SpiralScouts

[Bob White]

I have difficulty understanding how some people feel they are fit to comment on the feelings and beliefs of a religion they do not practice, regardless if it is their own or someone elses.

 

Respectfully,

BW

 

[mk9750]

I stand corrected. I took as fact a memory of a conversation I had with an aunt (not Catholic) probably 20 years ago. Either her statement was false, or, more likely, my memory of what she said failed me. I am sorry.

 

Packsaddle,

 

I agree. I think I stated clearly that I don't intend to argue the value of any religion over another. But I will protect "my" religion when I think someone is disparaging it. And I don't mean Rooster7. I think the general tone of many of the posts portrayed an anti Catholic slant, and I don't think that was fair.

 

I am not as passionate about my faith as I wish I were, nor as passionate as some posters here. But I just won't hear of others saying being Catholic is wrong, which is what I interpretted some posts to be saying. BW makes a great statement - " I have difficulty understanding how some people feel they are fit to comment on the feelings and beliefs of a religion they do not practice, regardless if it is their own or someone elses."

 

Mark

 

 

 

Mark

[Rooster7]

Just to reiterate...There was no intended disparaging remarks against Catholics in my posts. Not unless one equates a discussion about differences between Protestant and Catholic faiths as disparaging. As I already noted, most of my family is Catholic. I harbor no ill will for those who practice the faith.

 

I have difficulty understanding how some people feel they are fit to comment on the feelings and beliefs of a religion they do not practice, regardless if it is their own or someone elses.

 

How does practicing a religion make one more fit to comment? If a person believes faith is all about feelings, then I would have to agree. I cant comment on anyones feelings. However, if we are discussing beliefs, then one should be able discuss religion just as easily as one discusses politics or BSA policy. Objectivity is not impossible, even in a discussion concerning faith. It either makes sense or it doesnt? And just like any other intelligent conversation, those who participate are free to walk away thinking and feeling as they please.

[Bob White]

"It either makes sense or it doesnt?"

To whom?

 

Religions and religious beliefs are intricate and deeply personal. A Person has every right to speak on behalf on what they see is the Truth in a faith they know and practice. But for anyone to comment on beliefs, doctrine, or failings of a religion they do not practice is presumptuous at best, and does an injustice to that faith.

 

Dont tell me what its like to live in my house if dont live there now.

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fat Old Guy]

" But that member should also realize what is better for them, may not be better for their neighbor."

 

That boat don't float. I know that my faith is correct just as I know the Earth is round (okay, it is an oblate spheroid but it is roughly round). Why should I have anymore respect for someone who worships dogs or rocks than I have for those who believe that the Earth is flat?

 

 

[packsaddle]

Augustine said that faith has no purpose if not to transcend reason.

 

FOG, I think there is a large difference between an objective observation such as the shape of the earth, and a belief in, for example, some part of the 'natural' world as a deity. In the former, it is theoretically possible for you to communicate precisely the means by which you measured the shape of the earth and for another person with the same means or a better one to critically examine your observation of the earth's shape by repeating the exercise. I suppose that it is possible for one person to communicate exactly their faith to another using words or other forms of communication. I have simply not observed this yet.

 

As for respect, for example, for worship of a rock (do you refer here to Native American reverence for certain mountains? Or to Mt. Sinai?) I suggest you refresh your memory, "A Scout is reverent; he is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions and beliefs of others in matters of custom and religion." This statement makes no exceptions that I can detect.

[Rooster7]

It either makes sense or it doesnt?"

To whom?

 

To intelligent people who listen to logic and reason.

 

Religions and religious beliefs are intricate and deeply personal.

 

Yes. Usually when one says deeply personal in reference to ones faith, its meant in terms of ones personal relationship with God. If this is your assertion, I would not argue that point. But even so, its not a pretext to rule out discussing someone elses religion. In the context that youve presented this statement, you seem to be implying that individuals personalize their faiths to their preferred way of thinking? If so, thats just another way of saying truth is relative. Either way, I dont see that statement as a justification to stop healthy conversation.

 

A Person has every right to speak on behalf on what they see is the Truth in a faith they know and practice. But for anyone to comment on beliefs, doctrine, or failings of a religion they do not practice is presumptuous at best, and does an injustice to that faith.

 

Its not presumptuous to have a discussion concerning faiths that youve previously practiced or investigated. Discussions based on knowledge and concern for one another is how people learn and grow. To assume such discussions are rooted in malice, now that would be presumptuous at best, and does an injustice to intelligent people. Regardless of what one practices, it is usually appropriate to speak the truth, especially if ones purpose is to edify.

 

Dont tell me what its like to live in my house if dont live there now.

