Adrianvs

"You claim to bear an understanding that judgement is based on whether a person has taken the burden to seek out God in whatever form their culture has designated him. Yet you also seem to take Christ's words as unflawed truth, which also includes his claim that he is the only way into God's kingdom. You can't have it both ways." Actually you can. I certainly do take Christ's words as unflawed truth and accept that He is the only way into the Kingdom. But I also hold that a virtuous person without exposure to Christ's Name, Church, or Sacraments may be saved. They may still receive the grace of God and the merits of Christ's sacrifice. In other words, God is not bound by His sacraments. The individual would still have to accept God's grace after death, of course, and their ability to do this would be directly proportionate to their virtue. If they had been searching for God their entire lives, they would be more disposed to accept him at this point. Of course we cannot expect or plan for a conversion at death or salvation after it.. "The primary drive of their culture comes from the biblical passage "be unlike the world" for the world is thought to be an evil place and only by separating themselves from it can they appreciate a true understanding of God." Either you believe this, or you do not. If you do, then your belief holds that all those who DON'T separate themselves from the world cannot understand God. Is that not the kind of belief that you object to? What about the statement of Christ that you refer to? If you believe that He is the only way, then you hold the "offensive" belief. If you do not, then you do not believe the "unflawed truth" that supposedly makes you a Christian. Since you admit His words regarding the exclusiveness of His name and merits, my question is, "Is Christ wrong or are you a 'meanie' for believing His words?" In other words, do you believe that Christ is the only way, or do you just think that is the likely case? Are religious ideas something best not thought about? Please don't be offended. It's not my intention. I only want to get you to think about your objection to people holding to one belief as a true belief. Perhaps it will help to think of hell not as a punishment for failing to find the password, but as the natural state of the human soul after death. The degrees of heaven are determined by the state of the soul and thus its proximity to God. BTW, your objection to hell (on the basis of an all-powerful and loving God) also rule out the existence of suffering on earth. Since suffering exists on earth, I will see no contradiction in believing that it will continue to exist after death (given the immortal soul).

I would rather have been a Jew in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries than one in the twentieth (as far as persecution goes). I never intended to justify or minimize the religious (and later ethnic) persecution of the Jews during the late middle ages and early 'enlightenment' era. I simply wanted to note that they are dwarfed by persecutions before, during, and after them. I also mistated when I said that torture was never used. I meant to say that the exotic devices seen in woodcarvings all over textbooks were never used. No iron maiden, no rack, no hanging ropes and burning feet. Torture was used in rare cases, but the rules regulating it were much more strict than in the secular courts. It is too easy to compare the actions of a past time period (or group) with the ideals of a modern one. Such a comparison is invalid. I find it amusing that Muslims violently taking the Holy Land, Turkey, and Northern Africa from Christians is called the "rapid expansion of Islam" while the Christians violently taking the Holy Land back from the Muslims is called "horrible aggression" or "unprovoked mass murder." Of course the sources of anti-Semitism which persist today are virtually undenounced in contemporary literature. What happened to the number of Jews in Cuba during his control of the country? What percentage of college professors consider suicide bombings a valid method of political activism? How many media outlets will caption an individual wearing a headband stating "KILL JEWS" as a "peace protestor?" How many mosques... I won't even go there..(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

