God

[johndaigler]

Rooster, the soapbox isn't so high yet that you can't climb up. There's room for more than just me up here. I think, if we tried, we could find room for Merlyn and Ed and all the others as well. Though our beliefs may differ, that shouldn't mean we can't work together . . . just bring something to the table. What would you add to a religious tolerance program? Don't you think it's a good idea? Isn't it within us to teach the boys to be better than what we are? Isn't it our responsibility

[NJCubScouter]

I just did a little experiment with Belief-O-Matic, and if it is possible to "beat" a computerized quiz, I think I just did. Or, showed the whole thing to be either a fraud, or deeply flawed. (Hey, that rhymes.)

 

I answered either "None of the above" or "Not applicable" to every question, except for the one where neither was an option, so I left that one blank.

 

Here is what I got:

 

1. Bah' Faith (100%)

2. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (100%)

3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (100%)

4. Jehovah's Witness (100%)

5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)

6. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (66%)

7. Liberal Quakers (50%)

8. New Thought (33%)

9. Unitarian Universalism (33%)

10. Nontheist (26%)

11. Secular Humanism (26%)

12. Neo-Pagan (13%)

 

Every other faith (there are 27 altogether) was at 0 percent.

 

This result is pretty wild. You'd think that Non-Theist and Secular Humanism would have been a bit higher than 26 percent, if I basically answered none of the questions.

 

And does this mean that Bahai, Christian Scientists, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mainline/Liberal Protestants all believe in nothing? Or, that I exposed a flaw in the program?

 

I vote for door number 2.

[NJCubScouter]

If you chose to believe differently -- if you stated that Jesus was not the Son of God, I would not be offended.

 

So in other words, Rooster, what what you believe is the "truth", but what I believe is what I "choose to believe"? Actually, I don't find that offensive, I find it amusing.

 

Notice, by the way, in my previous post I never used the word "offended" or any variation thereof. I phrased my post in terms of your conduct, not mine, or my reaction to yours. You don't respect the beliefs of others, and it is you who are accountable for that, it has nothing to do with how I feel about it.

 

The point, anyway, is that I don't state my beliefs about Jesus Christ, or lack thereof. For that matter I don't state my beliefs or lack thereof about Allah, Vishnu or any other deity believed in by others. I choose not to state them or debate them. I don't see the point. Since I have described myself enough for people to know that I am not a Christian and that I am at least ethnically and culturally Jewish, I figure that people understand that that carries certain implications about what I believe or don't believe, and out of respect for their beliefs, I mostly leave it at that. (Where I have given more details, it is about what parts of my ancestral religion I don't necessarily go with.)

 

Id probably debate you, but why should I take it personally. Its your belief.

 

What would be the point in "debating" religious beliefs? I suppose you can discuss them so the other person understands what you believe, and I have done so (rarely in this forum), but how can you "debate" them? Debate assumes one of two things, one, that either or both party can prove they are correct, which nobody can when it comes to religion, because beliefs are based on faith, not on evidence. (Even the Bible is not evidence, because before you rely on it as fact, you have to believe it is the word of God, or written to God's specific instructions, or like that. I suppose if two people believe in the same text, they can debate what it means, but that's not the same thing.)

 

Or, two, a person might "debate" religion if he is trying to convince the other person, or spectators, that his belief is correct. I have no desire to convince anyone that my religious beliefs are correct.

 

Are you offended by any religion that does not proclaim salvation for all - unconditionally?

 

There we go with "offended" again. But, ignoring that, your statement assumes a lot, like that I believe we are "saved" or not based on what we believe -- or at all, for that matter.

 

If so, Belief-O-Matic may be in need of a repair, because I would peg you 100 percent as a Unitarian (Universalism).

 

If that is meant as a negative comment, it doesn't work with me. I would just point out that "Unitarian" (to my understanding) means a Christian who does not believe in the Trinity, so I can't be that, because I am not a Christian. As for "Universalist," I have never thought of myself as one, but based on the definition of it that you have given recently, it's close enough. It seems to me the world would be a happier and more peaceful place if we all respected the beliefs of others.

