 |
|
|
|
|
May 31st, 2013
04:19 PM ET
Baptists plan exodus from Boy ScoutsBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - For Southern Baptist pastor Tim Reed, it was Scripture versus the Scouts. “God’s word explicitly says homosexuality is a choice, a sin,” said Reed, pastor of First Baptist Church of Gravel Ridge in Jacksonville, Arkansas. So when the Boy Scouts of America voted to lift its ban on openly gay youths on May 24, Reed said the church had no choice but to cut its charter with Troop 542. “It’s not a hate thing here,” Reed told CNN affiliate Fox 16. “It’s a moral stance we must take as a Southern Baptist church.” Southern Baptist leaders say Reed is not alone. Baptist churches sponsor nearly 4,000 Scout units representing more than 100,000 youths, according to the Boy Scouts of America. That number could drop precipitously. The Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, will soon urge its 45,000 congregations and 16 million members to cut ties with the Scouts, according to church leaders. The denomination will vote on nonbinding but influential resolutions during a convention June 11-12 in Houston. “There’s a 100% chance that there will be a resolution about disaffiliation at the convention,” said Richard Land, the outgoing head of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, “and a 100% chance that 99% of people will vote for it.” “Southern Baptists are going to be leaving the Boy Scouts en masse,” Land continued. Roger “Sing” Oldham, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, emphasized that local congregations make their own decision on the Scouts. But he, too, said he expects Baptist delegates, which the church calls “messengers,” to voice their disagreement with the BSA's decision to allow gay youths. “With this policy change, the Boy Scouts’ values are contradictory to the basic values of our local churches,” Oldham said. Several religious groups with strong Scouting ties support the new policy. “We have heard from both those who support the amended policy and those who would have preferred it would not have changed,” said BSA spokesman Deron Smith. Faith-based organizations charter more than 70% of Scout chapters, providing meeting space and leadership, according to the BSA. “There have been some organizations that have decided not to renew their charters with Scouting," said Smith, "but we can’t quantify the impact of the amended policy." The National Jewish Committee on Scouting, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which sponsors more Scout units than any other faith, all endorsed the change. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, which is run with oversight from a bishop, said Thursday that allowing gay youths in the Scouts does not conflict with church teaching. Each bishop will decide whether or not to allow churches in his diocese to charter Scout units, the committee added. “We ask that Catholic Scouters and chartered organization heads not rush to judgment,” said Edward Martin, chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting. But the Rev. Derek Lappe, pastor of the Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Church in Bremerton, Washington, has already made up his mind. “I do not feel that it is possible for us to live out, and to teach, the authentic truth about human sexuality within the confines of the Boy Scout’s new policy,” said Lappe. The priest told CNN affiliate FOX16 that his parish will part ways with the Scouts and develop its own programs. There may soon be an alternative to the Scouts for social conservatives like Lappe. John Stemberger, founder of On My Honor, a group that opposed the Scouts’ change in policy, plans to convene conservatives in Louisville, Kentucky, in June to consider forming a new Scout-like group, which could be up and running by the end of 2013. “Churches and Scoutmasters are looking for leadership and direction,” said Stemberg, an attorney in Orlando, Florida. A number of conservative religious denominations already sponsor their own groups. For instance, the Southern Baptists have the Royal Ambassadors, an explicitly Christian program founded in 1908 for boys in first through sixth grade. (A similar group called Challengers equips older boys in “mission education.”) The name comes from the New Testament, in which the Apostle Paul tells Christians to be “ambassadors for Christ.” The estimated 31,000 Royal Ambassadors pledge “ to become a well-informed, responsible follower of Christ; to have a Christlike concern for all people; to learn how to carry the message of Christ around the world; to work with others in sharing Christ; and to keep myself clean and healthy in mind and body." While not as outdoorsy as the Boy Scouts, Ambassadors do camp and play sports, said Land, who was a member of the group during the 1950s. But instead of merit badges for archery and bird study, young Ambassadors earn patches for memorizing Bible verses and mission work. Southern Baptists said they are preparing for a surge of interest in the Royal Ambassadors at their upcoming convention in Houston. “We really have an opportunity here to strengthen our RA programs,” the Rev. Ernest Easley, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee, said in a sermon last Sunday, “and to get the boys in a program where they’re going to be protected, where there’s a high moral standard and where they will have an opportunity to learn about camping, missions, evangelism in the local church.” soundoff (10,821 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 Next » |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Most of the religious wackos who hate gays are serious closet cases.
I see that about you..imagine that!
Most of the sosmites that hate decent people are messed up in the head
Jim
Then why is your head stuck so far up your backside?
Good Riddance!
Baptist = hate
I have yet to meet a Christian that would make me want to become one.
Nope.
