man says that their is no creator because he has seen is no proof, but he has been made aware of revealed truth, he has seen the majesty of nature and witnessed the unimaginable perfection of life and the order and design of existence;; when he negates all this he has sinned not only against the living God, but against his own senses and his own intelligence. When God has been asked to leave the building, and you scrape his commandments off the wall, and you disregard the beatitudes and the Lords Prayer and all the rest, and you banish his Son to the potters field of myth, what are you going to do when your son says, why shouldnt I torture that cat?- it's fun. Or Why can't I fool around with that 5th grade girl, she likes it -who am I hurting? Or Why can't I murder Jews and Blacks and Illegals, they seem to be the cause of all the wars and who is keeping my people down for so long. Or Why cant I do drugs- it isnt hurting anybody and even if it were, why should I care? or Why should I treat my neighbor well, what good did he ever do me? The philosophy of Nice has pervaded the secularized Public and Private schools as a replacement for the idea of a supernatural reality that has been revealed to us hundreds of times over millennia. Being Nice for Nice sake is a weak and worthless philosophy and it is very unappealing and ineffectual to boys and men in particular. Boys want structure. They want to know who is in charge. They want to be told what the guidelines are. And if it isnt going to be God, it will be something that he will elevate to the level of a false God. This is proved out in history time ands time again. If Reverence and duty to God are not informing Scouting- then something else will be there to replace them. In their stead we will see Hitler Youth, Gang bangers, Skin Heads, Or the legions of aimless neglected boys who arent being properly formed by mentors with the gonads to tell them the truth. We should discriminate against Atheists because they are not in possession of the honest doubt of an agnostic. They have been formed, and they are not usually respectful of the reverence paid to a supernatural being. This can and I think most assuredly will undermine the formation of our boys. Surely our boys get enough of this non-sense in school and in the general culture that seems at best indifferent to religious sentiment and at worst trying to sell and promote sin and vice at every turn. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

Packsaddle, Main Entry: reverence Pronunciation: \ˈrev-rən(t)s, ˈre-və-; ˈre-vərn(t)s\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin reverentia, from reverent-, reverens respectful, reverent Date: 14th century 1: honor or respect felt or shown: DEFERENCE; especially : profound adoring awed respect2: a gesture of respect (as a bow)3: the state of being revered4: one held in reverence used as a title for a clergyman It seems to me that reverence has as an implication a respectful and mannered response to a powerful reality that puts our human existence into a context with the scale and immensity of the universe. It is the proper response to someone who believes in the biggest deal in their life, i.e. God. Treating other peoples beliefs in a creator as silly or stupid or worthy of ridicule is not scout-like no matter how you cut it. While this is a theoretical discussion, it plays very loose with the idea of sincerity. Believers take many of their moral and ethical queues from the tenants of their belief in the reality of a creator and the truth of his revealed message. Equating belief to Santa Clause is not respectful and I think may stoop to being unkind and discourteous. Im sure that this wasnt your intent. And I personally can take it. But having a discussion that derides others beliefs isnt very tactful to say the least. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

