Don't Ask Don't Tell

[3GeronimoPA]

"... the Bible is truth".

Well, you can keep on telling yourself that. You can shout it from the highest mountain.

You can continue to loudly state those words to anyone who debates you.

 

And I will continue to attempt to respectfully defend my position

 

But that doesn't, and won't, make it so.

 

Just as denying it to anyone who debates you and shouting your point of view from the mountaintop will not affect it's being most reflective of reality or not.

 

Keep on reading ... oh and incidentally, you seem to use the word "God" a lot. Do you know where the word originated? Look it up, it's interesting. Maybe you can try and find a non-biased University for resources or something.

Indeed I have studied the origin of the terms we "Christians" regularly use. Though the name we us to refer to our Creator "God" does Him no justice, we still must have a term to refer to Him in order to discuss things as we have. I wouldn't waste my time with a non-biased university. I would be tripping on LSD to assume there is such a thing. What I can do is take classes from both sides of the debates about God, morality, etc. and make reasonable deductions.

[3GeronimoPA]

As to Nate: Dude, you are aware the "old testament" (I prefer Torah) was written by people who still thought bronze tools were an awesome thing right? And the New Testament written by a bunch of people who had never traveled outside of the Mediterranean, never lived under any system but the Roman Empire, and had prejudices against their somewhat homosexual neighbors, the Greeks, that they inherited from the Jews who were about a xenophobic as you could get.

 

Coming from the position that their writings were inspired by God, their being well-traveled, or what experiences they possessed or lacked has no bearing on the merit of what they wrote. Not to mention that the New Testament was written by men who had traveled well outside of that remote area and it is logically consistent, in many aspects intertwined with the Old Testament. The NT adds validity to the OT.

 

When you take into account both the social and cultural influences of the time, and then look at the world we live in now, a world the apostles literally couldn't envision because it is so wildly different, don't you wonder if maybe we should take some time to reinterpret G-d as a more humanistic figure?

Assuming that the Bible was truth, if even at a time, it would be logically fallible to reinterpret God seeing as we are the creation and he has already reveled himself to us. There is no provision for us to re-define him since we never defined him from the beginning rather he revealed himself to us.

 

The Enlightenment's humanism is what produced our country, as well as all Western liberal democracies. It also provided a positivistic atmosphere that allowed science to flourish, that allowed modern medicine to evolve and Newton to theorize. My final question: how could the bible be truth if it was written by men, men who are, according to your belief system, inherently flawed and sinful?

Humanism? That's not what I gather: http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

 

That being said, you have a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, provided you don't stomp on their rights. Very good arguments from you supporting your position as well, even though I disagree with you.

I believe that people should be able to choose which lifestyle they wish to chose provided they don't remove the rights of those of us that don't share their liberal viewpoints. If the state of Massachusetts wants to marry homosexuals, I could care less. I believe that God sanctions marriage and that the state's involvement is mere tracking, insurance, and taxing related. That's just my point. Thanks for the respectful way in which you present your arguments. It says a lot about you.

[Hemegroup]

Just as denying it to anyone who debates you and shouting your point of view from the mountaintop will not affect it's being most reflective of reality or not.

 

No nate, it's called objectivity, something which you are sorely lacking in. But it's impossible to reason with you, because you think science is biased by 'liberals'. That makes it virtually impossible to have an educated discussion with you, because in the end you'll simply fall back on 'because god says so'.

 

You've stated that there is no such thing as a non-biased university. How can you administer medications, that were invented and regulated by science? Aren't you worried about the bias? Was there bias in your Microbiology lab, in undergrad, if you had to take it (which I'm assuming you did)? Or is there only bias in Human Sexuality classes, because it's the only thing that you have a problem with?

 

Indeed I have studied the origin of the terms we "Christians" regularly use. Though the name we us to refer to our Creator "God" does Him no justice, we still must have a term to refer to Him in order to discuss things as we have.

 

Have you, then can you tell me about the origin of the word "God"? Indeed?

 

While you're at it, are you also able to tell me how fast the atoms in the air in front of your face are moving at this very moment? How about the atoms in your own body, nate? Do you know how fast they're moving? (taking into account quantum mechanics of course, I'm just speaking of linear movement)

[3GeronimoPA]

No nate, it's called objectivity, something which you are sorely lacking in.

