Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[Max S Cherry]

And don't give me the sophistic "Who is a soldier? Who is a judge?"-nonsense. You wouldn't accept that kind of bovine manure in any other kind of argument. Don't bring it here.

I do not think you should dismiss those questions so easily. I think they warrant a reasoned response. Perhaps you would like them if they were asked in a different manner.

Who determines who is and who is not a soldier? It seems to me that the label carries at least two understandings. One, a person fighting on behalf of a particular country, and two, a person fighting on behalf of an idea or principle.

Do you take issue with either or both of these understandings of who is a soldier?

 

[revrobor]

You say that I ask stupid questions and look less intelligent and you refuse to rebut me. I am saddened and fail to understand how Christians could be ok with killing.

No Christian is "OK" with killing. Those are your words. Sadly there times when it is necessary. But it is never "OK".

 

[jminnesota]

yes i feel we all have the right to defend ourselfs. if we have to kill someone to protect ourselfs or my wife i would do it. if someone breaks into your house you have the right to kill either stab or shoot etc.
more people are signing up to carry a gun now a days after what has happen in CT and other schools and business.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

I do not think you should dismiss those questions so easily.

Yes, I should. Nonsense should be dismissed.

Who determines who is and who is not a soldier?

Who determines who is, and who is not a president? Who determines who is and who is not a man? Is anything anything, or do we get do define everything for ourselves?
The question is a meaningless dodge, and a waste of time.

No Christian is "OK" with killing. Those are your words. Sadly there times when it is necessary. But it is never "OK".

THIS

 

[Max S Cherry]

Yes, I should. Nonsense should be dismissed.

Truly that is your right, but when you are speaking to someone who does not think of it as nonsense, you might try reasoning with him.

Who determines who is, and who is not a president? Who determines who is and who is not a man? Is anything anything, or do we get do define everything for ourselves?
The question is a meaningless dodge, and a waste of time.

Can we agree that "president" is a different sort of word than "soldier?" It seems to me that a "president" is much easier and more uniformly defined. He is one who presides over something, to me it brings to mind some thought of an elective process: as in people picking this person to preside through some means. In this line of thinking, a soldier is one who fights for something. Soldier seems much more open ended to me.

 

[Max S Cherry]

No Christian is "OK" with killing. Those are your words. Sadly there times when it is necessary. But it is never "OK".

I do not understand how something that is never okay can ever be necessary. Just saying that it is necessary means that it is okay in those times when it is necessary. If it is never okay, it cannot ever be necessary.

This complaint is not limited to killing. I think it holds true for any action.

 

[QueSi]

No Christian is "OK" with killing. Those are your words. Sadly there times when it is necessary. But it is never "OK".

Which times is it necessary?

 

[QueSi]

Yes, I should. Nonsense should be dismissed.

Who determines who is, and who is not a president? Who determines who is and who is not a man? Is anything anything, or do we get do define everything for ourselves?
The question is a meaningless dodge, and a waste of time.

THIS

You didn't answer the question that you were referencing. Is it to difficult to answer?

 

[redeemedbygrace24]

If it came down to me fighting for my life, I would have to

 

[QueSi]

Yes, I should. Nonsense should be dismissed.

Who determines who is, and who is not a president? Who determines who is and who is not a man? Is anything anything, or do we get do define everything for ourselves?
The question is a meaningless dodge, and a waste of time.

THIS

You didn't answer the question you were referencing. Is it to difficult to answer?

 

[revrobor]

Which times is it necessary?

If you're looking for an argument you won't find it here. That question has already been answered. Read this thread.

 

[QueSi]

If you're looking for an argument you won't find it here. That question has already been answered. Read this thread.

I found your very grey answer.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

You didn't answer the question you were referencing. Is it to difficult to answer?

When did you stop doing heroin? I'll answer your stupid question when you'll give an answer to THAT question that isn't just a dodge.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Can we agree that "president" is a different sort of word than "soldier?"

No, we can't.

 

[QueSi]

When did you stop doing heroin? I'll answer your stupid question when you'll give an answer to THAT question that isn't just a dodge.

I have never stopped doing heroin.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

I have never stopped doing heroin.