ManyIrons, I am not the parent of a youth in the troop. I fall into the young adult/former scout category as far as the trends go. Glenn, Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was whether you refer to the youth whom you serve as Mr. Smith (or Mr. Smartypants) as the case may be. Perhaps I should clarify my position. I do not think that children should address adults by first name in every circumstance. In schools, the community, or faith group, and the like, I feel that proper titles should be given to adults. In fact, I think that within Cub scouts, where adults hold the leadership positions, it would be proper to continue this trend. It is the nature of the scouting model, however, that causes me to prefer familiar or equal titles (at least within one's own unit). It just depends upon the roles of the people in question. I am not speaking from the perspective of the individual whom NJCubScouter described as "one guy who was a bit of a 60s-70s throwback, who the students called by just his last name with no honorific." In fact, I found it quite amusing to see NJ refuting my position "from the right." (Not that he was referring to me directly, of course.) A 45 year old waiter should address a 16 year old customer as "sir." In this case, age is not the issue. I personally expect the same courtesy from civil servants, including police officers. This holds true regardless of age and even if the officer is given "custodial power" over the other person. Now, apply this to Scouting. Yes, adults have different roles and they are charged with "taking care" of the scouts and ensuring that everyone's safety is assured, but they are present to provide service. Now I am not proposing that the adults adopt a servile attitude towards the scouts or address them as "Sir" or "Mr. Smith." This may actually be a defensible position, although the pride of most adults would never allow it. I am only proposing that respect be given as equal members of the organization, at least among those who know each other. While it is not the motivation of most who insist upon titles, I have seen many adults who appear to enjoy being the "boss man" or "officer" among the "enlisted men" scouts. I find this attitude much more common and destructive than the ownership attitude expressed in the phrase "my troop." I am reminded that putting on the uniform is an expression of equality among all members. Perhaps some need to look at this as 'stepping down' from their normal position of honor in the community. In Cub Scouts, the youth are lead and directed by adults. They also happen to wear different uniforms. In Boy Scouting, the adults advise and assist the youth in leading themselves. If an adult wants to maintain a 'professional' relationship in doing this, then he should address the scouts with the same "Mr." that he expects to receive. Just pretend that the scouts are customers. I am usually the uber-conservative in issues of culture and society. I don't see this as an exception. Before adults held the title of "Mr." and youth did not, it was the practice that both groups addressed each other with formality. British schools continued this trend after it had fallen out of favor in most other places. Before that, "Mr. (Master)" was a title that one earned, and not one given to any Joe who made it to adulthood. In that time, youth and adults of equal class addressed each other by given name. Within the organization of Boy Scouting, I consider youth and adults to be members of equal standing. You may disagree, but at least think about that the next time you remove the trappings of class and office and put on the tan and green uniform.

The word makes sense, but it only means "death by government" indirectly. It roughly translates to "killing of population," but in most cases, this is done by a government of some sorts. Few other organizations are capable of such acts. Just like in the case of the word "hypocrisy," a common property (action inconsistent with preaching or governmental killing) was confused with the literal meaning (falsely held beliefs taught or killing of entire populations). In time, the word begins to connote the common and obvious feature rather than the original word object itself. That would be my guess, anyway.

"Sorry, but when it comes down to what you want from my children and what I want from my children, you lose." You certainly have the legal right to teach your children to disrespect the wishes of others because the action resembles an honor that you like to receive. Just don't pretend that you are teaching them respect of others by having them use a common form of respect in cases where it is contrary to what true respect would dictate. (And don't try to write any sentences like the last one, either.) I do understand your preference, however. I would much rather be addressed as "Mr. Guy" than simply as "Fat." Glenn, do you extend the courtesy of title to the youth whom you serve? If you want a respectful and 'professional' relationship, then it goes both ways. Respect should neither be dependent upon age, nor its symbolic expression distributed based on it. At least not among the fellowship of scouting, that is.. Other organizations may have age-based guidelines as to where respect is due. Let me know if you join one. I will admit that my perception may be warped. Like Eamonn, I simply prefer the sound of my first name to that of my surname. Perhaps if it were the other way around... Nah, I would just acquire a permanent nickname.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

If the shortened version of "WEBELOS scout" is "Webelos" shouldn't the shortened version of "WEBELOS scouts" actually be "Webeloses?" I would like to see that one catch on.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

One idea that might work for you is to have the first year campers (as a whole or in groups) visit different areas of camp on different days and work with a staffer from that area. They could do actual requirements or just participate in activities particular to the area. The scouts would be taken to the areas by a first-year program staffer, of course, and the rest of the week would be spent as a first-year group. I think that letting the scouts experience the entire camp helps them to retain interest and learn about opportunities. It also keeps the first year program staffers from having to specialize in several areas or deliver a homogenous program. A potential problem with this is the ability (and perhaps willingness) of specific area staffers to schedule in some time with first year campers. I also think that first year campers should be given plenty of free time. This may go against conventional camp "wisdom," but filling a new scout's entire week with structured program can leave an unpleasant impression. Just keep the important points that you have highlighted in mind. "I want it to be fun. I don't want the kids to think they are in school." "Want to kids to learn and not just get signed off on the requirements."