I've yet to meet a sodomite or liberal that would make me want to be like one.
And most of them are Southern. Imagine that. (From a South Carolinian)
Our treed knowledge of good and evil ways regarding sexual promiscuities becoming as an open book upon ever so younger an audience crowd has real social consequences to someday eventually contend with. More teenaged abortions will be as a forest fire run amuck within a land who needs their young to be continually born in order for a nationalized security net to be maintained thru birthed beneficiaries chipping into their nation's aged socialized security nets staying well a maintainable solution for the elder welfares sakes. The lack of up and coming masses being inappropriately thinned out via abortion practices does not bode well for their societies steeped in aged decanters of the elderly quantifiable socialized securities soon to be running out of planned funding that was supposedly set aside and grown but was unwisely spent and huckstered.
Lion – I think you got distracted. You went way off subject.
Scott in Texas,
One can only be subjected to so much horseplay regarding the BSA and their troops desires to allow homosexualism or not to allow it becoming a badge honoring aspect of a boy's scouting rewards.
please seek medication immediately. you're in need of serious help.
I would like to remind everyone that the same Southern Baptists boycotted Disney.
I think the BSA will survive as well as Mickey has.
Yes, both groups will survive. The BSA is likely to lose membership, at least in the short term, but if they get more secular they will pick up members since the nation is becoming more secular. (based on polls of those under 30 or so).
So no harm has been done here by either side. Just people with different values free to go their own way.
I have to say that this is one of the more rational exchanges I've seen on the BB. Agree with you both.
what about the Pastor's greed? Or lust? Or hate? Those are choices too, they are sins...are they not?
good riddance,
in other countries, youth organizations tend to be secular and provide values of respect for your fellow men and your country. Not a religious monopoly of one group.
Typical. Just wait. They are going to go on a sin spree by claiming all those joining boy scouts now are sinners and will go to hell.
Well, if you think everyone is against the BSA's decision for the inclusion of other human beings, look at this!
Poll Finds Majority Acceptance of Gays From the B-ball Court to the Boy Scouts
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/poll-finds-majority-acceptance-of-gays-from-the-b-ball-court-to-the-boy-scouts/
You hit the nail on the head about why the anti-gay people are so upset. In a very short time period (4 or so years), public opinon on this subject in the Christian \ Conservative community has changed, big time. The CA prop 8 bill was the start of this. Yea, it won but it also provided major exposure to the issue. Then con taking head after con talking head came up in support of gay rights. Even Rove has advised the GOP to drop the issue like a hot potato. Rush indicates the battle is lost.
So of course those unable to face reality are angry that in such a short time frame (as it relates to social change), their view is clearly the minority one now.
Change is difficult, especially if you are on the side that doesn't want the change. It's the same as when a company gets bought out – people who are particularly attached to the old management are resistant to the new management. Some will quit because of it, others will slowly adapt.
An immortal, benevolent creator obsessed with what people do with their genitals. How pathetic, insignificant, and small. This god strongly resembles the people who invented him.
Encouraging your members to hate...great idea. The same people 60 years ago used religion to justify lynchings.
Ced, you've managed to get it perfectly wrong This is about love. Love for God. Seeking to please the Lord and obeying what He teaches. We should hate sin. Today the world is embracing sin, and calling it "tolerance". Tolerance for evil is rebellion against God.
@Chad: "If you had met Jesus Himself as physically resurrected, would you have believed it?"
@Really-O? "Nope...not without necessary and sufficient empirical evidence"
@Chad "wow, you wouldnt consider a resurrected Jesus "necessary and sufficient empirical evidence".
Interesting.. What exactly IS "necessary and sufficient empirical evidence"?
guess that is consistent though. Atheists such as yourself are absolutely committed to anti-theism regardless of the evidence."
Chad = moron
Okay, please provide your zombie and we'll see if i change my mind.
Evidence?
Where is your evidence?
Hmm. So..........Chad...... first, based on you punctuation I'm not sure if you're pro-Jesus or not. I'm going to assume you are based on your last question (in quotes, for some reason.) Here's the thing buddy. In all important decisions it is implicit that someone has definitive proff in order to move on a make a choice. Now sometimes luck is involved, but we're grown people, not kids. You can't go to a police officer and say there's a monster in your closet unless there really is. And if there isn't, but you still insist there is, you can not go to court to get your monster incarcerated. Am I right? So, I'm not caling Jesus a monster, I'm just saying what he likely is. Which is dead...gone...forever. And unless your Jesus comes back than you have to stay logical. Now if he did come back, and could somehow produce proof that he was 2000 years old and kinckin' it with your homies in your basement, things would be different. But just because you can imagine his resurrection does not mean atheists have to take you seriously. Burden of proof my friend.