 

Because I disagree with you obviously I have no objective mind. I believe that science serves a very important purpose if it is genuinely approached. How can a science approach life from the perspective, "assuming God doesn't exist, how do we come to "xyz". That is precisely what the scientific community does in many (not all) aspects. Not to mention, science has done thing in the line of disproving the existence of God and the more evidence unearthed on the Bible only validates the translations of the Bible that we have. No discovery we have speaks against the life and person of Jesus Christ. What makes this perspective not\n-objective? What makes "religion" more biased than "irreligion"? It's a device to assume the moral high ground and claim objectivity suits your arguments and not those you debate.

 

then can you tell me about the origin of the word "God"? Indeed?

***yawn*** Take your pick. http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/God.htm

http://wahiduddin.net/words/name_god.htm

http://www.greekconnection.com/bbs/00/messages/6122.html

 

While you're at it, are you also able to tell me how fast the atoms in the air in front of your face are moving at this very moment? How about the atoms in your own body, nate? Do you know how fast they're moving? (taking into account quantum mechanics of course, I'm just speaking of linear movement)

Because this somehow affects morality? This somehow proves/disproves God? This somehow applies to the conversation we were having? Let me just go ahead and tell you so you can be satisfied, there are going to be some things that you know that I don't know. I hope you feel better. As far as the arguments as they stood before, my positions still stand.

 

Do you know how many North-South running streets there are in Milwaukee? What about in 1920? These questions don't add much to the conversation do they?

[Hemegroup]

Because I disagree with you obviously I have no objective mind. I believe that science serves a very important purpose if it is genuinely approached. How can a science approach life from the perspective, "assuming God doesn't exist, how do we come to "xyz". That is precisely what the scientific community does in many (not all) aspects. Not to mention, science has done thing in the line of disproving the existence of God and the more evidence unearthed on the Bible only validates the translations of the Bible that we have. No discovery we have speaks against the life and person of Jesus Christ. What makes this perspective not\n-objective? What makes "religion" more biased than "irreligion"? It's a device to assume the moral high ground and claim objectivity suits your arguments and not those you debate.

 

 

***yawn*** Take your pick. http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/God.htm

http://wahiduddin.net/words/name_god.htm

http://www.greekconnection.com/bbs/00/messages/6122.html

 

 

Because this somehow affects morality? This somehow proves/disproves God? This somehow applies to the conversation we were having? Let me just go ahead and tell you so you can be satisfied, there are going to be some things that you know that I don't know. I hope you feel better. As far as the arguments as they stood before, my positions still stand.

 

Do you know how many North-South running streets there are in Milwaukee? What about in 1920? These questions don't add much to the conversation do they?

 

According to our debate about human sexuality, that was your argument ... that human sexuality classes, indeed you lumped all sciences together, are biased. That means that, according to you, there is no way to study human sexuality without bias. That makes no sense. As I said before, what is, is. We're all welcome to form our opinions after that, but initially you have to study something as fact first. And yes, part of human sexuality is that the male prostate can give sexual pleasure. That is a fact. Say what you like after that, or create a belief system, but that doesn't change it from being what it is. As for 'proving/disproving God', I thought we just got to the understanding that it's just a word. I would say that our beliefs about the creative force behind everything are probably similar on some planes, but not in larger idea and form.

 

You sound pretty smug, nate, but it's my opinion that you're actually pretty out of touch with your true spiritual side. You put off a pretense that you know absolute truth, yet my bet is that you don't think about the atoms in the air or in your body too often. What I was trying to do with that was shake your blinders off. Life and existence are truly glorious, nate, and they don't depend on any one Book or religion or idol. And guess what, we're ALL privy to and inherently involved with those glories, not you or me more than anyone else. We can so easily forget, but it's possible to free our minds and remember. Like I always say, we wake up in church.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7pSQCE22I&feature=related

[Hemegroup]

"Here are some numbers: for O2, N2, , , the speed of the molecules at room temperature v is approximately 500 meters per sec., so the molecule has of order 10,000,000,000 collisions per second."

 

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/MolecularCollisions.htm

 

Wow! 10,000,000,000 collisions per second. I wonder what that sounds like.

[3GeronimoPA]

According to our debate about human sexuality, that was your argument ... that human sexuality classes, indeed you lumped all sciences together, are biased.

Not that all sciences together are biased but that scientists can twist arguments to make them what they want them. Like the global warming scandal. Though it may or may not be true, lies were portrayed. I just refuse to view the science community in the stoic light that you do.