The Hindu believes that he has been born into his given caste because of his actions in previous lives. He has as long as he wishes to get it right, so to speak. Frankly, he would be offended by your assertion that he could be credited Christian grace and be judged after this death. The Muslim believes that following the Five Pillars are the only way to gain admittance into Paradise. He would be offended by your assertion as well. In most of the monotheistic religions, including the vague Greek philosophical monotheism, a person's life is judged by how fervently they seek to know God and learn about Him. It is the indifferent that receive the harshest judgement. Didn't Christ say that it would be the lukewarm whom are "regurgitated" by him. Literally, a violent expulsion from within his person. I think that you do well by reading some of Soren Kierkegaard's philosophy. He writes against the notion of "Christendom" which really refers to religions as social groups that one is "born into." He also refers to the Either/Or situation that we must all engage in our lives. There is no drifting down the stream; we must always choose. Sometimes, staying the course your entire life is the most difficult thing that you can do. It isn't an accident of birth and it isn't a permanent label that you acquire upon birth. It is the burden of free will that we are given the choice to seek God or to not seek Him. Don't be so eager to choose the second by citing demographics. Perhaps you don't REALLY believe in the Christ. Perhaps you would rather we all stash our religious teachings under bushel baskets until we die within the next century? Do you know where the English word "nice" comes from? What are the tenets of Mennonite theology? Are there any left? Do you believe them?

Wouldn't "democide" translate roughly to "murder of population" or "murder of rabble" to give a more Greek slant? It's difficult because the "demos" is a Greek term and "-cide" seems to be a Latin one. Perhaps there is another meaning for "demos" in Latin, however. I do agree on the monumental bloodshed of the twentieth century. I have followed the philosophy and political theory that preceded that century in my studies. It was supposed to be a apex of human civilization. Once we got rid of the "superstitions" and embraced the "scientific" truths of human government, all our problems will be solved. Of course, we have to break a few eggs to make our utopian omlet.. Well, here are the broken eggs, but where is the omlet? These governments are the bastard children of Nietzche and Marx who were the bastard children of Schopenhauer and Hegel, respectively. They, of course, were the bastard children of Kant. Using hindsight admittedly, I must state that I could have seen this coming for centuries. heh.. Regarding the broken eggs, I would like to try to put some things in perspective. Many of the regimes listed below are defended by people who throw around terms like "the Inquisition" to justify the crimes of the 20th century and any future crimes that may be committed in the name of dogmatic progressivism (often international socialism). By most historians estimates, the inquisitions killed 4,000 people over the course of 350 years. They never used torture, either. Those stories were false political propaganda against the Spaniards. Every time I hear a junior Stalinist throwing the word "inquisitions" around like an epithet, I think of the millions massacred and starved to death by forced famines and I can't help but shake my head..(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Nearly complete ditto on Rooster. Achilleez, suppose that I believed that all people who smoked were going to die a painful death. I could tell people as politely as possible what was obviously the case and some would still be offended. It isn't caused by malice, but by genuine concern. On the other hand, if I were to mock those who smoked and laughed about what was going to happen to them, then you could say that I was acting with hatred. The t-shirt you mention seems to be using a common phrase to get people to realize the importance of accepting Christ as a means of salvation. You may disapprove of that method (as some disapprove of graphic anti-smoking ads), but there is no reason to believe that the person is motivated by anything more than a general concern for the welfare of others. My apparent ambiguity was a result of trying to be as polite as possible. It is the Christian teaching (and my belief) that there is only one name by which persons may be saved, so to speak. I am not ambigious on that point. As to whether those unfamiliar with that person in this life may receive grace from Him during or after death is another issue. I may be refuse to judge whether a particular soul is in hell or will likely go there, but I have no problem with listing the physical, mental, and spiritual actions that will insure that one does end up in that state. I don't think that this is the place to discuss such specifics, however. Nor do I consider it the place to debate specific theological points. If you wish to create a thread to debate whether belief in hell "nice" or whether Christianity has a place in the world, then go ahead. I may even join you. I have seen no one state that another individual person on this board will be consigned to hell. But if you find the belief in hell itself to be offensive, then I am afraid you have set the offense bar too low. Of course Christians believe that Christ is THE way to salvation. That is the whole point of the faith. Since they do believe it, they feel an obligation to tell others. I would be offended if they tried to keep it a secret. Some fringe groups will fudge that point by stating that He is only one way, but the Church would not have survived the incredible persecutions (especially in the 20th century) for only one possible way. Icons may be pretty, but they aren't to die for. Likewise, Buddhists believe that the Eightfold Path is the ONLY way to eliminate desire and thus suffering. That is the Fourth Noble Truth. The Dalai Lama believes it, despite his cuddly exterior. He believes that you will likely return to this hell (earth) a thousand more times. Are you offended? I am somewhat offended that he hasn't proclaimed the Four Noble Truths more blatantly. Does he think that we aren't ready? What an esoteric elitist.. It has been a source of ponderance for be to determine what situations are appropriate to evangelize my faith. I feel that I err on the side of silence. St. Paul gives a model of a man who can't keep his mouth shut about it and it costs him everything that can be taken away by others. "I wish that the whole world were as I am; except for these chains." You shouldn't be offended when people (Christians or otherwise) want to tell you the good news. You should be offended when they try to keep it a secret.