@Bob
what would YOU consider "necessary and sufficient" evidence?
That is turning out to be a real eye opening question..
Chad and Really-O? – a dialogue (fictional, just barely)
====
Chad: I have a 1980 Yugo that can hit 200 mph.
Really-O?: I find that hard to believe.
Chad: What would you consider necessary and sufficient evidence that my Yugo can go 200 mph?
Really-O?: Let's go out to a track and, under controlled conditions, with anyone interested in attendance, get your 1980 Yugo up to a speed of 200 mph. That would do it.
Chad: Well, look at this...I have a Yugoslavian magazine from 1984 in which this guy says his 1980 Yugo went 200 mph. You see, it says, "And as we passed the hour of noon, we traveled two hundred miles"...or something like that...I had to have it translated into French, and then Spanish, and then Old English and then modern English, but see, right there, plain as day.
Really-O?: Sorry, but that doesn't suffice as necessary or sufficient evidence that your Yugo can go 200 mph. I want to observe your Yugo hit 200 mph.
Chad: I've driven my Yugo 200 mph...I already told you that. You expect me to do it again on demand?
Really-O?: Well, yes. You asked what would suffice as necessary and sufficient evidence and I told you.
Chad: Well, the speed limit is 65.
Really-O?: What does the speed limit have to do with whether or not your Yugo can hit 200 mph?
Chad: You clearly have not investigated Yugos. You need to spend some time reading the Yugo manual and this 1984 Yugoslavian magazine. Then we can have a serious conversation about the issue.
Really-O?: Chad, you asked what would suffice as necessary and sufficient evidence that your 1980 Yugo can hit 200 mph and I told you, clearly and concisely. I don't know what more I can do.
Chad: Well, you see, the real question is, "What would you say if I told you my radio goes really loud?"
====
Gee, Chad, I guess those silly imaginary dialogues are fun.
For context, please refer to these threads:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/poll-america-losing-its-religion/comment-page-71 @ June 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/poll-america-losing-its-religion/comment-page-69 @ May 31, 2013 at 6:33 pm
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/29/poll-america-losing-its-religion/comment-page-67 @ May 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Chad, I would have to have killed him myself and than see him come back to life before I would believe something supernatural occured. Anyhow, you have no evidence that he came back to life. Even the RCC has 'hinted' that people felt the sprit of JC 'coming back' and not that he physically came back. Ok, you have faith that this really happened. Why can't you just accept that others believe it is a myth? Why the need to convert others? Just leave us alone!
@jazz guitar man "Chad, I would have to have killed him myself and than see him come back to life before I would believe something supernatural occured"
@Chad "interesting..
so, if you saw him scourged, crucified and buried, that wouldnt do it for you?
Astonishing this commitment you have to non-belief. No desire whatsoever to investigate and follow the evidence where it leads?
Chad is being his usual dishonest self – he neglected to post that I answered his "evidence" question clearly and forthrightly:
Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed again in 2013, unsurreptitiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested.
...follow some of the threads referenced in my June 2, 2013 at 6:56 pm post...the gyrations Chad attempts are truly classic!
By the way HAR/chadie..........your header on post was ............see below........so do not go deleting comments !
Your request was successfully submitted.
Bing Webmaster Tools
http://www.wecanbeheroes.org/............please check out the link thanks .
@ReallyO "unsurrepti tiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested"
=>what exactly does that mean?
Lets pick one for example.
You're at a wedding, they run out of wine, Jesus tells them to fill jugs with water, it pours out as wine.
doest that meet your criteria?
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle...squirm, squirm, squirm...flail, flail, flail.
You slay me, Chad!
@ReallyO "unsurrepti tiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested"
=>what exactly does that mean?
Lets pick one for example.
You're at a wedding, they run out of wine, Jesus tells them to fill jugs with water, it pours out as wine.
This is really fascinating.. does that meet your criteria?
Chad, I don't wish to attack you but Really-O has made a very solid case and you just are unwilling to listen. You keep mentioning these myths as if they really occured just because you read about them in a book. Sorry but that is NOT proof.
To answer your question I would have to kill JC myself and see that specific body come back to life for me to believe it. Otherwise I wouldn't know that someone pull a stunt on me (i.e, switched the bodies, pretent to kill him but he really wasn't dead etc...
I accept that you have faith in these events. Why can't you just accept that others do NOT? That fact you don't makes you arrogant and rude.
Actually, Chad, here's one that would convince me –
A man appears and says, "I am Jesus, the Christ, your savior. I will bring your father back from the dead to demonstrate that I'm am the son of god." Poof...before me appears a man who looks like my father, sounds like my father, and knows things about me only my father should know. LabCorp then performs paternity testing with samples from me, my mother, and this resurrected man and, low and behold, he's my dad. Praise Jesus! I'm converted.