 

That means that, according to you, there is no way to study human sexuality without bias. That makes no sense.

Which is why I NEVER said "all scientists" or "all science" but rather neither science nor scientists were incapable of bias.

 

As I said before, what is, is. We're all welcome to form our opinions after that, but initially you have to study something as fact first.

Sure. But if I refuse to just accept the same starting points of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny as many of the liberal humanistic world view. And if we are going to accept scientific viewpoints as fact without scrutinizing them we are going to be in a wold of hurt. No book has EVER been under the scrutiny that the Bible has. It is still the #1 best seller every day, every week, every month, and every year. It has been taken off the listing because opponents despise it's position in humanity. The more we find out about it the more true to the original and the more reflective of reality we find it to be(such as the dead sea scrolls discovery). I feel comfortable with that as a good vantage point.

 

And yes, part of human sexuality is that the male prostate can give sexual pleasure. That is a fact. Say what you like after that, or create a belief system, but that doesn't change it from being what it is.

Neither does it establish it as a organ which was intended for receptive anal intercourse. Did you not forget that I am quoted as saying, "LSD and Meth both exist and can illicit euphoria yet one can safely assume that they were not meant for use as recreational drugs"?

 

As for 'proving/disproving God', I thought we just got to the understanding that it's just a word. I would say that our beliefs about the creative force behind everything are probably similar on some planes, but not in larger idea and form.

the word "god" is just a word but Whom I am referencing when I am saying "God" is not just a word. We may have similar views on Origin (#1), but we differ on Meaning (#2), Morality (#3), and Destiny (#4) which we all have to be able to answer to truly be at peace with ourselves in life and they all have to make sense, and they all have to be "inter-coherent".

 

You sound pretty smug, nate,

An admitted character flaw I am struggling with. I have a hard time not mirroring the manner I am spoken to back to the person that is giving it.

 

but it's my opinion that you're actually pretty out of touch with your true spiritual side.

So attacking my spirituality is what follows after attacking my intellect does not succeed.

 

You put off a pretense that you know absolute truth,

No, but That I know Whom absolute truth comes from

 

yet my bet is that you don't think about the atoms in the air or in your body too often.

Because life is not found in them, but in He who created them and me.

 

What I was trying to do with that was shake your blinders off. Life and existence are truly glorious, nate, and they don't depend on any one Book or religion or idol. And guess what, we're ALL privy to and inherently involved with those glories, not you or me more than anyone else. We can so easily forget, but it's possible to free our minds and remember. Like I always say, we wake up in church.

 

We all being created are indeed a part of and involved in God's glories and none more than another you and I agree on this. I am debating God's moral law and meaning which our 2 of the fundamental questions in life. All action is based on the level of philosophy known as theory. I am debating theory of meaning and morality. Like C.S. Lewis said (not in exact words) an open mind is like an open mouth, it does best closed upon something solid. Left open a mouth is like a petri dish much like the mind, a festering ground for all sorts of vile things. A mind chained to truth is much better off than a mind free from it. I'd say we wake up in church and fall asleep when we think that we know better than God.

[Hemegroup]

A mind chained to truth is much better off than a mind free from it. I'd say we wake up in church and fall asleep when we think that we know better than God.

 

Well, to your first sentence I certainly do agree! But I thought we fall asleep when we get tired. And yes, I do know better than slavery, slaughter of the elderly and infants, and oppression of women. Not to mention numerous other fallacies and inconsistencies found in 'the bible'. But I hope you'll take the good out of it, and leave the rest behind.

 

If you think the pleasurable capabilities of the male prostate is there to be ignored or denied, then that's your prerogative. But it doesn't change fact. I understand what you're saying, about drugs stimulating certain receptors. But if we're going to apply that logic to everything, then why eat when we're hungry? Why gain knowledge simply because our brain has the capacity for learning? Many cultures have incorporated entheogens to gain enlightenment. Just as male bisexuality and homosexuality has been a part of our species since time immemorial. It's not 'bad', but some people strive to make it out to be. And hey, nothing says a female can't be the one to do the stimulating ... they're called fingers, or there's always 'toys' ;)

 

Honestly, Nate, you sound like life is meant to be very strict and, truthfully, not very fun. Did you know that Hindu faith teaches there are 330 million names for The All, and that those are but a drop in the bucket to the true number of names? Some of those names represent Hes, and Shes, and some in-betweens as well.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality

 

Like C.S. Lewis said (not in exact words) an open mind is like an open mouth, it does best closed upon something solid.