You know what they say, Le Voyageur. "History is written by the petulant grandchildren of the victor."

Yes yes.. If I am selected as program director, I will make it a point of letting the scoutmasters know that we have the facilities and resources for the scouts to do largely as they wish. I have always found fault with using merit badges as a required (or even strongly encouraged) means of spending most of the time at camp. There are so many activities that can be done as an individual, patrol, troop, or small group that needn't be a planned part of the camp program. I have seen that many camp inspectors like to see every scout occupied with a merit badge counselor as they tour the camp. As an older scout who wasn't registered for a merit badge during the block that inspectors were touring campsites, I was actually encouraged to make myself scarce so as not to be seen. We have always had camp-wide activities which are more or less optional, but there is too little time for the scouts to pursue their interests as desired. The moment that scouts are pushed into merit badge sessions by the implicit (or explicit) demand of a full schedule, then they have already ruled out learning anything or enjoying themselves in any meaningful manner. I don't mind instructing large numbers of youth, but I KNOW that this many kids aren't interested in whatever aspect of ecology I am counseling that day. Not only are the majority stuck in an uninteresting situation, but one that ruins the experience for the few that are interested. Last summer, a scoutmaster came up to me and apologized that a couple of his scouts...scouts in the troop that he served, were always down at the Eco-Con building "bugging us" during free time. I had to remind him that such cases are the reason that we staff the areas during free time. With three staffers present, it is hardly an imposition to have a couple of scouts take an interest in the area. A scoutmaster should not apologize for the few scouts who visit during free time. If I wanted apologies, I would ask them of the scoutmaster who sends nine uninterested scouts from his unit to an environmental science session so that they may get it out of the way. Summer camp is not the place to get anything out of the way. I understand that idle hands are the devil's workshop, but idle hands are as common within a merit badge session as outside of one. I also understand that scouters deserve some R+R during the week. But they don't need 8+ hours of scout-free time in camp every day. If the inspectors are of the mind that scouts must be occupied in some structured program every minute of the day, then I must borrow a phrase from FOG, and loudly assert TFB!!! For some reason, I feel like John Kerry running for office. The thought gives me a little nausea, so I will desist.

My vigil honor name is Klamachpin Elitehat which translates to "Quiet As He Thinks." On camp staff this summer, I was known as the Sheriff. Or The Sheriff of Rowingham, if you aren't into the whole brevity thing.

