Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[moosetracker]

Sorry, I didn't return yesterday.. I had a problem of trying to drive my car on 3 wheels when my front driver side wheel fell off.. Good news is the service center that worked on my car (caliber, brakes, rotors and tire change from winter to all-season) on Monday has accepted responsibility so all will be fixed free of charge including body work.

 

Thanks Packsaddle.. Yes, when I quoted Darwin on his thoughts about Slavery it was a web page that showed several excerpts from his letters that was very illuminating.. http://commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htm .. I agree with the person who put this page together.. Only if you don't compare him to his own time in which he lived, and want to compare him to today's standards (which would be unfair) could you possibly label him a racist.. For his time he was very liberal minded..  He also pointed out that the creationists (who now want to discredit him now, but calling him racist) had their own creationists in that day and age that were VERY racist..  

 

Packsaddle the web link you provided gave a small prefix to the quote you gave earlier that does answer the question of when he fluxuated in thought from an agnostic point of view, it was not to an atheist point of view, but to thinking more about the possibility of there being a God..

 

[My] judgment often fluctuates…. Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

 

 

 

 

On also has to remember the bible also is the book that is meant for sinful people.  There are poor people, handicapped people, women, children, gentile, etc. all being addressed by faith on how God deals with such.  Slavery?  Okay in that day and age, if one nation conquers another, they don't sit down and work out a compromise and everyone gets a big hug and life goes on.  No, if you were conquered, the result was one of three things.  1) you fled the reach of the conquerors, 2) were enslaved or 3) killed.  That is if the conquerors were in a good mood.  When Jerusalem fell to Rome in 64 AD, Rome landed on the coast of Israel and marched to Jerusalem and destroyed the city.  About the only thing standing at the end of the day was the base wall of the temple and a few stones that were too big to knock down.  As far as everything else in that swath, nothing but Roman soldiers were still alive.  Every man, woman, child, animal, whatever, were killed.  And that settled that.  So when the Bible talks about slavery, it''s not and isue of whether it is acceptable, just advice on how to survive in that situation.  Do what you're told or you will die.

 

So Darwin should be labeled a racist, not because of what he thought on the subject of slavery or of the people themselves, but because people who wanted to find something to support their racist beliefs MISUSED his theory for their own purpose, even though his own beliefs were very enlightened given the time in which he lived.. And Darwin should be condemned.. But God and those who wrote the Bible were a product of their time, and their definite support of slavery was appropriate because it was advise on how slaves could survive their situation.. And it does not matter that racists in support of slavery and racism used the words of the bible to support their beliefs..

Edited May 1, 2015 by moosetracker

[Renax127]

According to scientists they tend to agree that the universe of the natural started.  It has a beginning.  It is also limited by time and space.  Whatever it was that started it is not part, nor ever was part of this universe.  While religious people say it was this great unknown we refer to as God that started it, Atheists say, "No, there is no God and I don't know what it was that started it, but it wasn't God."

 

Isn't that like saying, "You're wrong, but I don't know what right is."?

Well yeah but why is that bad? It is entirely possible to know something is wrong while not knowing what is right. So you can say "I know rainbows aren't unicorn farts but I have no idea what they really are" to pick a silly example.  That's what science is or should be anyway, a continual process of finding out what something isn't until we arrive at what amounts to educated guess of what it is based on the available empirical data. Then next year we find out that nope that's not it 

 

While I believe the universe was created I realize that only pushes the questions of "How'd we start" back one step, a divine being created the universe but where'd he/she/it? come from?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Renax127

[Renax127]

oops

Edited May 1, 2015 by Renax127

[Stosh]

Everyone who finds it necessary to distinguish between races is a racist.  Some take it to the extreme, others, not so much.  It's not something one uses to judge, necessarily, but here again, some do.

 

The original point I made was that slavery and racial prejudice of the time were not necessarily as connected as we would like to think they were.  There were plenty of free negroes walking around society at that time that had no problem.  Some even owned slaves.  In the south there were fewer "racists" because they were used to having and associating with negroes.  In the north, this was not as common and depending on the area of the country did make a difference.  There two issues involved and they are not as related as we today seem to think they are.  Just because you were an abolitionist did not mean you wanted the negro living in your neighborhood.

 

I have no idea what Darwin's inner thoughts were on the subject, but I do know that his writings, no matter how well intended did validate what we today view as racist.  If human intellect and environment can have an impact on "evolution" it isn't a major jump to conclude that that would apply to social structures as well.

 

Whereas slavery was abolished by law back in 1865, racial segregation continued well into the mid 20th century.  Any explanation for that other than we're dealing with two different issues here?

[moosetracker]

You lost me with the South were not as racist as the north, because they associated with blacks more...  I don't think association in a master/slave relationship made them not racist.. Buying and selling negros, splitting up families, breeding them like horses or cattle to improve the stock, raping, torture, killing, making them grovel and bow to their white superiors.. Argument for slavery showed their racist beliefs when they argued why the were inferior.. It does not matter how much they associated with blacks, they did not associate with them as equals.. Also when slavery was abolished, the north may have had some segregation with neighborhoods you lived in and were not fair in their hiring practices, but sorry they have always been 10 to 20 years ahead of the South in recognizing and changing their attitudes, and it usually ends up being an argument of the North against the South in order to drag the South kicking and screaming into changing their attitudes..

[Peregrinator]

This is true. St. Thomas Aquinas believed the universe was eternal, but was created - at a point before the existence of the universe causally, but not temporally.

Yes, thank you, I should have been more precise. It can't be proven that the universe has a beginning in time.

[skeptic]

"While I believe the universe was created I realize that only pushes the questions of "How'd we start" back one step, a divine being created the universe but where'd he/she/it? come from?"   

 

And here is where the idea of simple faith arises.  Those of us that are at this point in our personal evaluations accept that God, in whatever personal manifestation we choose, just is.  "I am; therefore I am!"

 

Those who choose to not accept some version of god, either continue to struggle with unexplainable theory, or also come to the conclusion that a starting point, in the origin of the universe, and any matter, just was there to evolve.  

 

Still a matter of faith; just a different view of it.

[Stosh]

You lost me with the South were not as racist as the north, because they associated with blacks more...  I don't think association in a master/slave relationship made them not racist.. Buying and selling negros, splitting up families, breeding them like horses or cattle to improve the stock, raping, torture, killing, making them grovel and bow to their white superiors..

 

They weren't viewed as civilized humans, same as for the Indians.  The Chinese working for the Railroad companies didn't fare much better.  It didn't make any difference what "race" they were, they were all ignorant and/or savage-like.  One also has to get over the political agenda stereotype of the plantation owner.  How many farmers and ranchers are there that have ever beaten their cows, horses, chickens, etc.???  These were investment assets and if one were to cripple a good farm hand or house servant, their market value would drop tremendously.  Like I said, this was an economic issue.  Some of these slaves were very expensive,   Nathan Bedford Forrest (Confederate General) was a millionaire having been in the slave trade business.  We aren't talking chum change here.  

 

At the beginning of the Civil War there were a number of slaves still on the books in the State of New Jersey.  Why?  Because when the state emancipated everyone that put all the blacks out on the street to fend for themselves.  There were a number of the "Simon Legres" out there that held on to their slaves so they could take care of them in their old age, knowing they wouldn't survive without the help.  It wasn't always a slave/master relationship.  There's more to history than what Hollywood portrays.

 

Argument for slavery showed their racist beliefs when they argued why the were inferior..

 

So were the Indians, but they didn't come from Africa, they knew the land and how to live off it and had a major tendency to escape all the time.  That experiment went bust really fast.  But what Americans did to the Chinese and Irish was even worse than slavery in many situations.  

 

It does not matter how much they associated with blacks, they did not associate with them as equals..

 

It is interesting to read the multiple accounts of young Civil War soldiers from the northern states, having left home for the first time, going into the southern states and seeing for the first time a negro.  It was something they felt strongly about because many of the "slaves" were blonde haired and blue eyed and looked just like the people back north.  One does not need to associate as equals to understand them and whether or not you wanted them living next door.  The northerners also didn't appreciate the Indians living next door and kept pushing them west out ahead of the frontier.  So it's not just a slave/master argument.  By the way, when the Civil War broke out it was fought for the first half as a struggle to preserve the Union and only the Southern Confederates felt it was a slavery issue.  Lincoln died believing he had preserved the Union which was his intent all along from the beginning.

 

Also when slavery was abolished, the north may have had some segregation with neighborhoods you lived in and were not fair in their hiring practices, but sorry they have always been 10 to 20 years ahead of the South in recognizing and changing their attitudes, and it usually ends up being an argument of the North against the South in order to drag the South kicking and screaming into changing their attitudes..

 

Remember now, we are talking about the 1860's not the 1960's.  I grew up in a very racist small town in Wisconsin.  But back in 1860's this area was on the Underground Railroad and there are still remnants of segregated communities that preferred to live in the areas they had come to settle in.  While they were fleeing to Canada, many stopped and hid away in small communities along the Mississippi River valleys.  Wisconsin was a very abolitionist state.  The Republican Party was founded in this state.   As a state we refused to honor the Fugitive Slave Act. and yet as a small child I remember the "Whites only" signs in certain areas.

 

The reason the south seems to get the political black eye on this whole issue is the larger numbers of blacks living in the area.  Obviously there are going to be more incidents and if one is going to focus on social change, go where the probably of numbers is greatest.  Up in the north the black populations tended to be in the urban metropolitan areas.  In my high school of the late 60's there were 2800 students go through while I attended.  There were no black, no orientals and maybe a handful of American Indians.  I had relatives in the Milwaukee area and so I saw blacks before I reached Junior High school age.  We still have active Indian reservations in the state.

 

My uncle owned a roadside diner in northern Wisconsin and was notorious for the fact that he served black travelers along with everyone else.

 

On the other hand my mother was very embarrassed by her German background, disassociated herself from her German ancestry because they supported the Bund during WW II.  

 

It was a strange time back then, but racism and bigotry was coming from everywhere, so to stereotype anything one must simply go with the written record and the number of Jim Crow laws of the northern legislative actions out number those of the southern states.  Individually, people still vary as much as they ever have on these subjects.  I just think they don't talk about them so as to be politically correct and out of court.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Stosh

[NJCubScouter]

This thread has sailed so far off the deep end, I don't think any of the rescue methods taught in Scouting can save it.

 

When the new requirements are announced in a few days, I think we are going to have another one of those experiments in requiring a thread to stay on topic.  Of course, people can continue to debate evolution and slavery here if they want... for reasons I don't understand...

[Peregrinator]

[SSScout]

Once again, mes ami, it is not the HOW we are concerned with here, but the WHY.  If there is no concern for the WHY, then there is no need or concern for the ultimate origin, hence no "creator".   But if one is concerned with the WHY, then even the possibility of a creator who sees a need to send his son to educate the self aware beings that are the result of the long experiment must be considered , n'est ce pas?

[SSScout]

And, come to think of it,  we have not even started to consider the difference between the "clock work God" and the "interactive/interfering God". 

Gee, it's good we have this  "Faith and Chaplaincy"  forum....

[Stosh]

This thread has sailed so far off the deep end, I don't think any of the rescue methods taught in Scouting can save it.

 

When the new requirements are announced in a few days, I think we are going to have another one of those experiments in requiring a thread to stay on topic.  Of course, people can continue to debate evolution and slavery here if they want... for reasons I don't understand...

 

It has it's reasons within the Scouting Requirements, Oath and Law of 1910 and The Scouting Requirements, Oath and Law of 2015.  There are those that say Scouting was created to develop honorable young men of character and others that think it should evolve/morph/mutate/whatever into something else.

 

I can't, for the life of me, see why that isn't obvious.  

[Stosh]

And, come to think of it,  we have not even started to consider the difference between the "clock work God" and the "interactive/interfering God". 

Gee, it's good we have this  "Faith and Chaplaincy"  forum....

 

And the scary part of it all is, that if we are all over the map on this what's the rest of scouting going to be doing?  While Pandora may be some magical/mythical being/reality/fairy/god of Greek Pantheism/mythology, etc. I think when National get's done with this the reality of Pandora's Box is going to a very real situation.

[MattR]

And I thought Pandora was a music server.

 

As for what the new rules will likely be ...