Naughty!

[Firemedic13]

Nate: Humanism really was what the founding fathers believed, despite public quotes to the contrary. Check out the Thomas Jefferson version of the Bible. He removes every divine mention and miracle, and treats Jesus as simply a deeply kind human teacher, and in a different text called Christianity a group of frauds and charlatans. George Washington never took communion, John Adams was a professed Deist who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, and Ben Franklin felt all religions are good provided they focused on good works as opposed to faith, and was a Deist with admittedly Puritan values. They were all deeply spiritual, but not really Christian. Deism is belief in a supreme being, of course, but one who can be understood from a human perspective, and worked with from a human level, meaning that, de facto they were humanists.

 

As I said before, you are entitled to your beliefs, but I had to call you on the fact above.

 

 

Heme: He has got you on one thing. Science is inherently biased, because it was created and is created by humans. I know there are other examples, but I can't think of any right now except Schroedengers Cat. Give me a few hours sleep and I might be able to some up with names of philosophers and scientists who back me up... if you really need that.

 

Both of you: Seriously, do you really think you are going to change each other's minds? Maybe consider letting it go and simply agreeing to disagree.

[3GeronimoPA]

But if we're going to apply that logic to everything, then why eat when we're hungry?

Food is necessary for life

 

Why gain knowledge simply because our brain has the capacity for learning?

Proverbs 15:14 The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge

 

Many cultures have incorporated entheogens to gain enlightenment. Just as male bisexuality and homosexuality has been a part of our species since time immemorial. It's not 'bad', but some people strive to make it out to be.

Murder is even older and Prostitution just as old if not older. Time cannot be used as the great moral criterion

 

Honestly, Nate, you sound like life is meant to be very strict and, truthfully, not very fun.

Quite the opposite. I'm in Milwaukee at a review course with my friends. Going to grab "A" beer with my dinner after watching Die Hard for laughs. Look forward to getting back to Col Springs to grab my wife and kids and drive off to my next duty assignment. I married my best friend. I love and have the love of my kids. I have friends that would lay down in traffic for me if needed. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan twice each in service to my country. I came into the Army at 17 with nothing but a HS diploma and I have a Master's degree with no student loans in a career field that I love. I hike, run, shoot, and mountain bike. I volunteer my time and resources for people who are not as fortunate as I am. All of this and the most expensive home I lived in prior to joining the military was less than $16k. I am blessed and I am very grateful for my life. What other than God, Family, care for and from those around me, a rewarding profession, and enjoyable hobbies could a man ask for? I have no desire for drugs, immoral erotic practices, or any other extras in my life for me to feel complete. Life is GOOD! I look to the Bible for Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny because it is both intellectually adequate, logically consistent, and experientially relevant.

 

Did you know that Hindu faith teaches there are 330 million names for The All, and that those are but a drop in the bucket to the true number of names? Some of those names represent some Hes and some Shes, and some in-betweens as well.

 

They are polytheistic so they would require more names. The number of names they use to describe their many Gods does not add or detract credibility to their belief system.

[3GeronimoPA]

Nate: Humanism really was what the founding fathers believed, despite public quotes to the contrary. Check out the Thomas Jefferson version of the Bible. He removes every divine mention and miracle, and treats Jesus as simply a deeply kind human teacher, and in a different text called Christianity a group of frauds and charlatans. George Washington never took communion, John Adams was a professed Deist who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, and Ben Franklin felt all religions are good provided they focused on good works as opposed to faith, and was a Deist with admittedly Puritan values. They were all deeply spiritual, but not really Christian. Deism is belief in a supreme being, of course, but one who can be understood from a human perspective, and worked with from a human level, meaning that, de facto they were humanists.

 

John Adams:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

 

Even so, many of the founders as described in the link I posted were indeed Christian. You described 3 and I just posted a quote of John Adams' that speaks to the contrary. With that said, I have nothing to gain or lose by America being founded upon Christian principles. I don't want to argue with you on it because I do believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

Both of you: Seriously, do you really think you are going to change each other's minds? Maybe consider letting it go and simply agreeing to disagree.

