Is it a sin to be forced to kill someone in combat

daidhaid · Aug 11, 2004

inquisitor_11 said:
Yeah, I have heard it, its a good one. Theres also a good Vietnam one by Redgum called "I was only 19". Its been known to be played in the lines before march-out parades- despite its almost anti-war sentiments.

Yeah another good tune I've got it on a cassete somewhere.
required listening for my kids.

daidhaid · Aug 25, 2004

I'm remembering a friend, who once saved my life...
He was a leading an ambush they were near a road and in some paddys.
As early morning approached they had movement.
It was near the curfews end and the end of free fire.
But the movement came right at them. In the early morning dark all he could see was one man with something over his shoulder.
But there could be more, his squad depended on his judgement.
A few minutes later and it would been a challenge first, but for now,,,
Kill em all and let God sort em out.

The young sgt. opened fire, the man went down only a few feet away.
The squad fired up the kill zone.
Then everyone sat tight silence, except for the man crying and groaning.
No one moved and the minutes ticked by the squad listened and watched.
Time went pretty slow at this point.

When dawn broke it was an old man carrying a tool to use in his paddy. He wanted to get an early start on a hard day of work.
It was his tough luck to run into a squad of grunts doing their duty.
The Sgt called for me on the radio, the LT filled me in.
I could hear the old man crying out.
My friend told me he just keeps calling for his wife he loves her he's sorry he's begging.
Tell me how to save him.
The guy was gut shot and dying slow.
There was nothing he could do, there was nothing to say.

Later we linked up and my friend cried and I held him and told him he had to do it it was his duty no one saw it any other way.
But as he described sitting there with the old man dying hard, I knew it was not ok.

We ask a lot of soldiers

jbaccus · Aug 27, 2004

Wow, daidhaid, that was pretty powerful. I thank you for that post.

Inquisitor, you said that your countries were fighting our war. Why would you say that? Terrorists aren't stopping at our doorstep. I really feel sorry for you if you think that we are fighting this war for ourselves. I know why I am here. I am away from my family, fighting for OUR freedoms, so hopefully we can give another country the same glimpse of freedom that we often take for granted.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across rude, but it hurts to see that people just don't get it. People need to stop believing everything that reporters say on the news. They are quick to tell you when a soldier dies, but will never tell you how many lives that soldier changed. All I have done since I have been out here is to try and give somebody else a chance at life. They deserve it. I will gladly lay down my life, if it meant that somebody else can live without fear or being tortured, mamed, or hung because of what they believe! And back to the OP, yes I would definately kill in a time of war to give somebody those freedoms.

inquisitor_11 · Aug 27, 2004

Inquisitor, you said that your countries were fighting our war. Why would you say that? Terrorists aren't stopping at our doorstep. I really feel sorry for you if you think that we are fighting this war for ourselves. I know why I am here. I am away from my family, fighting for OUR freedoms, so hopefully we can give another country the same glimpse of freedom that we often take for granted.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across rude, but it hurts to see that people just don't get it. People need to stop believing everything that reporters say on the news. They are quick to tell you when a soldier dies, but will never tell you how many lives that soldier changed. All I have done since I have been out here is to try and give somebody else a chance at life. They deserve it. I will gladly lay down my life, if it meant that somebody else can live without fear or being tortured, mamed, or hung because of what they believe! And back to the OP, yes I would definately kill in a time of war to give somebody those freedoms.

I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of your motivations, and those of a lot of other soldiers there. When it boils down to it, the decision makers are not at all concerned about freedom, unless it is conducive to their own goals.

I'm not trying to destroy your morale or anything, but think about it: If world governments were genuinely concerned about delivering peace and freedom, why has the US installed and supported so many dictatorial regimes?

Why are we not invading North Korea? NK is possibly the last truely closed communist nations, and people are incredibly repressed. Surely they deserve 'freedom' as much as Iraqi's do?

Why is there not a peace-keeping force in Sudan? The issues there are massive: mass killings and mass starvation is occuring daily, yet precious little is being done by the westren world.

On Sept.11, 5,000 people died from a terrorist attack. We now have an international multi-billion dollar war on terror.

