Christains in the Military.

[Kaiju Returns]

xPurdah

Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not kill"?

No, it isn't. It's "thou shalt not murder", that is, kill without having a good, socially acceptable (and presumably God-sanctioned) reason. I mean, come on kid, do I really have to correct you on this? If you think the God of Abraham really WAS some peacenik hippie f** who abhorred killing, then you clearly haven't opened the Bible in your life.

As an interesting aside, my old company chaplain was of the, how do you say it? Batshit breed of Christianity. The kind who thought evolution is a lie and dinosaurs walked alongside Jesus (no lie). A buddy of mine, a California liberal Spanish Catholic, tried to get transferred to an MOS which wouldn't involve having to shoot at people, on the grounds that he didn't believe God wanted him to kill people, especially not Muslims. It was a pretty reasonable conscientious objector play- his recruiter had "lied to him" about his chosen MOSes roles vis-a-vis combat (turns out engineers have to kill people, too) and he wasn't looking to leave the service, just to get a new job where he could help people instead of hurt them, like, say, as a medical assistant. Well, our chaplain told my buddy that he was crazy, and God not only wanted this guy to kill Muslims, this war was in fact all part of His master plan to pave the way for His Son's return with the corpses of the godless Mohammedans. So he had to stay as an engineer, but fortunately for him he broke both his legs and got sent home disabled before he had to kill anyone. The moral of the story is that asking a Christian in the military for his opinions on all things related to violence and God is pointless as you will get as many different answers as there are Christian soldiers.

[Djavlepik]

Kaiju Returns

xPurdah

Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not kill"?

No, it isn't. It's "thou shalt not murder", that is, kill without having a good, socially acceptable (and presumably God-sanctioned) reason. I mean, come on kid, do I really have to correct you on this? If you think the God of Abraham really WAS some peacenik hippie f** who abhorred killing, then you clearly haven't opened the Bible in your life.

As an interesting aside, my old company chaplain was of the, how do you say it? Batshit breed of Christianity. The kind who thought evolution is a lie and dinosaurs walked alongside Jesus (no lie). A buddy of mine, a California liberal Spanish Catholic, tried to get transferred to an MOS which wouldn't involve having to shoot at people, on the grounds that he didn't believe God wanted him to kill people, especially not Muslims. It was a pretty reasonable conscientious objector play- his recruiter had "lied to him" about his chosen MOSes roles vis-a-vis combat (turns out engineers have to kill people, too) and he wasn't looking to leave the service, just to get a new job where he could help people instead of hurt them, like, say, as a medical assistant. Well, our chaplain told my buddy that he was crazy, and God not only wanted this guy to kill Muslims, this war was in fact all part of His master plan to pave the way for His Son's return with the corpses of the godless Mohammedans. So he had to stay as an engineer, but fortunately for him he broke both his legs and got sent home disabled before he had to kill anyone. The moral of the story is that asking a Christian in the military for his opinions on all things related to violence and God is pointless as you will get as many different answers as there are Christian soldiers.

Some more morally upright than others.

[Missynx]

One thing I've seen a lot of while perusing this thread is the "Thou shalt not kill" vs the "Thou shalt no murder" issue. I'd like to point something out that some of you may not have previously considered.

English isn't the original language. So, yes, translations may have been mixed up somewhat. The Latin Vulgate was also not the original translation. Depending on who was translating the Bible into English during the Reformation, certain words were added and omitted to suit budding theologies. For proof of this, one needs to look no further then the numerous volumes of Bibles out there that people consider to be the 'right' one. Going back to the issue of translation. Before Latin, the generally accepted first language the various books of the Bible were written in was Hebrew. However, over the course of thousands of years, languages change. For example, not 700 years ago there was a man named Chaucer writing in Old English. Many traditional English speakers find his writings to be extremely difficult to read. Even Shakespeare, for native English speakers poses problems. The Bible, certainly the Old Testament, was written in a language 1000s of years removed from the languages spoken today. No rational person can safely say that changes haven't happened in the language itself or in the various numerous translations available.

So, For those of you who are confused about the Commandments and the difference between 'murder' and 'kill'... Well, I suggest you find an expert in extinct languages to provide an unbiased translation from the original language. Biblical translation is full of bias, perhaps the distinction between 'murder' and 'kill' is another such variance. An better question to ask, did the original translator of the Commandments understand a difference between the two words? By necessity, murdering involves killing, does it not?

While I'm on the subject. Let's make the slight difference between murder and kill apparent. I shall be using the highest standard for definitions in the English language -- the OED. (Since copies of the full volume of these books cost WAY to much for a mere student, I'll be using the online version. http://dictionary.oed.com Though one does need a user name and password.)

The verb: to kill - 2.a : To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc.
2.b : b. With adverbial extensions, as kill out (away, {dag}down, {dag}up), kill off, to cut off completely, to remove, extinguish, or get rid of (a number, a whole tribe, etc.) by killing.

So, the verb to kill loosely refers to life being deprived or removed from a being. Use of weapons, over work, grief, disease or the occurrence of accidents are optional. Part b of the second definition refers to the extermination of tribes. (Consider places such as Australia or South America not so long ago when thousands upon thousands of native peoples were killed so the European powers could use the land freely. Would that not also be considered murder?)

The verb: the murder - 1. a. trans. To kill (a person) unlawfully, spec. with malice aforethought (in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence: see note s.v. MURDER n.1 1a); to kill (a person) wickedly, inhumanly, or barbarously.
3. trans. a. To slaughter in a terrible manner, to massacre. Also {dag}to murder to death, {dag}to murder dead, {dag}to murder down.
b. To kill or slaughter (an animal or animals).

The verb to murder has only one distinction from kill. The idea of premeditation or aforethought, in one version of the definition, makes murder different from killing. (There is a notion of concealment, though there are many examples of serial killers that don't hide their victims. Fancy that though, they're called serial killers rather then serial murderers.) However, one must also note the similarities. To kill very closely resembles to murder. Murdering involves slaughter, massacres, and death. Killing also involves slaughter, massacres, and death.

Consider that the words 'murder' and 'kill' really aren't all that different as some of you are trying to claim. Comparing 'murder' and 'kill' is like comparing shades of the same color. Some of you are trying to claim that 'murder' is purple while 'kill' is yellow. Given dictionary definitions, such is not the case.

[ZechsK]

Missynx

One thing I've seen a lot of while perusing this thread is the "Thou shalt not kill" vs the "Thou shalt no murder" issue. I'd like to point something out that some of you may not have previously considered.

English isn't the original language. So, yes, translations may have been mixed up somewhat. The Latin Vulgate was also not the original translation. Depending on who was translating the Bible into English during the Reformation, certain words were added and omitted to suit budding theologies. For proof of this, one needs to look no further then the numerous volumes of Bibles out there that people consider to be the 'right' one. Going back to the issue of translation. Before Latin, the generally accepted first language the various books of the Bible were written in was Hebrew. However, over the course of thousands of years, languages change. For example, not 700 years ago there was a man named Chaucer writing in Old English. Many traditional English speakers find his writings to be extremely difficult to read. Even Shakespeare, for native English speakers poses problems. The Bible, certainly the Old Testament, was written in a language 1000s of years removed from the languages spoken today. No rational person can safely say that changes haven't happened in the language itself or in the various numerous translations available.

So, For those of you who are confused about the Commandments and the difference between 'murder' and 'kill'... Well, I suggest you find an expert in extinct languages to provide an unbiased translation from the original language. Biblical translation is full of bias, perhaps the distinction between 'murder' and 'kill' is another such variance. An better question to ask, did the original translator of the Commandments understand a difference between the two words? By necessity, murdering involves killing, does it not?

While I'm on the subject. Let's make the slight difference between murder and kill apparent. I shall be using the highest standard for definitions in the English language -- the OED. (Since copies of the full volume of these books cost WAY to much for a mere student, I'll be using the online version. http://dictionary.oed.com Though one does need a user name and password.)

The verb: to kill - 2.a : To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc.
2.b : b. With adverbial extensions, as kill out (away, {dag}down, {dag}up), kill off, to cut off completely, to remove, extinguish, or get rid of (a number, a whole tribe, etc.) by killing.

So, the verb to kill loosely refers to life being deprived or removed from a being. Use of weapons, over work, grief, disease or the occurrence of accidents are optional. Part b of the second definition refers to the extermination of tribes. (Consider places such as Australia or South America not so long ago when thousands upon thousands of native peoples were killed so the European powers could use the land freely. Would that not also be considered murder?)

The verb: the murder - 1. a. trans. To kill (a person) unlawfully, spec. with malice aforethought (in early use often with the additional notion of concealment of the offence: see note s.v. MURDER n.1 1a); to kill (a person) wickedly, inhumanly, or barbarously.
3. trans. a. To slaughter in a terrible manner, to massacre. Also {dag}to murder to death, {dag}to murder dead, {dag}to murder down.
b. To kill or slaughter (an animal or animals).

The verb to murder has only one distinction from kill. The idea of premeditation or aforethought, in one version of the definition, makes murder different from killing. (There is a notion of concealment, though there are many examples of serial killers that don't hide their victims. Fancy that though, they're called serial killers rather then serial murderers.) However, one must also note the similarities. To kill very closely resembles to murder. Murdering involves slaughter, massacres, and death. Killing also involves slaughter, massacres, and death.

Consider that the words 'murder' and 'kill' really aren't all that different as some of you are trying to claim. Comparing 'murder' and 'kill' is like comparing shades of the same color. Some of you are trying to claim that 'murder' is purple while 'kill' is yellow. Given dictionary definitions, such is not the case.

Well we can compare and critique shades of the same colour, and the difference may be subtle but that does not diminish the importance of the difference. If it did, then you would tell your parents to paint your wall blue, and you wouldn't have a problem with whatever shade of blue they chose. But you would have a problem wouldn't you? That's why we bothered to give various shades their own names and hex numbers.

There is a big difference between killing someone and murdering someone. It's the difference between going to hell for committing a sin and going to heaven, and it's the difference between going to jail for an illegal act and getting praised as a hero.

[Missynx]

Quote:

Well we can compare and critique shades of the same colour, and the difference may be subtle but that does not diminish the importance of the difference. If it did, then you would tell your parents to paint your wall blue, and you wouldn't have a problem with whatever shade of blue they chose. But you would have a problem wouldn't you? That's why we bothered to give various shades their own names and hex numbers.

There is a big difference between killing someone and murdering someone. It's the difference between going to hell for committing a sin and going to heaven, and it's the difference between going to jail for an illegal act and getting praised as a hero.

Indeed, shades of the same color do differ. I acknowledge the difference between murder and killing, though it isn't all that great. To say that I'd be bothered by my room being painted light blue as opposed to dark blue is rather presumptuous. If we do want to get into color theory though, blue is it's own color. It's the exact center between the shades and tints of blue. However, most people who hear blue would likely go for the first thing they see that looks blue. To say I'd have a problem with such a happening can only be viewed as uncertain since we're not familiar with each other.

Though, bringing the concept of belief into the equation opens an entirely different topic for debate. This big difference you speak of means very little to a lot of people. In no way is it a universal concept that can be applied to all people. On that basis, I'm forced to reject such claims as being completely true.

The difference between going to jail and being praised as a hero also has its failings due to matters of perspective. Let's create two warring worlds. Cantadua and Mysderonia hate each other. They both think the other is evil, and they're trying to destroy each other. Someone from Cantadua kills someone from Mysderonia, and the person is called a hero. The same goes for someone from Mysderonia killing someone from Cantadua. (Though, this also depends on personal opinions regarding death. Heroes may not see themselves as such either.) Now, someone from Cantadua goes to Mysderonia on vacation for some reason. Under some circumstance the person ends up killing someone from Mysderonia, and they're imprisoned. People in the home country may see the person as a hero and fight to have them released. However, Mysderonia sees just another criminal from a warring nation. Perspective is a difficult thing to toy with at times. Basically, just because one person sees a hero it doesn't mean everyone does. Which means the difference between being a hero and going to jail is circumstantial at best.

[hamletmacbethsex]

the bible is out dated
i dont know why people still follow it anyways
nearly all sacred texts are way too old
they need to be amended/updated

[Assassin Alex18]

xPurdah

From the Crusades to the present Christians have been killing for the "right" causes. But how can Christians justify war? Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not kill"?

I'm asking this to Christains who are for wars. Does killing people in battle not count?

Well It is Self defense in way and I don't think Self Defense counts . How is self defense? Because instead of us fighting them from our homes were preventing them and fighting them at there homes.
Although I would Rather see our war solved through peace talks or online games(Like that will ever happen but a man can dream can't he?)

