|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:12 pm
As a Christian I've thought about, conflicted with, and come to the conclusion that I personally, and upon the deepest convictions of my conscience, cannot bring myself to combat another man and take his life on the field of battle, or serve as an officer and order other men to do the same, and feel right with God. But I wonder what the rest of you think.
Do you believe that a person can serve as a Christian in the army without conflict to the message of the Bible, the commandments of God, the teaching and example of Christ, or the nature of the Holy Spirit which dwells within us?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:58 pm
I'm conflicted on this myself. My gut reaction is no since it goes against the ideal of martyrdom but at the same time I could see it being justified if it's in defense of those who are going to be persecuted. I know the founder of this guild is in the military himself.
I would guess that in certain circumstances it would be allowable but we should look to the example of those who advocated non-violence first to see if there are solutions possible that can be arrived at, Martin Luther King, St. Mother Teressa, (arguably) Ghandi, and various saints within our fold. Now I'm not so idealistic to think that war will never happen or will never be necessary but it should be something that should be avoided if it can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:06 am
rmcdra I'm conflicted on this myself. My gut reaction is no since it goes against the ideal of martyrdom but at the same time I could see it being justified if it's in defense of those who are going to be persecuted. I know the founder of this guild is in the military himself. I would guess that in certain circumstances it would be allowable but we should look to the example of those who advocated non-violence first to see if there are solutions possible that can be arrived at, Martin Luther King, St. Mother Teressa, (arguably) Ghandi, and various saints within our fold. Now I'm not so idealistic to think that war will never happen or will never be necessary but it should be something that should be avoided if it can. I agree, and believe war itself can be justified. But I, personally, simply could not go and fight in any war. I may agree with the war, but I still wouldn't be able to bring myself to fight in it because of my conscience. I feel like I simply cannot follow the path of Christ while serving in the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:37 pm
Well, I can't speak for any set religion about this but here are my views on war it may be a bit scrambled in places, so bare with me:
I think that war itself shows us what humanity wants, deep deep down in the darkest part of their soul. It is that sad and tragic part of humanity that is very much apart of us and we can't get away from. History has proven time and time again that we just don't seem to want peace in the world. War demonstrates our need for domination, it pits us against each other and in a way gives us an excuse to prove that we are better than the other that forced into submission. Conflict is the thing that keeps humans from being wise, yet technology that comes from the conflict is the thing that prevents us from being savage. Everything that has become a comfort in our homes: Internet, cell phones and the technology that has come from that; was all first introduced by the military and their need for superiority over their enemies.
I personally don't agree with the need of such conflict to solve our problems, and I strongly disagree with the justification arguments as it only proves to give an excuse to further continue what is wrong and only serves to twist logics and corrupt ideologies to future conflicts. The attack on the Twin Towers was justified by the ideologies of the terrorist, and in the heat of the moment, we lashed back against something that cannot be defeated with guns and fists and we are trying to sheild our people against something that cannot be sheilded. What will murdering people on their own soil accomplish? How will this truely stop terrorism from spreading? I see it more doing the opposite, by feeding conflict, we are planting the seeds for future death and destruction. War and conflict only feed an endless cycle. If we truely want to end something like terrorism, quelling the fire with more fire doesn't really seem to be doing the problem, it may burn out quicker for a short time, but then it will find something else to feed on, and then the fire will come back stronger and hotter than before.
Edit:
I think that it is less of a religious outlook and more of a human standpoint. If your going to base your choice off of a religious outlook than I think it wouldn't be possible for a Chrisitain to truely go to combat without jepordizing ones salvation: Thou shalt not kill. That is one of the ten commandments passed down by the almighty in the bible. But with my limited knowledge of the bible I really can't say much more nor really quote anything else to back up my arguments and outlooks. They are more my inner thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:30 pm
Clarification on context: it's thou shall not murder. This is why the death penalty is not against Judaism.
It deals with unlawful killing, though it should be noted what qualifies a lawful killing is getting smaller and smaller as we march forward in time.
Other than that carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:44 pm
Is it? I always thought that it was 'Thou Shalt not kill' now I understand the conflict: Where do you draw the line in the sand between Unlawful murder and... well... lawful killing. If there is such a thing. Thank you for the correction, thought aside from my edit, I still think that over all my feelings are unchanged with the topic, to me, I don't think we as humans have the right to decide what is lawful killing and what is not. There are some exceptions to the rules, however, I know that the world isn't black and white.
Thanks for the Correction Rmc. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:58 pm
Razsminion Is it? I always thought that it was 'Thou Shalt not kill' now I understand the conflict: Where do you draw the line in the sand between Unlawful murder and... well... lawful killing. If there is such a thing. Thank you for the correction, thought aside from my edit, I still think that over all my feelings are unchanged with the topic, to me, I don't think we as humans have the right to decide what is lawful killing and what is not. There are some exceptions to the rules, however, I know that the world isn't black and white. Thanks for the Correction Rmc. 3nodding No problem. In historical context killing was considered lawful if it was a just punishment for a breaking a law set by God or by a tribal/national leader. Killing of another person is becoming harder to justify as we gain greater understanding of our fellows and ourselves. Let me see what I can find in the catechism. (Due note, I'm not Catholic but it's good to examine the catechism for time to time since nearly all sects in the Western world are variations of the Catholic system). http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html Legitimate defense 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."[65] 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65] 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66] Capital Punishment 2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67] 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:30 am
1upMushroomCloud As a Christian I've thought about, conflicted with, and come to the conclusion that I personally, and upon the deepest convictions of my conscience, cannot bring myself to combat another man and take his life on the field of battle, or serve as an officer and order other men to do the same, and feel right with God. But I wonder what the rest of you think. Do you believe that a person can serve as a Christian in the army without conflict to the message of the Bible, the commandments of God, the teaching and example of Christ, or the nature of the Holy Spirit which dwells within us? Of course you can be in the army and not be in conflict with the Bible--as a medic or chaplain, and any other non-combat positions wink . On a more thoughtful note, i think what's important to note when committing any act is its intent, if it's out of love or hate. I don't support killing an individual out of malice or revenge, but if it's because my life (because I love me) or that of someone I deeply love, or who's otherwise innocent, is in jeopardy then if it happens it happens. God knows the hearts of others better than we ever could, and we know our hearts better than anyone else ('cept for maybe God). And if God, being able to see truth, knows that we are not murderous or vengeful souls even with guns strapped to our body, then that should be enough. Short answer: Fight to defend, not kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:54 pm
Gjornia X 1upMushroomCloud As a Christian I've thought about, conflicted with, and come to the conclusion that I personally, and upon the deepest convictions of my conscience, cannot bring myself to combat another man and take his life on the field of battle, or serve as an officer and order other men to do the same, and feel right with God. But I wonder what the rest of you think. Do you believe that a person can serve as a Christian in the army without conflict to the message of the Bible, the commandments of God, the teaching and example of Christ, or the nature of the Holy Spirit which dwells within us? Of course you can be in the army and not be in conflict with the Bible--as a medic or chaplain, and any other non-combat positions wink . On a more thoughtful note, i think what's important to note when committing any act is its intent, if it's out of love or hate. I don't support killing an individual out of malice or revenge, but if it's because my life (because I love me) or that of someone I deeply love, or who's otherwise innocent, is in jeopardy then if it happens it happens. God knows the hearts of others better than we ever could, and we know our hearts better than anyone else ('cept for maybe God). And if God, being able to see truth, knows that we are not murderous or vengeful souls even with guns strapped to our body, then that should be enough. Short answer: Fight to defend, not kill. An interesting answer. And, technically, it can be argued that serving in a nation's military is an act of defense. Defending your countrymen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:26 pm
You have no idea what God's got in mind for you. In the situation God put you in there is only one guarantee, it will test the limits of your will. I believe that on this green earth there is nothing closer to hell than a battle between fellow man, I really do. But I have to see the necessity of battle, and warriors. Did the great king Saul slay his thousands, and David his tens of thousands? Were they not good men of Israel? Battle is not something we can hide from, when the crooked trample the weak the righteous will raise to fight.
