The Death of Sigfried "The Gotterdamerung"

[fafner]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Jul 20 2004, 07:04 PM
If those governments are agreed on the issues pertanant to you, perhaps. However, I would expect a guy who so often quotes religious texts to know about the "No man can serve two masters" line from the NT.

Fafner also raises an interesting point. If CL was G's master, and CL decided to serve Mordor (do not remember the guy's name), where in G's contract is the clause that allows him to escape service if CL turns from good? On the other hand, it does make some sense that after years under a good CL, G would have reasonable expectation that CL would continue to work for the common good. Since he signed on with CL when CL was good, he thereby allied himself with good. Somewhat like B and F during WWII. before G invaded and divided F, B & F were allies. Once G had conquered much of F & F's Vichy Govt. allied itself with G, B sunk F's ships, lest G take possession of them. However, the difference is that B was not subordinate to F.

Maybe you expected to put Cybotron's brain to boiling, but that's mine you got :wacko: I didn't get most of the initials. I thought I got G as Gandalf, but at the end of the text G appears in real world, I don't think it is still Gandalf? Maybe a small index could help

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by fafner+Jul 20 2004, 01:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fafner @ Jul 20 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jeffbert@Jul 20 2004, 07:04 PM
If those governments are agreed on the issues pertanant to you, perhaps. However, I would expect a guy who so often quotes religious texts to know about the "No man can serve two masters" line from the NT.

Fafner also raises an interesting point. If CL was G's master, and CL decided to serve Mordor (do not remember the guy's name), where in G's contract is the clause that allows him to escape service if CL turns from good?    On the other hand, it does make some sense that after years under a good CL, G would have reasonable expectation that CL would continue to work for the common good. Since he signed on with CL when CL was good, he thereby allied himself with good. Somewhat like B and F during WWII. before G invaded and divided F, B & F were allies. Once G had conquered much of F & F's Vichy Govt. allied itself with G, B sunk F's ships, lest G take possession of them. However, the difference is that B was not subordinate to F.

Maybe you expected to put Cybotron's brain to boiling, but that's mine you got :wacko: I didn't get most of the initials. I thought I got G as Gandalf, but at the end of the text G appears in real world, I don't think it is still Gandalf? Maybe a small index could help [/b][/quote]
Germany, France, or is it france, & England.

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert+Jul 21 2004, 02:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jeffbert @ Jul 21 2004, 02:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -fafner@Jul 19 2004, 04:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Jul 16 2004, 04:32 AM
[b]It is possible to be an agent of many goverments without betraying the one goverment you are sworn by oath to.

I would be really curious to see a demonstration of that... :wacko:
Multi-oath is possible of course, but what happens if the different organisations/institutions/governments to which you have sworn an oath turn ones against the others? :huh: Of course you could arrange not to be in such a situation by choosing carefully you allegeance, for example to serve Middle-Earth governments and the wise Saruman... But Saruman chooses another path! Oath to Saruman has to be broken! What I see there is that Gandalf betrayed Saruman, wasn't Gandalf submitted to Saruman's law?
Now all is upside down :wacko: Who betrayed who in the story? Please make things clearer Cybotron I'm lost [/b]

If those governments are agreed on the issues pertanant to you, perhaps. However, I would expect a guy who so often quotes religious texts to know about the "No man can serve two masters" line from the NT.

