packsaddle

The comments about sports teams are humorous and I enjoy them, even subscribe to them a bit, being a Braves fan. But I also see the tip of some raw nerves exposed. I do not mean to provoke but merely to discuss the concept in a meaningful way. The book is less important to me than is the concept of the 'miracle'. Calico stated that he does not believe in miracles. I'm not even sure what "believe in" really means. I just want to try to understand the view of persons who DO invoke 'miracles' and the basis for that invocation. In general, without further reference to the mentioned book, it is a false dichotomy to limit choice between a phenomenon that can be explained rationally and a 'miracle'. The actual dichotomy is between the ability to explain and the inability to explain. Moreover, it diminishes the concept of 'miracle' to invoke it simply because of an inability explain something rationally. The inability to explain is simply a gap in our understanding, a function of our ignorance. That inability, as has been shown many times over in science, might fall once a rational explanation IS found. However, some of us feel the need to fill that 'gap' by invoking non-rational explanations. And some unscrupulous people exploit this tendency in others for personal gain. I understand that almost any time in modern history, there have been (and are) hundreds - perhaps thousands - of persons trying to convince others of their (let us say) 'unorthodox' beliefs...often for personal gain. I've been to Roswell as well as to another famous site of space alien visitation, Palmyra, NY. To me it is equally valid that God is a space alien from planet Kolob as it is any other claimed phenomenon that can neither be explained nor examined critically. And some might call even small examples of such phenomena 'miracles'. But should the inability to explain something automatically qualify the phenomenon as a 'miracle'? I hope not, at least not in my view. I find it equally plausible that I (or the person relating the phenomenon) am merely ignorant of a rational explanation. Invoking 'miracles' does not give me much of a satisfying feeling of understanding in these cases. To me it is not only an acknowledgement of ignorance but also a statement that ignorance is in some way good. So I was hoping that there was something more to the concept. Perhaps someone can elaborate?

vol_scouter: writes, "Either this military officer and scoutmaster is nothing but a liar or miracles occur." You conclude, based on what you read, that miracles occur and are real and that the book provides evidence for the claim. Your dichotomy of the author as either a liar or else miracles occur is flawed. There are many plausible alternatives to a lying author that would not conclude with miracles. For example, the author might be well-intentioned but mistaken about some of his observations. This happens even for military officers. Only the Pope is infallible. I noted that the book on which this is based is classed as fiction. Vol_scouter made the comparison to other books that he claims are classified incorrectly. If I grant that other books are sometimes misclassified, that hardly supports the original claim made regarding miracles. It merely weakens the classification of this book as fiction, and that has yet to be resolved, vol_scouter merely disagrees with the classification. But it is vol_scouter's claim that the book contains evidence of miracles. Vol_scouter, my library doesn't have the book. But I did read the review on Amazon. Is it yours? The review has the sentence, "All of the stories have a powerful message and some are clearly miracles." This reminds me of Father Reginald Foster's statement about the Bible, "these are just stories..." But I am very interested in this concept of 'miracles'. What constitutes a 'miracle'? How do I know one if I experience it? How do I distinguish it from 'magic'?

According to this site, it's classified as fiction. http://openlibrary.org/b/OL12099331M/Lord-and-Scoutmaster I'll see if it's in the library and take a look. I have read the Book of Mormon. It's fantastic, like so many others.

Congratulations, I know what you mean both as a boy and as a father. Back in the '50s my father was laid off because of a job-related hernia operation. The recovery was supposed to be for 6 weeks. He sold some property, constructed a sheetmetal trailer (I backed him up while setting the rivets) and my mother sewed a tent that fit the top of it. We spent 6 weeks camping all the way around the USA. It was a defining time of my life. Fast forward about 50 years. My daughter had just graduated high school. I quit my federal job and took her on a six-week camping trip around the country, this time in a backpack tent on the ground. Almost exactly the same places at the same time of year as 50 years before. Up the east coast, across the north, across the plains, over into the Rockies, down the Columtia to the coast, down through OR, CA and then back across through AZ, NM, TX, etc. It was a defining experience of her life and as long as I live, our eyes will meet and we'll share a knowing smile. Some of the best memories of a lifetime, hers and mine both. I'm glad you were able to do it too.

Or dumb luck for that matter. So how can anyone else know the difference?

Me, I kept my distance and cracked jokes with the doctor...talked about fishing. She forgave me.

"Do I have to change my name ot OldGreyStickInTheMud?" 'OldGreyStodgyandOld-Fashioned' would be more like it. We obviously did not grow up with similar learning experiences during youth. At least I survived to warn others.

"stodgy and old-fashioned" Well, someone has to do it. There are far worse web-based networks out there. All-in-all Facebook is fairly tame. The concept of 'friend' is mercurial at young ages. And difficult to keep up with if you have more than about 7 friends. Most facebook 'friends' are merely benign acquaintances. And if needed, the status of 'friendship' might not change on facebook until long after the info has been lost to the public. But we already know that...some of us from experience. Young people are often still in need of some guidance and 'protection' by stodgy, old-fashioned persons. Unfortunately, my children were treated to the 'dark' side of facebook early on so they are now super-sensitive to those info-gathering invitations to join that come from their 'friends'. No harm done so far. It was nice to have them learn some of those lessons while they could still recover from mistakes.

That was a bong, not a hash pipe. Big difference.

Sorry, for some reason I didn't get the notification of replies to this thread. A little more detail: I don't know if something is going on behind the scenes or not but I doubt it. My feeling so far is that it was the reviewer's decision to pursue that line of questioning. I'm going to follow up with him when I get a chance. The boy stated that he believed in a higher power but just wasn't sure about what that was. This uncertainty was what precipitated the questions. All in all there's no long-term harm done. He passed. I think the UUs are aware of the bullseye on their backs. At least they are now..you better believe that the word is OUT in the community. But the boy passed. I'm more interested in how widespread this mode of review is - and how many think it's OK? Or if not, where others draw the line?

Bringing this thing back to life...I can't find another old thread that fits better. Another incident recently: The EBOR was lackluster, the boy was adequate to pass and he did. However, in the process the chair of the EBOR learned that the boy was a Unitarian Universalist and then proceeded to bore in with an aggressive interrogation about 'belief in God'. Your reactions?

Gern, good idea. Hope you took my last post with the spirit of humor I meant it. The truth of it is something I discovered about 20 years ago. Since then, I've relied on experience and wit to stay ahead of them. Anyway, I'm 6'2", 200+/-a couple of pounds, 36" waist. I will get down to 185 and tone up what I have, maybe get that waist down to close to 34". Unlike Lisa (who, for some reason neglected to reveal her weight, heh, heh) I eat vast quantities of junk food and swill down sugar water in mass quantities. I think I can figure something out on how to cut back. Edited: 20, not 29(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gern, You're OLD! You're on the downside of life. It's OVER! "Gloom, despair, and agony on me Deep, dark depression, excessive misery If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all Gloom, despair, and agony on me." Maybe Hee Haw wasn't so bad....

OGE, I too wish you success. In fact, I'll take it up with you and pledge to convert some of my weight from flab to muscle. I was up on the AT today and my body let me know both about my age and how out-of-shape I am. I'm with you. I need to stay fit enough to 'be there' for my new grandchild. Now, if only I could get hair to start growing where I want it to.

Ahem, you forgot lithe and supple.

What I find personally is that heavy exercise suppresses my appetite. I have to wait for quite a while before it returns and then I'm easily satisfied. But I do need more exercise even though I have luckily avoided the weight problem.

Unless someone's dicovered a previously unknown caloric content to water, it's no secret that to gain weight, one must eat more than they need to maintain weight. It just doesn't get added on any other way than to eat more than needed. So perhaps gluttony should be included on membership prohibitions. However, I'm willing to let morbidly obese blobs spill over into my airline seat or make everyone have to take the next grocery aisle in order to get around them - heck they could even head out to the surf in thongs for all I care...if BSA would just prohibit smokers. Period. Anyone worried about medical health should focus on tobacco first. Not even a little bit of tobacco (as opposed to food) is healthy. You can demonize fatsos all you want but their fat doesn't waft through the air that I have to breathe. For some reason, the same character traits that make smokers weak enough to get (and then stay) addicted seem to make them think that standing and smoking right at the building entrance is OK. Even in front of the 'No Smoking' signs. They seem to think it's OK when little children, knowing no better and while no one is looking, amuses themselves by picking up collections of their cancerous butts - perhaps putting them in their mouths, butts that are scattered all around those entrances or dumped unceremoniously in little piles out in the parking lot. Smokers not only don't care about themselves, they don't care about anyone else either. Rant over. Back to adipose tissue.

In our troop all of the adults, including parents, are addressed as Mr. or Mrs., sometimes Ms. or Miss. In the South, outside of dens of iniquity like Atlanta, Charlotte, and a suburb of Raleigh called Chapel Hill, children are still taught to address adults formally, unless they are in a more familiar setting like a family gathering. Then it's Uncle X or Aunt X, etc. My children addressed me as 'father' until their peers use of 'daddy' intruded. We compromised on 'dad'. I expect my grandchildren to address me simply as 'grandfather'. The Mr. or Mrs. address is common both in and out of scouting.

Skeptic, nice. "The actual standard is pretty broad...If it is all in their midsection, they may very well fit..." Talking about a 'broad' standard. Indeed.

"But as long as we're on the topic - I'm not sure the Y endowed folks have the passive-aggressive market exactly cornered:

Where is Chefy when we need him? Me, I'd just add water and then use a straw.

Thanks for pointing that out. And quite right. Hal, I am not ready, personally, to trust the UV treatments either. Edited part: I have made my own 0.01 micron filters before and I can tell you it takes a very long time to push water through those things. I'll just continue to boil (the water, that is).(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Holy Toledo! You're right! Talk about hypocrisy. Thanks for pointing to that. I guess I'm in the lucky few who really can eat all I want and not gain much. On the other hand, I probably won't survive global nuclear war or something like that. OGE, did you get edited by another moderator or does your self-edit just show up that way?

"These were fathers in the eyes of the gods and one of my professors maintained that this was the origin of the term "godfather"." Hal, that is just so delicious! I can't wait to work it into some boring spot in a lecture. Vicki, OK I accept your characterization of 'cowardly' but it also brings to mind that wonderful male trait of 'passive-aggressive resistance'. Gunny, I agree with your embrace of moral relativism. There really isn't anything else.

No one said that about committed heterosexual couples either. The fact that they are a committed monogamous couple automatically excludes promiscuity regardless of marital status. If promiscuity is the qualification for ejection, then BSA should start dumping all promiscuous persons, regardless of gender or sexual preference. I read nothing in the membership requirements about marital status.