I love how the movie Sergeant York puts it, "I figured them guns was killin' hundreds, maybe thousands, and there weren't nothin' anybody could do, but to stop them guns. And that's what I done." For you non-history buffs out there, Alvin York was a soldier that at the beginning of WW1 wouldn't fight for his religious beliefs (much like some here) but went into battle to save lives instead of killing. At the Meuse-Argonne Offensive he killed at least 6 men and captured 132 Germans who he then marched back to American lines with only 8 men. He is now known as the most decorated soldier of WW1 with even a medal of honor to his name. Now, what all do you think God did for him.
Nuff' said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:59 pm
I can't see it as anything but wrong, and completely against Jesus' teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:17 am
violette lumineux I can't see it as anything but wrong, and completely against Jesus' teachings. But know that Jesus taught us as Christians to guard and defend ourselves. He knew that until he came again we'd be in metaphorical and actual war with those against his followers. Each person has to use their own judgment before doing anything, especially taking another life, but I think God still calls on us to fight injustice and threats against his message and deliverance of humanity. Of course, not everyone is born a warrior or soldier, some of us simply have another calling. So it's wholly understandable that some feel uncomfortable with the idea. Personally, I have issue cutting people open for surgery because of the subliminal cue of bodily harm. Safe to say I am not meant to help people in that way. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:06 pm
Gjornia X violette lumineux I can't see it as anything but wrong, and completely against Jesus' teachings. But know that Jesus taught us as Christians to guard and defend ourselves. He knew that until he came again we'd be in metaphorical and actual war with those against his followers. Each person has to use their own judgment before doing anything, especially taking another life, but I think God still calls on us to fight injustice and threats against his message and deliverance of humanity. Of course, not everyone is born a warrior or soldier, some of us simply have another calling. So it's wholly understandable that some feel uncomfortable with the idea. Personally, I have issue cutting people open for surgery because of the subliminal cue of bodily harm. Safe to say I am not meant to help people in that way. neutral True. Although, you have to remember that the military doesn't just fight injustice. Right now we're really not protecting ourselves. Sure, we're fighting bad people, but we're more-so killing innocents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:08 am
Well, it's definitely a broad topic. For one chaplins are non combatants in the military. So they deploy and go to war without ever being expected to engage the enemy. Those assigned to assist the chaplin may however, as to protect the chaplin and others.
Sometimes in war, you have to stand up and defend yourself, or your family, or even your property. And I figure, just because there may be situations Jesus didn't cover in the Bible, it doesn't (to me anyway) mean that there aren't appropriate ways to handle war like situations.
But a lot of Soldiers don't engage in armed conflict these days. Most of them have jobs that are very similar to their civilian counterparts. And the odds of them getting engaged is really no less than finding themselves facing a similar conflict at home. In fact, more people I've known in the military have come home to more armed conflicts than they experienced while they were deployed. This is definitely exempt from those who serve specifically in combat, as they see this kind of thing on a near day to day basis.
More Soldiers died in my last deployed unit in car accidents at home than died in any kind of armed conflict overseas. It's something to consider anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:50 pm
In the bible, new and old testament, the lord has called on his people to go to war. If you were going for the specific want to kill you would be in the wrong, but for your beliefs or protection of your home it is not wrong. It's stated that there is no greater sacrifice than to die protecting your neighbor, your brethren.
The needless atrocities in wars like the Vietnam war is the true sin, when you let yourself lose the reason your fighting for. Fight to keep the country safe, or the man standing beside you. Not for anger or vengeance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
