From a Christian point of view

Is it OK to support troops when they breach the shall not kill commandment?
Are they immune from this, if so why? How would God judge them, even if for most of them its only a job or duty? Are military actions acceptable when a country isnt in a direct threat?
and finally would a good christian even join the army? An entity one must blindly obey?

Thats the nature of worldly dillusions. Watch hollywood depictions of war with all the heroism and drama. Then look at photographs of the results of real war and if you still retain a bit of humanity you will clearly see what a farce it all is. Then to criticize it you get 500 people saying they are fighting for my freedom. As if some big evil hand is going to snatch it up. When there are clear and present enemies holding weapons ready to occupy my homeland, then we will talk freedom. Until then, please don't hang your war over our heads and act like we are ungrateful leftist hippies.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by BS_Slayer]

i understand completely

but look how may wars have been in the bible

david killed goliath

does that make it ok cause it was glorified?

there are so many unanswered questions

but also remember there is only 1 unforgivable sin

It is okay to support them I believe mainly because they are trained in the protocol of not-to-open-fire-unless-fired-upon-first, so most of what they do is defensive. Defensive as in for their own lives and the lives of their comrades. There are some Scriptures in the New Testament about us as Christians being allowed to defend ourselves, even advocating for us to pursue defending the helpless.
I wouldn't say that they are immune from this since they are just as human as the rest of us, but they do seem to get some extra points with God when they willingly put themselves in the line of danger to get a fallen comrade.
Too much of the media attention on these wars have been on the negative side of things, too much focus on the bloodshed. Keep in mind there is no doubt that SOME reasons for our being in Iraq and Afghanistan is to help the people who are less fortunate, take on a more thoughtful role about what is going on over there and think of the big service we were/are giving those people: ousting oppressive dictators, bringing more power to the people, more equality and opportunities for the individual.

Your thread does make you think that's for sure

But.......if you also look at stories from the Christian faith, War and killing has also been done by the angels (Gods army) so at some point it must be ok in his eyes. For instance when he sent out the angel of death and killed all the first born of the Egyptians, famine, plagues, floods.

Its a fine line we walk on regarding the commandments. On one hand we are told not to steal or kill yet there are many instances where such things have almost been sanctioned by God in the bible or in the Name of God such as the crusades.

If God says that a life is important, (suicide is a mortal sin in the Catholic faith) then one would also take it as if you are fighting for your life and kill someone to keep from being killed yourself or protecting someone else's life then wouldn't that be deemed ok in Gods eye's?

Its too confusing with too many contradictions to really know when it is ok or not.

Lets say that someone is about to kill your child, you or someone you know but you fight and kill that person before they can act.....is that wrong? I suppose we will never know for sure until our time to be judged is at hand.

reply to post by TheOracle

---

Over here in Britain we have a work around to do with a little thing called the "Queen's Peace" which, in reference to murder - "excludes killing the enemy in wars, and in times past could also be applied to riots."

Essentially, it makes the act of killing dissenters and other people who "break the queen's peace" legal.

As for the religious context, i don't think anyone much gives a damn.

I'm pretty certain the Americans will have some form of this - it's probably in their constitution somewhere.

Even in a case of self-defense could one not raise the point of turning the other cheek? Maybe if you manage to survive the first bullet you should wait for the second. If you're still alive then you're faced with the decision of do I kill him or bare my rear end and give him a third cheek?

STAR for such a great question. i have often thought about this myself but when i did claim christianity, i had no real answer that satisfied my curiousity on the subject. kind of seems like the "God of the bible" (the one the book is centered around) gets to make up rules as he goes, huh?

i have only come to reconcile this in my head using my heart. to me, the laws of the Creator are not to be found in an outside set of rules whether commandments, a book, and/or anything that was presented by man.. the laws of the Creator are written on my heart.

IMO, killing is justified when it promotes the greater good of the population and protection of our inalienable rights. when it is being done for personal and/or a handful of ppl's agenda, it is wrong.

so, to think that thought through, in this particular war it would seem (to me) that every soldier who kills (unless self defense), whether it was a handed down order or not, is in the wrong; a matter, of course, that i also see as being btw them and their conscience.

furthermore, IMHO it was wrong that the jews, as talked about in the bible, killed masses of ppl... except for the virgins, of course, who were treated as disposable thus the value of their life was not cherished and respected. i find it to be a selfish "convenience" that their "God" ordered them to do it, which appears, to me, to be an act of displacing the blame of their barbaric decisions onto something/someone else thus excusing them (or so they think) from taking personal responsibility for their decisions and/or actions; much like ppl try to excuse the soldiers decisions and/or actions by saying that they have been "ordered" to do *this and that*.

anyway, that is how i view it.


oh, and anyone that views "killing" as their job is most definately killing for their own personal agenda (whether to be paid or get a better education or whatever the recruits use to get young men and women to sign over their souls. the individual soldiers have, in essence, sold their soul in the effort for personal gain......... just seems wrong)


question for thought: has anyone wondered if the Creator is testing ppl's true character when they are told by a "higher up" (whether god or man) to kill, steal, rape, humiliate, etc etc? wrong is wrong. fighting wrong is right though, IMO

[edit on 10-7-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by QBSneak000

---

another thing is that, we dont really die, physically yes but not eternally

so maybe there is some twist to that

like i said, too many un-answerables

[edit on 10/7/2008 by Scurvy]

I'm not Christian, but I would like to give my input as well.

There is dispute on whether the commandment says "Thou shall not kill," or "Thou shall not murder." You may ask what the difference is, and to best explain it, murder is murder, and kill means killing any living creature/animal (including murdering), even in self-defense.

Now you ask if the troops are immune to this commandment. If you believe the "Thou shall not kill," then yes, they are committing a sin by killing others; but if you believe in the "Thou shall not murder," then by the means of self-defense (and not if they actually kill civilians), then they are not committing a sin.

Now here is where this will get debated. The war in Iraq has been said to have been started because Saddam posed a threat against the US, for having weapons of mass destruction. What we did was perform a preemptive strike, meaning we attacked Iraq because they had the "capability" (or so we were lead to believe) to attack us. Since this does not constitute as self-defense, neither version of the commandment will condone killing others under a preemptive strike, and may even be considered as premeditated murder.

Notice that in the Bible, God does kill people, but not before they sin. God knows that they will sin, and yet he does nothing until they commit the crime, before punishing them.

There is another commandment that says to keep (honor) the Sabath day, and in the Torah (OT), where God allows the killing of others:



Once again, in the verse, it says that one cannot punish the sinner with death, until they commit the crime (and in this case, working on Friday).

So to answer your question, God allows the killing others in self-defense, or after a crime has been committed, if you believe "Though shall not murder," but not if you believe "Thou shall not kill."

[edit on 10-7-2008 by DJMessiah]

reply to post by TheOracle

---

If only they could all at once look upon your fair beauty to gaze upon the wonders God hath wrought...But also to launch a thousand ships...yes that too.

"Notice that in the Bible, God does kill people, but not before they sin. God knows that they will sin, and yet he does nothing until they commit the crime, before punishing them."

well, this isn't true.









(also makes me wonder how they determined if a woman was "known" by a man or not....... kind of scary)





these are only a few of the many examples. how are children held responsible for the corruption of those before them?






[edit on 10-7-2008 by justamomma]

[edit on 10-7-2008 by justamomma]

There is a distinct difference between matters of personal conduct and matters of state. Governments are required to enforce the laws. collect taxes, provide protection and service etc. So the standards for personal conduct are not always the same as that for "the state". For instance judging your neighbor. We have to have courts. Killing is a tricky issue. I would try to defend myself in a nonlethal way if possible. Defense is one thing. Offense is another. Wars like the one we are in now seem motivated by money and greed so I do nor see any justification for it. I think Bush is off the beam and acting in a imperilaist manner.

To justamomma

The Old Testament covenant is finished so quoting Exodus, Leviticus, etc. is of limited relevance. Those were brutal primitive times in the BC era and required laws that dealt with society as such. We under Christ now and "love your neighbor" trumps those OT laws...

how is it of limited relevance? were these acts committed or justified by god wrong or not? is jesus god or not? and did he change bc he was wrong in committing and/or condoning the acts of the OT? what is to say that he won't change back to being the god of the OT? in fact, doesn't it say in the bible that he will?

i can't for the life of me understand how ppl choose to ignore the OT and the things contained there in when it comes to things like these, yet this is the same God that they worship. i am sorry, just trying to understand this. what parts of the OT ARE relevent in your life? do you pick and choose according to what supports your belief? (it is hard to ask the question directly w/out coming across as snippy, but i assure you, i am not asking in a snippy way i really am curious as to how you would answer these things)

Full verse says: For on this same night I will go through Egypt, striking down every first--born of the land, both man and beast, and executing judgment on all the gods of Egypt-I, the LORD!"