Fafner also raises an interesting point. If CL was G's master, and CL decided to serve Mordor (do not remember the guy's name), where in G's contract is the clause that allows him to escape service if CL turns from good? On the other hand, it does make some sense that after years under a good CL, G would have reasonable expectation that CL would continue to work for the common good. Since he signed on with CL when CL was good, he thereby allied himself with good. Somewhat like B and F during WWII. before G invaded and divided F, B & F were allies. Once G had conquered much of F & F's Vichy Govt. allied itself with G, B sunk F's ships, lest G take possession of them. However, the difference is that B was not subordinate to F. [/b][/quote]
In an allied chain of command, a French officer of command or staff rank is superior to a lower rank British officer. If we are fellows in a western alliance we are sworn in oaths under God to defend unto death the constitution etc. in a common expectation of good under God. That's the basic military contract. Who is to say what good is? The German General staff had been educated. What Hitler was doing was not against their logic or expectation of the proper performance of the head of the German State. However later when Hitler began to waste troops after Stalingrad, members of the General Staff turned against him and sought to kill him. What happens when the Christian soldiers with an expectation of performance under the ancient christian rules of conduct in war, are faced with the sudden shift of the head of state into an atheistic or overtly Antichristian political mindset? Suppose the politically appointed supreme court rules that all Chaplains be disbanded, all crosses as military decorations be removed, all crosses on graves in goverment cemetaries be removed, because of seperation of church and state. Would the soldiers be justified in an upsising against that Head of State and court?
Gandalf had the expectation that the ancient rules and traditions of his people would be maintaned by Saruman, but Saruman had joined with Sauron the old evil. What would happen if the President suddenly announced he was atheist, or Marxist, or Hitlerian?
Ancient oaths in the military are based on traditions of chivalry, knight heraldry. These oaths are higher than the oaths to the state. God comes first. Thus the state has use of the life and limb of soldiers. When france turned Vichy, the allied soldier was under no obligation to take orders from any French officer that served the interests of the pronazi Vichy. The private was under obligation to disobey the General that commanded him to serve the Nazi interest. The same private is under obligation to obey the orders from the antinazi free french ally.

[fafner]

Originally posted by jeffbert+Jul 20 2004, 07:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jeffbert @ Jul 20 2004, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Germany, France, or is it france, & England. [/b]

I can't believe it :wacko: It is the region of the world where I live and I couldn't see that! What a shame... <_< I felt asleep after 3 AM last night, this could be a good explanation

[i]Originally posted by Cybotron@
In an allied chain of command, a French officer of command or staff rank is superior to a lower rank British officer. If we are fellows in a western alliance we are sworn in oaths under God to defend unto death the constitution etc. in a common expectation of good under God.

Just a small note: France is a laic republic since more than a century. So your reference to God can't apply to France...
(For information, there are only 3 laic republics in the world: France, Portugal and Turkey.)

<!--QuoteBegin--Cybotron[/i]
Gandalf had the expectation that the ancient rules and traditions of his people would be maintaned by Saruman, but Saruman had joined with Sauron the old evil. What would happen if the President suddenly announced he was atheist, or Marxist, or Hitlerian?
[/quote]
So what is your point? That an agent has not to be loyal to the government? Where does a government agent's loyalty lies exactly?

[cybotron]

we are talking about military oaths. The oath is allways "So help me God".... This does not change. France still has royalty or aristocracy and the officer corps.. All those kids in the trenches are there in the name of God. And are sworn in the name of God. What slackers and civvies do on the streets and gutters of their own delusion and ingratitude is their own affair, atheism, whatever. But the soldiers serve under oaths to god.They are despised so much. By some.
A soldier owes his first loyalty to God. Thus a soldier that crosses the bounds and kills unarmed jews just because his state, the nazi state orders him to is guilty of murder. Even if the college profs, the judges, the goverment, the generals say it's ok. That soldier is a common murderer if he carries out that order. Such an order is contrary to his soldiers oath.

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by cybotron+Jul 20 2004, 05:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Jul 20 2004, 05:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>we are talking about military oaths. The oath is allways "So help me God".... This does not change. France still has royalty or aristocracy and the officer corps.. All those kids in the trenches are there in the name of God. And are sworn in the name of God. What slackers and civvies do on the streets and gutters of their own delusion and ingratitude is their own affair, atheism, whatever. But the soldiers serve under oaths to god.They are despised so much. By some.
A soldier owes his first loyalty to God. Thus a soldier that crosses the bounds and kills unarmed jews just because his state, the nazi state orders him to is guilty of murder. Even if the college profs, the judges, the goverment, the generals say it's ok. That soldier is a common murderer if he carries out that order. Such an order is contrary to his soldiers oath.[/b]

"A soldier owes his first loyalty to God."

I would say that this is anything but universally true. As you have stated it, it is a universal statement; for you include no modifiers. Thus, to prove your statement untrue, one need only provide a single exception: Here are three USSR, Red China, & Cuba. Soldiers in these countries were loyal only to the State.

