Disturbing news from Philly, not Scout related

[OldGreyEagle]

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[packsaddle]

Gulp, I guess I'm also guilty of some of that stuff. But if I apply reductio ad absurdum....Ed yanking chains - he quite possibly could actually be Zorn/FOG/etc. or whoever. Yikes, my conspiracy sensors are on full alert now! Yikes again! If I'm also guilty of that stuff I also could actually be Ed/Zorn/FOG. Uhhhhhh, I think it's time to transport ol' NOMAD out to deep space.

[Hunt]

It was pretty clear to me that Ed was saying that ACLU supports atheists, not religious people. While this view is mistaken, it is not a "lie." It is an unfair exaggeration. It is a view of the ACLU (wrongly) shared by many people who (rightly) perceive the ACLU as a primarily liberal organization.

I tried to ignore Merlyn when he called me a liar (also unfairly), but for some reason I still see his posts (is it because I have cookies turned off?). Isn't it about time to ban him for this behavior? Or maybe since he's not a scout or a scouter, it's a good counterexample for youth who might be reading this?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt, I didn't call you a liar unfairly; you made a false statement about my views without bothering to find out from me if they actually WERE my views. In a similar vein, Ed has made false statements about who the ACLU will and will not defend.

 

Now, you can call these "unfair exaggerations," and the Alabama council can tell the FBI that they only made some "unfair exaggerations," but I will continue to use the much shorter term "lies." I also wonder why my calling lies "lies" (instead of using mealy-mouthed and misleading wording like "unfair exaggerations") makes you want to get me banned, or that you consider me a good counter-example as a non-scouter. The BSA hardly looks like an honest organization nowadays, and ignoring dishonest behavior won't help.

 

I don't use the word "liar" as a pejorative insult; I use it when, in my opinion, a person is lying.

[evmori]

OK. What I posted is my opinion. To me it seems that if someone steps on an atheists' rights (which are the same as my Christian rights) the ACLU is front and center defending them. Now when a Christians' rights are stepped on, it seems the ACLU is "taking a closer look" at the situation before getting involved. Seems very selective to me.

 

Merlyn is an atheist. And if you post an opinion contrary to his belief, you are a liar!

 

I am a Christian. If you post an opinion contrary to my belief you are not a liar. I might not agree with you, but I respect your right to your state your belief. Big difference from Merlyn.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Merlyn is an atheist. And if you post an opinion contrary to his belief, you are a liar!

 

Stop lying, Ed.

[Hunt]

Calling a person a liar is rude. Responding to arguments that you don't like by labeling them lies-even if you think they are untrue--shows that you aren't trying to persuade anyone of your position, but are just trying to be annoying and obnoxious to those who disagree with you (and even--amazingly--those who agree with you). People who are genuinely trying to convince others will correct inaccurate statements without accusations. Merlyn, again, I think you should apologize for your rudeness, and stick to civil arguments defending your point of view. If you can't do that--if you're just here to sow discord and insult people--well, I don't like namecalling, but that's usually called trolling on the Internet.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As I said before, I don't use the word 'liar' as an insult, I use it when I think someone is lying; I don't care if you think it's rude.

[FScouter]

"Calling a person a liar is rude."

Hunt is right on. The term is tossed around much too much. I personally discount the argument of anyone that resorts to calling their opponent a "liar". When the "liar" accusation is made, I tune out.

[packsaddle]

Climbing through the tangled web...

Deceptions are upon us practically from birth. And we are the authors and perpetrators. I think the 'label' ethic applies here. It would be better to avoid the label and focus on the idea.

Nevertheless, to address the label itself, a person can be mistaken but if that is an honest mistake it doesn't qualify them as a liar in my judgement. My harsh judgement of G.W. Bush as a liar, for example, did not arrive until I learned that he knew of the uncertainty of the existence of WMDs before he claimed there was no doubt. If he had not known beforehand of that uncertainty it could have been an honest mistake.

But slinging the labels around is still unproductive. It doesn't address the ideas at all. Similarly, I can rant about Bush being a liar but he will still be there sending good people to their graves. And my rants won't do anything to save them.