I wasn't really offended, Mark. I should have put a smiley in there to demonstrate my intended tone. I still differ in that youth do not have to earn the Eagle Scout rank to receive my respect, however. I understand that some adults may be uncomfortable being addressed by youth with their first names. This may be because they are trying to maintain a more formal relationship. It may also be simply what they are accustomed to. Another possibility is that they see themselves as "above" the youth in position and honor. It is only the third reason that I object to. If an adult (or youth, I suppose ) preferred to be addressed by a formal title, then I would certainly comply. But I would treat them with the distance that such a title implies. "While I am nearing only 50, I think it is important that we call people by what they want to be called, no matter if they are a youth or an adult." I think that is stating the best policy. It sounds like most adults (who don't reside around here, strangely) prefer to be addressed by youth by their formal titles. Perhaps that is best. I would also wager that most youth prefer to be addressed by their first names. That's fine, too. But what if a youth demanded the courtesy of being addressed as Mr. Smith? Would you consider him rude? Would you explain to him that he is beneath being addressed so by his superior? Why should we draw the line at age? Should blue collar workers have to address white collar workers as by title? How about income? That's more objective. What about religion? I won't even go there.. heh heh.. I think we all need to remember that as long as we put on the same uniform, we are all equals in this organization. In the midst of mixed company or when addressing relative strangers, it is usually appropriate to use a formal title. When in the company of a particular organization, it is best to use the organizational titles or use the names that familiarity suggests. I see speaking of Mr. Smith, when both you and the youth know him as Bob, as "speaking down" to the youth unnecessarily. Service to youth, eh? Why don't we start addressing the youth as Mr. Smith and have them address us by our first names? What's wrong with that? Let me know when adult uniforms come with gold piping and silver laurels on the collars. Until then, I will be addressing both youth and adults in the organization as equals and will expect them to do likewise. BTW, Don't worry, Mark; You're in my good graces. (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"(Your boss/the people who work for you, Your profesors/your students)" I agree that there are many situations where formal titles are appropriate. These are good examples. "I have metioned this before, but I have a tradition where I invite any boy who completes his Eagle BOR to call me Mark. Makes no difference what the age, they've earned enough respect from me to call me by my first name." Wow.. You let Eagle Scouts consider themselves to address you as equals? Who else is worthy enough to assume familiarity with you? Seems a little too much like self-aggrandizement in your case, rather than maintaining a degree of formality. I have no problem with formality as long as it is reciprocal. There is no place in the scouting movement for common title-flauting amongst fellow members of equal standing, however. If you do not respect the youth enough to apply the same titles that you demand, then perhaps you should rethink your place in the troop. Master of the House of Orchardmen (You may call me Master Orchardman.)

Thanks, WAKWIB. Your posts have been helpful. "It is very much camp-centered...very little activity throughout the rest of the year." This is one of the reasons that I have been referring to MOS. Our program is to fill the same niche, if you will. "It succeeds almost in spite of itself, due to the power of it's message and the committment it inspires. My advise, would be to find a model of organization that involves as many as possible in the ceremonies, and that keeps one interested in moving up the ladder of responsibility." Given that we are not really an honor society and all campers are invited to join the "tribe," we have the possibility for large induction ceremonies with many people involved. It seems inevitable (and preferable) that the other ceremonies must have fewer participants. As I've said before, we have the symbolic progression, relevance, and integration to keep the interest and convey the messages of each symbolic level. We want to integrate positions of responsibility (and avoid the OA dilemma), but have yet to decide how this can be done. It appears that the positions of responsibility are largely synonymous with the ceremonial levels in MOS, but his isn't entirely possible with our tribe. I don't think that anything resembling the MOS model of organization will work for us, either. Our camp is one of two in our council. It is the smaller one and geographically within the corner of the council. It is even within a different tribal area and our chapter (and camp) have used quite different tribal outfitting for our OA ceremonies. The tribes of our area, the Fox and Sauk, and that of the council headquarters, the Sioux, were actually traditional enemies. While we don't have that sort of hostility, we do have quite a distance between us. The camp land isn't even owned by the council anymore. It is owned by a committee of volunteers who purchased it so that scout camp could continue there. Making the Scout Executive the head of the organization, even the symbolic head, would not be a good situation. I suspect that the position (like the title of Supreme Chief of the Fire in OA) was originally a gesture by the camp societies trying to recieve the full support of the BSA. I think that we can avoid that by keeping the organization camp-based and making it part of the camp program. We will not require much funding or finances, so will not collect dues or anything of the sort. The camp traditions and even facilities have been held in the possession of those who attend the camp and consider it a second home for quite a while. I see no reason that the tribal society should be any different. Thanks again for your posts. They have not only provided new ideas, but have helped to emphasise certain points that were already present. Klamachpin Elitehat WWW Founder of the Wau Ba La - hahaha, just kidding. (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Perhaps this is a reflection of my age and upbringing, but I much prefer to be addressed by my first name. In fact, I find it irritating when my surname is invoked to the exclusion of my given name by friends or associates. While it has had much to do with respect in the past, I see the use of formal titles primarily as a sign of afamiliarity. In other words, among familiar members of a group (such as a troop), I find it a little pretentious. Others may feel uncomfortable being addressed by "lessers" with their given name, but within the scouting movement, they are serving primarily as advisors and trainers for the youth. If adult scouters wish to maintain a degree of formality, then such a thing may be decided upon by the PLC. If the scouters wish to receive the honorous title "Master of the Tribe of Smiths" each time they are addressed, but not return the favor to those scouts "below" them, then I suggest that they reevaluate their role and position within the scouting movement. "It came up at a pre-Eagle board of review that the canidate would be better off in life if he refered to anyone he came in contact with above him by formal title to show respect" Of course, determining who is above whom is a tricky subject. Should the adult arrowman address his chapter or lodge chief as Mr. Lastname? Would that be beneath him? So, there's my two-halves-and-a-quarter opinions.. (This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Haven't you read Dante? Hell has been frozen over for millennia.