Originally posted by -cybotron@Jul 20 2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by -jeffbert@Jul 21 2004, 02:04 AM
[b]

Originally posted by -fafner@Jul 19 2004, 04:04 PM
[b]<!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Jul 16 2004, 04:32 AM
[b]It is possible to be an agent of many goverments without betraying the one goverment you are sworn by oath to.

I would be really curious to see a demonstration of that... Who betrayed who in the story? Please make things clearer Cybotron I'm lost [/b]

If those governments are agreed on the issues pertanant to you, perhaps. However, I would expect a guy who so often quotes religious texts to know about the "No man can serve two masters" line from the NT.

Fafner also raises an interesting point... Somewhat like B and F during WWII. before G invaded and divided F, B & F were allies. Once G had conquered much of F & F's Vichy Govt. allied itself with G, B sunk F's ships, lest G take possession of them. However, the difference is that B was not subordinate to F. [/b]

In an allied chain of command...
Ancient oaths in the military are based on traditions of chivalry, knight heraldry. These oaths are higher than the oaths to the state. God comes first. Thus the state has use of the life and limb of soldiers. When france turned Vichy, the allied soldier was under no obligation to take orders from any French officer that served the interests of the pronazi Vichy. The private was under obligation to disobey the General that commanded him to serve the Nazi interest. The same private is under obligation to obey the orders from the antinazi free french ally.[/b][/quote]

"Ancient oaths in the military are based on traditions of chivalry, knight heraldry. These oaths are higher than the oaths to the state. God comes first."

"we are talking about military oaths. The oath is allways 'So help me God.'" Regardless of this, the same oath is likewise taken by witnesses in courts of law. However, the fact that the witness is asked, "Do you swear to tell the truth...So help you God?" does not imply that he or the court is loyal to god. It is used merely as a device for affirming the person's fidelity in that matter; whether in obedience to orders, or in truthfulness of testimony. Furthermore, for witnesses who take offence to swearing, the oath can be "do you affirm that you will tell the truth..." God is used most likely because there was no higher oath that could be taken. Swearing by one's grandmother just does not cut it.

Take that, Cybotron!

[cybotron]

We were talking about France britain and US and Gandalf? The witness on the stand is not agreeing to be shot for derelection of duty.... Falling asleep, fleeing in the face of certain death, etc. Who cares about stupid murderous atheistic states? A boy offended by an oath to god would not last ten minutes at west point. Such a fool does not exist. :wacko: <_<

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by cybotron@Jul 20 2004, 08:03 PM
We were talking about France britain and US and Gandalf? The witness on the stand is not agreeing to be shot for derelection of duty.... Falling asleep, fleeing in the face of certain death, etc. Who cares about stupid murderous atheistic states? A boy offended by an oath to god would not last ten minutes at west point. Such a fool does not exist. :wacko: <_<

Is that so? If he would not last ten minutes @ West Point, how long would he last at the USSR's elite (Spetnaz?) program? I heard these guys would finish off their own guys rather than allow them to be captured or god forbid, actually evacuated by medics. Your assertions are hollow. It has been said that there are no atheists in fox holes. However, I do not think anyone ever tried to prove it true. While this is a negative assertion, it can be expressed positively: All men in fox holes believe in god. Again, this is a universal statement; to disprove it, one need only find a single exception. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies upon the one who asserts; thus proving this false is unnecessary, for nobody has proven it true.

You rarely if ever respond in a reasonable way. Here again, you attack my anology rather than the refutation of your statement. You said that soldiers' loyalty was to god first, then to the state. I effectively refuted your assertion by showing three states whose official policy is that there is no god, and that the state is therefore the highest authority. As I stated elsewhere, you are a coward. You are afraid to admit you are wrong, even when you cannot defend your statements, and your error is plain for all to see. B)

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert+Jul 21 2004, 02:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jeffbert @ Jul 21 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Jul 20 2004, 08:03 PM
We were talking about France britain and US and Gandalf? The witness on the stand is not agreeing to be shot for derelection of duty.... Falling asleep, fleeing in the face of certain death, etc. Who cares about stupid murderous atheistic states?  A boy offended by an oath to god would not last ten minutes at west point. Such a fool does not exist. :wacko: <_< 

