2008-07-31, 13:00 | Link #1181 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Haha fun with English.
I used to be a pretty avid supporter of Scouting - but since the East Texas fringe kooks took over the national level in the 1980s, many Scout Troops just pay lip service to the rules and kind of ignore the twits at the national level. The people at the national office have pretty much subverted the meaning of Scouting to their ends. They've crapped all over the original concepts that Baden Powell had in mind. Unfortunately, with all the bad press the national lunatics collect with their antics, the non-church-supported troops (usually supported by veteran organizations (American Legion) or civic duty clubs (Rotary, Lions, Elks, etc) are fading in many areas. The rules for Scouting only state one must believe in some sort of higher power (which makes the Buddhists iffy even though there's an official badge for them, there's also religious badges for Hindu, Judaism, Islam and others) but in recent years American Scouting has taken public ridicule at the national level for being clearly antagonistic to any but the "correct" religion. The Wiccans and other religions have repeatedly been in tangles with the leadership over this. Fortunately, Scouting in other countries seems to be thriving with less baggage -- I still consider the concept of Scouting a good experience minus the exclusionary idiocy. I loved my experience as a teen (I was beginning the road of "examining my beliefs" .... the Scoutmaster made the "Buddhist/Athiest/Agnostic/Christian?" kid (me) the chaplain at one point in hopes of providing me guidance. However, instead he got some of what he said were the "most interesting thought provoking prayers and sermons" he'd ever heard. My older son was a Scout in a troop supported by a local American Legion veteran group --- we were pretty much free of the "one way or the highway" nonsense and had an interesting collection of religious stances. The downside was that Scouting seems to have become the "you fix my kid cuz I'm too lazy to get my ass off the couch to do it myself and ooooh, look American Idol is on, no camping for me" destination. When we were feeling charitable, we called them "curbside parents", other days it wasn't printable what we called them. But as we found at the inter-troop meetings we'd have with other troops (church supported, mostly Catholic, Methodist, or Mormon) in our area - they relayed that the "curbside parent" problem was universal.
__________________
Last edited by Vexx; 2008-07-31 at 13:22. |
2008-07-31, 17:02 | Link #1183 | ||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
Many people who apply logic and reasoning to their faith, and/or obtain greater perspective through better historical, cultural, or linguistic knowledge tend to stay quiet about what they learn, for they discover that if they try to teach their fellow religious man better, their fellow religious man will not take it so well. The decision between proper correction and preserving peace is one I hate making. I spend enough time correcting people who get a little perspective and run off with newer but just as half-baked ideas that I'm not left with much time to even worry about reshaping the primary demographic. The virgin birth issue, though, is actually a really good example of your first point rather than your second. Most any modern Jew will quickly explain that the text of the messianic prophesy in Isaiah does not actually say the messiah would be born of a "virgin", but that the word is closer to meaning "young woman". They would be right. However, what many don't know (or won't explain) is that the word used is really closer to the word "maiden", and did, in fact, strongly imply virginity even if it didn't state it explicitly. There is debate here, but we do have historical texts to show that it was not an uncommon Jewish position that it specified a virgin--at least, not until the Jews started strongly dissociating themselves from Christians. Even then, there is acknowledgement of debate in some places. Its explanation as such in the gospels is also evidence of this interpretation being Jewish--depending, of course, on what one believes the source of those texts to be. The argument based on the literal reading of the text runs strong, though. Quote:
As much as I feel that the BSA can't be divorced from religious faith without removing its core (although there's no harm in secular alternatives!), I also feel that the BSA administration has made some serious mistakes and caused some good kids to be abandoned and ostracized. If Scouting is going to be resource for "curbside parenting", then dad gum it, it needs to be the best it can be for every one it can. For what it's worth, my scout troop was sponsored by a church and had an atheist assistant scoutmaster and one prominent atheist Scout in leadership. While every one went to chapel and the oaths didn't change, no one had to ascribe to any particular religious belief--or any at all. The only demand placed on faith was that one must be respectful of the decisions and faith of others. Those were good days. Edited to add: Baden Powell's comments on religion and scouting were an interesting read. As a Christian, he had a good bit to say on religion, and that is definitely reflected in the Boy Scouts, but I hadn't seen just what he had to say on the relevance of religion in the institution: http://devbox.mebeam.net/devzone/faq...ection-11.html
__________________
|
||
2008-08-01, 13:32 | Link #1186 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
On topic, I'm a Catholic |
|
2008-08-01, 14:26 | Link #1187 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Under a cloud
|
It reminds me of what Pascal did with his bet which explain that to believe in god is statistically more advantagous than not believing in him because you have nothing to lose ; theory disallowed by jonas who said if god don't exist and you believed in God, then you have lose a compelling period at wasting your time for nothing ( he speaks of people who believe and practice the religion).
