A Question for all Religious posters

[RetiredGySgt]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

Family comes first then a close tie between god and country. However I will never murder for God. I might refuse to murder for God but then that is illegal under military law also.

I already accept that I won't be going to heaven since I can not just surrender to God.

There are religious people that believe that Man run governments are the devil's tools. And there is a good argument for that as Satan runs the earth till Jesus Returns. However one ensures evil wins if the good refuse to participate in Government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, that first loyalty is to our Constitution, so help them God - so they've promised God (as each knows Him) to do just that. If the country goes against the Constitution ("foreign and domestic"), they can go against the country.

(Yes, atheists can opt out of that phrase in an oath.)

And speaking of oaths and off-topic, I feel the same way about physicians who do the same - break their oath for religious reasons. Don't take the oath (and in cases where you swear to your god) if you can't keep it. It seems quite simple to me.

What oath, and in what specific case do doctors "break it for religious reasons"? Be specific.

The oath of federal service (and military service, which is a touch different).

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331​

The Hippocratic oath and when physicians refuse to prescribe BC and/or order D&C for risk to the mother, for example.

First of all, is there some particular reason you decided to throw in an oath I didn't ask about?

Second of all, do you have any idea what the Hippocratic oath even says? Here's the original:

"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot."

So I'm just not seeing how you figure your examples are "violating" this oath. Let's try another one (lots of different versions exist today):

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

Nope, not seeing an obligation to prescribe birth control or perform specific procedures listed THERE, either. I DO, however, see a reference to "the best of my ability and judgement." HIS judgement, not yours.

By the way, according to the National Institutes of Health, the Hippocratic Oath - in any form - is not required by most medical schools. So contrary to popular belief, most doctors have never taken any such oath, nor would it be binding even if they did.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

And that is the the most important point I think...that we can see what happens when we allow a religion to dictate government. An unmitigated disaster for democratic principles and human rights.

I don't think any god would create life to have it destroyed by his other creations... that's the work of government, not religion.

Then nothing would have to eat.

I suppose an exception for food is acceptable... I guess when Iranians eat the bodies of executed homosexuals, justice will be served more righteously

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't be serious. Christianity is one of the most violent religions ever. Read the Bible.

Entire town wiped out and the women and children become sex slaves and all the married men and women put to death.

Seriously, read the Bible. Only the Koran is worse. Of course, since both religions claim Abraham as the founder, it's no surprise. Of course, he didn't found two religions, only one.

Which town? Wiped out by whom? If you're going to hurl accusations, you can at least be specific, so that we can verify just how full of shit you really are, instead of just having to assume it on the basis that it's you.[/QUOTE]

Ignorant tick.

My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city." Joshua did as he was commanded. As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city. They quickly captured it and set it on fire. When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers. When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai. Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped. Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.

When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua. So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day. Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate. They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today. (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)

When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

Don't get me started. I could go on another couple of hundred quotes. I had to go to that damn Christian school and Sunday school as a kid. I managed to grow out of that nonsense.

While you were sitting in Sunday School, perhaps you should have spent more time listening and less time thinking how much smarter and more moral you were. If you had, you might have found out a little more background history. (And by the way, saying that the Bible is teaching violence because it recounts historical battles is like saying American History textbooks teach violence because they recount the Civil War.)

All the people you mentioned were, collectively, Canaanites. What problems could God have had with the Canaanites? Well, historians tell us that they participated in child sacrifice, just for a start. Also, when the Israelites initially asked for peaceful passage through the land of the Amorites, they and the other Canaanites instead mustered armies and attacked them. So it's not like the Israelites walked up and attacked peaceful folks minding their own business out of nowhere. The capture of the city of Ai was, in fact, a part of the ongoing war between the Israelites and the Canaanites. As to the destruction of the people of Ai (and other Canaanites), God was concerned about the Israelites being corrupted by contact with their beliefs and practices. History tells us that He was correct in this, because this is exactly what happened. As to the taking of the young women and children as slaves, well, slavery was a common practice among most people at that time. It's very nice to think that you can apply 21st-century sensibilities to people of the Bronze Age, I'm sure, but it's kind of silly. History again tells us of many tribes who were originally taken as slaves - or turned themselves over as vassals - by the Israelites who later became accepted as Israelites themselves, either through adoption or intermarriage.

