Do you like the Boy Scouts of America?

[DWise1_AOL]

Bring us back to why we should like the BSA (or not) ...

 

"First reason why: Fruits of the Spirit (FotS) explicitly only applies to Christians. In the USA, only about 73-76% of the population self-identifies as Christian. So in the classroom, FotS would only apply to three-quarters of the students. What about the other 25%? You'd have to tell them that it doesn't apply to them, since they're not Christian. You would effectively be telling them that those ideals are not for them So what are you tell them to aspire to?"

 

Putting aside how many Christians actually have a clue about the Fruit of the Spirit (let alone it's context or that it is singular) and that it may possibly apply to them as they build their communities (a much smaller figure than DW's generous count above) ....

 

There are probably far fewer people who have said the Scout Law even once. Certainly not most women (not even our Venturers, yet). So, much less than 50%. How popular does an institution have to be before it becomes part of of an American school student's lexicon? I've heard the occasional public speaker refer to it. Membership statistics aside, has it become a bit of a national Icon? So much so, that if the institution continues its decline, will it be an inexorable part of our history books?

 

Or is it just a blip on the radar of progress?

Bring us back to why we should like the BSA (or not) ...

I have tried, but it's Eagledad who's led us astray here.

 

Putting aside how many Christians actually have a clue about the Fruit of the Spirit (let alone it's context or that it is singular) and that it may possibly apply to them as they build their communities (a much smaller figure than DW's generous count above) ....

OK, you want to lead us further astray.

 

I agree that a lot of Christians don't know enough about their religion. Usually they've grown up in it, had "put in their pew time" as Mike Doonesbury put it, know everything they're supposed to do say in the rituals, but they never really learned anything about it. A similar situation has been described to me about the effects of the phenomenal growth of fundamentalism during the "Jesus Freak" movement of circa 1970, in that the churches had to abandon the traditional program that took several years of study in favor of bringing everybody up quick by telling them what to believe backed up with a smattering of Bible verses pulled out of context; it's been suggested that creationists' affinity for quote-mining and their inability to see anything wrong with the practice is because they had learned to do the same thing with the Bible.

 

It is my position and it has always been my position that everybody should practice their own religion, but at the very least they need to know everything that they can about their own religion. That is why I was proactive in our pack in promoting the Religious Emblems Program. That is also why I will challenge believers to examine their own beliefs and to not be afraid to question those beliefs, because that is the only way that they can test whether they have misunderstood something. For a neutral example, think of the young school girl who didn't want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because she was afraid of the four witches: "... and to the republic, four witches stand, ..." When all that they've done was to put in their pew time, then the most that they learned about their religion was as a child. Too many believers, not just Christian, have childish ideas about their religion and about their god because they formed those ideas in childhood and never returned to question those ideas as they themselves matured. Again, that is discussed in Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God, by Rabbi Jack Bemporad and Michael Shevack, one of the pearls I had cast before Eagledad.

 

There are probably far fewer people who have said the Scout Law even once. Certainly not most women (not even our Venturers' date=' yet). So, much less than 50%.[/quote']

True enough, I guess. So what does that have to do with anything?

 

How popular does an institution have to be before it becomes part of of an American school student's lexicon?

What does that have to do with anything? It most certainly has absolutely nothing to do with what we've been talking about, which is whether a specific Christian doctrine, Fruit of the Spirit, has any merit to be taught to all students, Christian and non-Christian alike.

 

Sorry, but that is a very stupid question that you just asked. Which makes me wonder whether you even have any clue at all about what we've been talking about.

 

Yet again, what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

[packsaddle]

"Oh, would I'd been rammed and eternally clammed Ere I perched on this whango tree."

 

You can bet your nooties bil! will find an umptum lorn!

[MattR]

I'd like to echo Packsaddle's opinion (not the whango tree thing, which is probably better then pack singing), only not just for the current circle of death. Back in January I put up a thread that referenced a bible story about how arguing to pulverize your opponent is not only wrong (people got swallowed up by the earth!) but also a waste of time. Arguing to understand each other and learn from each other, however, is fine. The difference is subtle but we need to back off, or at least be courteous when we cross that line. Since January we've crossed a lot of those lines.

 

What we're arguing about is whose beliefs are better, or wiser. There's an old saying that, to paraphrase, says wisdom without good deeds is not wisdom. We're arguing about wisdom and seem to be ignoring the good deeds. So how wise are we?

 

The amazing thing is that the beliefs we're arguing over have helped every one of us to do the right thing for the boys. We wouldn't be here if we didn't think we were helping kids. We're all doing good deeds.

 

The arguing is not a good deed. It's not helping us deal with single parent families or helicopter parents or selfish kids. In fact, it's causing problems. Eammon nearly left. What about AZMike and Beaveh? Anyone else we haven't heard from lately? Scouting in general and this website in particular should be a place where people help each other out. Sometimes it's hard to be friendly, courteous, and kind, but maybe we should just suck it up and take the high road. The kids might appreciate it.

[Eagledad]

I'd like to echo Packsaddle's opinion (not the whango tree thing, which is probably better then pack singing), only not just for the current circle of death. Back in January I put up a thread that referenced a bible story about how arguing to pulverize your opponent is not only wrong (people got swallowed up by the earth!) but also a waste of time. Arguing to understand each other and learn from each other, however, is fine. The difference is subtle but we need to back off, or at least be courteous when we cross that line. Since January we've crossed a lot of those lines.