So you just admitted to doing heroin, which is, AFAIK, a crime.
Good to know.

 

[Max S Cherry]

No, we can't.

I do not understand why. I explained how I understand the difference. Will you tell me in what way you disagree with my understanding?

One of the problems I have with this is that I cannot understand "soldier" in such a way that it prohibits the meanings that I gave it. Are you limiting it to only those who serve in the military of a country? Even that meaning would lead to the question of whether the country must be recognized, by whom it must be recognized, and so on. But that is not important if you are not limiting the word in the way it seems that you are.

 

[Harry3142]

Jesus said this:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)

Note that the word used is 'peacemakers', not 'peacekeepers'. It demands action, not subservience, to earn this title. A person can sit in their room, or even hide under their bed, and be called a peacekeeper. But in order to be called a peacemaker, action must be taken for the purpose of either maintaining or restoring peace.

This is why its a title earned most often not by civilians, but by military and law enforcement. If a nation has plans to subdue another nation and enslave their citizenry, only to have those plans be thwarted by the military of that nation's protecting its people from those whose desire was to enslave them, then that military has earned the title of 'peacemakers'. If criminals have plans to use others as if they were nothing more than theirs to do with as their lusts and passions dictate, only to have those plans be thwarted by law enforcement made up of people who have vowed to protect the citizenry against the lusts and passions of criminals, then that law enforcement has earned the title of 'peacemakers'. It is a title that must be earned by a person's actions, rather than by his choosing to be inactive.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Jesus said this:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)

Note that the word used is 'peacemakers', not 'peacekeepers'. It demands action, not subservience, to earn this title. A person can sit in their room, or even hide under their bed, and be called a peacekeeper. But in order to be called a peacemaker, action must be taken for the purpose of either maintaining or restoring peace.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Pacifists represent some of the hardest working and most successful peacemakers in history, and I believe that there is a place for them in today's world as well. Action is not always violent.

This is why its a title earned most often not by civilians, but by military and law enforcement. If a nation has plans to subdue another nation and enslave their citizenry, only to have those plans be thwarted by the military of that nation's protecting its people from those whose desire was to enslave them, then that military has earned the title of 'peacemakers'. If criminals have plans to use others as if they were nothing more than theirs to do with as their lusts and passions dictate, only to have those plans be thwarted by law enforcement made up of people who have vowed to protect the citizenry against the lusts and passions of criminals, then that law enforcement has earned the title of 'peacemakers'. It is a title that must be earned by a person's actions, rather than by his choosing to be inactive.

The title you seem to be supporting is "eventual peace-restorers," because in each of the examples you provide, peace existed and was remade after unrest.

Peace is not made through war. Surely, "calmness" can be made through war, but a defeated enemy is not necessarily a peaceful enemy. After war, there is a period of negotiating and diplomacy, and if a peace is to exist, it will "made" by the negotiators and diplomats. A soldier's job is not peace, and many of the soldiers I know have complained about being used as "policemen" (to use their words).

There will be suffering, abuse, slavery, crime, and death in this world, and the very first Christians were warned of this. We can be extremely active in resisting these things without ever killing anyone and perhaps without shedding the blood of our enemies.

 

[revrobor]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Pacifists represent some of the hardest working and most successful peacemakers in history, and I believe that there is a place for them in today's world as well. Action is not always violent.



The title you seem to be supporting is "eventual peace-restorers," because in each of the examples you provide, peace existed and was remade after unrest.

Peace is not made through war. Surely, "calmness" can be made through war, but a defeated enemy is not necessarily a peaceful enemy. After war, there is a period of negotiating and diplomacy, and if a peace is to exist, it will "made" by the negotiators and diplomats. A soldier's job is not peace, and many of the soldiers I know have complained about being used as "policemen" (to use their words).

There will be suffering, abuse, slavery, crime, and death in this world, and the very first Christians were warned of this. We can be extremely active in resisting these things without ever killing anyone and perhaps without shedding the blood of our enemies.

Oh c'mon. Is it really necessary to "correct" Harry's answer. He gave a good and accurate answer. Your attempt to degrade our military and our "peace officers" (that's is the true title of our police and deputy sheriffs) is not appreciated. BTW I am a former law enforcement officer and member of the military.