The question, therefore, is more why do you need a religion than what's yours ? |
2008-08-01, 14:49 | Link #1188 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
Pascal's Wager is one of the more interesting reasonings for religion (though mostly because its not exactly spiritual so much as machiavellian ). Counterarguments include The End of Pascal's Wager and On Rescher On Pascal's Wager. The only problem with the reformulation into "why do you need religion" is that it seems to drop the axiomatic assumption that there is a God (or gods) that needs a response. One of the interesting aspects of Shinto (or Hinduism or other animist/pantheonic mytho-systems) for that matter to me is that you don't really have to assume these are sentient beings being acknowledged. They are anthropomorphized representations for forces and ideas in the universe that you wish to formally acknowledge or remember.
__________________
|
|
2008-08-01, 15:11 | Link #1189 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
But, since I acknowledge that mankind's interpretation of God(s) could be flawed, I am still open to the possibility of a God or gods actually exsisting. Last edited by james0246; 2008-08-01 at 15:26. |
|
2008-08-01, 15:26 | Link #1190 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-08-01, 15:40 | Link #1191 | ||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Sorry for this late reply, midterms came up.
Quote:
Quote:
Now the Darmok's use of metaphors may not have explicitly stated a comparison being made either, but at least the crew of the Enterprise knew implicitly that the names and events meant something else because they could not apply them directly the way the Darmok used them. This is not the case with the Garden of Eden. Whoever is the reader, assuming he or she understands the premise made in the book, could take the Garden of Eden at face value as a place that was no longer accessible to men since long before his or her time. Quote:
Quote:
With the use of individual names, the Bible sometimes do interchange individuals and tribes. But that's because the tribes are the descendants of those individuals. And those moments are clear to the readers. Other times, it's also clear that the individual is being referenced. For example, the story of Joseph in Egypt. Last edited by monster; 2008-08-01 at 15:55. |
||||
2008-08-01, 15:48 | Link #1192 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-08-01, 15:56 | Link #1193 |
Silent Warrior
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Netherlands
Age: 38
|
You can't break down religion with logic. Hell I'm a reasonable person and an advocate for science and reason, but the thing is religion or faith. It's hard to discribe for me it's something you feel, you know. When I look at the Sun when I look at my hand I just feel there is a God. Can you figure out love with science(hell it should only last a few years if you look at your hormones)? Hell if just look at how humans are made monogamy is bullshit to begin with, but still we strife for it. Why? I don't know we just feel that it's the right. To begin with I never really had much despair to begin with, but I pray in the good times and in the bad times. You might argue I do it for the small chance he might exists, but hell I don't gamble on small chance. Especially if you look at how much time mine takes.
And hell a non-believer can hardly grasp what a believers feels. |
2008-08-01, 19:28 | Link #1194 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
If you can't grasp that, then you certainly lack any kind of understanding of how a society works.
__________________
|
|
2008-08-01, 21:47 | Link #1195 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
I understand your position in this matter. But there is no reason for me to replaced "most people" with what you want. Most people, for example, would understand that when people in the Bible had visions, those visions may contain metaphors. You don't need to be people from the time the books in the Bible were written to understand that.
|
2008-08-01, 22:06 | Link #1197 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 42
|
Quite wrong, since a large portion of, if not majority of current non-believers were fervant believers for a good portion of there life before they deconverted and they used to think and feel and at some point likely tried to make the same points as you do.
|
2008-08-01, 22:07 | Link #1198 |
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Religion? Religion?
My religion is George Carlinism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=casUr9UsabY Indeed, George Carlin was the closest guy you could come to "God".
__________________
|
2008-08-01, 22:07 | Link #1199 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Though I agree that it's not impossible for non-believers to understand what believers feel, even if they haven't ever been part of them.
__________________
|
|
2008-08-01, 22:08 | Link #1200 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Vexx pointed out that metaphors can only be understood when you understand the context of that metaphor. And the Star Trek example is good to show this.
My point is that the context of Genesis is a religion. And that while the context may not be understood, people can still identify those metaphors (just like the Enterprise crew knowing there must be other meanings to what the Darmok is saying), hence why I said it would be obvious to most people. |
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
|
|