See how simple that would be?Actually, Chad, here's one that would convince me –
A man appears and says, "I am Jesus, the Christ, your savior. I will bring your father back from the dead to demonstrate that I'm am the son of god." Poof...before me appears a man who looks like my father, sounds like my father, and knows things about me only my father should know. LabCorp then performs paternity testing with samples from me, my mother, and this resurrected man and, low and behold, he's my dad. Praise Jesus! I'm converted.
See how simple that would be?
...sorry for the duplicate text...and for the posts in the wrong threads. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.
This is the point, Chad, where you say something like, "But that's not how god works."
@Really-O
astonishingly enough, that VERY EXACT SAME SITUATION is described in the bible..
If this doesnt send chills down your back, you should get yourself checked..
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” - Luke 16
One thing I completely didnt understand was the commitment to non-belief.. that has come as a surprise to me..
Chad, you speak to an imaginary friend, do you really think any of your arguments are valid?
so..amazingly enough.. I actually think that you are saying that had you been there, watching those miraculous events unfold, you are saying they would not have met your criteria.
So.. for you, it isnt a matter at all to be investigated, because even if you had personally witnessed them, they wouldnt have convinced you.
this commitment to non-belief. I find it simply amazing..
@Chad – "astonishingly enough, that VERY EXACT SAME SITUATION is described in the bible.."
Really, Chad? LabCorp performed DNA testing on Lazarus? Wow! Where do they keep the results? Oh, that's right, you're simply talking about story, unsupported be evidence, from a musty old book. You really are credulous...and dishonest.
@Chad – "because even if you had personally witnessed them, they wouldnt have convinced you."
We are all easily fooled, Chad (have you ever seen a conjurer?) – that's why we have science. How stupid do you really want to appear in a forum?
I'll weigh in on the sufficiency of the Resurrection, Chad. If it were verified that Jesus was dead – warm and dead first, then cold and dead, then brain dead at the histology level and he then returned to life, all within my observation, I'd grant that something physically impossible had happened. The problem of how and why it came about would remain. We'd need something more to connect the event to a God or gods.
Well, yes.. a lot makes sense now. commitment to disbelief..
Identical to the reaction Jesus received from the Pharisees.
i mean.. not "close", but identical.. in ever respect.
never occurred to me that you would actually not have been convinced if you witnessed those events for yourself.. Interesting stuff.. Now I see why you cant be bothered to investigate anything.. It wouldnt matter at all to you that they are real.. wouldnt change a thing..
Chad, ReallyO is right: You really are credulous...and dishonest.
You know there is no actual evidence to investigate. ReallyO and I agreed that IF we had tangible evidence we would change our POV. Instead of accepting this you continue to claim there is tangible evidence when you know there isn't any.
Then you claim that we are the inflexable ones. I'm sure ReallyO is laughing just as much as I am.
Wow, Tom, Tom, the Other One, you're even more of a stickler than I.
Can Chad really be "for real"?
It's not a "commitment to disbelief", Chad, it's called skepticism and it is the default position of most intelligent, educated people.
Q.E.D. (I couldn't resist)
Chad proves time and time again that he has no proof of what he believes, and that he's a remorseless liar. He just makes me laugh anymore, because he pretends so hard that he's wise, but proves the contrary with every statement.
@TT "I'd grant that something physically impossible had happened. The problem of how and why it came about would remain. We'd need something more to connect the event to a God or gods
=>well, this has been a really eye opening day for me..
this commitment to disbelief, and this blatant, outright acknowledgement by atheists that had they personally witnessed those events, it would not have convinced them.
amazing..
@tallulah13
if you had been there and personally witnessed those events 2000 years ago, would you have been convinced?
Chad: "this commitment to disbelief, and this blatant, outright acknowledgement by atheists that had they personally witnessed those events, it would not have convinced them."
Nice straw man, Chad. Dance, monkey, dance.
@Chad – "You're at a wedding, they run out of wine, Jesus tells them to fill jugs with water, it pours out as wine. doest that meet your criteria?"
I performed that exact illusion on stage at my sixth grade talent show – honestly. What the hell does that prove other than the fact that you, Chad, are credulous?
Dance?
I dont get it.. Help me understand.. You just acknowledged that if you had been there, personally witnessed it, you wouldnt have believed.
if that isnt a commitment to disbelief, what is?
Looks like Chad is working on a new argument to convince non-believers they are wrong. I think he is waiting for one person to say "Yes, I would have believed if I had witnesses the Lazarus miracle." I wonder what is response will be that that?
Chad: "@tallulah13...if you had been there and personally witnessed those events 2000 years ago, would you have been convinced?