[Rooster7]

BadenP,

 

Rooster, Rooster, Rooster, what can I say, your simplistic approach to understanding the Word of God is a constant source of amusement to me.

 

My son, keep my words and store up my commands within you. Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart. Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," and call understanding your kinsman; they will keep you from the adulteress, from the wayward wife with her seductive words. Proverbs 7:1-5

 

Gods Word is plain to me. Im sorry you feel it needs to be so complicated.

 

Let me remind you, those red letter editions of Jesus quotes are an interpretation of an ancient language Aramaic that Jesus spoke. Many of those red letter translations are poor attempts of deciphering the ancient texts. Even the ancient Greek of the New Testament bears little to no resemblance of modern day Greek.

 

So, I take it that youre an expert on ancient languages? Please demonstrate your expertise here and show me how I have misinterpreted Gods Word. Demonstrate with a specific example and specific verses, how have I taken a simplistic approach?

 

So please don't claim to be speaking for God to me or others because you do not, nor do you really understand the true meaning of God's word by quoting a line of scripture out of context, which you so often do.

 

I must admit. This assertion makes me angry. First, I never claim to speak for you or anyone else. I merely presented my understanding of Gods Word. Secondly, if youre going to accuse someone of misinterpreting Gods Word, you should be specific and support your arguments with Scripture. Something you failed to do, and something I have yet to see you do.

 

Every book in the Bible was written for a particular time in history to a specific group of people. While there may be application for us today 2,000+ years later that was not the original intent of the writers.

 

Im aware of the history behind the Bible. Im also aware of the fact that all of Scripture is God breathed. With that said, Im fairly confident that the Bible does have application for us today 2,000+ years later, regardless of what the original intent of the writers may have been.

 

I suggest you talk to an actual ordained minister who went to an accredited seminary and ask them for guidance on how to PROPERLY read and understand the Holy Bible, instead of constantly misinterpreting it as you so often do.

 

Again, I see no reasoned argument or Scripture to support your assertions. You claim to have much expertise, without offering any.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

On a related topic, well actually, its the topic of the thread, it will just seem unrelated

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14851

 

All charges were dropped against the biblical readers and First Amendment Rights were upheld. YoungSpikedEagle feels better, as do I. I am not sure I would preach against Homosexuality publicly, but who knows, some day I may want to make my opinions known about a topic on which I am on the unpopular side. I don't want to have to worry about going to prison because I voice an unpopular opinion.

[Hunt]

"As I said before, I don't use the word 'liar' as an insult, I use it when I think someone is lying; I don't care if you think it's rude."

 

Well, you ought to care, and you would care if you were really participating here in order to persuade people of your point of view. If, on the other hand, you are simply trolling this message board, I can see why you wouldn't care. Which is it?

Also, the claim that you don't use the word "liar" as an insult is pretty funny...in fact, it's a...well, let's say it's an "inoperative statement."

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

Well, you ought to care, and you would care if you were really participating here in order to persuade people of your point of view. If, on the other hand, you are simply trolling this message board, I can see why you wouldn't care. Which is it?

 

That's a false dichotomy. And I don't agree with your assumption that shying away from using the term "liar" makes it easier to persuade people to one's point of view.

 

If people use invalid methods of argument (like false dichotomies) I'll actually point out that they are using a false dichotomy; similarly, if someone is using an invalid method of argument by simply lying, I'll point out that they're lying. Neither one is part of a valid argument.

[BadenP]

Rooster

I could quote you scripture after scripture to no avail because you are not formally trained, like most people, in exegetics and theology so you are not properly equipped to debate scripture formally, nor is this the proper forum to do so. Thats why I suggested you speak with a formally trained minister who could help increase your understanding and application of scripture. We could take all your former postings on any issue such as the proper prayers to use in a scout meeting to homosexuality in scouting and I could pick your arguments apart, but to what end because you truly do not understand scripture other than on a very superficial level. Your blantant misuse of scripture to condemn anyone you disagree with proves that point. Here is a scripture just for you, "Judge not lest you be judged." That would be a good starting point for you.