Nope. I was initially defending a point and I offered to discuss Christianity to this extent VIA PM. Heme wanted to do it out and open guaranteed victory. I don't think that it is fair for one to assume that a Christian perspective cannot adequately be defended so I offered rebuttal. There are intellectual giants on both sides of the argument. I made no such statements about atheists or humanists having arguments that could easily be defeated nor did I claim a position of intellectual superiority. I did state that I believed I had truth on my side, but if that were not true of all of us, we would simply have nothing to say. I'm content to just let it be. This is not the forum for me to convince anyone of my worldview this, I am aware. I just wont allow the conclusion that Christianity is insufficient to address modern morality to go without debate.

[Firemedic13]

Fair enough then... you two have fun.

[Hemegroup]

Food is necessary for life

 

 

Proverbs 15:14 The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge

 

 

Murder is even older and Prostitution just as old if not older. Time cannot be used as the great moral criterion

 

 

Quite the opposite. I'm in Milwaukee at a review course with my friends. Going to grab "A" beer with my dinner after watching Die Hard for laughs. Look forward to getting back to Col Springs to grab my wife and kids and drive off to my next duty assignment. I married my best friend. I love and have the love of my kids. I have friends that would lay down in traffic for me if needed. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan twice each in service to my country. I came into the Army at 17 with nothing but a HS diploma and I have a Master's degree with no student loans in a career field that I love. I hike, run, shoot, and mountain bike. I volunteer my time and resources for people who are not as fortunate as I am. All of this and the most expensive home I lived in prior to joining the military was less than $16k. I am blessed and I am very grateful for my life. What other than God, Family, care for and from those around me, a rewarding profession, and enjoyable hobbies could a man ask for? I have no desire for drugs, immoral erotic practices, or any other extras in my life for me to feel complete. Life is GOOD! I look to the Bible for Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny because it is both intellectually adequate, logically consistent, and experientially relevant.

 

 

 

They are polytheistic so they would require more names. The number of names they use to describe their many Gods does not add or detract credibility to their belief system.

 

And that's good for YOU, dude. YOU. Whatever works. Good for you. But not everyone else in the world has to be YOU. Do you understand that? You can list every personal detail you like, it makes not one iota of difference. You're no worse or better than anyone. You, nor anyone else, have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to suggest or demand that other people have to be seen or treated as second-class citizens or second-class soldiers. You have NO RIGHT TO DO THAT.

 

As for our other discussions, you have every right to keep your vision on 'Him', your Big White Guy. You aren't required to see the atoms or expand your vision. It's all still there, with or without you.

 

And while it could be suggested that Hindus are polytheistic, it can also be said that they are monotheistic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

 

The rest are simply various faces.

 

I'm quite satisfied with my expose on the bible and homosexuality, which I believe was our initial topic of debate. You're the one who said you didn't feel like writing your '4 page paper' in rebuttal.

 

I look to the Bible for Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny because it is both intellectually adequate, logically consistent, and experientially relevant.

For you, it would seem, but it most definitely is not for me. Enjoy your cotton/polyester blends, and remind your wife to keep her hair long.

[Guest POTR]

Actually, the topic of the thread was asking for military service members' perspectives on whether or not the OP should consider military service, and if so which branch.

 

Nate gave his qualified perspective.

 

Hemegroup attacked Nate's position, hi-jacking the thread from the author's stated purpose, offering nothing in furtherance of the conversation and goals of the OP.

 

Hemegroup's continued attacks against Nate, and Nate's continued responses have only served Hemegroup's own chaotic purpose, and the actions of both parties have contributed to the complete breakdown of the original intent of the conversation. Proper practice would be to 'take it outside' and start your own thread if you wish to dig through each others' entrails. Hemegroup in feigning support for the OP has in fact only done harm to the OP's quest for relevant information to his cause. Nate has unfortunately assisted in this by continuing to defend/engage off-topic. And both owe the OP an apology for their parts in derailing him in his quest. IF he ever feels like it would be worthwhile to return.

[CAdamsPAC]

Actually, the topic of the thread was asking for military service members' perspectives on whether or not the OP should consider military service, and if so which branch.

 

Nate gave his qualified perspective.

 

Hemegroup attacked Nate's position, hi-jacking the thread from the author's stated purpose, offering nothing in furtherance of the conversation and goals of the OP.