You mean if tallulah13 was an illiterate desert dweller who didn't know where the sun went at night and had no exposure to science because it didn't exist? You mean would that tallulah13 be convinced?
Couldn't the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe do any or all of them again in 2013, in front of literate, educated people who understand the nature of evidence?
@hotAir
=>at that point I would be showing that indeed Lazarus WAS raised..
the part I hadnt understood until today, is that you dont care if it did or it didnt.. If it did, it wouldnt have convinced you.
Chad: I hope we can agree that you have NOT personally witnesses the so called Christian miriacles?
So why do you believe in them? There is no evidence. That is a fact. All there is are statements from a book. The one being pighead is clearly you. I'll accept your POV if provided the evidence. Since I cannot go back in time the odds are I will never see any evidence. So of course I'm not going to change my POV. Now go drink some water and pretend it is wine.
@HotAirAce –
At June 2, 2013 at 7:17 pm I posted a scenario that, baring my own mental illness or chicanery, would convince me, but it doesn't fit in with Chad's narrative.
@jazz guitar man
=>would you have been convinced if you personally witnessed those events 2000 years ago?
You tell 'em Chad. Don't let 'em stump you with those pesky evidence requests. Just toss more scripture out at random. That's me boy 🙂
Chad, there is a difference between "claiming" and "showing." You do lots of "claiming" but you never actually do any "showing."
@HotAir
=>would you have been convinced if you personally witnessed those events 2000 years ago?
Already answered. Go find it.
And your claim goes way beyond extraordinary all the way to outrageous and so requires a large amount of very high quality evidence. You, on the other hand, have presented absolutely no evidence at all
Chad: "=>would you have been convinced if you personally witnessed those events 2000 years ago?"
You mean if [insert name here] was an illiterate desert dweller who didn't know where the sun went at night and had no exposure to science because it didn't exist? You mean would that [insert name her] be convinced?
Couldn't the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe perform any or all of the biblical miracles again in 2013, in front of literate, educated people who understand the nature of evidence? If not, why not?
@HotAir
=>you seem to be saying no, you wouldnt, if you went back and witnessed it, that wouldnt convince you.
regarding "evidence"
I'm completely floored to find out today that this whole demand for evidence is a complete smokescreen..
Apparently, you folks believe that even if the events in the bible were personally witnessed by yourself, it wouldnt matter, that wouldnt convince you.
Post after post, thread after thread, day after day, week after week, month after month, Chad get's the stuffing kicked out of him by nearly every single poster on this forum – yet he keeps coming back for more. If that doesn't indicate some kind of psychological malady, I don't know what does.
@Really-O? "Couldn't the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe perform any or all of the biblical miracles again in 2013, in front of literate, educated people who understand the nature of evidence? "
=>wouldnt matter, right?
you've already said that had you personally witnessed those events, you wouldnt have been convinced.
right?
@Chad –
"personally witness[ing]" something is not necessarily reliable evidence. That is why we have science. I'd expect someone with "several master's degrees" to understand that.
Why is asking for evidence a smokescreen?
When I go to a magic show for entertainment, I don't ask for evidence because everyone knows they are seeing man-made illusions. When someone claims that what would normally be called magic is real, I ask for evidence. Which case do think I put The Babble in?
Chad's just itching to unleash his "gotcha" response to the first person that falls into the trap he's working very hard a setting. . .
@Chad,
If you saw/witnessed the UFO in Roswell NM in 1947(?) would you beileve in Alien Visitation?
well, I had always been under what it turns out to be a mistaken impression.
When atheists ask for evidence, they arent asking someone to prove the content of the bible is true.. They simply dont care, even if it was, it wouldnt convince them..
that's why they never investigate it.. doesnt matter to them if the bible is true or not.
that is simply a commitment to disbelief. This whole nonsense about "evidence" is a smokescreen from atheists..
@Chad,
Or, more generally, since the Roswell one was a balloon, if you witnessed a UFO would you be convinced?
Chad, have you seen the boxing scene towards the beginning of the movie "Cool Hand Luke" (great movie by the way). Well, you're Luke and this thread is Dragline...stay down, Luke. Stay down.
If I witnessed an alien invasion on Roswell NM in 1947, then I would absolutely believe in alien invasions.
I'm willing to be convinced by the evidence...
@Chad – "They simply dont care, even if it was, it wouldnt convince them."
Another nice straw man – I gave you specific instances of evidence that would convince me, but acknowledging that doesn't fit your dishonest narrative.
@Chad,
"When atheists ask for evidence, they arent asking someone to prove the content of the bible is true.. They simply dont care, even if it was, it wouldnt convince them.."
That's actualy not what you asked. A witness can be fooled.
"that's why they never investigate it.. doesnt matter to them if the bible is true or not."
