Do you like the Boy Scouts of America?

[Eagledad]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

[DWise1_AOL]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

First' date=' The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. [/quote']

Actually, you have that reversed. It should read, The argument of the Bible being written by God is only relevant for folks needing that argument to support their theology.

 

We all know how books are written and by whom, namely people. You have a special reason to claim that your God wrote the Bible, but we don't. You are making a very extraordinary claim there, one that demands strong evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, why should we abandon common sense and believe your unfounded claim? I'm sure that you and others who share the same theology have swapped stories and arguments that you think support your claim convincingly, but just because you, who are already convinced, think it convincing does not mean that we are not yet convinced would too. Remember that creationist who told that the reason I found his weak claims unconvincing was because I was not yet convinced. You may be convinced, but we are not and will not be until you could provide truly convincing evidence.

 

Your false belief that we're just trying to do what we want without guilt is a sadly common one among Christians, one which causes you trouble. A creation science activist claims that he used to be an atheist. His story is that he was raised with a strong Christian upbringing, but in 9th grade with his hormones bubbling away, he applied that same lesson he had been taught his whole life, that if he didn't believe that God existed then he could do anything he wanted to guilt-free. So he pretended to himself that he had become an atheist. And in doing so, he was just doing what his church had taught him, the same teaching that you just echoed here.

 

You guys really need to be more careful what you teach your kids.

 

 

Finally (another paragraph change)' date=' in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit?[/quote']

I agree that teaching positive traits and attitudes such as is taught by the Scout Law and by the Fruits of the Spirit would be beneficial. However, Fruits of the Spirit itself should not be taught because it would be counter-productive. Teach the traits, but not that teaching!

 

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?

 

Second, FotS has nothing to do with trying to develop those traits, but rather they're just supposed to magically happen to you. Every time it's been taught to me, it was taught that we cannot take action ourselves to develop those traits, but rather it can only come from the Spirit. What good would teaching that do? The kids don't have to even try to emulate those traits, but rather just sit and wait for it. And the non-Christian kids will never receive those gifts, so what kind of terrors are they supposed to become?

 

But it gets even worse. I've encountered several "true Christians" who would believe that only "true Christians" would receive those FotS. What's a "true Christian"? Only those who share their beliefs, so all those other Christians who believe differently aren't really Christians. And a number of them absolutely refuse to consider Catholics to be Christians. Refering to demographic figures on Wikipedia:

 

Total Christian -- 73%

Total Protestant -- 48%

Evangelical Protestant -- 19%

Mainline Protestant -- 15%

Black church -- 8%

Catholic -- 22%

Mormon -- 2%

Eastern Orthodox -- 1%

 

So by "true Christian" reckoning, I guess only Evangelicals would have communion with the Spirit to receive the Fruits, and maybe also the Black churches. That would be only 27% of the kids in the classroom that FotS would apply to, with the vast majority being left out.

 

No, teaching them Fruits of the Spirit would be an unmitigated disaster.

 

Instead, teach them the positive traits. Teach them to work towards developing those traits, as we teach our Scouts. Hold them to those standards. Just don't teach them counter-productive theology.

[Eagledad]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

So without conditions, you are a "yes" with Fruits of the Spirit. Just don't call them Fruits of the Spirit. I get it. Thanks

[qwazse]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

Like Paul said in the next sentence "Against such things there is no law." By implication every law is for such things.

 

Reading the Bible so straightforwardly, however, might come as a disappointment to many "true Christians," who somehow got it into their heads (and DW's) that the concept is exclusive to their religion.

[DWise1_AOL]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

So without conditions' date=' you are a "yes" with Fruits of the Spirit.[/quote']

No, that is not at all what I said! I was quite clear in what I said, so I cannot help but believe that you are deliberately misrepresenting me!

 

I am a very definite "NO" on teaching Fruit of the Spirit (not "Fruits of the Spirit" as you keep mis-calling it)! That is "NO" spelled "N", "O". Do you understand what "NO" means? If not, then what part of "NO" do you not understand?

 

Teaching the theology of "Fruit of the Spirit" would be counter-productive and would exclude too many children as well as teaching the wrong lesson. So "NO" on Fruit of the Spirit.

 

What I do support is the teaching of positive behavior and personality traits to everybody, excluding nobody! I support teaching them as something to work towards and to try to achieve and to actively practice daily.

 

 

Please try to make some kind of effort to not deliberately misunderstand everything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

 

 

Just don't call them Fruits of the Spirit.

Why not? True, "Fruit of the Spirit" is the proper term, but you have not called it anything but "Fruits". In every single one of your posts in this topic you have repeatedly and persistently called it "Fruits of the Spirit." I cannot find a single instance where you yourself have used the proper term, but instead always called it "Fruits of the Spirit." In fact, in the very same message, to which I'm responding now, in which you chastise me for having followed your lead by called them "Fruits of the Spirit" (which, as I recall, I had even copy-and-pasted from your own message), you just called them "Fruits of the Spirit" yet again! In fact, I did use the proper term, "Fruit of the Spirit", when I first responded to your question, "What did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit?", whereas you never have used the proper term here.

 

That is very hypocritical of you. Have you ever read the Gospels? Did you happen to notice what Jesus thought of hypocrites?

 

You should also review Jesus' teachings instead of dwelling on Paul so much:

7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?

7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

I get it.

You quite obviously do not.

 

Please note that I used the word "not" there, which indicates the negative. For some reason, that seems to be an exceptionally difficult concept for you to comprehend.

 

 

BTW, I responded to your question about what I thought of Fruit of the Spirit. What do you think of James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance? Again, I have it posted at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html, but with Googoe you could find many other copies of it on-line. Since Madison wrote it a few years before drafting the First Amendment, it provides us with the insight to the original intent of the Establishment Clause. Important reading for every American.

[DWise1_AOL]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

Like Paul said in the next sentence "Against such things there is no law." By implication every law is for such things.

Sorry, but I don't see where you get that interpretation. You read the next sentence, but have you taken the time to read the entire chapter? Galatians Ch. 5. My electronic copy is from King James.

 

As you read Galatians 5, you will notice that Paul keeps referring to "the law". Do you know what "the law" refers to? Do you even have any idea? Oh, that's right! You're the one who doesn't want anybody to know what words mean. You're the one who wants everyone to operate in ignorance.

 

5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,

Christ shall profit you nothing.

5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,

that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you

are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of

righteousness by faith.

5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any

thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

 

. . .

 

5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only

[use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love

serve one another.

5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in

this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye

be not consumed one of another.

5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not

fulfil the lust of the flesh.

5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit

against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other:

so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the

law.

 

. . .

 

5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,

longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with

the affections and lusts.

5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the

Spirit.

That talk of circumcision should have been a clue. This letter was written early in Christian history at a time when Christianity had been a Jewish religion and now Gentiles were joining. As a result, there was a controversy over whether the Gentile Christians would also have to be Jews and follow the Law, which is Mosaic Law as given in the Torah, including the practice of circumcision.

 

Obviously, through straightforward reading of Galatians, "law" refers to Mosaic Law which Jews were required to follow and which Paul described as a prison from which Christ had freed them. The dichotomy that we see throughout Galatians is between living in and following the Spirit through faith or following the flesh through observance of Mosaic Law. Straightforward reading also shows that the Fruit of the Spirit can only be gained through faith in Christ and by walking and living in the Spirit.

 

So please tell us who has faith in Christ and walks and lives in the Spirit? Observant Jews? No. Non-observant Jews? No. Muslims? No. Hindus? No. The growing numbers of the unchurched, which includes atheists, agnostics, followers of no religion, and those who are just not interested in religious matters? No. Who else but a Christian could possibly qualify as having faith in Christ. And wouldn't it only be a sub-set of Christian denominations that practice walking and living in the Spirit?

 

I had concluded earlier (*** DISCLAIMER: Since this is a quotation, it has not been altered. Thus it includes the terminology that Eagledad has hypocritically objected to. ***):

First reason why: Fruits of the Spirit (FotS) explicitly only applies to Christians. In the USA' date=' 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 [i']them[/i] to aspire to?

 

Second, FotS has nothing to do with trying to develop those traits, but rather they're just supposed to magically happen to you. Every time it's been taught to me, it was taught that we cannot take action ourselves to develop those traits, but rather it can only come from the Spirit. What good would teaching that do? The kids don't have to even try to emulate those traits, but rather just sit and wait for it. And the non-Christian kids will never receive those gifts, so what kind of terrors are they supposed to become?