This was spoken to Moses, the night before he and his people left Egypt. The crime commited against Moses people were slavery and oppression, where the Egyptians would not allow them to worship freely, and only worship their gods.




This was more of a warning from God, rather than something he already did. If you read Leviticus 26:1, you will see what exactly he was warning against:

"Do not make false gods for yourselves. You shall not erect an idol or a sacred pillar for yourselves, nor shall you set up a stone figure for worship in your land; for I, the LORD, am your God."




This commandment was once again towards Moses and his tribe. God had commanded Moses to kill the Midianites and Amalekites, for once again oppressing Moses and his tribe.



Most likely, that passage meant any pregnant woman. Certain words are often mistranslated in the Bible, gaining new meanings in future translations (i.e. young girl to "virgin" in reference to Mary, holy light to "horns" in reference to what protruded from Moses's head, Esa to "ZeZeus Christos" -Jesus Christ the Greek's translation of Esa's name to that of "The God Annointed" in Greek, and so on).



If you read the previous chapter, you will see:

"Then he said to me: Do you see, son of man, what each of these elders of the house of Israel is doing in his idol room? They think: "The LORD cannot see us; the LORD has forsaken the land."

This punishment was because the people of Israel worshiped false idols in privacy, while acting devoted to God in the public. They committed idoltory, which is against the commandments.



You will see that in the Bible, children share the same burden of sin, as their parents (yes, I know other verses in the Bible say that a child does not share the parent's burden of sin). As an example, in the Christian faith, the concept of original sin is a sin that every child is born with, even though the sin was not commited by them. Cain and Abel were also burdened with Adam's sin, from eating from the tree, and then all of humanity was burdened with Cain's sin from killing Abel.

Just as the burden of sin carried on through future generations from those examples, the Bible also teaches the same about the newborns and children that were to be killed. The newborns were carrying the burden of their parent's sin.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by DJMessiah]

I would have to disagree for the simple fact that if all Christians were like this, all homosexuals would be free to marry, because after all, the condemnation of sodomy and gays are part of the OT, yet are still preached today by pastors.

Look more closely at the words in that translation: "shall surely be put to death". That's not a command to action, as in "you shall put to death", but an oracular pronouncement.

One thing I've never understood is why people always feel the need to take the enactment of such pronouncements upon themselves? Surely, an omniscient and omnipotent God needs no help in fulfilling consequence. In fact, the indication would be that no such 'help' is desired: "Thou shalt not kill."

Do those who would paint their killing actions as 'righteously justified retribution' feel their bloodlust is required lest God be made a liar? Such an attitude seems, to me, arrogant and a disservice to faith.

reply to post by DJMessiah

---

although i tend to disagree on some points you brought up, i do agree that, in some cases, translation does seem to be a bit of problem. i will think about the other things that you have presented.

also, thank you for giving me your view points on each one of these.

i agree that, for the christians, the old testament is not something to be disregarded. now, i also do acknowledge the fact that jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, but before that, he also said that he came not to abolish the law.

ultimately i see the Creator as a being that is just, but bc his point of creation was not meant to be one of punishment, but rather experience, he provides ways for us to obtain mercy. it is more of an understanding, though, i would think, rather than a certain entity.

also, i find it much more effective for me to look at this from a subjective view rather than an objective view. to believe that you have to conform to standards objective to you leaves room for those w/ personal agendas, such as control, to come in and exploit a god for their own views/agenda (which is why i trust NOONE, be it jew, christian, muslim, or whomever when it comes to my beliefs....... i can only trust what the Father reveals to me and i weigh every idea that is presented w/ the "code" written on my heart, testing the spirits.)

i just can't help but to remember that evil so rarely shows its ugliness in the truest form, but rather evil comes dressed as an "angel of light."

~ peace




[edit on 11-7-2008 by justamomma]

Well, you can either support someone fighting for your country, or support your friends for doing nothing, while everyone is killed by a complete takeover, I think its best to support those who are fighting.