The point being that there's a lot more to history, including Biblical history, than just saying, "It says they killed these people. See, they were mean and violent and horrible!" It's a pity you didn't grow out of the nonsense of such a childish, simplistic view of the world.

 

[JW Frogen]

[
Family comes first then a close tie between god and country..

God will smite you for that one, don't believe me?

Just ask Job.

 

[Ravi]

Only if your religion teaches you to kill people. It's not much of a problem if your religion goes hand-in-hand with respect for the lives of others and for the ideals the US was founded on.

Respect for the lives of others?

You can't possibly be talking about Christianity.

Let me put it this way, punkinhead. If Christians were REALLY the violent, bloodthirsty bastards you just LOVE to portray them as, filling you with dread and chills up your spine as you pretend, you wouldn't be sitting here, running your gums every single day about how much they suck. You'd be lying low, hoping they didn't notice you, not getting up in their faces. So when you ACT like you're afraid of Christians, perhaps I'll listen a little more to your claims about how scary and evil they are. But probably not, because THEN I'll likely just believe you're a paranoid wackjob instead of a dishonest wackjob.

To be fair, I don't think rdean is a twelve year old boy...so he really is past the age to fear anything from your type of Christian.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[
Family comes first then a close tie between god and country..

God will smite you for that one, don't believe me?

Just ask Job.

I like Job would not condemn God for the loss of my family. But I will think of them first in most every circumstance. God never smote Job. He allowed the Devil to test a theory on Job, the claim was that Job and all men only worshiped God for what they could get out of it. So Job was tested and proved the Devil wrong. God did nothing to Job, he simply removed his protection from him so the Devil could fail to prove a point. Job lost everything, livestock, slaves, children and was even given a painful affliction involving boils. Yet he never condemned God, he thought God may have done it to him, yet he remained true.

After the test was over Job was rewarded for his faithfulness, he gained back more then he had before and was blessed with 10 more children.

 

[Si modo]

What oath, and in what specific case do doctors "break it for religious reasons"? Be specific.

The oath of federal service (and military service, which is a touch different).

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331​

The Hippocratic oath and when physicians refuse to prescribe BC and/or order D&C for risk to the mother, for example.

First of all, is there some particular reason you decided to throw in an oath I didn't ask about? ....

You asked which oath. I mentioned two. You didn't specify which one you wanted. And you bitch about it.

Too bad you can't communicate clearly and specify.

.... Second of all, do you have any idea what the Hippocratic oath even says? Here's the original:

[deleted original oath as it is rarely used, thus irrelevant]

Nope, not seeing an obligation to prescribe birth control or perform specific procedures listed THERE, either. I DO, however, see a reference to "the best of my ability and judgement." HIS judgement, not yours.

By the way, according to the National Institutes of Health, the Hippocratic Oath - in any form - is not required by most medical schools. So contrary to popular belief, most doctors have never taken any such oath, nor would it be binding even if they did.

Hmm. I'd like to see the NIH saying that.

Unlike you, though, I'll back up what I am about to say: In a poll of schools, 98% of med schools (MD and DO) use some form of the oath.

And, as I said, this is somewhat off topic here. I will further discuss it in a separate thread, though.

 

[The Rabbi]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

The question is based on a fallacy,namely that killing people randomly makes one a good Muslim. It is not so. In fact the opposite: anyone who kills an innocent person goes to Hell.

One could ask a secular person, a libertarian or a communist even: do you value your philosophy over love of country? If so, does that make you a potential terrorist?

 

[rdean]

Which town? Wiped out by whom? If you're going to hurl accusations, you can at least be specific, so that we can verify just how full of shit you really are, instead of just having to assume it on the basis that it's you.[/QUOTE]

Ignorant tick.

My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Point your spear toward Ai, for I will give you the city." Joshua did as he was commanded. As soon as Joshua gave the signal, the men in ambush jumped up and poured into the city. They quickly captured it and set it on fire. When the men of Ai looked behind them, smoke from the city was filling the sky, and they had nowhere to go. For the Israelites who had fled in the direction of the wilderness now turned on their pursuers. When Joshua and the other Israelites saw that the ambush had succeeded and that smoke was rising from the city, they turned and attacked the men of Ai. Then the Israelites who were inside the city came out and started killing the enemy from the rear. So the men of Ai were caught in a trap, and all of them died. Not a single person survived or escaped. Only the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to Joshua.

When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day – twelve thousand in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves, as the LORD had commanded Joshua. So Ai became a permanent mound of ruins, desolate to this very day. Joshua hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset the Israelites took down the body and threw it in front of the city gate. They piled a great heap of stones over him that can still be seen today. (Joshua 8:1-29 NLT)

When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

Don't get me started. I could go on another couple of hundred quotes. I had to go to that damn Christian school and Sunday school as a kid. I managed to grow out of that nonsense.

While you were sitting in Sunday School, perhaps you should have spent more time listening and less time thinking how much smarter and more moral you were. If you had, you might have found out a little more background history. (And by the way, saying that the Bible is teaching violence because it recounts historical battles is like saying American History textbooks teach violence because they recount the Civil War.)

All the people you mentioned were, collectively, Canaanites. What problems could God have had with the Canaanites? Well, historians tell us that they participated in child sacrifice, just for a start. Also, when the Israelites initially asked for peaceful passage through the land of the Amorites, they and the other Canaanites instead mustered armies and attacked them. So it's not like the Israelites walked up and attacked peaceful folks minding their own business out of nowhere. The capture of the city of Ai was, in fact, a part of the ongoing war between the Israelites and the Canaanites. As to the destruction of the people of Ai (and other Canaanites), God was concerned about the Israelites being corrupted by contact with their beliefs and practices. History tells us that He was correct in this, because this is exactly what happened. As to the taking of the young women and children as slaves, well, slavery was a common practice among most people at that time. It's very nice to think that you can apply 21st-century sensibilities to people of the Bronze Age, I'm sure, but it's kind of silly. History again tells us of many tribes who were originally taken as slaves - or turned themselves over as vassals - by the Israelites who later became accepted as Israelites themselves, either through adoption or intermarriage.

The point being that there's a lot more to history, including Biblical history, than just saying, "It says they killed these people. See, they were mean and violent and horrible!" It's a pity you didn't grow out of the nonsense of such a childish, simplistic view of the world.

So you are saying murder is ok if for the "right reasons"? That's the answer? Murder? "God" approves? Then why doesn't he "approve" today?

Well, the short answer is that in Islamic countries, he does "approve". We don't allow it to happen here because our laws prevent it. But if anyone believes that, if given the chance, Christians wouldn't murder gays, is delusional. Christians would not only murder the gays, they would dance, sing and do a jig while committing the act because it's what "God" would want. After all, isn't it because of the gays and feminists that 9/11 and Katrina happened? After what they have done, they deserve "death". That's the logic of the religious.

By your same reasoning, believing in the made up stories of "Bronze Age" primatives is just "looney".

The part where, "They later became Israelies" is a hoot. How do you become an "Israelite" under such circumstances? The same way you become a "Muslim" in Iraq if you are a Christian. The men are killed. The women are forced to become a second or third wife and convert, or die. The children are indoctrinated into that religion early, so it's all they know. You make it sound like some kind of "choice".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

While you were sitting in Sunday School, perhaps you should have spent more time listening and less time thinking how much smarter and more moral you were. If you had, you might have found out a little more background history. (And by the way, saying that the Bible is teaching violence because it recounts historical battles is like saying American History textbooks teach violence because they recount the Civil War.)

All the people you mentioned were, collectively, Canaanites. What problems could God have had with the Canaanites? Well, historians tell us that they participated in child sacrifice, just for a start. Also, when the Israelites initially asked for peaceful passage through the land of the Amorites, they and the other Canaanites instead mustered armies and attacked them. So it's not like the Israelites walked up and attacked peaceful folks minding their own business out of nowhere. The capture of the city of Ai was, in fact, a part of the ongoing war between the Israelites and the Canaanites. As to the destruction of the people of Ai (and other Canaanites), God was concerned about the Israelites being corrupted by contact with their beliefs and practices. History tells us that He was correct in this, because this is exactly what happened. As to the taking of the young women and children as slaves, well, slavery was a common practice among most people at that time. It's very nice to think that you can apply 21st-century sensibilities to people of the Bronze Age, I'm sure, but it's kind of silly. History again tells us of many tribes who were originally taken as slaves - or turned themselves over as vassals - by the Israelites who later became accepted as Israelites themselves, either through adoption or intermarriage.

The point being that there's a lot more to history, including Biblical history, than just saying, "It says they killed these people. See, they were mean and violent and horrible!" It's a pity you didn't grow out of the nonsense of such a childish, simplistic view of the world.

So you are saying murder is ok if for the "right reasons"? That's the answer? Murder? "God" approves? Then why doesn't he "approve" today?

Well, the short answer is that in Islamic countries, he does "approve". We don't allow it to happen here because our laws prevent it. But if anyone believes that, if given the chance, Christians wouldn't murder gays, is delusional. Christians would not only murder the gays, they would dance, sing and do a jig while committing the act because it's what "God" would want. After all, isn't it because of the gays and feminists that 9/11 and Katrina happened? After what they have done, they deserve "death". That's the logic of the religious.

By your same reasoning, believing in the made up stories of "Bronze Age" primatives is just "looney".

The part where, "They later became Israelies" is a hoot. How do you become an "Israelite" under such circumstances? The same way you become a "Muslim" in Iraq if you are a Christian. The men are killed. The women are forced to become a second or third wife and convert, or die. The children are indoctrinated into that religion early, so it's all they know. You make it sound like some kind of "choice".

By definition WAR is not MURDER.

 

[rdean]

Only if your religion teaches you to kill people. It's not much of a problem if your religion goes hand-in-hand with respect for the lives of others and for the ideals the US was founded on.

Respect for the lives of others?

You can't possibly be talking about Christianity.

Let me put it this way, punkinhead. If Christians were REALLY the violent, bloodthirsty bastards you just LOVE to portray them as, filling you with dread and chills up your spine as you pretend, you wouldn't be sitting here, running your gums every single day about how much they suck. You'd be lying low, hoping they didn't notice you, not getting up in their faces. So when you ACT like you're afraid of Christians, perhaps I'll listen a little more to your claims about how scary and evil they are. But probably not, because THEN I'll likely just believe you're a paranoid wackjob instead of a dishonest wackjob.

We should all be afraid of the religious. After all, don't they say, "If I didn't have God, what's to keep me from raping, robbing and murder?"

 

[rdean]

So you are saying murder is ok if for the "right reasons"? That's the answer? Murder? "God" approves? Then why doesn't he "approve" today?

Well, the short answer is that in Islamic countries, he does "approve". We don't allow it to happen here because our laws prevent it. But if anyone believes that, if given the chance, Christians wouldn't murder gays, is delusional. Christians would not only murder the gays, they would dance, sing and do a jig while committing the act because it's what "God" would want. After all, isn't it because of the gays and feminists that 9/11 and Katrina happened? After what they have done, they deserve "death". That's the logic of the religious.

By your same reasoning, believing in the made up stories of "Bronze Age" primatives is just "looney".

The part where, "They later became Israelies" is a hoot. How do you become an "Israelite" under such circumstances? The same way you become a "Muslim" in Iraq if you are a Christian. The men are killed. The women are forced to become a second or third wife and convert, or die. The children are indoctrinated into that religion early, so it's all they know. You make it sound like some kind of "choice".

By definition WAR is not MURDER.

"They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything."

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[Ringel05]

By definition WAR is not MURDER.

"They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything."

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

You're a duck? That explains everything!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By definition WAR is not MURDER.