I have read that the Eagle Scout medal is not worn at outdoor events, even if they are Courts of Honor. The only exception is the outdoo Eagle Scout Court of Honor. Has anyone else heard of this? Regarding OA sashes, the Handbook is rather ambiguous on this matter. If I remember the phrase correctly, it lists "OA events, when representing the OA, and special scouting events." I suppose that most people interpret "special scouting events" to be formal events, but it's just substituting one undefinded term for another. Perhaps that isn't a bad thing; formality can range from area to area. Although the mass at which a friend received his St. George Award technically wasn't a Scouting event (or an OA one), all the scouters attending wore their uniforms. Some of us also wore OA sashes (including the recipient), and I don't feel it to have been out of place.

"One year when I was on the Silver Beaver Selection committee his name was put forward. Service to youth? Not in my book. He is not a Silver Beaver." Good form, Eamonn. I posted something on this topic not long ago. Not only are merit badges made the basis for the whole camping program, but scouts are expected to earn several badges during their stay at camp. Some parents and scoutmasters almost see it as an investment to receive a bulk of badges in a week's time. Much of this pressure is distributed to camp staff, who are expected to cram an entire badge into a single day. Well actually, I hear that most camps use the rotation system and spread the badges throughout the week, but the idea is the same. I was allowed to take two blocks (days) to counsel Environmental Science, and it still shocked my how little we really accomplished, as far as requirements go. In most badges, the entire time must be geared towards requirements to get all or most of them completed. This method fails to utilize the resources of camp life, however. Perhaps if it were more common for scouts to complete "classwork" requirements at home, a more practical experience or study could be done in the time and environment given.

That's too bad, Achilleez. Here in Iowa, it is largely a matter of waiting for the pork prices to go up. But we have to remember that this could hurt a lot of people financially..

haha, Achilleez.. I didn't expect such a methodical explanation. I'm glad that you tried to clear it up, though. My point is not dependent upon whether I am a Chrisian or not. It seems that the use of "hell" and attempting to take offense was a red herring to stop a logical argument about the relation between contradictory ideas. I suppose that the real objection that people have is to how some treat others whom they feel hold false beliefs. I am certainly not suggesting that we treat others with contempt or constantly critique their beliefs. I have great respect for many people who hold different beliefs (including religious) than I do. But I don't pretend that all beliefs are compatable or that all religions teach the same thing. To suggest this about religions usually indicates an ignorance of one or more of the religions in question, and always ends up distorting all of them beyond recognition or value. Perhaps some religious beliefs require detesting those who do not hold them or are outside the fold. But do not assume that anyone who holds the Law of Contradiction (the basis for logic itself) is mentally consigning others to hell. Now that's just offensive.. Just for the record, I am a Christian and I do believe in hell. But determining whether any particular soul is in hell (or whether it will be) is not within my competency. In fact, my religion requires that I pray for all deceased, presuming that they are NOT in hell. The means of salvation is a topic much to deep to begin discussing here. I will just say that I don't consider having true belief as being sufficient for salvation. Nor do I consider having a thorough and correct understanding of such things as necessary. "You believe that God is one. You do well; even the demons believe and tremble." So when I meet someone of another faith (or none at all), I do not begin by stating "You're living in error, man," just as I don't consider them any less intelligent, virtuous, or valuable for it. But when the Mormon missionaries (whom I respect greatly), for instance, try to convert me, I sit down with them and explain exactly why they believe what I do as I listen to why they believe as they do. We concede points of agreement and contest points of disagreement. It's really a broadening, congenial, and dare I say, fun, situation. It's much better than saying "I'm sorry, but I don't believe that," really meaning "That belief is not associated with me." and shutting the door. It may seem to take more time, but I've never had a repeat visit from the same faith community. And I've learned a lot in the process..