Is that so? If he would not last ten minutes @ West Point, how long would he last at the USSR's elite (Spetnaz?) program? I heard these guys would finish off their own guys rather than allow them to be captured or god forbid, actually evacuated by medics. Your assertions are hollow. It has been said that there are no atheists in fox holes. However, I do not think anyone ever tried to prove it true. While this is a negative assertion, it can be expressed positively: All men in fox holes believe in god. Again, this is a universal statement; to disprove it, one need only find a single exception. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies upon the one who asserts; thus proving this false is unnecessary, for nobody has proven it true.

You rarely if ever respond in a reasonable way. Here again, you attack my anology rather than the refutation of your statement. You said that soldiers' loyalty was to god first, then to the state. I effectively refuted your assertion by showing three states whose official policy is that there is no god, and that the state is therefore the highest authority. As I stated elsewhere, you are a coward. You are afraid to admit you are wrong, even when you cannot defend your statements, and your error is plain for all to see. B) [/b][/quote]
it does not matter. Common sense would hold sway. Even if the cadet was an arheist he would pretend to believe for his own advancement. The reasonable and intelligent officer knows that atheists are not worth anything in time of war to anybody. Even the Chi-com reopened the temples that the Red Guard had destroyed. What are you talking about? The atheist cannot command troops in time of war. Bring in the chaplains and let them pray the souls of the dead to their rest. What? Do you think some guy is going to stand up and say no because there is no god? No atheist can attain rank in the officer corp. No atheist state can long exist. You cannot find one example. You have to study all your life to lead troops. You have to be tested and inspected at every moment, the slightest hint of atheism and your military carreer is kaput. You will attend all the services, you will pray at all the proper times. You will be dutiful and honor God and country at all times. Period. :wahah: Your avoidance of truth and your lack of social etiquette borders on the Psychotic. The states you quoted no longer exist.... They were delusions of lies. The chinese that we have today are completely differant from the Maoist chi-com of the 50's and 60's. The USSR is extinct, all the churches that Stalinh and the Soviet closed are reopened. Cuba and Castro have been visted by the Pope in a State visit. There is not now even one Atheist state on this planet. By atheist i mean a state where religion is banned.
And whats wrong? Are you scared of the question?
What happens when the Christian soldiers with an expectation of performance under the ancient christian rules of conduct in war, are faced with the sudden shift of the head of state into an atheistic or overtly Antichristian political mindset? Suppose the politically appointed supreme court rules that all Chaplains be disbanded, all crosses as military decorations be removed, all crosses on graves in goverment cemetaries be removed, because of separation of church and state. Would the soldiers be justified in an uprising against that Head of State and court? :wahah: coward. That's what you called me.
And I have a Vietnamese Cross of galantry and a USMC Combat action ribbon. on my wall. You lack common sense. In time of most dire need, in the face of a fanatic enemy. :wahah:
when one is arguing with an antisocial diatribist iconoclast that will run and hide when the first suicide bomber blows up a busload of kids. Just say.....

WHATEVER.... WHATEVER.....
Here is the Marine Corps Hymn.... Note the third verse.
Marine Hymn
All officers and all soldiers have similar hymns and prayers, failure to know and recite these properly would result in severe penalty. :wacko: You are nutssssszzzzz. B)
Read my lips....

NUTZZZZZZ

[cybotron]

Dixie Chicks "Travelin' Soldier" video

This is a charm against evil spirits of deafness and dumbness and darkness such as swallows up the soul.. Most Ensigns are like that. :wahah:
The Chaplain and Medical Corps Monument

"...Chaplains restored our spirit and faith in the darkest hours of combat and consoled and prayed with the dying as they made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Iwo Jima Survivors acknowledge, with gratitude, the brave and courageous service by the chaplains to us, our comrades and our country.

Of the fifty chaplains in combat at Iwo Jima, 3 chaplains were wounded, 4 were awarded Bronze Stars and many others received Letters of Commendation...."