To me, straightforward reading of Galatians supports my position. I cannot even begin to imagine how one could twist it to agree with your position.

 

Of course, it is entirely possible that there is a denominational theology that would support your position. If there is no other ultimate truth, Christians will interpret that Bible in any possible way that is needed for it to support their theology. And the massive splintering of Protestant Christianity and their myriad doctrines offers a clue how far they will take it. All I know is the interpretation that was given to me by fundamentalists and what I read in a straightforward manner in Galatians.

 

Interestingly, Galatians appears to also be the source of the doctrine that Christians are not subject to the Law and has led to their practice of picking and choosing which laws to follow.

[qwazse]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

Thanks for the Sunday reading. Do zealots take things out of context? Yes. Am I a zealot? I don't think so.

 

I have some vague familiarity with the law and Pauline epistles. In the passage you quote Paul is not excluding the pagans of his day from anything. Rather, he is dissuading folks from "playing the Jew" in hopes that a simple surgery will make them right with God. Or, that it would somehow make them a better Christians than those who aren't Jewish enough.

 

Those many divisions you speak of were fomenting before Paul even started dictating his letters.

 

But, your desire to put tremendous theological weight on the chapter blinds you to the overarching theme, that is "Y'all are reading my letter 'cause you believed Jesus payed a hefty price for you. Now why can't y'all be nice? Who's gonna complain about that?"

 

It is NOT saying that non-Christians can't be nice. That's a liberal reading of the passage. And yes, my fundamentalist friends often don't like it when I accuse them of taking liberties with scripture.

[Eagledad]

So much anger, so much anger.

[packsaddle]

So much anger, so much anger.

Yes, there is so much of it...DAMN that rap music!

[qwazse]

So much anger, so much anger.

What you call anger, I'll take as a sincere attempt to save us from ourselves.

 

Anyway, after making that snarky remark about "Sunday reading" I log off to go to church, and what chapter of the Bible is the preacher covering today? Yep, Ephesian's 5!

So DW is simply doing God's work preparing me to receive his word today. For that I owe him thanks. Anyone who thinks otherwise can take it up with the Holy Spirit!

[DWise1_AOL]

So much anger, so much anger.

So much anger' date=' so much anger.[/quote']

So much hypocrisy, so much hypocrisy.

 

You have been insulting me repeatedly from the start. And after being unable to support your own statements and position, you turned and chastised me for something that you freely do yourself (ie, "Fruits of the Spirit" instead of "Fruit of the Spirit"), displaying your hypocrisy in the process.

 

This is not anger, but rather lack of tolerance for hypocrisy. You are the one who had just lashed out again in anger. Please do something about that beam in your eye.

 

PS

I also cannot abide liars. That is a major part of the problem I have with "creation science". And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy.

 

You lied about what I had said. I cannot see any way in which your gross misrepresentation of what I had stated so clearly as being anything other than your deliberately lying about what I had said.

[DWise1_AOL]

Great question as always acco. First, The arguement of the bible being written by man is only relevant for folks needing an excuse to not act holy. Next (new paragraph), The conduit of moral education is the honest evaluation of our behavior from the consequenses of our actions and comparing that behavior to a given set of guidelines and parameters. Man has choice, either change the behavior to live by the rules, or change the rules so as not to feel guilty about the behavior. Just like in developing character from the Scout oath and law, the conduit of moral education is "growth" from making the right choices after the review of previous choices. Finally (another paragraph change), in reference with the Fruits of the Spirit, would we be living in a different world if everyone was taught from the day they were born to live by the Fruits of the Spirit? Barry

Do zealots take things out of context? Yes. Am I a zealot? I don't think so.

Do Hindus drink water? Yes. I drink water. Does that make me a Hindu. I don't think so.

 

IOW, you don't need to be a zealot to take things out of context. All you need is to want to force a source to say something that it does not say and which somehow serves your own dishonest motives. The term for that is "quote-mining".

 

In the passage you quote Paul is not excluding the pagans of his day from anything. Rather' date=' he is dissuading folks from "playing the Jew" in hopes that a simple surgery will make them right with God. Or, that it would somehow make them a better Christians than those who aren't Jewish enough.[/quote']

Read it again, this time without an eye to quote-mine. It's not just the surgery that he's talking about, but rather it's keeping Kosher and the rest of observing Mosaic Law; there's more to Mosaic Law than just circumcision.