On Sept. 11, 50,000 people died due to poverty, yet the western world spends more on its pets than it does on aid for the 3rd world. Why don't we have a war on greed?

On Sept. 12, 50,000 people died due to poverty, yet the western world spends more on its pets than it does on aid for the 3rd world. Why don't we have a war on greed?

On Sept. 13, 50,000 people died due to poverty, yet the western world spends more on its pets than it does on aid for the 3rd world. Why don't we have a war on greed?

On Sept. 14, 50,000 people died due to poverty, yet the western world spends more on its pets than it does on aid for the 3rd world. Why don't we have a war on greed?

And so on. Deal with global poverty, that'll contribute more to ending terrorism than all the wars in the world ever have.

Gunny · Aug 27, 2004

May a Christian Serve in the Military?

by Lieutenant General William K. Harrison, Jr., USA(Ret.)

As it must to every Christian soldier, this question presented itself to me. It was something that could not be ignored, but had to be solved. As I studied the history of war and military operations I was struck with the horror of war. I think everybody who gives the matter any thought must realize the terrible nature of destructive action of armies. There is no need to describe these things; we all know them. When we think of the conditions prevailing in the world today we cannot pass them off with indifference. I had to solve this question for myself.

As a Christian, I knew that the Lord had told us in the Bible that we should love our enemies and pray for them, that we should return good for evil, that the peacemakers are blessed, that vengeance is His, not ours, that they that take the sword shall perish by the sword, that we should keep peace with our neighbors. We find also that as Christians serving as living epistles of the Lord, our weapons in the warfare of the soul are not carnal, but rather spiritual. in fact, the only weapon for the Christian in his war against the enemies of the soul is the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. As individuals there is no place for hatred in us. I cannot see myself willingly killing anyone. I don't even hunt, because I don't like to see animals suffer.

On the other hand, I know that I am and have been for years a Christian. I realize that I have no righteousness of my own, that in the judgment of a holy and just God, I had no hope for eternity. I trusted my life to the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His life on the cross, an offering of His own soul for sin, my sin. On the cross, God laid on Him the iniquity of us all, making Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in Him. He came to this world that He might die for us; all other reasons are secondary. When I trusted in Him, God forgave me my sins, justified me legally in the person of my substitute, Christ, gave me eternal life, and made me a child of God and a member of the body of Christ through the new birth and baptism by the Holy Spirit. There are many other things that God in His infinite love and grace has done for me in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. I know them because His Spirit bears witness with my spirit in this assurance. If there is one thing that I do know, it is Him whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have confided to Him.

As I started to consider the matter of being a soldier and a Christian at the same time, I recalled immediately those men of the past who were soldiers and yet were men of God: Abraham, who fought the four kings; Joshua, who served the Lord; David, who killed Goliath and then led his armies in war and who then received from God one of the greatest promises ever given to man; and those who in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews are described as having through faith in God subdued kingdoms, waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of the aliens. In our own national history all know that George Washington and Robert E. Lee were simple Christians, and yet among the great soldiers of history.

Another thing that I realized was that David, soldier that he was, would not kill his worst enemy, Saul, when he had him at a disadvantage and helpless. It is quoted of Lee that he said that never did he pass a day without praying for the Union soldiers. In the New testament we find four soldiers, centurions or captains in the Roman army. The Lord said of one of these that he had greater faith than He had found in all of Israel. Another, at the cross, believed in Jesus as the Son of God. To the third God sent Peter to introduce the Gospel to the Gentiles. When this man heard the Gospel he believed and the Holy Spirit was given to him immediately. There is no indication that any of these discontinued his military service, nor is there any command in the New Testament that a Christian should not be a soldier. On the other hand, there is a mandate given by the Lord through Paul that we should remain in the calling in which we are called (I Corinthians 7:20).

I investigated further. I found that the Lord gave Joshua instructions for the capture of Jericho, that He promised the children of Israel victory over their enemies if they would serve Him, but defeat if they did not. The book of Hebrews says that it was by faith that the walls of Jericho fell. As a soldier I know they would never have fallen that way except by faith. The fact that there were cases in which war was commanded by God to the Israelites and therefore justified is unquestionable. In view of God's command, to say that war is invariably sinful is to say that God told Israel to sin, and is therefore an attack on the character of God (James 1:13). On the other hand, what are the conditions under which such war might be legitimate?