 

What we're arguing about is whose beliefs are better, or wiser. There's an old saying that, to paraphrase, says wisdom without good deeds is not wisdom. We're arguing about wisdom and seem to be ignoring the good deeds. So how wise are we?

 

The amazing thing is that the beliefs we're arguing over have helped every one of us to do the right thing for the boys. We wouldn't be here if we didn't think we were helping kids. We're all doing good deeds.

 

The arguing is not a good deed. It's not helping us deal with single parent families or helicopter parents or selfish kids. In fact, it's causing problems. Eammon nearly left. What about AZMike and Beaveh? Anyone else we haven't heard from lately? Scouting in general and this website in particular should be a place where people help each other out. Sometimes it's hard to be friendly, courteous, and kind, but maybe we should just suck it up and take the high road. The kids might appreciate it.

While I fully agree with the point of your post, there has been no debate, argument or even really a presentation of ideas in this discussion. Read from the very first post and I think you will agree the discussion can at best be described as rehash of Alice in Wonderland. Just the rant as a result of bad grammer should expose the bizarre nature of tone. LOL, then we are entertained by Packs proclamation that we no chance of convincing the other. Of WHAT?, misspelling. Lets at least keep whats left of this discussion honest, there was no attempt to be less than friendly courteous or kinds by most of the participants. In fact, in light of how the discussion (discussion?) actually layed (grammer again) i think there was a tremendous display of friendly, courteous, kindness as well as peace, patience, and self control. Barry

[DWise1_AOL]

I'd like to echo Packsaddle's opinion (not the whango tree thing, which is probably better then pack singing), only not just for the current circle of death. Back in January I put up a thread that referenced a bible story about how arguing to pulverize your opponent is not only wrong (people got swallowed up by the earth!) but also a waste of time. Arguing to understand each other and learn from each other, however, is fine. The difference is subtle but we need to back off, or at least be courteous when we cross that line. Since January we've crossed a lot of those lines.

 

What we're arguing about is whose beliefs are better, or wiser. There's an old saying that, to paraphrase, says wisdom without good deeds is not wisdom. We're arguing about wisdom and seem to be ignoring the good deeds. So how wise are we?

 

The amazing thing is that the beliefs we're arguing over have helped every one of us to do the right thing for the boys. We wouldn't be here if we didn't think we were helping kids. We're all doing good deeds.

 

The arguing is not a good deed. It's not helping us deal with single parent families or helicopter parents or selfish kids. In fact, it's causing problems. Eammon nearly left. What about AZMike and Beaveh? Anyone else we haven't heard from lately? Scouting in general and this website in particular should be a place where people help each other out. Sometimes it's hard to be friendly, courteous, and kind, but maybe we should just suck it up and take the high road. The kids might appreciate it.

Pearls before swine.

[JoeBob]

The Wise One (@AOL.com) arbitrates truth, logic, and grammar for forum posters. If enough of us poke fun at him, maybe he'll stop calling us liars when he has trouble with the forum software, and contribute something meaningful to the scouting discussion.

 

In the spirit of MattR's post, here's something helpful:

Swine don't like pearls. We much prefer corn. Corn is cheaper, more readily available, and more digestible. If you take a good corn mash and serve it to pigs fermented, we'll be REAL friendly.

[packsaddle]

The Wise One (@AOL.com) arbitrates truth, logic, and grammar for forum posters. If enough of us poke fun at him, maybe he'll stop calling us liars when he has trouble with the forum software, and contribute something meaningful to the scouting discussion.

 

In the spirit of MattR's post, here's something helpful:

Swine don't like pearls. We much prefer corn. Corn is cheaper, more readily available, and more digestible. If you take a good corn mash and serve it to pigs fermented, we'll be REAL friendly.

Now I'm humming an old Dillards song that I can't get out of my head, "What's time to a hog?"

 

Thanks a whole lot, guys.

Edit to add: "...what's a puddle to a duck, what's the old cow think, when you load her on a truck, what's time to a hog?"

and no, I'm not trying to be annoying yet.

[DWise1_AOL]

The Wise One (@AOL.com) arbitrates truth, logic, and grammar for forum posters. If enough of us poke fun at him, maybe he'll stop calling us liars when he has trouble with the forum software, and contribute something meaningful to the scouting discussion.

 

In the spirit of MattR's post, here's something helpful:

Swine don't like pearls. We much prefer corn. Corn is cheaper, more readily available, and more digestible. If you take a good corn mash and serve it to pigs fermented, we'll be REAL friendly.

I am not trying to arbitrate truth, but truth must be served! You side yourself against seek truth. That is what your religion requires of you, so I cannot speak against that. But my own religion requires me to seek out the truth, so of necessity my posts must seek out the truth while your own posts must avoid the truth. OK, that is how it is, even though it seems evil to me.

 

But I have to ask you just what you mean by this: "The Wise One (@AOL.com) arbitrates ... grammar for forum posters." Just what the frak are you talking about there?

 

And I only call liars those who deliberately tell lies. Like Eagledad. And that has absolutely nothing to do with forum software, but rather with Eagledad's deliberate decision to deliberately lie. And that is for him to resolve, not for you and your irrevelant platitudes.

[packsaddle]

This thread, IMHO, was still-born from the beginning and just as I was thinking that some kind of special grace had finally sent it to well-deserved oblivion, someone rolled away the stone and now it's threatening to stay undead, stumbling through the forums like a zombie. Please don't let zombies into this forum. Don't reply to this thread any more. Don't feed the zombie. Thank you.