Hyperbole, many atheists have and continue to investigate the claims of the Bible.
Chad – "If I witnessed an alien invasion on Roswell NM in 1947, then I would absolutely believe in alien invasions."
Chad, once again, demonstrates he is credulous.
@Chad,
"If I witnessed an alien invasion on Roswell NM in 1947, then I would absolutely believe in alien invasions."
Not what I asked, but a good example. It was supposedly a weather balloon – would that convince you of an alien invasion?
There's more evidence for Roswell UFOs than there is for the alleged dead jew zombie vampire cannibal dead-raising dude allegedly named jesus favored by the christian cult.
Apparently this firefight has become too hot even for Chad's asbestos underwear. Thank goodness, Chad sustained a thrashing.
I thought I was going more than half-way with Chad's Resurrection thing. Why did he get all huffy? He could of at least come up with something that would connect the event with one God, only one God, his God.
(could've)
@Chad – "When atheists ask for evidence, they arent asking someone to prove the content of the bible is true.. They simply dont care, even if it was, it wouldnt convince them..."
@really-O "Another nice straw man – I gave you specific instances of evidence that would convince me, but acknowledging that doesn't fit your dishonest narrative."
@Chad "Whoa, not true at all.
You specifically said that had yoy witnessed the events in the bible, you wouldnt be convinced.
You specified a DIFFERENT event, (your dad being brought back to life).
Now, this, as I pointed out before, is astonishingly similar to the pharisees of the time. Refusal to be convinced by what was right in front of them, always asking for something more.
But, the more is a smoke screen..
Sorry, Chad, but the "father" scenario was only one. I have repeatedly stated the following would suffice as evidence –
Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed again in 2013, unsurreptitiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested.
...but, once again, acknowledging that doesn't fit your narrative. You really are a little bitch.
@Chad, "If I witnessed an alien invasion on Roswell NM in 1947, then I would absolutely believe in alien invasions."
@ME II "Not what I asked, but a good example. It was supposedly a weather balloon – would that convince you of an alien invasion?
=>Ah, no, if I witnessed a weather balloon, I would believe in weather balloons.
now, of course, bringing someone back from the dead is hardly something that can be somehow faked or mistaken..
@Really-O? Sorry, Chad, but the "father" scenario was only one. I have repeatedly stated the following would suffice as evidence – Any of the "miracles" of the bible, performed again in 2013, unsurrept itiously and unambiguously so it/they could be observed and freely tested by any and all interested."
=>ah, but then, you've never actually articulated what "unsurrepti tiously and unambiguously" would entail, and I have no doubt you will fail to do so now..
AND
you have said that if you had witnessed the events yourself, you would not have been convinced..
@Chad,
"=>Ah, no, if I witnessed a weather balloon, I would believe in weather balloons."
Only if you knew it was a balloon.
"now, of course, bringing someone back from the dead is hardly something that can be somehow faked or mistaken.."
Why do you think so?
This is the crux of the difficulty here. When you say "witness" the events of the Bible, or any extraordinary event, most skeptics are going to say that that is not enough because witnesses can be mistaken, deceived, etc.. However, if you say that the events of the Bible are shown, with sufficient evidence, to be true, then that, as some have indicated, would be convincing.
Eye-witnesses are notoriously unrelieable, including oneself.That's where science comes in handy.
@ME II 'This is the crux of the difficulty here. When you say "witness" the events of the Bible, or any extraordinary event, most skeptics are going to say that that is not enough because witnesses can be mistaken, deceived, etc.."
=>your utter unfamiliarity with the bible is causing you to say that.. Which of course is always the problem. The miracles were widely witnessed and of a type that were impossible to fake..
for example:
After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7 “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
8 His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” 9 Some claimed that he was. Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”
But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”
10 “How then were your eyes opened?” they asked.
11 He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.”
...
18 They [The Pharisees] still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. 19 “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”
20 “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. 21 But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” 22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. 23 That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”
Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39 “Take away the stone,” he said. “But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.” 40 Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”
41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”
43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”
As you can see, in-arguably, and this is just a sample.. These are no sleight of hand.. Impossible to fake.
@Chad,
Reply posted at end, ~137 at time of posting.
Chad: "but then, you've never actually articulated what "unsurrepti tiously and unambiguously" would entail..."
Chad playing the semantics and equivocation cards...surprise, surprise, surprise. What a punk.
"but then, you've never actually articulated what "unsurrepti tiously and unambiguously" would entail..."
but,, you didnt, right?
Gospel of Chad
Atheism:
1. All atheists agree with everything Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins say; even if it is unrelated to atheism. Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.
2. All atheists agree with one another on everything even if it has nothing to do with atheism. See #1 for models from which you can derive all their beliefs.
3. The definition of atheist includes anything that any atheist I disagree with believes or anything I feel like tossing in there. Ignore any definitions in pesky places like dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias.
4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists.
5. The definition of atheism includes not just materialism but strict deterministic materialism. Non-believers who might be Buddhists, believe in probabilistic physics, see consciousness as prior to the physical world, believe in, say, witchcraft aren’t really atheists.
6. No atheist has ever read the bible. I mean, obviously, they’d be Christians if they had, right? OK, so a few have proven to me – OK, multiple times – that they have read the bible. See #11 (just lie).
Free will:
7. All people who use the term “free will” really mean the same exact thing by that term, which matches my personal use of the term “free will” (unless backed into a corner, then I just declare all other meanings irrelevant)
8. Fatalism and determinism are the same thing. It has been pointed out to me that historically these terms have been used with different meanings, but I find it more convenient to make up my own definitions, as with atheism and free will.
In fact, I brilliantly argued “If a person is a determinist, how in the world does deterrence even come into the picture? Determinists believe in an ever marching set of deterministic outcomes based on an existing set of antecedent conditions. Those conditions march back to the origin of the universe, no way to change the past, so no way to change the future. (On April 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm)
After reading a bit more about fatalism and determinism I decided to change my tune to a claim that determinism leads to fatalism (and to pretend this was what I was saying all along). I’m sticking to reading easy pop philosophers, though, and selective websites on the topic as anything more complex makes my head hurt. I have read snippets from a couple of websites now so that ought to put me on par with people who’ve read dozens of books on the topic, understand neurobiology and have written on both the philosophical and cultural aspects of free will and people’s belief in the topic. Oh, yeah, I know what I’m talking about!
9. A determinist cannot believe that humans can change. This would, of course, mean that nothing can change. Which would mean…oh…crud…better put my head back up my ass.
10. A determinist cannot believe in punishing people for crimes. This is because…well…it doesn’t matter. Just keep repeating it.
Telling lies:
11. It is ethical to lie so long as it promotes Christian beliefs.
12. Speaking of telling lies, a really good way to do this is to rephrase what your opponent says and then keep repeating the misquote in hopes that he or she will get bored and leave your lie as the last statement. Then you win. You can do this either by rewording as a supposed paraphrase or pulling lines out of context and reordering them. God really loves this and gives you extra endurance to sit at the computer all day and keep repeating it.
13. One way to use this super endurance to your advantage is to keep posting the same questions over and over again even after they’ve been answered 50 times. Just pretend they haven’t been answered and act self-righteous about it. It’s really cool if you can ask this same thing on multiple threads and then claim it was never answered forcing people to waste time on the same thing over and over and over.
14. In particular don’t forget that whatever someone says you can respond with “What investigation have you done into…”. Especially good is to ask what investigation was done into the truth of the God of Israel. When the non-Christian comes back to ask how much research you did to prove other gods aren’t real answer “I don’t need to do any because I proved the God of Israel is real and that negates all other gods”. When asked how you proved that repeat the words “empty tomb” over and over until divine light shines on the souls of the heathens.
15. When they refuse to play your game or you don’t like the answer add some sarcasm, but use an emoticon to soften it so they’ll know your snide remarks are all in good fun.
16. Consider asking completely nonsensical questions that can’t even be understood, let alone answered. Best yet include something the person didn’t say as a premise. For example, you might ask an atheist opponent “You say you like murdering small children on Wednesdays, could you explain how this fits with your beliefs about string theory?” Then when your question is ignored accuse the person of avoidance and make up wild hypotheses as to why they are avoiding you.
17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself.
Science, math and psychology:
18. If one scientist says something that backs me, then I can assume all scientists agree with that statement.
19. If atheist scientists say something, even if it is the view of the majority of people in that science, it should be ignored. See #11.
20. Atheists are ruled by confirmation bias. I am free of it – it’s just great luck that everything I read and all the “data” around me confirm my strong religious convictions. See #19 on ignoring anything else.
21. Infinity = all finite numbers according to the Chad. Thirty or forty years of constraint is the same as eternal torment.
22. Rehabilitation and deterrence are the same thing. Yep…convincing a drug addict not to use drugs in case they are shot dead and getting them off the addiction would be the same by my wondrous Chad logic.
General truths about the CNN belief blog:
23. All non-believers are, by definition, idiots so you can use illogical arguments and they’ll just fall for it.
24. If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I’m claiming. Atheists, as mentioned above, are too dumb to notice. Best yet is to post a link or reference a book which actually says the opposite of what I’m saying and just assume no one will look at it.
25. There is a huge mass of fence sitters out there who are eagerly reading CNN blog comments in order to decide whether or not to believe in God.
26. I will personally save all those mentioned in # 25 because I, Chad, am super smart. I know this because I get away with all the above mentioned lies and manipulations. Sometimes people think they are pointing these things out but they really aren’t. Or the stupid atheist masses aren’t reading them anyway.
27. Phrase everything as if it’s a lecture so you look like you know what you’re talking about. See #23 about atheists being idiots and #24 about people not reading anything you post you’ll see that the silly atheists will fall for it every time. In particular they won’t look back to the earlier part of the discussion to see how I’m contradicting myself. This is very well aided by another tactic:
28. As soon as you make an ass of yourself break the conversation into a new thread. That way all the newcomers (see #25 on how they are waiting to have their souls saved) will not bother to read back and see how ignorant you are.
29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
30. Never question another Christian no matter how incorrect or offensive their position.
31. Just remember that you can define a term any way you want and you are always right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIj4rLYo0c
Let me see him be executed, run medical tests on him to prove that he is dead, and then put me in the tomb with him for 3 days while Jesus is still being monitored, and then after 3 days if he comes back to life and rises into heaven I will believe.
Chad doesn't seem to understand the difference between seeing something with your own two eyes, and reading it from a 2000 year old book.
The only reason noone else is boycotting the scouts is because their memberships are quite low compared to the baptist church, baptist church doesn't have to try to please anyone.
Surly you don't mean that you would rather represent God as exclusionary and have fewer members than open your arms and attract as many people to Him as possible?
...and BTW, anyone who is not a Southern Baptist is effectively dismissing your ideology in favor of another.
Please read the referenced article before commenting:
The nitty-gritty of the situation:
From the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”
"Most scientists who study human se-xuality agree that gay people are born that way. But that consensus raises an evolutionary puzzle: How do genes associated with h-omose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?"
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/evolution/Gay-gene-deconstructed.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To any Thinking Southern Baptists:
Any chance you could leave these gay kids alone? Growing up in a religious environment, knowing deep down you are different and widely despised by the religious majority must be very difficult as it is. When you do something like this, you cement in these poor kid’s minds the idea that they are somehow vile and disgusting. You also teach your own kids it is ok to disdain gay children.
Look, imagine how you would have felt if, when you first started to notice girls, a group of adults began telling you that you were a deviant. Please find it somewhere in your hearts to cut these kids some slack. They’re just little children for the love of God.
If this is too much to ask and you must hate them for who they are, please at least have the human decency to do so silently. I don’t believe it is too much to ask that you subordinate your desire to punish and inflict pain on those you do not like to a little compassion and understanding. I am sure most of you are generally good people who would not blink at doing so in most other walks of life.
Many and varied are the victims of this continuing social evil we call “religion.”
Thinking Southern Baptists?
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ho ho ho!
HE HE HE HE HE!
HA! HA! HA! HA!HA!HA!HHAA!!!!
Me thinks the SBC men doth protest too much...
The Southern Baptist Church is right by dumping the scouts. You ant-Christian bigots can have these perverts.
Jim, can you not plainly see the Baptists are the bigot in this situation? The boy scouts are trying to include everybody, it is the Baptists leaving who are the ones who are showing the hatred & intolerance. It is insane to me that you can not see the hypocrisy of your statement. If gay people and their supporters express any sort of resentment it is simply intolerance of THEIR intolerance, how is that not obvious? One group is trying to be included the other group is dropping out so as not to have to converse with the other side. In this situation it is the Baptists dropping out of Boy Scouts who are the bigots, not the other way around. Open your eyes and try some compassion. I truly feel sorry for you.
There are christians and then there are Christians. I'm one of those who left the SBC years ago because I believed that the ultra-conservative wing ceased to live the teachings of the ONE whom they professed belief in. Fundamentalists have distorted the Scripture to the extreme that Jesus would not recognize his teachings. The cult of the SBC and the hate they generate (disguised as adhering to the Bible) is as is not unlike those who wanted the three on the Cross to be crucified. It's the desire for power over others disguised as religion that really is the original sin.
Jim, you appear to be angry about this. Why? The BSA made a policy change. The SBC doesn't agree with the change. The SBC does NOT represent all Christians. Far from it. In fact most Christian sects support the SBA policy change. Even the Mormons and RCC have decided NOT to leave the BSA. These same groups spend a lot of money trying to ban SSM. But they have seen that the tide has changed and have soften their position.
Just admit that your POV is now the minority and became so in only 4 or so years.
Being a Southern Baptist is a choice, too. Let's ban them from polite conversation.
They just love to interfere don't they!
Boy Scouts can't wear uniforms at gay pride parade, official says
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/01/18662824-boy-scouts-cant-wear-uniforms-at-gay-pride-parade-official-says?lite
How very Christian of them!