I stand corrected Gold Winger. I was trying to Goad you. And Beav, Well said. You have a charitable spirit. Christ was born into a Greek world -not a Latin one. The lingua-Franca for the Empire was Greek. Even Romans required Greek language skills for civil service jobs. This is why the Gospels were written in the KOINE (Common) Greek. Wealthy Romans would hire or acquire Greek Slaves to be their childrens tutors. Romans who had pretensions of being well-heeled embraced Greek culture, philosophy, religions, and science. It was the most widely understood language throughout the Alexandrian world- Which the Romans had ben conquering as it moved East and South into Africa. While Christ most likely only spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, Pilate would certainly have known Greek, and may have addressed the crowd in Greek. Old Grey Eagle, LUKE was indeed a Greek, educated in the Greek schools, prepared for the medical practice which was held in high regard as a profession, and among the Greeks had attained to a place of eminence among the nations of the world. Greek doctors of medicine were in attendance upon many of the royal families of other nations. The Greeks were by nature and training, a race of creative thinkers who pursued their studies in a scientific manner. Their sense of what really constituted scientific accuracy and method in the recording of history was well developed. The writings of Luke, both his Gospel and The Acts, demonstrates Luke's training as an historian. He writes his Gospel to a Gentile friend, Theophilus. The name means "a god-lover," or "god-beloved," and may have been given him when he became a Christian. The words "most excellent" according to Ramsay, were a title like "Your Excellency," and show that he held office...Luke wrote the Gospel for Theophilus to use as a standard whereby to judge the accuracy of the many inspired accounts of our Lord's life which were written in the first century. The facts he records were most surely believed by the first century church. Luke arranges the facts of our Lord's life in historical order as they occurred. The other Gospels do not claim to do that. The arrangement of events was dictated by the purpose which each author had in writing his account. The sources of Luke's information were oral and written, from eye-witnesses of the events recorded. He as a trained historian would carefully check over these accounts, investigating and verifying every fact. And this is what he has reference to when he uses the words "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." The words "having had perfect understanding" are literally, "having closely traced." The verb means "to follow along a thing in the mind." The word was used for the investigation of symptoms. Thus it speaks of a careful investigation of all sources, oral and written, which purport to be accounts of our Lord's life. Luke had the historian's mind, a thing native to the educated Greek. Herodotus, the father of Greek history, exhibited the Greek determination to get at the truth no matter how much work it required, when he traveled to central Africa to verify the account of the annual rise and fall of the Nile River. In those days this was a long and difficult journey. Sir William Ramsey said, "I regard Luke as the greatest historian who has ever lived, save only Thucydides." Thus we have no doubt but that Luke made a personal investigation of all the facts he had recorded. He interviewed every witness, visited every locality. If Mary was still alive, he, a doctor of medicine investigated the story of the virgin birth by hearing it from Mary's own lips. And as Professor John A. Scott, a great Greek scholar has said, "You could not fool Doctor Luke." But Luke was not dependent alone upon his personal investigations for the accuracy of his record. He says that he closely traced all things from above. The words "from above" are from a Greek word translated "from the very first," in the Authorized Version. The word occurs in John 3:31; 19:11; James 1:17; 3:15, 17, and is in every instance translated "from above." It is used often in contrast to a word which means "from beneath." Paul had doubtless heard the account of the institution of the Lord's Supper from the eleven, but he also had it by revelation from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23). He had received his gospel by direct revelation in Arabia, and this was his check upon the gospel he heard at Jerusalem from the apostles. So Luke claims to have closely investigated the facts he had received, and to have done so through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which fact guarantees the absolute accuracy of the record (Luke 1:1-4)." Pappy

Calico, The Scout law is not written to affirm the status quos but to serve as a guide and a corrective. Four million Frenchman CAN be wrong (and often are). American is increasingly becoming secular. This is a problem. Scouting, following that lead, would lower itself once again. Look to the Canadian Scouting program. Do you want a transgender scouting as well? That seems to be the trend. Pappy

BadenP, As I stated before, people can find this stuff out for themselves. They don't need you or I to enlighten them. I didn't begin this thread. But if you want to believe that Christ didn't give the Church to Peter, and make a coveneant to him that what he bound on Earth would be bound in heaven than be my guest. And congratulations on your degrees. Yours in Christ Pappy

Hi Folks, Here is some more background information expaninding on what Fire Cat and the others were refering to. Thanks to the folks at Wikipedia. The Biblical canon is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and thus constituting the Christian Bible. Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint, the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time. The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament h the Old Testament. A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly. By the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[21] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[2 Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[23]In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church." Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon. Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. [Modern interpretation Many Evangelical Christian groups do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various local and Ecumenical Councils, which they deem to be "Roman-dominated", made their official declarations. These groups believe that, in spite of the disagreements about certain books in early Christianity and, indeed, still today, the New Testament supports the view that Paul (2 Timothy 4:1113), Peter (2 Peter 3:1516), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:1819) finalized the canon of the New Testament. Some note that Peter, John, and Paul wrote 20 (or 21) of the 27 books of the NT and personally knew all the other NT writers. (Books not attributed to these three are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, and Jude. The authorship of Hebrews has long been disputed.) Evangelicals tend not to accept the Septuagint as the inspired Hebrew Bible, though many of them recognize its wide use by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century. They note that early Christians knew the Hebrew Bible, since around 170 Melito of Sardis listed all the books of the Old Testament that those in the Evangelical faiths now use (without mentioning, at least explicitly, the Book of Esther and, on the other hand, explicitly including the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom). Melito's canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.1314 Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. However, Melito's account, as well as including the Book of Wisdom, does not determine that the specific documentary tradition used by the Jews was necessarily that which was eventually assembled into the Masoretic text, several centuries later. St Athanasius is often quoted as endorsing 39 books in his Old Testament, rejecting any apocryphal writings. However his 39 books are a little different from the Protestant canon. He rejects Esther and includes Baruch; hardly a Protestant canon. . "But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. Many modern Protestants point to the following four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament: 1. Apostolic Origin attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions). 2. Universal Acceptance acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century). 3. Liturgical Use read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services). 4. Consistent Message containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings. The basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. Apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord. It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all books in the accepted canon, however, and some point to books that Protestants hold as apocryphal which would fulfill these requirements. Pappy