Murder and Judicial Death

The fundamental characteristic of war is the taking of human life. We know that the Ten Commandments, in the King James Version says "thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew word, RATSACH, is more correctly translated "murder". Thus the commandment should read, "thou shalt not murder," which is the translation of the New American Standard Bible. The same Lord said in the following chapter of Exodus that death should be the punishment for certain crimes. Murder is everywhere in the Scripture recognized as sinful and to be condemned. Judicial death for the purpose of maintaining justice or righteousness is equally well established. This is found initially in the judgment of death on Adam and Eve and the entire race; in the commandment given to Noah that those who shed a man's blood should by man be slain; in the flood, where God took the lives of the entire race except Noah and the family; in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in many other places.

We see the same thing in present civilizations. Few question the right of police to employ their weapons in enforcing the law, when such employment is necessary. The fact that some policemen may use excessive force or are dishonest, and controlled by dishonest politicians and lawyers, does not mean that the police should have their arms taken from them. Police have had to be armed and trained in the use of their arms, because criminals use such weapons without compunction.The maintenance and operation of the police power is recognized in the New Testament as well as in the Old. It seems to me rather obvious that, in a community where individual freedom of will exists, order and security can be maintained only by force in the final analysis. Persuasion can go only so far. If a criminal insists on pursuing his criminal way, force is the only known method of protecting the law-abiding citizen.

The military forces of the nation are only an extension of the police system. Its legitimate purpose is to insure the peace and security of the nation from outside aggression and in case of domestic insurrections. Just as policemen must be especially armed and trained, so must soldiers. Navies and armies cannot be improvised overnight. Whether or not the military forces are used purely for the protection of the nation is a question of policy in the government. The fact that the police may be under a dishonest politician or may be connected with graft does not reduce the necessity for police.The Army and Navy are also the servants of the nation and are used for the purposes of national defense policy.

In connection with purely defensive purposes may be found offensive action. Our expatriots, missionaries, and business people legitimately live in many distant parts of the world. Normally the laws of the nations where they are protect them adequately. However, sometimes it becomes necessary to protect them by force. The war has to be fought when protection is needed. Not only that, but a war once entered into may often be terminated only by the definite defeat ofthe enemy. The strategic situation may be such that offensive action is necessary. The defensive alone rarely gains the end sought.

Certain New testament passages are quoted by pacifists in support of their position. We are to love our enemies (Matthew5:44). This is a definite command that we must obey. But what shall we do when we have to choose between two loves? For example, should one defend his mother who is about to be attacked by a criminal, or should he allow the latter to commit his vicious attack? And is permissiveness to a criminal act really an act of love toward the criminal? It is evident that exaggerated permissiveness to children is very likely to encourage them to juvenile crime and worse later. "Blessed are the peacemakers . . .(Matthew 5:9)." This also is true, but when our efforts to be at peace fail, must we then submit to the aggressor? The Apostle Paul tells us that we should be at peace with others to the extent that it lies within us (Romans 12:18). Obviously the aggressor himself removes the possibility of peace unless we surrender. If struck on one cheek we are to turn the other (Matthew 5:39), thus giving the aggressor an opportunity to desist, avoiding a fight. But, if he does not desist and renews the attack, nothing is said about again turning the other cheek. Actually, experience shows that to appease an aggressor whether he be a school-yard bully or an Adolf Hitler, merely encourages him to further and greater aggression. The Lord told Peter that they who take the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52). This certainly is historically true as regards nations, but most soldiers, from private to general, die of natural causes. Among nations, in the absence of an effective world government, it is a case of dog eat dog; so also with criminal gangs. Ordinary citizens are or should be protected by the government. Christ did not allow Peter to defend Him by force because He had come in the world to die for the sins of men in order that they might be forgiven and reconciled to God. It will be otherwise when He comes again in mighty power and glory (Matt.24:30; II Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 1:7; 19:11-21).

