3 million children

[DeMann]

"Face it, God doesn't change people, people change themselves. The girl was bad news from day one, nearly destroyed her family and you think that she deserves another chance. Maybe you think that Charles Manson deserves parole as well? "

 

 

Now where did I give the impression that we are not to suffer consequences for our actions? Where in the Sam Hill did you draw that conclusion? Charles Manson needed help long before the murder spree. Heck, Scouting might have been the ticket for him for all you or I know. For you to say that some children should have been drowned at birth scares me. It also tells me that you do not value your own childhood. And, sorry to say, but I doubt that your troop is of any consequential size. I have run into a few guys over the years with similar cinical views, and they never get results that are bragged about by others. I am willing to bet that you are not a part of your District Committee, nor are you asked very often to put together district or council events. I bet your troop is an 'exclusive' group for those with no faults.

 

Pray tell, how are we supposed to tell the ones that need to be drowned? Or answer this: If God is so weak that he cannot change people, then what difference should he make to me or you? Why do I need him? Why should we even have any kind of religion or religeous principle? If he can't help change me, then what do I need him for?

 

by the way, the girl probably should have learned from her mistakes but according to what you said, was not allowed but enabled by her parents to continue her destructive behavior. she also does not sound like the Charles Manson type either. I could be wrong. if she had been allowed to suffer her consequences, she most likely would have changed. Yes, I believe that she still needs help, and that there is hope for her. I would hate to know that my momma would give up on me just because I screwed up a few times.

 

 

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

First, thanks for viewing these postings objectively and with emotional restraint. I believe we are in agreement. I think you have summed up my feelings on the issue.

 

The posting that drew my knee-jerk reaction was firstpusk's:

 

There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved.

 

I'm not saying adults should not try to "save" children. I am saying that some children cannot be saved. That is, try as we may, they will not respond. I am also agreeing with Zorn on this point - at some point in time, child or not, it can become a head banging exercise to the determent of others (including other children). You've noted that sometimes, adult leaders give up too soon on a child. I agree. However, the inverse is true as well. Sometimes adult leaders do not give up soon enough. They do all sorts of gymnastics to appeal to and to turn around the troubled child. While the said child definitely refuses to change, other children suffer. They suffer because this same child may be a bully. They suffer because this child may make every effort to sabotage the program. They suffer because adults spend hundreds of unresponsive hours on a troubled youth who has made it painfully clear he's not going to change when they could have spent a few hours on a responsive child and made a world of difference. In reference to a Boy Scout troop, while it may be rare, I believe even a child of 11-12 may fall into this category. I am not suggesting that his parents should give up. However, a Boy Scout troop should not try to be his parents.

 

I am not cold hearted. Personally, while I have defended Zorn's statements (in philosophy), I am very much repelled by his word choice. They invoke imagines and an attitude that do not reflect the way I feel. For example:

 

"The world would be better off if certain children were drowned at birth"

 

Or

 

"The world would be better off if this girl had been deposited on a dung heap at birth."

 

I understand his point (I think). I hesitate, because quite frankly, I'm not sure what he's going to say next. However, I am not advocating (and I hope he is not either) infanticide. This image of throwing a child on a heap of garbage or worse sickens me because in some parts of the world this is a reality. It may be just a metaphor, but it's not one I would ever use. Also, I agree that we should try earnestly to save every child. I am simply saying - not every child can be saved, and, there is a time when one should give up. I know, by appearances, refusing to give up is the noble thing to do. Yet, at what price does one make this effort? Other threads on this forum have recognized the point I am trying to make. You stay with child so long as he does not ruin the program for others. Furthermore, despite the suggestion of some, all of the proper efforts by all of the proper adults is NOT a guarantee that the child will be "saved". If a child refuses to change, we should not be pointing our finger at all of the adults in his life. Who qualifies for the dunghill? As I noted before, I'd never use this metaphor. Regardless, without the two of us being there together and witnessing firsthand someone's behavior, this is not a question I'd like to answer. Any scenario I create, either through the lack of my communication skills, or due to your own experiences and/or inability to relate to my story, is apt to be misunderstood. Let's just say, I am certain that you have seen the behavior of some 12- or 13- or 14- year-old boys, whereas you've thought to yourself - "This kid is horrible. He's going out of his way to be disruptive. He gives every indication that he has no respect for anyone and is giving no signs that he will ever change." If a child such as this ignores your continual efforts, you should consider channeling your efforts toward other children. Is it worth getting through to the one child, if as a result of your efforts, 10 other children do not receive the benefits of your mentorship? Plus, there is no guarantee that you'll be sucessful. One has to weigh these things. Mister Spock had it right the first time - The welfare of the many should out weigh the welfare of the few or the one.