Hello Lovers, As I originally stated - I was just trying to get Gold Winger's Goad. AS far as I'm concerned, the authorship of the Bible is ultimately the Holy Spirit. It is not worth quibbling over. I think that all people benefit by the conversation and knowledge of history. The origins of Scouting- and what BP's and Beards' and the rest original intent was -is no less interesting to me than learning about the Founding fathers of our country or the early Church fathers. I meant no disrespect. Catholics have much to learn from Protestants on a number of fronts: whether from the writings of Luther and Wycliffe to their wonderful fellowship and outreach. I also believe Protestants can learn much from Catholics Tradition and History. We should not ignore each other for the sake of peace and coexistence. Peace and coexistence are strengthened by understanding our brothers and sisters in Christ. There is only one Flock, one Church, and one Shepherd. And we can learn from each other without compromising our core beliefs. Not unlike we in scouting- who can look to other models for wisdom without the fear of compromising the essential truths of what constitutes scouting. Have a great week all! Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

History of usage of the term "Catholic Church" and what was meant by its use. Dear BadenP, If this thread is to become a historial deabate about the existence of the Catholic Church from the time of Peters Apostolate until the present day, then I am perfectly willing to contribute to this forum any evidence to support such a thesis, which I believe to be patenly true and not some wishful aberant revision of reality. A letter written by Ignatius to Christians in Smyrna [1] around 106 A.D. is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term "Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8). By it Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, excluding heretics, such as those who disavow "the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Smyrnaeans, 7). He called such people "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with" (Smyrnaeans, 4). The term is also used in the Martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 and in the Muratorian fragment, about 177. St Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 315-386) urged those he was instructing in the Christian faith: "If ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God" (Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, 26).[2] The term "Catholic Christians" entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of "that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria ...as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches." This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus.[3] It established Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The use of the term "Catholic" to distinguish the "true" Church from heretical groups is found also in Saint Augustine who wrote: "In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate. "And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. "Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should ... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustine (354430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith[4]. A contemporary of Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, wrote in 434 under the pseudonym Peregrinus a work known as the Commonitoria ("Memoranda"). While insisting that, like the human body, Church doctrine develops while truly keeping its identity (sections 54-59, chapter XXIII), he stated: "n the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense 'Catholic,' which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors" (section 6, end of chapter II). Many protestant revisionists have made claim, and in some sense rightly so, that the early church was a loose affiliation guided by the Holy Spirit. But just look to the Letters of Saint Paul to find a very strong and often stern hand of guidnace and authorty in mattters of liturgy, belief, correct interpretaion, and creed. These same revisionists have also made the unfortunate logical mistep of projecting backwards through time a theological outlook that did not exist in the early or even later Church fathers. By simply stating that when the term Catholic was being used by the men sited above that they didnt really mean the Catholic we think of today, with a Pope, a chair of Saint Peter, a line of Episcopate that goes back to Peter, they are not being accurate. The Credes of belief in a Trinity are the product of Catholic Church fathers who found authoiry in a central college of Bishops with their head the Pope. The Credes were worked out to establish a unified and shared doctrinal stance that defined what a Catholic Christian was and by implication was not. There was in fact a Schism in the Cathloic body as you mentioned in your post that has never been fully healed between East and Western Chuches. But the Catholic See in Rome does not condemn this Church as being heretical as far as I am aware. It is seen as a tragedy, and the result of the error of men on both sides. But to believe that Catholic Church was a creation of the second milenia and then to give credit to Henry the Eighth of England for holding some monks feet over the fire to deliver to us the first Bible is simply a cartoonists sketch of historical truth. What could be said with great accuracy is that the the English and Irish Catholic Monks established Chrisitandom in Germany and Gaul through their efforts of evangelization and scholarship. It was the Monk the Venerable Bede that wrote the first Histry of the British people nearly 500 years before Henry and the Tudors. BEDE was a cleric and joined the monastery at about age 30. He is best known for his writings. In particular, his Historia ecclesiatica, completed about 731/2, told the story of the Christian church in England between the time of Julius Caesar and when St Augustine became the Archbishop of Canterbury (abt 500 years). He also wrote commentaries on various Biblical texts and composed two treatises on the matter of reckoning the date of Easter. In fact, we owe to Bede our contemporary convention of dating events before and after Christ (B.C. and A.D.). He is to this day our main source on the Anglo-Saxon response to Christianity in early England and is known for his searching after the truth and verifying his 'facts' with eye-witness accounts. For the rest, I'm sure the forum members are a curious lot and could do their own digging if they are interested in such matters. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)(This message has been edited by Pappy)