During the Lord's earthly ministry, He provided for and protected the disciples, but as He prepared to depart, He told them that if they had no sword, to sell their clothing in order to buy one (Luke 2:35-38). Why was this appropriate? Romans 1:18-32 tells us that in order to reveal His wrath against men's rebellion against Him, God has given them up to all of those personal moral evils which cause the troubles in society, among which is war. In Old Testament times, the nation Israel lived in just such a world, and today, so does the Christian.

I therefore believe that the military profession is a legitimate one. I feel no twinge of conscience in the matter, although my conscience frequently bothers me excessively in other matters where I discover I am wrong. On the other hand, I feel that if the Lord had wanted me to leave the Army, He would have let me know and, as a Christian, I trust that I would have been prepared to leave at once. It might also be necessary sometimes for an officer to resign his commission even under persecution if it becomes clear that to remain in the military would be contrary to what he believes right. Such was the situation which faced Lee and other officers at the beginning of the Civil War.

Meeting Objections of Those Who Believe Defensive Warfare is Wrong

There are several points which interest me, things which I have read or heard asserted by those who oppose national defense. First, there are those who say that wars never settle anything. If by that they mean that war does not end wars and produce a permanently static civilization, I agree with them. The human race is constantly changing, generations dying, new ones being born. Civilization is fluid. But I think that war has settled some things, many of them of great importance. It was by war that Lot was saved from the Babylonians. War gave the land of Canaan to the Jews, war took it away from them. War established the Roman Empire, in which there was a century or more of as nearly complete peace as has ever existed in civilized lands. War prevented the Saracens from completely dominating Europe. War gained the American Independence and definitely put an end to slavery. War finished Napoleon and Hitler. I don't intimate that these results could not have been obtained in a much better way. I don't know of a war which could not have been settled peaceably if men had been peaceably inclined.

The Emptiness of War's Pomp and Glory

Another thing I frequently hear about is the ambition of soldiers for the pomp and glory of war and for such promotion as may be found. There may be some pomp and circumstances in parades and other things done in the training of troops. But I don't know of any pomp and glory in war. It is mostly mud, rain, heat, cold, hunger and thirst, not to speak of the constant danger and death. I don't know any soldier who wants a war. As to promotion, there is very little of that. A few men get reputations; most of us merely work hard. Few people except soldiers can appreciate the moral responsibility which a commander accepts. On his decisions the lives of thousands of men may be lost. Is his decision correct? Is it necessary? The mental strain on commanders is beyond the comprehension of most people. At the end of the war the temporary rank is often lost. Many of the generals go back to a lower rank. They get nothing out of it except in a few isolated cases.

Another point is the belief that military forces bring on war. That is not true in our country. In the United States, the military is the servant of the nation. The nation goes to war. We fight it and finish it. The Armed Forces no more starts a war than does a policeman. The policeman begins to function when normal rules of conduct cease to function.There is a lot of talk also about the fact that preparedness starts war. This is another one of those half-truths. The truth is that the lack of preparedness invites plunder and aggression. Preparedness may avoid war. It is practically certain that if the United States had been reasonably prepared in 1916-1917, Germany would never have dared to draw us into the war. They grossly underestimated our capacity.

Of course, there is always the fact that military preparedness leads to international suspicion and ultimately to war. This is because nations do not trust one another, and certainly there is little reason to do so. As a result, the burden of armaments is almost unbearable. When one thinks of what good things could be done with all the money which goes into armaments, it makes one despair of anything good coming out of civilization. One of the saddest effects of war is the hurt done to women, children and other non-combatants. This was one of the arguments raised against the use of bombing in order to win the war in Vietnam. Obviously, every possible effort should be made to avoid harm to civilians. Nevertheless, many of them are engaged in active support of the war in various ways. Such persons are a fair target. Wherever there is a military force there are nearly always civilians who cannot or will not leave the combat locality in spite of efforts to warn them. Wherever there is a war support activity, there must be labor, and such persons normally have their families nearby. Among them are the stores and other activities of a community. It is physically impossible to isolate the combat forces and installations from the civil population. This has been the case throughout history. Ordinarily, the best that can be done to save civilians is to get them out of the area to be struck. Further, no ruler can start a war without the obedience of the population. It is that ruler, in fact the nation, which exposes its own civil population to the dangers and suffering of war. It is obvious that to neglect a military target in order to avoid harm to civilians would permit the enemy to gain far greater military security by placing legitimate targets in the middle of a civilian community.

