Thread: GOD, COUNTRY, DUTY AND HONOR

Originally Posted by 59caddy

being stupid is judgmental.

no, being stupid is not judgmental, it's just sad. judgmental is judging something or somebody as stupid, doesn't matter if correctly or incorrectly.

Originally Posted by JMS

The verse or the fact that you posted the verse I do not find offensive, it's just that it doesn't seem to fit...the point is not a clear one at all.

well take it up with the original author, not me. it's jesus who said it, it's not like he's dead and can't explain himself...

Originally Posted by gugi

no, being stupid is not judgmental, it's just sad. judgmental is judging something or somebody as stupid, doesn't matter if correctly or incorrectly.

well i certainly hope the stupid were not the judgmental, look what a mess most stupid politicians have done to us all throughout the times.

May be psychiatrists should not be allowed to serve in the army too, it seems to me quite plausible that dealing with other people's mental issues was what made him go nutz.

The Bible verse of the day is Matthew 5:29 - those are the word of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your statement about psychiatrists being in the Military. All these soldiers today with mental illness is why our military has not won a War since WWII. Should a soldier need a psychiatrists, a private practice psychiatrist should be consulted and the soldier discharged. The military is no place for people of weak mental capability. Soldiers should be trained to kill, because that is how you defend your country or win wars. You must kill the enemy. It is a cold blooded fact.
In my opinion people entering the military should be tested harder than they are. From what my late grandfather told me, the training in the WWII and Korean era was much more intense and the people training soldiers did not care of their confidence or self esteem. His DI (what he called his drill instructor) would and did hit soldiers and do everything possible to make people quit. HE even claimed that he told Marines he would shoot them in the field should they ever retreated. Now, I do not endorse this, but it would certainly be a motivation.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was not even a diagnosis by the DSM-IV (what shrinks use to bill your insurance and make a diagnosis based on criteria) until AFTER Vietnam. So to our brave men at Normandy, you would not qualify. Soldiers who get mental disorders by in large were not mentally capable of handling the things they encountered to begin with. Point in fact being that most Special Forces groups do not cry mental illness after they have left the military because they are more intensely tested in order to make those groups.
As to the Bible verse, it is out of context. However, by concept of that section where it is taken on Adultery, if people lived by that lesson, there would be less divorce, crime, and greed. Tthat would make the world a better place.

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Originally Posted by treydampier

our military has not won a War since WWII.

What happened to the war in 1990-1991?

Originally Posted by treydampier

Soldiers should be trained to kill, because that is how you defend your country or win wars. You must kill the enemy. It is a cold blooded fact.
In my opinion people entering the military should be tested harder than they are.

Actually you would be wrong, soldiers are trained much better and they are much better at killing. Since you mention WWII, do you know what the army found about the 'kill rate' in that war? There is very interesting evidence with respect to killing in wars. For example in the US civil war do you know the percentage of of weapons taken from dead soldiers which were loaded, but not fired? Take a wild guess before looking it up, see how close you come to the number, even now that I've biased you.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Now, I do not endorse this, but it would certainly be a motivation.

Well, if you don't endorse something it means you think it's a bad idea, why not instead tell us something that you think is actually a good idea.
What if I make the following statement - I don't endorse banning everybody I disagree with from the forum, but it will be really effective for ending all bickering?

Originally Posted by treydampier

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was not even a diagnosis by the DSM-IV (what shrinks use to bill your insurance and make a diagnosis based on criteria) until AFTER Vietnam. So to our brave men at Normandy, you would not qualify. Soldiers who get mental disorders by in large were not mentally capable of handling the things they encountered to begin with.

Very interesting, few questions on this since you have medical training
(1) If today is the first day when disease A (swine flu, HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc.) becomes a diagnosis, you are saying that only those contracting the disease after today are eligible to be diagnosed with it. Doesn't make much sense to me, may be you meant to say something else.
(2) Do you think the brave men at Normandy should qualify? You were claiming they were trained really well, so they were completely ready to deal with the stress there.
(3) Do you consider PTSD a real disease/condition (I'm not familiar with the terminology sincce it is not my field). You seem to be somewhat dismissive about it, and you have more knowledge on the subject than I do.

Originally Posted by treydampier

As to the Bible verse, it is out of context. However, by concept of that section where it is taken on Adultery, if people lived by that lesson, there would be less divorce, crime, and greed. Tthat would make the world a better place.

Very good, the context is indeed widely available. So how exactly do you think the problem of adultery should be solved? I mean we have that verse in its context and we have the current rates of divorce, crime, and greed. Clearly people don't live by that verse, how do you propose this be rectified. I think it's pretty clear that Jesus proposes the intervention happen at the 'looking lustfully' point. My question to you is, have you ever looked lustfully at a woman (or a man, or both....) and if yes what part of your body you have removed, if you haven't do you know any people who have and have you counseled them on the subject of removing body parts. I hope you do want the world to be a better place and it seems that you consider yourself a Christian.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Nice, you'd think Jesus should've followed his own advice, eh. He did know the consequences didn't he. Since today we're big on context, the preceding verse is about hypocrisy, which ties rather nicely with the predominant perception about christians.

But, Jesus is not a man He is God in the flesh, the instruction is for us, plus He indeed knew what was in store for Him, He was the only one who could do it. And the preceding verses were about hypocrisy not that verse.

This is going to be a long reply and if anyone is offended in any way, I am sorry. This is just my opinion. The concepts etc. presented are general, not 100% correct, and not absolute truth. Neither is the person who wants the response 100% correct in his opinion because research will not reveal facts in these scenarios, only general information that will be based on the source being quoted. Therefore after this, you can bash me for being a Christian like many other people do and call me whatever you desire in the SRP "gentlemanly fashion", with no response from me because I know that no one is trying to offend me.

First:
In 1990-1991 our enemy was Saddam Hussein and our enemy was taking over a major exporter of oil to the US which would have had major economic implications at that time. We failed to kill the enemy at that time. While I profoundly disagreed with the second Iraq War and still do, I certainly feel Saddam should have been captured and tried for war crimes then (1991). Therefore, in my opinion we lost the war.
Second:
The kill rate might have been less and many unfired bullets. Soldiers are better trained tactically, however the toughness of today's soldiers is substantially less on average than the older generation of soldiers. Hence the percentage of recent soldiers today with some form of mental illness is well over 10 times that of the older generations.
Third:
I do not endorse the "no retreat" attitude because you might enter a situation you are unable to win at the time, but with retreating and a new better planned attack you can still win. Now the concept of "never backing down" or "doing whatever it takes to win" is something I agree should be instilled in soldiers today. General Patton stated:
Infantry must move forward to close with the enemy. It must shoot in order to move…. To halt under fire is folly. To halt under fire and not fire back is suicide. Officers must set the example"
- General George Patton Jr "War as I knew it" 1947
He knew more about War than anyone on this site, so to argue war against this makes a person look foolish. As to the banning, I am a member, but not a moderator, therefore I can't ban anyone so it only works to the moderators advantage. PLEASE, IF THIS REPLY OFFENDS YOU OR ANY ONE ELSE, JUST REMOVE IT BECAUSE I HAVE NO DESIRE TO BE BANNED OR TO OFFEND ANYONE.
Fourth:
The DSM-IV was created because the practice of psychiatry was so vague and disorganized that there had to be some grounds to bill medicare and insurance companies and create an effective way of declaring mental disabilities so someone could avoid working or other activities. The men who went into the battles certainly fit the criteria and I never said that they didn't. Your perspective took it that way and made it seem like I felt they did not think they fit. However, what I said about when the diagnosis of PTSD being created after the Vietnam War era is true. I never said that the disease was not real, but I meant to say that at the time of WWII they would not have been discharged for that reason because the diagnosis was not invented by that time. I was very unclear. Also, the rate of soldiers who let that diagnosis debilitate them an make them "unable to work or function" was substantially less because most of them were already mentally stronger due to enduring the Great Depression. But, yes they were better trained psychologically to endure war and hence they did not have nearly the rate of mental illness our soldiers have today. To the third question, yes I feel it is a real disease, but I do not feel its debilitating.
Last but Not Least:
I have looked at a woman in lust, and am guilty of more sins than anyone else. I have not removed any parts of my body either. Many people who are non-Christian or not religious take single verses and make an argument. There is no man living, not one, who is not guilty of sin. Romans:3:21-24 "21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"
I am a Christian (born again), and proud to be one. I grew up attending the First United Methodist Church in Moultrie, GA where I am still a member though I no longer live there. I sang in the Choir there and became a Christian there. I even receive three scholarship offers before I graduated high school because I my learning to sing and read music began there. I was not baptized at birth because my parents wanted me to choose what I believe. I thank God that they are Christians and made me go to church to at least learn what Christ was about before I chose to follow Him. I try to attend services weekly and pray almost every night. I am far form perfect and confess my sins to God often and pray for his mercy and forgiveness. However, my faith in Christ is greater to me than anything, or anyone on this earth and I do not care what the government or other people against me do, I will never deny my faith. For me, faith in Christ has brought me through many tough times and made think twice on many occasions. I have never killed in the name of Christ and anyone who has is guilty of murder because Christ NEVER endorsed murder, sin, corruption, or any of the other problems we have today. He set the perfect example to which I try to model my life. The only unforgivable sin according to the Bible is to speak against God, and it is quoted here.MARK 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
That is what I believe and where I stand on this discussion. As a Christian I will also say this. I have not tried to force my faith on anyone, nor have I condemned anyone else's faith. It is not for me to judge a person. WHatever one believes is his/her own business and I will never harm them or criticize them for disagreeing with me on my faith.
Thanks Everyone!

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.