Hey Gold Winger, You quote one of the most un-boy-scout-like fictional characters of all time to make your case? OR were you just being ironic? Here is a little more (courtesy of Wikipedia) about the character you would have us beleive should be our spirit guide? "Gordon Gekko is a fictional character from the 1987 film Wall Street. Gekko was portrayed by actor-producer Michael Douglas, in a performance that won him an Oscar for Best Actor. In the film, nave stock broker Bud Fox, played by Charlie Sheen, comes to work for the ultra-aggressive, power-hungry Gekko. Fox is loosely based on the executive assistant Jackson McIntosh. He is also slated to return in the as-yet embryonic film Money Never Sleeps. Gekko is based loosely on arbitrageur Ivan Boesky who gave a speech on greed at the University of California, Berkeley in 1986, real-life activist investor / corporate raider Carl Icahn, and aspiring British property magnate Bobby Blore of Shamley Green fame. In 2002 Gordon Gekko was named one of the Fifteen Richest Fictional Characters according to Forbes who attributed him with 650 million dollars. In 2003, the AFI named him number 24 of the top 50 movie villains of all time. Parallels can also be drawn with Michael Milken, the so-called Junk Bond King of the 1980s who traded high-yield bonds for Drexel Burnham Lambert. Like Gekko, Milken was regarded as an outsider and a quixotic obsessive genius who made gutsy investment decisions. During his time at DBL, Milken became engaged in a number of market abuses and traded on inside information gleaned from his junk bond underwriting. He also engaged in stock parking and manipulated the market to such an extent that regulators were misled. Comparable to Gekko, Milken was eventually indicted for his malpractices and in 1989 was charged with 98 counts of racketeering and fraud which resulted in a sentence of 10 years imprisonment (for which he served 2)." Maybe we should have a merit badge in racketeering. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

Hello Campers, I have to take issue with Bob WHite on a small matter he wrote about. I think that you were wrong in that other post Bob to suggest that just because you can get POO TOAST from POT ROAST, Either Poo or Toast constitute real Pot Roasting. POO TOAST is really disgusting Bob. And Pot Roast is really scrumptious. They may share the same letters Bob - but they are NOTHING alike!!!!! I will admit that TOAST may go with ROAST, and you can certainly POO in a POT, BUT surely you would agree Bob that the relationship to POO ROASTING AND POT TOASTING are separate activities and should NOT be confused or interchanged. Beav, help me out here man, am I right or am I right??!! This is not meant to be a personal attack Bob. It's just my take on it. Pappy