 

And Paul is not talking about pagans, which is to say the non-Christian Gentiles. He is only talking about the two different kinds of Christian, Jewish and Gentile. So yet again I ask you, would a pagan, a non-Christian, have faith in Christ and walk in and with the Spirit? Those are the requirements for receiving the Fruit of the Spirit, so how could someone who does not even begin to meet those requirements receive the Fruit of the Spirit? Instead, according to Paul, they would be following the flesh and so they would receive the fruit of the flesh, which he does enumerate.

 

You really should actually read Galatians and not just imagine what you'd like it to say.

 

But' date=' your desire to put tremendous theological weight on the chapter blinds you to the overarching theme, that is "Y'all are reading my letter 'cause you believed Jesus payed a hefty price for you. Now why can't y'all be nice? Who's gonna complain about that?"[/quote']

But whom is he addressing it to? Christians. In what way is it meant to be applicable to non-Christians? None that I can see.

 

It is NOT saying that non-Christians can't be nice. That's a liberal reading of the passage.

Actually, yes it is saying that. Since non-Christians would not meet the clearly stated requirements for receiving the Fruit of the Spirit, they would instead receive the fruit of the flesh, none of which includes being nice.

 

Of course, it is absolutely ridiculous to say that non-Christians can't be nice -- actually, the case is more the opposite in that it can be very difficult to find a Christian who is nice. But that view of non-Christians is a modern one and not a Christian view. What Eagledad proposed is to include the Christian view to the education of all our youth, including the non-Christians. That proposal, while made with good intentions, would have disasterously bad results.

 

Think about implementing that education. You want to have your "liberal reading" applied to that education. Would that happen? The fundamentalist and other theists would instead insist that their interpretation, the straight-forward reading, be used. The ensuing battle over teaching religious doctrine in the public schools would split the community further apart than religion already has.

 

And even if that education were to be implemented with your "liberal reading", our children are not stupid. And they can read! And they will read Galatians in a straight-forward manner -- I know that because that is how I had read the Bible when it turned me into an atheist. And when they have read Galatians, they will see what it really says and that you are trying to teach them nonsense.

 

That is why, despite Eagledad's lie, I strongly disapprove of teaching the doctrine of "Fruit of the Spirit". I do strongly approve of teaching those positive qualities along with several other positive qualities. I could even agree with mentioning that most if not all the religions also identify those as positive qualities. I just see it as an incredibly enormous mistake to teach them with Galatians 5.

 

 

And yes' date=' my fundamentalist friends often don't like it when I accuse them of taking liberties with scripture.[/quote']

Here's a thought. Talk to your fundamentalist friends about your "liberal reading" of Galatians. Tell us what their reaction is. For that matter, also show them what I have written about it.

 

For that matter, share our exchange with your minister and ask him what he thinks.

 

I have to trust you to be honest in presenting our exchange and that you won't quote-mine it. But since you are a Christian, long bitter experience informs me that my trust is misplaced.

[qwazse]

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?

[packsaddle]

So much anger, so much anger.

"And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy." Creationism? How is that doing damage to Scouting? You lost me on that one.

 

Look, if you guys think either of you has a chance of convincing the other, you need to rethink your approach. As an alternative why don't you find a 'common enemy' or something like that. Set aside these major differences and find out what you agree on first, and then work from there. If you like you can make me your common enemy. What can I do to 'elevate' myself to that level? I can be incredibly annoying. I can recite bad poetry. I'd sing if I could,...that would do it for sure. Just let me know how I can help...you know 'helpful'.

[DWise1_AOL]

So much anger, so much anger.

"And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy." Creationism? How is that doing damage to Scouting? You lost me on that one.

As far as I can tell, creationism has nothing at all to do

 

Look at that sentence: "And I see it doing major damage to Scouting when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy." What does "it" represent, what does it stand in for? It stands in for: "when BSA practices its lying and hypocrisy". Common English sentence construction. Hopefully you won't want me to graph it for you, given the lack of graphics support for such an effort.

 

 

And I don't think your offer would work. After all, I've agreed with them on a number of things but it makes no difference to them. And now with qwazse's latest post, I very seriously doubt whether he even knows what we're discussing.