 

Hemegroup's continued attacks against Nate, and Nate's continued responses have only served Hemegroup's own chaotic purpose, and the actions of both parties have contributed to the complete breakdown of the original intent of the conversation. Proper practice would be to 'take it outside' and start your own thread if you wish to dig through each others' entrails. Hemegroup in feigning support for the OP has in fact only done harm to the OP's quest for relevant information to his cause. Nate has unfortunately assisted in this by continuing to defend/engage off-topic. And both owe the OP an apology for their parts in derailing him in his quest. IF he ever feels like it would be worthwhile to return.

 

 

To quote Detective John McClain " Welcome to the party Pal!". I see that after 5 posts during the first month of enrollment you have taken on the mantle of moderator/commentator and critic of the contents of postings on this thread . I don't know if you have been lurking this forum for any apprecible period of time, but you may discover that digression and evolution of thoughts often occur on these threads. Point in case is "your" assessment of two long time posters exchanges might even qualify as a bit of digression. If you read the OP's post around #26 , I believe he signed off, only to make a brief self censored profane reappearance with post #80. While I don't know anything about you, I do know that this site/forum has and will continue to have threads that may deviate from where "you" think they should flow towards. The real fun part about this forum is, people are free to post their reasonable and relatively polite disagreement with other posters...........which BTW this post/reply is! Again "Welcome to the party,Pal":wink:

[USN2UNC]

And that's good for YOU, dude. YOU. Whatever works. Good for you. But not everyone else in the world has to be YOU. Do you understand that? You can list every personal detail you like, it makes not one iota of difference. You're no worse or better than anyone. You, nor anyone else, have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to suggest or demand that other people have to be seen or treated as second-class citizens or second-class soldiers. You have NO RIGHT TO DO THAT.

 

I really don't think he did.

 

"Don't ask, don't tell" is the policy that both appeases them and allows only the most patriotic and dedicated of the homosexual community to serve well as they have to put something they feel is a part of them on hold until they are out. Call me what you want to call me, but it best reflects reality.

 

I have served with people of all sorts of preferences including sexual. At the end of the day, if you love this country, are willing to obey the rules of the military, and actually love this military, I would work with you any day and most of the angry...et al....homophobes would too.

 

Acromion asked for the perspective of military PA's. Nate simply gave that viewpoint- in which he is truly the most qualified poster on this thread to give being a current military PA. While he does not agree with the lifestyle he did not try to push that upon us- just defending his right to his own faith.

 

Additionally, no offense, but your condescending tone completely detracts from your argument.

[Firemedic13]

But not everyone else in the world has to be YOU. Do you understand that? You can list every personal detail you like, it makes not one iota of difference. You're no worse or better than anyone. You, nor anyone else, have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to suggest or demand that other people have to be seen or treated as second-class citizens or second-class soldiers. You have NO RIGHT TO DO THAT.

 

Um, HEME.... he never said anything like that about Acromion... in fact:

 

Acromion,

 

I'm glad you want to serve and I hope you do. We need people with a heart for the job.

 

So, I am not sure why you are arguing with the dude. I am usually on your side Heme, heck I am one liberal dude, but seriously, this guy is simply defending his religion... not actually attacking anyone.

[Hemegroup]

So incorrect. You can go back and read through his posts yourself. Enough with the defense of someone who speaks bigotry through a thin veil. But then again, go ahead, it's anyones right. I for one refuse to do it. And I will continue to stand up against anyone who spouts "love the sinner and not the sin", "not compatible with the military". etc, etc. Again, I don't care if you're the straightest, whitest, most christian male on the planet. The bible is no platform on which to judge others.

 

I offered to debate, and was engaged. Deal with it. No one should have to put who they are "on hold". Yuck.

[Guest POTR]

Thanks for the welcome and the advice CAdamsPAC, although this should probably not be the thread for it.

 

Just to get it straight.. in your opinion, time and posts for you is credibility. Therefore, two 'Surgeons' arguing about whether they should remove a gall bladder through traditional or laparoscopic method shouldn't be reminded by the 'CNA' that the patient was in for head trauma after he dies. Got it.

[USN2UNC]

Thanks for the welcome and the advice CAdamsPAC, although this should probably not be the thread for it.

 

Guy, what are you....the thread police? We have moderators for a reason...they have already been by this thread...you are not one.

 

Just to get it straight.. in your opinion, time and posts for you is credibility. Therefore, two 'Surgeons' arguing about whether they should remove a gall bladder through traditional or laparoscopic method shouldn't be reminded by the 'CNA' that the patient was in for head trauma after he dies. Got it.

