God

[boleta]

Here we go again. Old Gray Eagle, get ready!!! Zoroastrians unite!

[packsaddle]

OGE, Hey I'm just reporting my test scores. I got a 100% and a 99%. Not bad.

Take a look at the site, Liberal Quaker is one of the alternatives. I have no idea what I did to get that rating but it makes me proud. And all this time I was wondering why my Presbyterianism made me a little nervous. Destiny, I suppose.

 

BadenP, One of the problems with reading written words is that we don't have the benefit of hearing tone or inflection or cadence. When our minds supply those things during the reading, it may be as much a reflection of our mood as anything. And these forums are often so sloppily written that they exacerbate the problem.

Of course, as you point out, some words are clear in their intent. But sometimes we need to cut the other guy a little slack and look with a larger view. Rooster7 seems a little harsh at times. I've been the recipient as well. But I know he is sincere and I know he really has the best interest of the boys at heart. So what if he disagrees strongly. Remember, he may be looking at the other side of the exchange and reacting similarly.

[BadenP]

Packsaddle

 

I agree, however it was Rooster who went on the attack, not I. There is no doubt in my mind Rooster has the boys at heart, but this was a very different issue and Rooster was in swimming over his head. I was just trying to throw him a lifeline so to speak, but I detest bullys religious or otherwise in a forum like this.

[johndaigler]

Religion is one of this Earth's great dividers of people. Perhaps BSA should disconnect itself from the religious awards program?

 

(with only the slightest bit of sarcasm . . .)Given the history of humankind, maybe religion needs to be grouped with lazer tag and martial arts?

 

 

(more seriously, and maybe even an appropriate direction for the conversation . . .) Is it possible for a Scout to earn any religious award that is not within/of their own faith?

 

Perhaps it's

[johndaigler]

 

Perhaps it's time for a unifying "Religious Tolerance" award???

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

A rather worthless award coming from an organization that practices religious discrimination, don't you think? Kind of like an organization that excludes Australian Aboriginals having a racial tolerance award.

[OldGreyEagle]

boleta, my dear gentleman, now I understand why you are a surgeon and not a radiologist

 

Packsaddle, I understand, and its my own prejudices that led to my comment. I guess I never thought of Quakers as being in anyway way "liberal", oh well live and learn, ain't (sic!) this forum a great hodge-podge of erudition?

 

Oh, and as long as the vocabulary stays at the present level, let the tumult rage. It is only when baser, more scatologically derivitive lyrics are employed do I beleive action is warranted.

[Fat Old Guy]

"A rather worthless award coming from an organization that practices religious discrimination, don't you think? "

 

I don't know about that. We're tolerant of all religions, we just don't tolerate no relegion at all.

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

I found the Belief-o-matic quiz and, interestingly, it gave me a 97% match with the religion in which I was raised even though my beliefs have become modified somewhat with time. Or so I thought.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

FOG writes:

I don't know about that. We're tolerant of all religions, we just don't tolerate no relegion at all.

 

 

That's not what the BSA says; they say you have to believe in at least one god, and have a 'duty to god'. If you subscribe to a religion that doesn't require belief in gods (such as some forms of Buddhism) and do not believe in at least one god, you can't be a member, according to the official statements of the BSA. There's no membership exemption for people who follow a religion while being atheists.

[BadenP]

Tolerance is not a quality found too often in these forums, unless you agree with the majority.

 

The policies regarding religion and the BSA have been creating many problems for scouting for many years now.It is quite apparent many scouters in here feel it perfectly fine to espouse their personal religious beliefs to their boys even if excludes members of their troops with a different faith tradition. The BSA states that a scout is reverent, to a higher power, it nowhere states which religions are okay and which are not, please don't bring up Wicca or Druidism. It is not the right of anyone in this forum to try to define it further with their own personal interpretation. I think the poster who stated that all religious awards should be removed from the scouting program is on the right track, and I am a Christian minister. Instead replace them with a mandatory merit badge in Reverence & Tolerance, to help counteract the damage some scouters do wearing their religion on their sleeves. And FOG please use your spellcheck and grammarcheck so you don't come off sounding so bad.

[Fat Old Guy]

Moi-lin, you really need to move out of Frostbite Falls because your brain has frozen which is giving you troubles with the English language.

 

I'm typing very slowly so you can follow this. . . .

 

An atheist cannot have a religion since "religion" is defined as a belief and reverence for a supernatural power or powers. Atheists have no such beliefs.