This thread is effectively hijacked anyway, so I'll post some more I found relevant. "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more important) the system he would NOT rebel against, the system he would trust. But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. It may be added that the same blank and bankruptcy can be observed in all fierce and terrible types of literature, especially in satire. Satire may be mad and anarchic, but it presupposes an admitted superiority in certain things over others; it presupposes a standard. When little boys in the street laugh at the fatness of some distinguished journalist, they are unconsciously assuming a standard of Greek sculpture. They are appealing to the marble Apollo. And the curious disappearance of satire from our literature is an instance of the fierce things fading for want of any principle to be fierce about. Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh; but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it. He is himself more preposterous than anything he denounces. But, indeed, Nietzsche will stand very well as the type of the whole of this failure of abstract violence. The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain. This last attempt to evade intellectualism ends in intellectualism, and therefore in death. The sortie has failed. The wild worship of lawlessness and the materialist worship of law end in the same void. Nietzsche scales staggering mountains, but he turns up ultimately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing and Nirvana. They are both helpless--one because he must not grasp anything, and the other because he must not let go of anything. The Tolstoyan's will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all special actions are evil. But the Nietzscheite's will is quite equally frozen by his view that all special actions are good; for if all special actions are good, none of them are special. They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads. The result is--well, some things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross-roads."

Achilleez, I did not mention or refer to hell at all. It would take some searching of my previous posts to discern (indirectly) as to whether I even believed in hell. I was referring to logic. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Two contradictory beliefs cannot be true. "I think we need to remember that those who believe fundamentally different things, all equally have the right to those beliefs and I don't believe, we are in a position to judge those beliefs as right or wrong." This is a nice sentiment, and I agree that in many cases it would be rude to explain to an individual exactly why their beliefs are wrong. Furthermore, there is nothing illogical with being an agnostic. If you don't have any convictions regarding religious topics (except that they are unknown), then you are not in a position to judge particular beliefs. If you do have real beliefs regarding topics (religious or otherwise), then it is only logical that contradictory beliefs must be held as false. It has nothing to do with your evaluation of the person who holds them apart from their holding false beliefs. "People of all faiths take their belief's seriously. It's one thing to say: 'I firmly believe that....' versus 'The only true faith is .... which is the one I believe in.'" That would depend upon the statements in question. If you say, "I firmly believe A to be true," then the logical compliment is "I firmly believe (not A) to be false." Some people don't really hold the teachings of the ecclesial community to which they belong. To these individuals, it would be more accurate to state, "It is quite possible that A is the case." For them, it would not be illogical to also state, "On the other hand, ~A may really be the case." One should not confuse the two situations. Most often, this confusion is applied by those who don't really hold any religious beliefs and assume that others are in the same situation as them. Some people do hold religious beliefs as firmly as others hold beliefs regarding the physical world. Radical skepticism can be applied to the latter as easily as the former. Both cases require some "self-supporting" basis of intuition on which to build. As always, the words of Chesterton are relevant. He is writing here about the "suicide of thought" that applies to much more than religion: "...remarkable case of the dislocation of humility. It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything--even pride. But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert--himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt--the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether. At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem. The last chapter has been concerned only with a fact of observation: that what peril of morbidity there is for man comes rather from his reason than his imagination. It was not meant to attack the authority of reason; rather it is the ultimate purpose to defend it. For it needs defence. The whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower already reels. ...That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself. Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H.G.Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all-- the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved. And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it." Anyone who has studied the idealists of the early modern period or the twentieth century philosophers can tell you that these descriptions of the "suicide of thought" are not exaggerations at all.

"So by your logic there is only one true church that contains the only true christians and the rest of us are all on the wrong track. I am astounded no one else found that statement incredibly offensive." What do you propose, Achilleez? That those who believe fundamentally different things are all equally right?