 

Im sorry to say, all paths do not lead to God.

 

You think. I, on the other hand, don't know whether any paths "lead to God." I think that if it is ever important that I know, I will find out at the appropriate time, and there won't be any need to debate about it. What I personally think we are supposed to do while we are here is mostly treat each other as we would wish to be treated (yes, the Golden Rule, described in more detail in the "Scout Law" portion of the Scout Handbook -- including the part about respecting the beliefs of others.) If we do that, and it turns out that there is a "judgment" at some point, I think we are in pretty good shape regardless of what we have believed.

 

Or at least, that's what I think.

[Rooster7]

Johndaigler,

 

Yes, Ive been up on that box a few times

 

What would you add to a religious tolerance program? Don't you think it's a good idea?

 

The boys should be encouraged to respect individuals based on their own merits.

 

If a Scout starts talking to his dog as if his pet is some kind of god or spiritual creature, are the other boys to be scolded when they laugh at him? I know thats an extreme example, but you are asking me to respect Paganism, right?

 

[johndaigler]

WOW, you take big steps, Rooster!!!!

 

I'm not sure how you traveled from my questions to a boy and his dog, but ...

 

Let me try again, and don't over think this or put words in that you imagine I mean. Just take me at face value - I'm a simple man.

 

I think religion is best taught by families and religious organizations. Scouting, however, proposes to take the young men of the world and help them become more/better, but is not a religious organization. Additionally, history shows us that religion is often a point of misunderstanding, contention, and worse. I think Scouting would better serve the boys if there was a program that "rewarded" understanding, tolerance and acceptance of others and their belief systems. After all, we're willing to reward the boys for having these belief systems. I'm just looking to get your thoughts on that. But I want your best effort, not some throw away comment about a boy and his talking dog. BSA already accepts scouts who would fall under your word "pagan", and we as Scouters certainly approve of reverance, so I'm just suggesting we better learn to understand/accept each others' reverance.

 

Sorry, Rooster, to make it up onto the soapbox you'll need to try a little harder.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

Debating religious beliefs can serve many purposes. A thoughtful conversation can reaffirm ones faith or give one pause to investigate another. And if nothing else, these debates serve to sharpen our ability to explain and/or defend our religious beliefs to others. Furthermore, as a Christian, I believe I have an obligation to others. That is to say, part of my faith compels me to share what I know in my heart to be true. If that results in a debate about faith, so be it. I wont feel disrespected if someone expresses an opinion different from mine; so long as I am given a chance to share my thoughts as well.

 

If Johns religious tolerance program ever becomes a reality, I hope it emphasizes tolerance to honest religious discussions as opposed to the religions themselves. That is an idea that I can respect. I cannot respect, nor would I want my boys trained by the BSA to respect, non-sense such as Paganism.

[Fuzzy Bear]

From the dawn of time, people have observed life's mysteries and solved them with their god, gods, God or science. Simultaneously, if people refused to accept the chosen Faith, they were generally killed or thrown out. Scouting has tried to temper this insoluble problem with the use of tolerance and badges that directs the person to their personal faith. I have witnessed this to be a fair and equitable adjustment given the brutal history of most all religions and in retrospect of the last eight pages of caustic diatribe.

 

FB

 

[boleta]

I keep reading these threads because of the wonderful input of new members like JDaigler. It is refreshing to hear new and different opinions from a junior member of the Forum. Welcome.

 

Although I do not agree with Rooster, I respect his beliefs. I have many friends who feel the same way. They know I do not agree and respect my beliefs as well (although they are concerned because they "know" that I am going to hell). When there are mutually exclusive religious beliefs, there is no point in arguing correctness of those beliefs. A religion that instructs its members to save others from damnation by converting them to the fold cannot help but insult the other members and be offensive to them. From his posts in other threads, I do not think Rooster would impose his beliefs on a Scout before him on a BOR.