[Rooster7]

BadenP,

 

Over the Internet, one can claim a wide assortment of qualifications. You are not the first to do so. When providing an argument, they really have no value. As in real life (vice the World Wide Web), the only qualification that can be proven or appreciated is a well-reasoned argument.

 

In my post, I merely quoted Scripture. The point was to dispute the claim that Jesus accepted everyone unconditionally. Gods love is great, but so is his judgment. I havent completely reconciled some of my theological views (i.e., Calvinism verses Arminianism). Nevertheless, even if all of us have free will and can ultimately chose good life in Jesus, many do not exercise that choice. Jesus clearly warned, those that reject him will not be allowed into the kingdom of Heaven.

 

John 3

35The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."[1]

 

My previous post was not an attack, nor was it unprovoked. It was a reasonably restrained response to this assertion:

 

Religious intolerance is alive and well I see from most of the posts in here, and its ironic that it comes from so called Christians.

 

It seems to me, this statement was designed to goad someone. It should come as no surprise to you that someone chose to respond or that the response was rather direct. Im sorry if you felt it was harsh, but those words are not mine they are the words of Jesus.

 

As far as me being over my head, Ill take that chance. My swimming skills are just fine.

 

I suggest you talk to your pastor about your anger and intolerance.

 

Perhaps you can provide me with that counsel? You are a minister, right? That being the case, Im sure you make a point to conscientiously practice love and tolerance - so to be an example to others.

 

I thought you learned your lesson in the other thread on religion a while back, I guess not.

 

Im sorry Did you or someone else teach me lesson? I dont recall the exchange.

 

Now, instead of reciting your credentials and hurling insults, perhaps you could provide a well-reasoned reply to my question:

 

Do you believe that Jesus died for all unconditionally, regardless of what they believe? If so, explain to me John 3:35 & 36.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[johndaigler]

(Man in too-hot suit (full uniform?) steps up onto soap box...)

 

Wow, we sure can go round and round. It's interesting how quickly we moved away from "Scouts" and how few posts talk about boys and character development.

 

Let's be indifferent to each others' choices and focus on what can help the boys face adulthood in this world - that we exemplify and define so well. Aside from all the banter, and unfortunate nastiness, many of us seem to be straying from the original questions. How can Scouting face the future? Do we hold fast to 100 yr.old ideals? Do we scrap them? Do we grow and change as the world grows and changes around us? Do we want to invite ALL boys into the movement? Would we really lose ourselves if we made changes to what we see as our basic Creeds -- or do we make ourselves better?

 

This stuff was easy for Powell and the early Scouts (just like it was easy for Franklin, Jefferson, etc.) because of the world they lived in. Non-Papist, Christian, white, men ruled their known world. Anything else (women, different race groups, different religious groups, Catholics, foreign nations, the environment, children, etc.)was of less (if any) importance. "God and Country" is only a short step from "God and King", after all.

 

We all know that we come to this forum and to our scouting efforts in the hopes of helping boys. Though it will be more difficult for us, do we see ourselves as less than Powell, Beard, Hillcourt and all the others? Let's put our differences away and work on our commonalities. If we worked together, we could be the Powells for the boys of 3004.

 

(Having spoken much too long, man steps off soap box and walks away -- note "Taps" playing in the background.)

 

[NJCubScouter]

Just on a lark I decided to play Belief-O-Matic again and not do it as quickly as I did yesterday, and think about the answers a bit more. As you may recall, yesterday I got a 100 percent for Sikhism followed by a 96 for Reform Judaism. Well, here are my latest results:

 

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)

2. Liberal Quakers (91%)

3. Bah' Faith (85%)

4. Unitarian Universalism (83%)

5. Reform Judaism (65%)

 

At least Reform Judaism got in the top 5. Evidently I am not in quite as Sikhish a mood as I was yesterday. (Today Sikhism was 8th, 57 percent. It may interest some to know that 6th and 7th were Neo-Pagan and Secular Humanism, both in the 60's.)

 

Yesterday I said I thought this quiz was really testing one's philosophical beliefs much more than one's religious (or "faith") beliefs. Based on today's results and a comparison with yesterday's, it seems possible that the whole thing is someone's idea of a joke, and the answers come up randomly. But either way, one of these two explanations (it's a joke, or it's about philosophy and not religion) seems the best way to account for the fact that I get 100 percent for "Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestant," when I am not a Christian.