Dear Beav, The History of Christianity has heroes and villains distributed pretty even-handedly. For every indulgence abusing priest and sadistic inquisitor, one can easily recall the Rabid Anabaptist or totalitarian Calvinist. Humans are fallible. The Church has had many reforms in its history, as well has its Schismatic Brethren in Christ. The Catholic Church was the first Church. From the earliest writing of the Church fathers and the Acts of the Apostles the majority of the liturgy and the Sacred Texts we celebrate today was emerging and becoming solidified by the second and third centuries. The Holy Eucharist was believed to be the true Body and Blood of our savior to the Christian martyrs of Nero. The priestly line comes directly from the succession of Peter and the twelve that elected their replacements. Catholics view themselves as the fulfillment of the Jewish faith and thus in continuum with a priestly line that goes back to Melkesedek and then on to Moses and Aaron. It is a specific world view of Christianity that is historically and authoritatively continuous. BEav, you are absolutely correct to write that the Church strayed in countless ways. But even when straying, the Church was spreading the word, converting Gaul, Germany, Britain, Spain, Africa, and the East. And then on to Asia and the Americas. (allied in Christ with an army of Protestant missionaries). The important message of Christs Salvific powers and of the nature of the God Head is preserved in most Christian churches today. So all is mostly well in Christendom. I meant no slight to any non-Catholic practicing Christians. You are my Brothers and Sisters in Christ. The Truth is the Truth. God allows no dualistic co-truths that are contradictory. Thus, there is only one truth, one God, one Church, one Son, and one Flock. I run an ecumenical Christian Home School Latin Class. Every Monday 15 children and their parents come to my home and we study Ecclesial Christian Latin. We sing Gregorian Chants. We learn of Rome, the Early Christians, and of the Impact of Christendom on our culture today. This class is made up of Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, Agnostics, and Presbyterians. I keep it together because we stay focused on the positive aspects of the faith that we all shared: Our shared truths. No one feels that they are compromising their values by having their children taught by an openly Roman Catholic man because they understand the spirit in which we are gathered is good. Maybe an interesting thread would be How is The Scouting Movement like Christianity? If a Scouter is out of Communion with the BSA is he still a scouter and doing scouting? Peace Brother Scouter Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

Pappy Hey guys, I was just being my obstreperous self. I didn't say we own the bible, or the good news it contains. IT is for anybody who wants it. As a Catholic, I am taught to pray for all souls. And I am also taught that like it says in the bible, wherever three people meet in Jesus Name, He will be there. We believe that anyone is legitimately baptized if it is done with water and the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are invoked. And finally, the Catholic Church has never proclaimed the certainty of anyone going to hell over anything. Ex-communion only means that you are not in full communion with the Church- not that you are any less loved by God. All are welcome into her fold. With that said, I was just trying to get your goad. It was the catholic Church and the wisdom of its theologians like Augustine that successful fought the great heresies that nearly destroyed the Christian faith for all, such as Arianism, the Manichean Heresy, Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, Catharism, Protestantism, and Jansenism. Heresies have been with us from the Churchs beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christs promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Pauls words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). It was the Catholic Church who formed the great councils to solidify what was going to be deemed worthy of the term Sacred Scripture. (What we now call the Gospels and the New Testament and even some of the Old Testament). This was a monumental task that took many centuries or prayer, reflection, study, research, debate, and in many cases martyrdom. And it was only because the Church was recognized as being an authoritative body that had the ultimate power to bind on earth and in heaven issues pertaining to the correct understanding of Scripture and the Liturgy that it was able to prevent the fracturing and super schismatic phenomena of Protestantism we see in our world today. I do love my Church, and I do believe it was instituted with a covenant between Jesus and Peter. But I believe that the truth of the Gospel and the reality of Christ are for all God's Children. We Catholics have a very long tradition that is in a continuum from the present to Genesis. We believe we are the church of the catacombs, The Church of Peter and Paul, The Church of Christ with Jesus being our first Priest, . And we believe that the Tradition of two millennia of teaching, learning, exploring, and living the faith has provided humanity with a great resource of wisdom and guidance that Sola Scriptura cannot hope to provide. And I dont hate nor am I threatened by those who think that the Church is evil, or misguided, or whatever. I truly think that these people really dont know the Church; they only know what they think the Church is. The truth is, there is only one Church, like there is only on Gospel and only one Savior. And salvation is at hand. Have a wonderful Sunday, and I wish you all the blessings of God in you scouting endeavors. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)(This message has been edited by Pappy)

Hey everybody, and especially Bobwhite, Its me, Pappy. If you guys want to beat somebody up - you are always invited to come over to my thread - "All Things Pappy". I have a Pot Roast of my own on, along with a lot of offensive smelly chilies, goulashes, and mystery stews- Heck, you can even bring fire-works and long sheath knives along for all I care. We throw nasty unnatural things in my fire that make pretty colorful flames and awesome sounds and terrible smells. We don't practice "Leave no trace" but "Slash, burn, and build!". So come and leave your trace. And I swear my best Scout's Honor on a stack of Roman Catholic Bibles (Who am I kidding- it was the Catholic's who wrote the Bible in the first place!) - that I will not take anything anybody says as personally offensive. Unless of course Eamonn shows up and says that he's a Boy Scout and I'm not. Just kidding Eamonn. I would be proud to have you serve as my moderator Man. Bob, you wrote about yourself: "You will not find a single post from me".... (On this site? - over the past two weeks , eh?- my addition) ..."where someone who wanted to learn about the Scouting program or needed an answer to a question was not treated with courtesy and given not only the answer but the information on where to find the answer and learn more about the BSA program." Well Bob, Memory is a **** - even when threads are disappeared whole-sale- people remember. And I will even bury my virtual scout hatchet with you and say for the sake of mutual respect and understanding and courtesy and friendliness that you really mean it this time, and won't call up some mystery guy at my Council headquarters who's go the dirt on me and declare "The Jig is Up.". Please don't take this as a personal attack Bob. It's just a friendly heads up that I've got your number because you so freely gave it out. Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