As senseless and sinful as war may be, it is an historical and present reality because it is caused by the unregenerate nature of man. God has given men up to such things (Romans 1:18-32). War must be understood and conducted in a realistic manner if, unfortunately, the government's efforts to maintain peace fail. Because of widespread discontent with the Vietnamese war, many persons insist that the individual citizen has the moral obligation to dissent publicly and even by violent or non-violent resistance to a particular war. Of course, one should follow the dictates of his conscience, whatever it might cost him. But before using such methods, there are certain things that he should consider. To avoid chaos, society must be governed. The government must make the governing decisions. In order to reap the benefits of organized society, the individual must surrender certain freedoms to the government, that is, he should obey the law. Christians are so enjoined (Matt. 22:22; Rom. 13:1-7; I Peter 2:13-16). Acknowledging the authority of the government, the Christian is to pray for rulers (I Tim. 2:1,2). To be lawless or to seek to redress wrong by force, leads eventually to anarchy and dictatorship. Under our constitution, the President conducts foreign policy. He has sources of information and advice not available to the ordinary citizen, and often even not to those in high positions. He alone can and must make the basic decisions. This is and must be the system even though he, like the football quarterback, may decide mistakenly.

Individual citizens who in time of war undertake to undercut the war effort should understand that in so doing they inevitably encourage the enemy to hope and work harder for victory, thereby prolonging the war, causing greater losses to our own fighting men, and possibly even gaining a decisive victory.There are cases when obedience to God requires disobedience to the authority of men (Acts 4:19,20; 5:29). For a Christian to obey a command contrary to the command of God, such as to deny Christ, to murder, to steal, to make a false report, etc., is surely wrong and not to be excused. Eichman, the murderer of Jews in World War II, claimed that he was not culpable because he was carrying out the orders of the chief of state, Hitler. No Christian should be deceived by any such worthless defense. This writer cannot remember any occasion when he received an order which in conscience he should not obey. There were many whose wisdom he doubted and against which he argued, but the decision was not his to make.

Can Men Do Away With War?

What can be done to stop war? There have been many suggestions. War is a crime, just as murder and highway robbery are crimes. Even though murder is done by one gangster on the person of another it is still murder. Education and reason do not stop crime. Instead, education and reason applied to the conduct of crime give it greater strength and success. The preaching of the Gospel has not stopped crime in the community or war among nations. The civilized nations of the world are those fomenting the wars of the present. The point is that the will to abide by civilized processes must be present. No one makes a nation go to war to gain something. The so-called "have not" nations do not have to take other people's land. They want to take it. The Epistle of James expresses it very well (4:1,2). We can call all of the conferences we want, we can make concessions, too, but does anyone think that the aggressor nations will really be satisfied? Man has been seeking peace since history began, but in his lust has glorified war as a means of plunder and raping.

I am convinced that before men can do away with wars they must undergo a change of heart. Words mean nothing; the change must be real. Some say war is inevitable. In an academic sense this is not true because we all realize that if nations would be reasonable and obey the Golden Rule, there would be no war. But in a practical sense we seem to be no nearer the solution now than nations ever were. People will not be reasonable. The word "if" is the difficulty.

The Real Cause of War From a Biblical Standpoint

The answer is simple. The world is dead in sin. Lust, plunder and war are the natural characteristics of the human race, dead and lost in sin (Romans 1:18-32). Many good Christians seek to eliminate war by dressing up the outside of the cup, seeking to cure the apparent causes of war. The real cause of war is in the sinful heart of man. The Lord said that except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Being born again is a miracle. It comes only when one believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and as the Son of God. People believe when they hear the Gospel. Never has the preaching of the Gospel succeeded in converting more than a portion of hearers at any one time. Even at Pentecost in the great city of Jerusalem only 3,000 believed at the most wonderful exhibition of Gospel power in church history. The rapid growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire resulted first in the persecution of Christians, and then ultimately in the decay of spiritual Christian life into the dark ages of medieval centuries. The Protestant Reformation did not produce more than a partial awakening. Today there is an apostasy from the simple, pure Word of God and faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God and the only Savior.