 

To question the Scout about how he fulfills his duty to God and his reverence is acceptable. Hopefully, if the answer does not conform to a BOR member's narrow view of how this should be fulfilled, the Scout would not suffer for the difference.

[packsaddle]

Merlyn, I stand corrected.

johndaigler, in a now-deceased thread a while back there was significant discussion of whether BSA is or is not a religious organization. A persuasive argument was given that BSA itself claimed, in court submissions, to be a religious organization. In the letter that Merlyn referred to earlier, BSA claims to be an 'ecumenical' organization. One dominant definition of 'ecumenical':

"a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation"

Sounds like a religious organization to me.

 

Edited part: NJ, I read your experimental scores and I compliment you for thinking of that. I, however, am tempted to use the results as evidence that the top scorers must be extremely similar to each other. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[evmori]

I would love to get Merlyn in a room & debate him!

[johndaigler]

Packsaddle, put aside the use of "ecumenical" in one letter by one idividual for a minute. BSA certainly isn't suggesting that it's capable of doling out religious training - or that it any way represents the combined faiths of the various churches, even that smallish group called "Christian". That certainly would be the scariest concept I've read in this whole thread!!!! I don't think anyone wants BSA teaching boys'anything more religiously based than a "strong moral compass".

 

Boleta, BORs discussing a boy's faith. I haven't been involved in any since my own years ago, but that seems close to an uncrossable line. I hope those adults are extremely careful and respectful of "reverance" and "God" defined by someone other than themselves.

 

FB, Why not leave the person's personal faith organization with that concern. Certainly, they'll do it better than BSA. We could/should offer something different - like an emphasis on respecting/understanding the choices of others. I don't think "tolerance" should be an understated, unwritten custom. It needs to be taught and celebrated.

 

Rooster, I don't think you and I can go much further. You keep using "Pagan" as a drop-dead point, which is a bit too easy for my taste, the world's filled with shades of grey and it seems like you want it black and white. I understand your lack of trust in beliefs so oddly different than your own, but my concern is that you (and BSA) set yourself up then to be the judges of just what constitutes a "real religion" and what's "non-sense". As long as you feel the impulse to draw that line anywhere at all, then I won't see you and "tolerance" in the same sentence. It's your call for you and yours, but tolerant people accept others' choices, including the ones they can't fathom.

[Rooster7]

John,

 

I would not be happy with the BSA if they attempted to force feed a religious tolerance program (whatever that means Im not sure) on my kids. I, and those I explicitly entrust to do so, will train my children in matters of faith. I feel the program you are suggesting, is not appropriate (even if Paganism wasnt an accepted faith by the BSA). Is that clear enough?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[johndaigler]

R7,

 

Clear enough, ... except...,

 

"Force Feed"?????????????????????????????????????????

 

BSA doesn't "force feed" merit badges, ranks, religious awards (and I would assume, therefore, a religious tolerance award) or much else (except for those questionable red berets back in the 70's!)

 

You don't have to keep jumping into the deep end of the pool! Open the door,

[johndaigler]

R7,

 

Clear enough, ... except...,

 

"Force Feed"?????????????????????????????????????????

 

BSA doesn't "force feed" merit badges, ranks, religious awards (and I would assume, therefore, a religious tolerance award) or much else (except for those questionable red berets back in the 70's!)

 

You don't have to keep jumping into the deep end of the pool! Open the door, R7, the world's not really that scary!

 

You seem untrusting of where BSA might go with such a concept as "religious tolerance". That seems funny to me since BSA is much more in tune with you and your sensibilities than with my poor mental meanderings.

 

Thanks for the chat,

See ya somewhere else perhaps,

[OldGreyEagle]

Mr Daigler, I highly object to a portion of your last post. I did not find at the time, nor do I now find the Red Beret's of the 70's questionable. What style of headgear do many portions of the US military now sport? The BSA was ahead of its time.