[Pwn3r_F0x]

Flame Illusion

Stealing food so that you may survive.

Cheating on your wife, because she is a b***h.

There are means of survival that do not require stealing food. There is free food to be found. Pick up hunting, eat foilage, go to homeless kitchens, dumpster diving. And no I am not joking or being an a*****e. I literally had to live like that minus the kitchens because that is just degrading. That is a horrible reason to cheat but great reason to not get married or to get a divorce.

hamletmacbethsex

the bible is out dated
i dont know why people still follow it anyways
nearly all sacred texts are way too old
they need to be amended/updated

Let me guess we should have the United Atheist Movement rewrite it to make more sense?

[Marek James]

xPurdah

From the Crusades to the present Christians have been killing for the "right" causes. But how can Christians justify war? Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not kill"?

I'm asking this to Christains who are for wars. Does killing people in battle not count?

I believe life is sacred and if life is being desacralized by an individual or by a group of people then justification for war becomes possible if the intent is to protect the lives of those individual(s) whose lives are being threatened.

This of course does not mean that every war conducted over the course of history then becomes justifiable, but personally if my friends or families lives were in danger and in order to protect them I would have to put myself in harms way in a kill or be killed situation I would go down fighting if it came to that. I would even help a stranger whose life is in danger.

War is never a desirable end but if life is sacred and needs to be protected I am of the conviction that there is a just war theory.

[Cheshire6]

Let them in the military and the next thing you know, they'll want to vote.....errr wait wrong rant.

[augustine17]

fatal_GRACE

Ubasti

augustine17

Khamsin

CH1YO

Why on earth would you start with the Crusades?

You could have at least picked a campaign that was set about for reasons that were clearly not just.

The Crusades weren't just. They were politically and financially motivated, and then thinly veiled as a religious mission. The Christians were absolutely vicious there.

if it wasn't for the crusades there would be no Christianity and most European culture would be lost they were just as important as Greece Vs. Persia

This statement reeks of bullshit.

Actually, it is unfortunately true.

The Crusades helped keep Christianity a major power and influence over western culture (though it wouldn't have disappeared without them). But the difference here is that this WAS NOT A GOOD THING. The church discouraged innovation, sciences, art, technological advancement to any meaningful degree, and even literacy for the majority of Europeans. Thanks, christianity, for giving us the Dark Ages!

European culture would be changed, not lost, and probably for the better.

not at all true, after the fall of Rome the only sort of education and sciences was through the Church in fact most all great scientist of the Renaissance were Christian, not only that but the crusades supported the Renaissance infinitely, which of coarse brought about these scientific ideals, in fact if it weren't for the church Europe could have probably become about 80% illiterate.

[LtTech_Tom]

xPurdah

Imaginary Marionette

My Mom says: Because 'thou shalt not kill' should have actually been translated as 'thou shalt not murder' and when you're doing you're job as a solider, that's not considered murder.
My Mom is a pretty good source, she was a devout christian for the majority of her life.

So your mom gets to change the bible now?

Why not? Every one else has; did you think the bible was writing in English originally? It was written in some language that no one speaks or writes; it wasn't even on the Rosetta Stone.

[Pwn3r_F0x]

Lets go back before the Bible and go to the Tanakh.

Quote:

the Hebrew word for "kill" is הרג (harog), while the Hebrew word for "murder" is רצח (retzach), which is found in the Ten Commandments לא תרצח (lo tirtzach). In the fullness of the Old Testament Exodus 20:13 is abundantly evidenced as prohibiting unjust killing, rather than a universal injunction against all killing, as retzach is never used in reference to the slaying of animals, nor the taking of life in war, while its most frequent use is in reference to involuntary manslaughter and secondarily for murderers.

[Im_the_real_Crystal]

Actually the Hebrew word there is רצח (râtsach) which is translated more accurately to murder meaning the thought of taking someone life before hand. You plan murder, when you're on a battlefield you don't walk around continually think "I'm going to kill someone" if it happens it's usually out of self-defense.


Also if going to war was wrong God never would have told people in the Bible that they need to go to war with other countries.

[xoxo_phantomfreak985_xoxo]

museik

Atlus-sama

hmmm to be honest,they might see it as defending rather than killing.

what does God see it as?

We will never know. No one knows of his reasonings except him.