We are not called to preach the Gospel to save the world from war and crime. We can preach the Gospel all we want to, but only a few believe. Christ said that broad is the way that leads to destruction and many are they that find it, and narrow is the way that leads to life and few are they that find it. The preaching of the Gospel is to them who are saved a savor unto life, unto them who are lost a savor unto death. The scriptures say that God is now taking out a people for His name. I can find no place in the Scripture where it intimates that the preaching of the Gospel of grace will succeed in converting the world. On the other hand, it does say that the Gospel should be preached to all the world as a witness. I think that the present state of civilization is ample testimony to this completely lost and incurable state of civilization. Never has the world been in a more unstable condition. If the lessons of the past are ignored, war of terrible proportions is ahead of our much-vaunted and self-satisfied civilization.This picture I have drawn seems pessimistic. Many would hold me up as an enemy of peace because I don't agree with their method of gaining it.

However, there is a way of gaining peace.The Bible clearly describes an earthly condition when the desert shall blossom as a rose, when the lion and other animals shall not kill, when the lion shall eat grass like the ox, when venomous serpents will not kill, when there shall be no war, and when men shall learn war no more. It tells us of a time when there shall be no harm done in all the earth because it will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. It says also that a King shall reign in righteousness and that He shall judge in equity for the meek of the earth and take care of the poor, and that the law shall go forth from Jerusalem. Many teachers have sought to avoid the plain, obviously meaning of these passages, but if I made a business of construing my orders that way, I would long since have ceased my connection with the Army.

I think it should be perfectly obvious that man is utterly unable to save himself. His civilization is only an expression of himself. He cannot save it. But God has promised that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself will come again, that He will establish a Kingdom on earth by His own power, unaided by insignificant man. We should preach the Gospel of individual salvation in order that such as believe may be translated into His Kingdom, and we should constantly watch for His coming.

The Author--Lieutenant General William K. Harrison, Jr., retired in 1956 after forty four years in the Army. He was assistant division commander of the 30th Infantry Division, rated by General S.L.A. Marshall as the best division in the European Theater during World War II. He was chief U.N. negotiator at Panmunjom, Korea, and subsequently served as commander in chief of the Caribbean Command. General Harrison served as president of the Officers Christian Fellowship from 1954-1972 and as president emeritus from 1972 until his death in 1987.

Gunny · Aug 27, 2004

Is it right for a Christian to serve in the military?

Through the centuries, Christians have been forced to do serious thinking concerning the rightfulness of serving in the military. The abuse of force by so-called Christian rulers and nations in wars fought for wrongful or mixed motives has often been an affront to the gospel. Deeply distressed by these abuses, some Christians have concluded they should be pacifists, unwilling to participate in warfare. Today the Mennonites, who are usually willing to be consistent with their beliefs, are strongly pacifistic. They would rather die than take the life of another. Frequently, they serve as medics in battle, risking their own lives to save the lives of others.

In spite of our respect for sincere conscientious objectors, there is important scriptural evidence indicating that pacifism isn't the only Christian option.

At the time of Christ, the Roman Empire was at the peak of its power. Roman troops controlled a vast area stretching from England to the Black Sea and from the Rhine River to the deserts of North Africa. But though it was the most powerful government in the world, Rome was terribly corrupt. Few modern nations could rival the degree of its decadence.

In spite of Roman corruption, the apostle Paul clearly set forth the basic principle that secular government is God's agent to maintain the rule of law on earth ( Romans 13:1-7 ). Because Paul addressed this principle to the Christian community in Rome, we can conclude that governmental corruption doesn't overrule the need for governmental authority. Affirming the legitimacy of governmental authority carries some implications regarding the appropriateness of Christian service in the military. But even more telling is the fact that Christians were not forbidden to serve in the army either by Scripture or by the counsel of the early church fathers -- even though the Roman army served a government that was often far from ideal in its dedication to justice!

The fact that Christians served in the Roman military with no hint of the disapproval of Jesus, Paul, the New Testament, or the early church fathers makes it difficult to conclude that Christians are ethically bound to avoid serving in armed forces of modern states.