 

Maybe you should start with an introduction before you begin with all this hypothetical mess above. If you are Active or a Vet we have a section called Roll Call. If you are neither, your situational awareness sucks.

 

Regardless of time or posts, CAdams is both a vet and a PA with 20+ years of experience, I think that earns him some respect.

[roman6163]

Guy, what are you....the thread police? We have moderators for a reason...they have already been by this thread...you are not one.

 

 

 

Maybe you should start with an introduction before you begin with all this hypothetical mess above. If you are Active or a Vet we have a section called Roll Call. If you are neither, your situational awareness sucks.

 

Regardless of time or posts, CAdams is both a vet and a PA with 20+ years of experience, I think that earns him some respect.

 

Ditto.....................

[CAdamsPAC]

Thanks for the welcome and the advice CAdamsPAC, although this should probably not be the thread for it.

 

Just to get it straight.. in your opinion, time and posts for you is credibility. Therefore, two 'Surgeons' arguing about whether they should remove a gall bladder through traditional or laparoscopic method shouldn't be reminded by the 'CNA' that the patient was in for head trauma after he dies. Got it.

 

Tangential and off the point. You obviously focused on less than the entire post. The point is this forum on more than a few occassions contains threads that evolve into other lines of thought and discussion. I don't pretend to know your background , but in life and medicine things don't always follow "the plan" so change and evolution of a course of action isn't unusual or out of line. I suggest that you reread and rethink the OP's last TWO post and then reread my response to your questioning the appropriateness of other's posts.

BTW should a Surgeon not be aware of why the patient is in the OR ,they probably are going to die on the table! Again"Welcome to the party, Pal"

[3GeronimoPA]

I think our vets have a lot to offer on these boards. I actually think even they underestimate the weight of their words on here. I admit I could stand to be a little nicer in my interaction with Heme but to my defense, I did not attack him or homosexuals. I merely stated my military opinion and defended my worldview when it was attcked or "expose"d... If this makes me as despicable as Heme describes me then so be it. Thanks to you guys speaking up on my behalf. I didn't originally intend to jump off track but it seems we didn't just jump off, but tore up the track and made a new route. I'm done with the forum pong for all of our benefit.

[CAdamsPAC]

I think our vets have a lot to offer on these boards. I actually think even they underestimate the weight of their words on here. I admit I could stand to be a little nicer in my interaction with Heme but to my defense, I did not attack him or homosexuals. I merely stated my military opinion and defended my worldview when it was attcked or "expose"d... If this makes me as despicable as Heme describes me then so be it. Thanks to you guys speaking up on my behalf. I didn't originally intend to jump off track but it seems we didn't just jump off, but tore up the track and made a new route. I'm done with the forum pong for all of our benefit.

 

I'm with you , again.Are you driving the ALCAN or taking the ferry north to Alaska?? PM me your reply, please.

[Hemegroup]

natetaylor, I don't need you to be "a little nicer", I just needed to explain to you what's behind people who don't believe you (and others like you) to be the Right Hand of God. It's because I do not identify as a "Christian" and do not believe "the bible" to be divinely inspired, that nothing of what you replied to me made a dent. You project your religious beliefs as your argument, and that doesn't work for me. Fact works for me.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/youth-radio-youth-media-international/repealing-dont-ask-dont-t_b_576766.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/james-inhofe-soldiers-not_n_576390.html

 

Inhofe shouldn't assume that all members of the military are as homophobic as he is. A December 2006 survey of servicemembers who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan found that 73 percent of those polled were "comfortable with lesbians and gays." The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has reported that more than 500 U.S. soldiers are "out" to their colleagues and continue to serve. When Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen announced his personal belief that now is the time to repeal DADT, he cited the fact that he has served with gay comrades since 1968.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-korb/now-is-the-time-for-gates_b_519061.html

 

In fact, the British military (which is structured like ours and has fought along side us in Iraq and continues to fight with us in Afghanistan) was able to effectively implement a policy of allowing openly gay people to serve within two months after the European Court of Human Rights told them to drop the ban.

Studies done by and for the Pentagon for the past 50 years and the experiences of our closest allies, like the British, Canadians, and the Israelis, demonstrate that allowing openly gay people to serve will not undermine unit cohesion or military readiness.