"They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything."

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

And again applying current customs to how we wage war to how the Bronze age people waged war is ignorant at BEST.

 

[Kalam]

Which town?

Midian.

Wiped out by whom?

Moses. The poster forgot to mention that, according to the Biblical account, only the little girls were taken by the soldiers "for themselves." The male children were killed along with the rest of the inhabitants.

Fortunately, most Christians and Jews have decided to ignore passages such as this.

What, are you channeling rdean now? How is it that YOU are trying to tell me what HE was talking about? Or are you just afraid he can't come up with his own answers?

Sorry, but if you want to have a conversation with me, you initiate your own. You don't try to horn in and take over someone else's. I'll await the point that YOU want to make and discuss.

Mentioning Biblically-sanctioned genocide and rape of children seemed like a reference to Moses and the Midianites to me... unless, of course, there is another instance in which little girls are taken by Israelites "for themselves" after the rest of a population is murdered. I understand that you don't want to come to terms with what's written in the Bible. That's fine. I won't press the issue if it's not something that you feel comfortable discussing.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't find my faith incompatible with service to my nation. They day i do will be a very sad day for our nation.

 

[Smartt33]

Midian.


Moses. The poster forgot to mention that, according to the Biblical account, only the little girls were taken by the soldiers "for themselves." The male children were killed along with the rest of the inhabitants.

Fortunately, most Christians and Jews have decided to ignore passages such as this.

What, are you channeling rdean now? How is it that YOU are trying to tell me what HE was talking about? Or are you just afraid he can't come up with his own answers?

Sorry, but if you want to have a conversation with me, you initiate your own. You don't try to horn in and take over someone else's. I'll await the point that YOU want to make and discuss.

Mentioning Biblically-sanctioned genocide and rape of children seemed like a reference to Moses and the Midianites to me... unless, of course, there is another instance in which little girls are taken by Israelites "for themselves" after the rest of a population is murdered. I understand that you don't want to come to terms with what's written in the Bible. That's fine. I won't press the issue if it's not something that you feel comfortable discussing.

Many people never noticed that Christians are also humans. Humans are sinners. The same was true of Moses, and the Israelites. If you have ever studied the Bible you would notice that even when God is blessing His people, they often fall into times of sin and failure. Moses was not above that.

I believe Moses was leading the people in his own power much if the time. He made laws and demands that were not of God. He was a man used of God, but that is because God has a plan, and Moses was the leader in the plan. That did not take Moses out of the human race.

Moses often led the people in such a way that would basically prevent them from totally turning away from God. But, the point is that this kind of leadership was not of God. Moses was not perfect.

You will not find where those events that are point out of the rape, etc, were actually supported by God. Even when Moses basically wrote that God was leading him, He may have just been justifying his choices.

God's people were on a roller Coaster ride. On the mountain top spiritually, and then down in the valley of sin. From the awesome presence of God to slavery. All because they forgot God, and wanted to do things their way.

The same is true in today's society, and the Christian faith. We are "being made perfect," but will not be perfect until we see Him face to face in Heaven.

There is no need to overlook passages when you know what was really happening, and you are willing to admit that Christians, and even the Prophets and leaders in the OT were not perfect. They often sinned in great ways. However, when you belong to God, you repent. you know you messed up and you want to return to fellowship with Almighty God. Just look at the life of David and you will see that to be true.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I've been listening to many posters and radio personalities point out the Fort Hood shooter's comments about how he takes his religion and Allah over his Constitutional Oath and this country. It's presented as proof that the shooter was a traitor and a terrorist waiting to go off.

It got me wondering....how many religious posters take their god and their religion over love of this country? If you do, does that make you a potential terrorist for your religion?

My spiritual path is definitely more importatant than love of country. That would make me a concientious objector--not a terrorist--if the draft was reinstated.

 

[HUGGY]

I don't find my faith incompatible with service to my nation. They day i do will be a very sad day for our nation.

So it is clear by your statement that if you had to choose allegience between your country and your religion you would choose your religion.

That makes you little different from a muslim terrorist.