Hello Brothers and Sisters in Scouting, It all goes to the deeper question of why do we do anything anyways? If it is the pleasure principle then we are no better than animals (tough-turkey you dog lovers they aint people I dont care how they look at you). Man is either a noble creature made in the Divine image and thus capable of striving towards Christian perfection, or he is just another animal pretending to be better than his zoo-mates. To the believers- it truly is - either or. The interiority of a developed spiritual life gives man his real strength to stand up against a whole world if needs be. I am not refering to the zealous fanatic. I am referring to the self-less man who would gladly give his life for friend or enemy. As I have stated in previous posts, the pedigree of the Scout Law goes back to Christian Culture and Scripture. I.E. The Beatitudes and the Christian Virtues. If we look at the Christian virtues and the Beatitudes we do in fact see a programme of conduct that offers no tangible worldly rewards. The reward for each Beatitude is a blessing from God. We want to be preferred by God, and in His revealed truth we have been shown the way towards that divine perfection- (impossible as that standard of conduct might be). . The Scout Law is a good start for boys on their road to the most important journey of their life. The reward for following the scout law is Honor. The only witness needed- Your Maker. The Beatitudes from The Sermon on The Mount "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Gospel of Matthew 5:3-10 THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUES: Chastity (Latin, Castitas) (purity, opposes Lust, Latin Luxuria) Embracing of moral wholesomeness and achieving purity of body and thought through education and betterment. Temperance (Latin, Temperare) (self-control, opposes Gluttony, Latin Gula) Practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation. Charity (Latin, Liberalitas) (will, generosity, opposes Greed, Latin Avaritia) Generosity. Willingness to give. A nobility of thought or actions. Diligence (Latin, Industria) (ethics, opposes Sloth, Latin Acedia) A zealous and careful nature in one's actions and work. Decisive work ethic. Budgeting one's time; monitoring one's own activities to guard against laziness. Patience (Latin, Patientia) (peace, opposes Wrath, Latin Ira) Forbearance and endurance through moderation. Resolving conflicts peacefully, as opposed to resorting to violence. The ability to forgive; to show mercy to sinners. Kindness (Latin, Humanitas) (satisfaction, opposes Envy, Latin Invidia) Charity, compassion, friendship, and sympathy without prejudice and for its own sake. Humility (Latin, Humilitas) (modesty, opposes Pride, Latin Superbia) Modest behavior, selflessness, and the giving of respect. Giving credit where credit is due; not unfairly glorifying one's own self. Sin Virtue Importance Pride (vanity) ------------------Humility (modesty) Most Envy (jealousy) -----------------Kindness (admiration) Wrath (anger) -------------------Forgiveness (composure) Sloth (laziness/idleness)--------Diligence (zeal/integrity/Labor) Greed (avarice)----------- ------Charity (giving) Gluttony (over-indulgence)-------Temperance (self-restraint) Lust(excessive sexual appetites) Chastity (purity) Least The Beatitudes and the Christian virtues are an amazing guide for us as mentors and role models. Whether you are a Christian Believer or an Agnostic, the sensibleness and power of these virtues and spiritual guideposts are enigmatic and deep and completely relevant to our mandate as Scouters. We see boys all the time that exhibit the vices, wouldn't it be helpful to identify them by name to the scout and educate them to the virtue which is its opposite? Pappy (This message has been edited by Pappy)

Our troop has probably attended 15 or so masses in the last five years. Always SM and ASMs and unit in full uniform- stinking of camp fire, and sitting prominently in the front rows. A number of times, the scouts have been invited to bring up the gifts. It is a great way of generating both FOS and observing the Scout Law. It has been a very rewarding part of the scouting experience. It helps the scouts to be proud of their uniform because the congregation always shows their appreciation. Pappy