If independent nations didn't protect themselves with military force, nothing would limit the power of predatory states. It's impossible to imagine how peaceful, civilized life could exist without the influence of governmental power through police, courts, and legislatures.

Christian police and military personnel face special ethical challenges, but they also have unique opportunities for Christian service. This is borne out both by the scriptural record and by history. In spite of Rome's corruption, her centurions were widely respected as men of competence and integrity. Polybius wrote that centurions "were chosen by merit, and so were men remarkable not so much for their daring courage as for their deliberation, constancy, and strength of mind." All of the centurions mentioned in the New Testament are praised as Christians, God-fearers, or men of good character ( Matthew 8:5,8,13;27:54 ; Mark 15:39,44-45 ; Luke 7:2,6;23:47 ; Acts 10:1,22;21:32;22:25-26;23:17,23;24:23;27:1,6,11,31,43;28:16 ).

Probably more often than a civilian, a soldier may have to take a stand that will risk his career or life. According to Foxe's Book Of Martyrs, the centurion who was held responsible to execute James had himself executed at the same time. Numerous German officers during World War II were tortured to death for their opposition to Hitler. On many occasions, a Christian soldier or police officer may be in a unique position to dispense justice, protect the innocent, and bring honor to the name of Jesus Christ.

Written by: Dan Vander Lugt
© 2003 RBC Ministries-Grand Rapids MI, 49555-0001

daidhaid · Aug 28, 2004

T bad that we can't just cut and paste our memories to suit our present.
Maybe some can.

Anyway...
There is no one answer, it is up to individuals to think it through.
Jesus, of Nazareth, wouldn't go about killing people for His government.
But, He probably wouldn't condemn an act of self defense.

But if you join the military and goto war, for whatever reason they give you, and you have to kill.
Are you really defending, or are you killing because another man told you to.
Would Jesus want you to kill for Nationalistic reasons?
It's a serious proposition , and it warrants more than a jingoistic once over.
You get a chance to decide before enlisting.
You don't get the same choice after enlisting.

There are Christians who believe all sorts of things, that doesn't make them right. Some may not be pleasing to God.
God gives every indication of being particular about things.

Those folks who just pick up a belief system and strap it on may one day have to face the error of their actions.

Gunny · Aug 28, 2004

daidhaid said:
Those folks who just pick up a belief system and strap it on may one day have to face the error of their actions.

EPHESIANS 2:8
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
EPHESIANS 2:9
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation by the shed blood of Jesus Christ is not contingent on "folks who pick up a belief system and strap it on".

Salvation is 100% the work of God and God, alone. Man brings nothing to the table of Salvation.

"Folks who pick up a belief system and strap it on", is the creed of the present age. It is the belief that one is in need of no Savior other than self and one's own devised conception of a god(s).

inquisitor_11 · Aug 28, 2004

^ To some extent I'd agree, but unfortunetly, that same mentality is alive and well in the church today. It happens everywhere that there is a dominate ideology or belief structure, whether that be in Islamic Iran or atheistic France (to make some very broad generalisations). Even more so in any nation which claims God's blessing over and above other countries.

Gunny · Aug 29, 2004

inquisitor_11 said:
^ To some extent I'd agree, but unfortunetly, that same mentality is alive and well in the church today. It happens everywhere that there is a dominate ideology or belief structure, whether that be in Islamic Iran or atheistic France (to make some very broad generalisations). Even more so in any nation which claims God's blessing over and above other countries.

JOHN 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That which my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, states transcends any and all statements that are made by man.

4christ88 · Aug 29, 2004

Snowy11 said:
Hi
I have joined the australian army as a medic. Id rather heal than kill. If I had to kill someone in combat, I wonder would it be breaking the commandment or be ok because it was in battle.

wow, that's the first time i heard someone joining a war to heal. how ironic in a lovely way.

well, for me i would refer u to one of the commandments of exodus, the famous "thou shalt not kill". maybe someone has already said it, but i can't be bothered to read all the previous answers. i don't think there would be a moral and right reason to kill people, especially if it is us unperfect humans that are the ones determining it

May God bless and direct u in every decision you have to make
Tomini

inquisitor_11 · Aug 29, 2004

Ahh, That's right The Gospel according to George 5:12

"And he saith unto them, blessed is he that smiteth the foreigners and neglects the poor in the interests of big business and perverted nationalism. For Amerika is my chosen one, and George is my chosen leader. They can do no wrong."

jbaccus · Aug 29, 2004

4Christ88, you're a little late on that one. It's actually interpreted "murder" not "kill".