 

Firstpusk,

 

Obviously, I don't agree with everything Zorn has to say. The fact that I may have defended a point made by Zorn, doesn't mean I think he is the model Scoutmaster. If you want to keep your integrity, please try to keep things in perspective.

 

Zorn,

 

Why is it all of you Bible thumpers like to play psychoanalyst?

 

I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from, but with statements such as these, you are losing more and more allies.

 

LASTLY, where was all this noble talk (none that can not be saved No scout is not worthy of our efforts as scout leadersetc) when we were discussing the kid who supposedly "humped" another kid. Many of the same folks who are attacking Zorn, have recommended immediate expulsion for this kid. Many did not hesitate to label this kid as a sexual offender (which I thought was extreme). It seems to me, while I did not view the humping incident in the same manner as others, the general consensus was to dump this kid. Does that reflect the attitude that every kid is worth the effort? If he's not in your troop, how can you be extending this effort?

 

[Rooster7]

There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved.

 

Just so it's clear. My criticism of this statement concerned the supposition that the proper human efforts will always direct children onto a proper path. On the other hand, this statement does reflect our status as children of God quite well. Salvation is for all who seek Him. God's grace is not limited. However, man's capability to invoke change in others is limited. Free will is not a catchy Christian saying; it's a reality.

[firstpusk]

"Obviously, I don't agree with everything Zorn has to say. The fact that I may have defended a point made by Zorn, doesn't mean I think he is the model Scoutmaster. If you want to keep your integrity, please try to keep things in perspective."

 

I didn't think you agreed with him. I simply felt it was more than a bit inconsistent that you defend an egregious statement on his part and turn around to pick nits with me.

 

I understand that you have profound political, philosophical and theological differences with me. I accept those and believe that you really don't look for the opportunity to throw kids away. My view of Christ's teaching tells me that I must act, I must try and I must seek to reach these kids. If I can't, someone else is sent. I can't explain grace. I only know that it happens and when it does, it always seems surprising and wonderful.

 

About my integrity, I don't care a rat's behind what you think of mine. I thought you were out of line and I called you on it. I had a moral theology prof that always said, "Sometimes the greatest act of Christian love is a swift kick in the butt." I simply thought you were due.

[Zorn Packte]

It also tells me that you do not value your own childhood.

 

More psychobabble from the pseudo-psychologists. I enjoyed my childhood. It was great. I played in the woods, rode my bike, etc., etc., etc.. I think that all kids should have a childhood like mine. Well, maybe not the poison ivy.

 

If God is so weak that he cannot change people, then what difference should he make to me or you? Why do I need him? Why should we even have any kind of religion or religeous principle? If he can't help change me, then what do I need him for?

 

Sound like you use God for a crutch. I use myself for support.

 

 

Why is it all of you Bible thumpers like to play psychoanalyst?

 

I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from, but with statements such as these, you are losing more and more allies.

 

Where am I coming from? He spouts the Bible at me then he tries to psychoanalyze me. What does that make him? A bible-thumping, pseudo-psychoanalyst.

 

If you want to spout the bible, how about the section that says to have a disobedient child put to death. I'll bet that they didn't have many disobedient kids back then.

 

(This message has been edited by Zorn Packte)

[Rooster7]

Firstpusk,

 

I defended Zorn's original comments.

 

The fact is that some kids aren't worth the effort. Our society thinks that children are precious but they really aren't. There are children that cannot be saved and will never become a useful member of society.

 

His words were blunt, and perhaps poorly presented, but I agreed with his basic premise -

 

Children can establish themselves as evildoers as easily as any adult. All people (adult or child) should be held accountable regardless of their age. And, many times, regardless of one's effort, a child will not find the right road.

 

Zorn's harshest thoughts, which I do not agree with (most especially, as they were presented), came after my first post. To associate me with those particular words (of his choosing not mine) is misleading.

 

Most of my criticisms were directed at one of your first statements.

 

There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved.

 

I've already explained my thoughts on this remark. I can only assume that you purposely chose not to respond to the criticism and associated my post with Zorn's comments because you are incapable of defending your stance.

 

Yes, Grace is great. We all need it, but only God can give it. Our job is to spread the word and to be an example. However, God's Word says this too:

 

Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them." They went out and preached that people should repent. Mark 6:10-12

 

In other words, Christians are instructed not to bang their collective head against a wall, but to go and find others willing to listen. I see this teaching as useful for other applications other than the preaching of the Gospel. It seems to me, it applies to stubborn children as well. If they don't respond, then I will trust them in God's hands. My efforts will only continue so long as I see a sign of hope or potential. Otherwise, I will not bang my head for extend periods of time. It's not healthy for anyone, and it's wasting time that I could be spending with others.