 

Bob, for future reference - if you truly believe that proclamation, there are a number of topics that you should disqualify yourself from debating. Personally - no matter what characteristics I posses that others may use to define me religion, gender, sexual preference, nationality, race, etc., I will always have a brain. I refuse to disqualify myself from a topic of discussion simply because someone else refuses to use his/her brain. I will debate homosexuality with a homosexualI will argue against abortion with a feministI will proclaim my faith to an atheist. Conversely, if a black teenaged girl from Alabama wants to discuss Washington politics with a 44-year-old white male from Maryland, Im game. Im not going to diminish her input, simply because she hasnt lived in my house. We can exchange ideas. Truth doesnt have a gender, age, race, or religious affiliation.

 

[Bob White]

First Rooster my comments regarding commenting on others beliefs were not directed at you.

 

Secondly,"To intelligent people who listen to logic and reason" and by whose standards are we judging this?

 

Third, if a black teenage girl from Alabama wants to discuss Washington politics with a 44-year-old white male from Maryland, I would hope he would have the good sense to only explain himself and not tell her what it is like to be a black girl in Alabama.

 

If you want to discuss religion fine. But I wouldn't recommend doing it by telling someone what they believe. Tell them what you believe, and ask if they believe the same or differently. If they feel that it is any of your business they will answer.

 

Bob White

[Rooster7]

First Rooster my comments regarding commenting on others beliefs were not directed at you.

 

It appeared that way to me, but thats not important.

 

Secondly,"To intelligent people who listen to logic and reason" and by whose standards are we judging this?

 

Ive always felt logic and reason were universal standards. You know it when you hear it.

 

Third, if a black teenage girl from Alabama wants to discuss Washington politics with a 44-year-old white male from Maryland, I would hope he would have the good sense to only explain himself and not tell her what it is like to be a black girl in Alabama.

 

Actually, youve flip-flopped my example.

 

You see, Im willing to listen to her. If she wanted to describe what she thought it was like to be a 44-year-old white male in Maryland, it wouldnt bother me. I might not agree with her assessment, but shes certainly free to tell me what she thinks. Conversely, if people are talking and not shouting, I see no reason why she couldnt listen to me describe what I thought her life must be like. I realize in the politically correct world of race relations, a white man couldnt possibly offer any wisdom to a black teenaged girl, but in my religion - PC isnt worth squat. Oops, there I go again.

 

If you want to discuss religion fine. But I wouldn't recommend doing it by telling someone what they believe. Tell them what you believe, and ask if they believe the same or differently. If they feel that it is any of your business they will answer.

 

One I never tell anyone what they believe personally. I cant tell anyone that unless they tell me first. On the other hand, if someone claims to be a follower of a particular religion, then I should be able to determine what that person believes by studying his religion. If thats not the case, then perhaps that person isnt really the follower he describes himself to be.

 

Two If I want to have a discussion about religion, I dont need to put a gun to anyones head. In fact, I dont even have to ask. There are plenty of folks that participate in these discussions without self-imploding. Sensitivity and emotions are matter of self-discipline.

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"A Scout is reverent; he is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions and beliefs of others in matters of custom and religion." This statement makes no exceptions that I can detect.

 

The first point of the law is a Scout is Trustworthy. To me that also means that a Scout should not tolerate falsehoods. We have already established that my religion is the truth so it follows that other religions must espouse falsehoods. Hence, I have no duty to respect other religions.

[NWScouter]

FOG, I hope you are pulling our leg with that last post. For if you are not, that post and the second paragraph is the is the very opposite of what I learned and believed in from the day I joined Scouts.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

At what point did we Spiral out of control?

[SR540Beaver]

OGE,

 

What? Are you getting dizzy? Put your head between your knees and take long deep breaths.

[Marty_Doyle]

OGE -

Sometime Tuesday, July 1 around 9am.

 

I'd love to argue transubstantiation versus consubstantiation, et cetera, with you all, but I'm not sure of the relevance.

I have my beleifs, and you have yours. I won't convert you to mine, and the Jesuits made sure you won't convert me to yours.

 

The Scout Law - Reverent - compels me to respect your adherence to your religious beliefs. And Trustworthy doesn't compel me to override Reverent.

 

This really isn't about comparative religion, it is about membership standards, as Bob White has been pointing out. The Boy Scouts "allows" for the wearing of certain religious emblems on the BSA uniform. Those that it "disallows" relate to the differences in the membership standards only.

 

I thought that the original post was that we could now direct those unhappy with BSA's position on certain inflammatory issues to some other organization like SpiralScouts (for years, people have been complaining "Why do they want to change BSA, why don't they just form their own organization?).

 

[Glenn]

Rooter7,

 

I still don't think you understand what the Catholic Church teaches. She teaches that all salvation will come through Her, being the Church that Jesus established. When you quoted some of the website:

 

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

 

Please note that it says that one who KNOWS the Catholic Church was founded as necessary is required to enter and/or remain. Those people who through no fault of their own do not believe this (i.e. never taught correctly, born and raised Protestant, etc.) are NOT condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

Finally, the Catholic Church teaches that all non-Catholic Christian churches teach some truth, but only the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith.

 

As for receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, since this is the greatest sacrament we Catholics partake of, it shows our community of faith to receive it. Therefore, as mk? said, only Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox may receive Jesus in the Eucharist.