Inquisitor, I'm sorry you feel so harshly against us.

inquisitor_11 · Aug 29, 2004

Inquisitor, I'm sorry you feel so harshly against us.

I hope you don't get the impression that it's personal. It's simply that whole mentality that really gets to me.

To see christianity hijacked and used as an ideology creating apparatus to support a very skewed American nationalism, and the interests of the elite, frustrates and upsets me.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.election&item=petition_flash

jhollas · Aug 29, 2004

inquisitor_11 said:
I hope you don't get the impression that it's personal. It's simply that whole mentality that really gets to me.

To see christianity hijacked and used as an ideology creating apparatus to support a very skewed American nationalism, and the interests of the elite, frustrates and upsets me.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.election&item=petition_flash

Just wondering, are you talking about the growing concern that some Americans see the Middle East as grounds for another "Crusade?"

daidhaid · Aug 29, 2004

One zealot's Jihad is another man's Crusade.

4christ88 · Aug 30, 2004

jbaccus said:
4Christ88, you're a little late on that one. It's actually interpreted "murder" not "kill".

what's the difference between murder and kill, u take someone;s life in both cases. is it that "kill" is better or something and refers to not stabbing someone over and over but using guns and bombs to serve a govt or whatever?

Click to expand...

jhollas · Aug 30, 2004

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Kill: To put to death; To deprive of life.

As you can see, it's a bit of a fine line, but a line nonetheless.

Jcleesport · Aug 30, 2004

daidhaid said:
One zealot's Jihad is another man's Crusade.

And both terms during the crusades refer to simple people who were manipulated by immoral religious leadership into the slaughter of thousands.

That doesn't apply to today's world. Jihad is a purely islamic concept. There is no other religion who's teaching's state that if you die while killing the infidel you will go to heaven and score 70 virgins. There is nothing in the teachings of Christ that tell people to blow themselves up in public places hoping to take as many unbelievers with them as possible. Is there not a difference?

daidhaid · Aug 30, 2004

Jcleesport said:
And both terms during the crusades refer to simple people who were manipulated by immoral religious leadership into the slaughter of thousands.

That doesn't apply to today's world. Jihad is a purely islamic concept. There is no other religion who's teaching's state that if you die while killing the infidel you will go to heaven and score 70 virgins. There is nothing in the teachings of Christ that tell people to blow themselves up in public places hoping to take as many unbelievers with them as possible. Is there not a difference?

Here's the deal it doesnt matter whether immoral religous folks use politics, or immoral politicians use religous folks.
People are usually manipulated into war.

The Islamic guy thinks when he is martyred he gets paradise.
The Christian gets a martyrs crown and a reward in heaven.
There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that tells people to blow up anything or shoot anything.
Jesus probably wouldn't want his followers taking orders to kill from another man. Jesus was a bit of a troublemaker in his day.
If he were here now he would probably have the same enemy he had back then. That is organized religion and religous politics.

There is a difference between a suicide bomber and a conventional soldier.
It is the power differential.
They use the weapon they have to hurt their enemy.
We use different weapons to hurt our enemy.

Ours are more powerful, theirs are more shocking.
Ours are accurate, theirs are sneaky.
We want them to come out where we can kill them.
They want us to do our worst, and all to often we oblige.

We are all on a slippery slope.

Is it a sin to be forced to kill someone in combat

walkin' slack

walkin' slack

Active Member

Viva la revolucion!

Remnant

Remnant

walkin' slack

Remnant

Viva la revolucion!

Remnant

Angel in training

Viva la revolucion!

Active Member

Viva la revolucion!

Christian Soldier

walkin' slack

Angel in training

Christian Soldier

Josh

walkin' slack

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency