How would you explain that Reverent is important?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Where not some scribes meticulously transcribing their people's encounter over centuries with what seems to have been a very external yet unnervingly personal force, we may very well have been importing servants from our vanquished enemies today.

 

I disagree. In my estimation, slavery* doesn't last long after the introduction of the steam engine. Slaves are cheap, intelligent, but unskilled labor (generally speaking), and you need enforcers to keep them from running away or killing you. But once you have widespread steam power, slavery loses out. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more technologically advanced Britain prohibited slavery long before the less advanced USA, or that the industrial North didn't have slavery while the agrarian South did. Keeping slaves to do work today would be comparable to running a moving company using horse-drawn carts -- you could, but you'd be out-competed by people using better technology.

 

*Referring to slave labor only, not other types like sex slavery or prison labor.

[packsaddle]

I think Merlyn's idea has merit. Wilberforce of course was almost perfectly coincidental with the Industrial Revolution so we'll probably never be able to sort out all the factors which led to his opposition to slavery. But going back through known history, every empire that we know of employed slavery right through all of the Bible stories and then ended, as Merlyn noted, when we acquired technologies that allowed a competitive edge of mechanization over serfdom. (Except for the USA, which uniquely fought a war to end slavery)

It would be just as reasonable to argue that banal economic forces were just as influential, perhaps more influential even, than a sudden change in our moral compass. It is just possible that our moral compass was also the result of those new technologies allowing our greed to seize an opportunity to claim moral victory as well as economic. But we'll probably never know for sure.

[SSScout]

Morality...

Ethics...

Politics...

Religion...

Faith...

 

IF (God forbid) the military draft is reinstituted (another thread) and IF the idea of being a Consciencious Objector is still accepted and IF the local draft board does the judging (!) and allowing of such standing, the DB would use some standard of the sincerity of the person (M? F?) as to their CO desire. The usual standard, in the past, so I have been told, is usually one of faith. The Board desires a convincing that the applicant is, indeed, obeying a "higher authority" and can do no other thing. Membership in and attendance at a historically pacifist faith, an oral presentation, an essay explaining ones reasons in claiming CO status, letters attesting to the belief/standing in the community, all might be needed to prove the applicants "sincerely held belief." Opinion is not proof. Pleading as to ones belief is not proof. Believing that a particular war is unjust or wrong or illegal is not proof. ALL wars must be held as wrong. In my small experience, I have not heard of an irreligious CO, not that there may have been, I just have not heard of one.

Slavery... present on all continents, in almost all civilizations at one time or another. Usually (if ever), it was not the econonmical reasons for the demise of the "peculiar institution". The US south certainly did not end it's slave society due to economic reasons. When the British empire ended it's internal slave trade, it was not economic reasons that demanded it. The "market place" did not demand it, altho it should have. The Quakers of the 18th century did not manumit their slaves due to economic reasons (Baltimore Yearly Meeting came to agreement that slavery was against God's will in 1775), but soon realized that a free labor society was more productive and ultimately more rewarding. A Methodist circuit rider that visited Sandy Spring MD in the early 1800's commented to his Quaker host on the fertility of his fields compared to his neighbors. The host replied that "never had bound hands" worked those fields.

It occurs to me that it is not morality that is of human invention but immorality. We are constantly finding new and improved ways to cheat, kill and otherwise do "bad" things to our fellow creatures. When have we discovered "new" ways to be kind to them? The same ways have always been there.

"Good" and "Bad" can be defined by Gregory IX, Hitler, Genghis Kahn or Jesus or Gandhi. They can be defined by you or me. But , as with every other definition,such definitions ultimately must be based on previous standards. How far back do you go? What do you ignore? What accept? Do you only trust in the "innate" good in people? Which people?

I do not say that avowed athiests cannot be good, morale people. The ones I know are every bit as G&M as anyone else I can name. "by their fruits shall ye know them". They have made their choice, with the good sense and mind that (evolution/environment/parents/God) has given them. I just think that, for whatever reason, they are leaving out a large chunk of the the algorithm. Perhaps ignoring a bit that we Quakers call the "experiential" of our faith. It is a dropping of the need for the ego, and admitting the need for something bigger. Scouts...Alot of teenagers are not ready to do that. Kids, after all, are all about "me". They look for reasons to NOT admit to any other authority than themselves. What can I get away with? OKAY, that leads to the question of , "away from WHOM?" or WHAT?"

 

Time to go to Meeting. See/read you later.

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

SSScout writes:

In my small experience, I have not heard of an irreligious CO, not that there may have been, I just have not heard of one.

 

To tie this back into scouting, [Elliot] Welsh v. United States (1970) was about an irreligious CO, when the law only allowed for religious COs (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0398_0333_ZS.html ). The court ruled in his favor, saying that the constitution could not only allow believers in a supreme being CO status (and created the sincerity standard). 20 years later, Elliott Welsh would sue the BSA for excluding him and his son Mark, but the 7th circuit ruled that the BSA was not a public accommodation.

 

Also re: slavery, I'm not saying moral reasons are irrelevant, but that increasing technology erodes the pro-slavery side by making it less and less cost-effective over time. Your Quaker quote even noted that "a free labor society was more productive" (in the late 1700s), but if you go back to ancient Egypt, the pyramids could only have been built (at their size) using slave labor, as they already cost a huge fraction of the entire GNP, and paying thousands of people over decades wouldn't be possible. But today Bill Gates could afford to build a Giza-sized stone pyramid using modern technology for about 5 billion dollars.

[BadenP]

 

All of this debate boils down to simply either one has faith/belief in a "supreme being or one does not. Reverent has its origin in a belief in something/someone of a supreme nature and trying to take it out of that context and warp it into a secular definition just devalues the word of its true meaning. Many Christians believe that the secularization of many of the societies in the world today has led to their downfall, our own especially. You can take all the court decisions and historical failures you want to try to justify your case for humanity being an immoral and irreverent people and to state atheism is somehow a more balanced and logical system, but IMO you would be wrong Merlyn. If you want to roll craps that there is no "GOD" that is your right, but you better be right, from my own experiences I choose to believe because I have seen miraculous things happen in my personal life for others as well as myself and I know for my own mind the atheistic philosophy is just plain wrong.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BadenP writes:

Reverent has its origin in a belief in something/someone of a supreme nature and trying to take it out of that context and warp it into a secular definition just devalues the word of its true meaning.

 

Not according to the etymology of the word:

reverent

late 15c., from L. reverentem, prp. of revereri (see reverence). From 14c. through 17c., commonly also used for reverend (adj.). Related: Reverently.

reverence

late 13c., from O.Fr. reverence, from L. reverentia "awe, respect," from revereri "to revere," from re-, intensive prefix, + vereri "stand in awe of, fear," from PIE *wer- "to be or become aware of" (cf. O.E. wr "aware, cautious;" see wary). The verb is first attested c.1300.

 

Looks to me like it started as a word that meant general awe/respect/fear, and picked up religious connotations through usage.

 

Many Christians believe that the secularization of many of the societies in the world today has led to their downfall, our own especially.

 

Did society collapse and I overlooked it?

 

Oh wait, it's just that religion doesn't have quite the same stranglehold on everyone that it used to.

 

You can take all the court decisions and historical failures you want to try to justify your case for humanity being an immoral and irreverent people

 

Who has been arguing this? I sure haven't. Can you read?

 

and to state atheism is somehow a more balanced and logical system, but IMO you would be wrong Merlyn.

 

Hey, just have gods show up sometime and I'll change my mind.

 

If you want to roll craps that there is no "GOD" that is your right, but you better be right,

 

I quoted Pascal earlier, but not for his worthless wager.

 

Here's just one example where we're both wrong (assuming you're Christian), but I'm left better off than you (god always yells):

 

GOD: "HEY, BADENP AND MERLYN LEROY, LOOKS LIKE BOTH OF YOU WERE WRONG. THE JEWS WERE RIGHT."

 

BadenP and Merlyn LeRoy: "So what happens now?"

 

GOD: "WELL MERLYN, YOU'RE NOT TOO BAD OFF SINCE YOU DIDN'T VIOLATE THE LAWS I GAVE TO NOAH, WHICH ARE BINDING ON BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES, SO YOU'RE DOING OK, BUT BADENP WORSHIPPED A JEWISH CARPENTER FOR DECADES AS IF HE WERE GOD, WHICH VIOLATES THE FIRST NOACHIDE LAW PROHIBITING IDOLATRY, SO HE'S IN TROUBLE."

 

from my own experiences I choose to believe because I have seen miraculous things happen in my personal life for others as well as myself and I know for my own mind the atheistic philosophy is just plain wrong.

 

Well, I haven't seen anything miraculous. So how's it fair that your god makes his presence obvious to you by violating the laws of physics where you can see it, yet doesn't do this for me? Or are you talking about miracles that don't involve such violations, like fortuitous events? If it's the latter case, I don't see what the miracle is.

[Beavah]

Yah, maybe I'm weird (well, I know I am ), but when a scout tells me he doesn't believe in God, I'm usually delighted.

 

A statement like that means he's actually thinking and searching, eh? He's moved past just parroting his parents or social group. Thinking and searching is necessary in order to come to personally embrace God, to accept Him as Lord.

 

All I usually do is ask the lad what he means by "God" when he says he doesn't believe. And then I discover I usually agree with him, eh? I don't believe in that "god" either. And encourage him to go out and finding something really worthy of believing in.

 

As a man of faith, I don't think I have to try to convince the lad or change his mind or come up with good arguments. All I have to do is encourage his quest. I believe God knows and loves each boy deeply enough that if the lad truly seeks, that will be enough for him to truly Find.

 

Beavah

[Scoutfish]

If your still siting down, go ahead and take another drink....

 

I did not see anywhere that Merlyn ever claimed that Athiests were more moral than Christains, or that they were superior.

 

Matter of fact, I'm not sure Merlyn ever singled out Christians over any other God believing group or gods believing gropu either unless citinga specific example to collaborate his point of view.

 

As for logical..well, actually makes sense. I mean, I myself have a strong belief in God, but faith and logic are not the same thing. Faith is believein without proof. Henceforth, I have faith that there is indeed a God.

 

Logically, it does not make sense as in my 40 years, I have yet to see any proof that there is a God except by the people who printed the bible. And as far as print goes, you can buy a certain weekly magazine or newspaper that will give the same proof nthat elvise flies aroun earth in his ufo looking for his pet bigfoot he lost while fishing for the lockness monster.

 

Now, don't confuse that statement to mean I have any doubts or disbelief about God. Matter of fact,I'd say it only shows how strong my faith is by the fact that I can actually see how logic does not support my beliefe.....yet I still hold that belief as strongly as I do that breathing air keeps me alive.

 

Point of the matter is this: Just because Merlyn and I do not agree on wether there is a God or not , doesn't change what words mean, or wether he is right or wrong in the use of those words.

 

And as reverent goes, it is a feeling or showing deep and solemn respect. You may be revernt to God, any number of gods, to the US flag, the Unknown Soldier, your parents , or just be that was during a solomn funeral service, or towards your just newborn child.

 

Yeah, for you, it can be to God, but it doesn'mean you have to have a God or god to be reverent.

[Scoutfish]

That's a really cool, way to put it Beavah. That's the way I have always felt, but just never sais it so simple.

 

I know too many people who while growing up did just that. They took parroting for believing and taking as their own. And over dumb stuff too. I have seen people get upset and have family spats over what brand of truck to drive.

 

 

Everythiung was hunky-dory until Jr has an epithany about what he really thinks and feels.

 

He goes against mom or dad and the entire family breaks down.

Father's and sons not talking for months or years.

 

But I have always thought that was cool because at least, a person has a beliefe based on what they really believe instead of what was basically brainwashed into them.

 

So of the worst juvinile delinquents I have ever know were preachers sons and daughters and some of the coolest most compasionate people were the former punks and neighborhood no-gooders.

 

Thye difference was one finally found their true beliefe and were true to themselves.

 

The others were bombarded with the agony of defendin g their beliefs without knowing why they believed them.

 

"Chevy is the best truck ever because my daddy, and his daddy, and his daddy before him always drove a Chevy. And all I am ever gonna drive is a Chevy!" ( even if one of the others is better!)

 

Yeah...thinking and searching on his/her own til,they find what fits right.

 

I like that!

 

 

 

[SSScout]

"It is a sad Reflection, that many Men hardly have any Religion at all; and most Men have none of their own: For that which is the Religion of their Education, and not of their Judgment, is the Religion of Another, and not Theirs." #522

 

= Fruits of Solitude, William Penn =

 

Keep on keeping on, brother.

[BadenP]

Merlyn

 

Interesting you use references from the post 15th century forward and only what supports your position. In fact an atheist trying to redefine reverent with only secular post reformation sources can hardly claim that they are the definitive origins and meaning of the word, as you do. However Merlyn you do live in your own limited sense of reality and I will not get into a theological debate to prove how incomplete and one sided your views and sources are. You can continue to live on the fringe all you like and more power to you as it is not my place or desire to show you the error of your ways.