 

So, having said the aforementioned, kindly remove your foot from my butt. I don't find it necessary, nor do I agree that it is an "act of Christian love".

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Ahhh, quoting the Bible can be such a fun game. What about this counter:

 

Luke 14:23 - And the master said to the servant, 'Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled.(This message has been edited by kwc57)

[firstpusk]

'So, having said the aforementioned, kindly remove your foot from my butt. I don't find it necessary, nor do I agree that it is an "act of Christian love".'

 

Excuse me Rooster, if there is a foot still there it is not mine. I have a strict rule to apply them quickly with precision. It is always the same. You may not agree now, but some day you will thank me.

 

[Zorn Packte]

Ahhh, quoting the Bible can be such a fun game. What about this counter:

 

Ah, the wonders of the bible. It says whatever you want it to say.

[littlebillie]

So, hey, let's save everyone a LOT of time - let's have somebody generate the criteria by which we can identify which kids we can ignore right off the bat, ok? This'd give us all so much MORE time for the easy ones and the ones we like!

 

oooh, ooh, ooh - and let's start an mandatory abortion program for everyone who matches any profiles of personality types known to produce such children so we can nip THAT bud before it's even grown!!!!

 

yeah, psycho-social triage - that's the ticket!

 

-o-

 

What a monstrous thread this has become... sure, drown those awful kids right off - not really that different from Hitler, now, is it? whether you marginalize/eliminate certain members of society by sending them to Coventry OR to Dachau, there ain't much difference...

 

 

 

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

You don't have to agree with my understanding of the bible. However, if you're a believer, why would you mock any one for quoting the bible? Disagree with my conclusions; sureI may be wrong about how I'm using God's Word. I never claimed to be perfect. However, you seem to be agreeing with Zorn - that the bible says whatever you want it to. I strongly disagree with that statement. So, here's my challenge to you. Take the bible verse that you claim is a counter to my argument, and explain exactly how it contradicts my conclusion. You're using this verse rather glibly. "Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in" Are you implying that this is an edict to never give up on any one individual? Seems weak to me. If you think as Zorn does, that the bible is open for any interpretation, then why believe any of it?

 

Firstpusk,

 

It's possible, but I doubt it. I'm as compassionate as the next guy. I love kids. But I'm a realist, and I think God's word supports my conclusion regarding this issue.

 

Zorn,

 

It's funny. For some reason, I thought you were Christian. It appears that I was wrong about that.

 

[scomman]

So, hey, let's save everyone a LOT of time - let's have somebody generate the criteria by which we can identify which kids we can ignore right off the bat, ok? This'd give us all so much MORE time for the easy ones and the ones we like!

 

oooh, ooh, ooh - and let's start an mandatory abortion program for everyone who matches any profiles of personality types known to produce such children so we can nip THAT bud before it's even grown!!!!

 

It was tried by a group called the National Socialist Party in a country called Germany. That is why so many of us are against the murder of people just because they have a certain profile. From what I have read of thi threads is this has devolved from a discussion of children being raised by gay couples to personal attacks on posters.

 

Before we go on let me tell you my story. I grew up in a home where violence was the answer to everything and tried to run away several times and even tried to kill myself. As I got older I turned to alcohol as a drug of choice to numb my anger at life and everything. I even tried to kill myself a couple of times more and racked up a nice record of misdemanor charges. I was headed for Jail or Death my choice. But someone took a intrest in my life and that has mase a difference instead of being in prison or in a grave I am now in a position to help others and I do. That is why I feel that ALL KIDS ARE WORTH SAVING.

 

[firstpusk]

Rooster7,

 

I never doubted you were a compassionate guy. I just felt your response to me was a bit on the knee jerk side and your support of Zorn's remark was uncritical to say the least. I know you don't agree with me and that's okay. I am sure that you aren't the first guy to give up on a kid. You are right that the drowning remark came later. However, it was not different in character simply more disgustingly graphic.

 

I think of it along the lines of checking for a beam in my eye before I decide a kid is not worth my time. Sorry if I upset you, now let me work on this 2x4...

[Zorn Packte]

oooh, ooh, ooh - and let's start an mandatory abortion program for everyone who matches any profiles of personality types known to produce such children so we can nip THAT bud before it's even grown!!!!

 

It would be far simpler to sterilize the potential parents.

[Rooster7]

scomman,

 

So...people who don't think as you do, support NAZI Germany. Is that your point? What exactly to do you think posters are saying?

 

I think you're going a little over the top.

 

Firstpusk,

 

I will concede that I may not have been fair with my response to you. I'll leave it at that. And yes, if Zorn had made his latter comments first, I probably would not have aligned my thoughts on the subject with his.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)