littlebillie Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 'If these "mainstream" denominations change (which means they are actually leaving the mainstream)...' well, I'd've thought that if enought of them do it, it redefines how the main stream flows in the first place... and really, does THAT matter, for either side, deep down in the heart of things??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Just to join in the fray (I really tried to restrain myself), I was raised Presbyterian. I consider Darth Vader to be the archetypical intergalactic Presbyterian (loud breathing sound "...join with me Luke, it is your DESTINY"). Just a reminder that BSA stated its objections to the UUA regarding their differences and words written in the UUA religious award pamphlet. Both parties agreed that if UUA removed the wording from their literature, BSA would consider the matter over. UUA removed the wording. BSA reneged (in other words, lied) and rejected their religious award anyway. Sorry, this was covered in another thread a long time ago. It seemed forgotten just now. This is the edited part. After thinking about the comments about other moderate (and evolving) Protestant flavors, the sequential rejection of this flavor and that (based on whatever BSA's whim was at the time) will inevitably narrow the scope of membership. And it raises again a question I'm not sure has been answered: Who has proprietorship over BSA? If anyone can be kicked out for any reason, who's going to be the last kicker? Who owns BSA? I would like to see a list of names (or THE name). Their religious affiliations would be interesting too.(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 ...what is the BSA going to do? Write off a third of its charter partners? Tell the youth members of these groups that they cant earn their religious awards because their beliefs are wrong? Works for me. How does that expression go? If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing...something like that. Either the BSA has core values that it believes in, or it doesn't. If the BSA decides to alter those values, simply because they want to maintain numbers, then they will no longer be the organization they claim to be. They will lose all creditiblity and they will lose a lot more members because of that, then they ever will lose because of their stance against homosexuality and fly-by-night religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWScouter Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Let's see 'fly-by-night religions'. Augsberg Confession (Lutherans) 1530, Church of England (Episcopal) 1500's, Puritains (United Church in Christ-Congregationial) 1500's, Presbyterian (Knox and Calvin) 1500's, oh the new one Methodist, late 1700's. Jewish 2000 + BC, they won't last. Watch what you say these faith groups have been around a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Rooster, did you really intend to make that "fly-by-night religions" comment? If so, please list the definitive characteristics of such a religion. Do you mean, of recent origin? Should LDS members be advised to divert their eyes while you do it? I seem to remember your mention of Islam in another post. Should they also try not to watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Let's see 'fly-by-night religions'. Augsberg Confession (Lutherans) 1530, Church of England (Episcopal) 1500's, Puritains (United Church in Christ-Congregationial) 1500's, Presbyterian (Knox and Calvin) 1500's, oh the new one Methodist, late 1700's. Jewish 2000 + BC, they won't last. Watch what you say these faith groups have been around a long time. From the time periods of which these faiths were born, recite one document attributed to any one of those religions, which endorses homosexuality as morally acceptable. As to their present day versions, if they beleive that God has changed with the times, then I would have to describe that faith as "no faith at all" or if you prefer, fly-by-night. Also, why have you listed these religions? You seem to be implying that all of them support the homosexual lifestyle. As someone that is familiar with a few of these faiths, I can assure that is not the case. Rooster, did you really intend to make that "fly-by-night religions" comment? I knew that comment would draw a bit of a reaction. I'm not going to attempt to define it. Most people know what I'm talking about. I will say this - There's a huge difference between "not believing in what other folks believe" and "believing in fairy dust, dream catchers, wishing wells, and the like". I could go on and list other types of bogus faiths, but its not my goal to offend. My point was and is - the BSA should have standards. If some of their standards preclude some religions, then so be it. The BSA shouldn't let "inclusiveness" drive its values or goals. Those who suggest that they should, don't share the same value system as the BSA and/or apparently don't understand that true moral values don't change with the times.(This message has been edited by Rooster7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Oops, I should have warned Native Americans to divert their attention. Rooster, just so you know, I am not offended. I do understand how a large number of other people might be, though. Many, many. I must, however, be among those who do not understand what you're talking about. Is "bogus faith" the only characteristic of "fly-by-night religion"? Are there other characteristics of "fly-by-night religions"? Or perhaps "bogus faith" is the basis for "fly-by-night religion"? How do I identify a "bogus faith" if one is presented to me? Again, if you could list some characteristics, that would be helpful. Are all "fly-by-night religions" associated with "bogus faiths"? Or the other way around? Just need a little clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 I may have to leave you - perplexed. I'm not going to open that can of worms. As I said, most folks have a good idea as to what I'm talking about. But because Im a gluten for punishment, heres an attempt to clarify without going into details: Some folks seem to think "finding, knowing, and following God" is about embracing a faith that makes one feel good about himself and/or humanity in general. It's not. We should be trying to seek God as He truly is, and His will for us. When God told Moses - "I am" - It was understood because He was speaking to those who were truly seeking Him. Unfortunately, these days, many folks - maybe most folks, prefer the former description of faith as opposed to the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 "Unfortunately, these days, many folks - maybe most folks, prefer the former description of faith as opposed to the latter. " well, most folks I know have been able to find both, and so need not prefer either over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 well, most folks I know have been able to find both, and so need not prefer either over the other. Speaking purely from a personal perspective, as a Christian, I don't feel good about humanity. I feel good about the ultimate outcome, because I know those who accept Christ have a savior. Regardless, humanity should not be puffing out their collective chest over their "evolution" or act as if they have reached some moralistic mountaintop. As an individual, I feel good about my relationship with God and His willingness to help me grow as His child. But, I am fully aware of my sinfulness and the evils that I would allow myself to be tempted by, and ultimately submit myself to, if it were not for God. Jesse Ventura and some others like to argue that Christianity is a crutch for the weak minded. To some extent, I happen to agree with that sentiment. What those folks dont say, and what needs to be said, is Without God, were all weak minded. Also, Christ is not offering a self-help course. Hes offering salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Rooster7, You're last two posts were fantastic! Very well put. Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 One of the things I have learned from scouting is that it is important to be active in your religious responsibilities. It has also taught me, that as a scout leader, not to judge the value of one faith over another despite my personal beliefs. Bob White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 BW Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 It has also taught me, that as a scout leader, not to judge the value of one faith over another despite my personal beliefs. As a Scout leader, I don't - and I wouldn't openly judge the faith of a Scout, most especially during a Scouting venue. However, as an individual, if you don't judge the value of other faiths over another, particularly in relation to your own, then on what basis have you embraced your faith as truth? And, if it's relationship to truth is not relevant to you, then why even seek to have a faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 "then on what basis have you embraced your faith as truth?" the Sufis say that God makes Himself known to each group in a time and manner and face and place most appropriate to each group; thus, Buddha, Ganesha, Mohammed, Jesus - no one is more nor less true than another, just best suited to a people and so to the individuals thereof. When I lead a prayer, it is to "Lord, Thou, Shepherd of many flocks". God is wise enough to know that the spiritual needs of 20th Century Kansans, and 15th century Plains Indians and !Kung of Africa and ... so on ... all differ. He can show many faces, and in His infinite wisdom and kindness does so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now