Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Should Christians be in the Army?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8598		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  HHFOV [ Tue May 30, 2006 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Should Christians be in the Army?
I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and I just wondered "Why are there Christians in the army even though the Ten Commandments clearly state 'Thou shalt not kill?'" On one hand: It's a noble cause if you're supporting the good of all people. On another hand: On the other hand: You're purposely blowing the brains out of thousands of people with firearms.


Discuss.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Tue May 30, 2006 9:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
But what if it's in defense of a lot of people? If they weren't fighting for our country, maybe a lot more people would die. I say yes.
Author:  Capt. Ido Nos [ Tue May 30, 2006 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Id say yes, especially after a Bible study on the TEn Commandments that I read that says the Hebrew word used isn't kill so much as murder, killing of the premeditated and hateful variety. After all, the Israelites did go to war by God's command under Moses after they had received the commandments.
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I know several Christians (and some Muslims) who are in the military. A couple of the Christians are Clergy, too, so I would like to think that if there was something wrong with Christians being in the military, they would know about it.

Personally, I don't know. It IS something that I've often pondered, though.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue May 30, 2006 9:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
That would depend on the individual Christian, and what their attitude toward national defense would be.

The Fifth Commandment addresses the issue of murder, not national defense or justice. The Scriptures set a precedent for the inherent value of human life. However, in cases of national defense or public justice, there is the great paradox of having to take one life in order to preserve another. Killing in self defense and in defense of others who are in danger is completely valid. St. Augustin once said that it is the sad duty of just men that sometimes they must fight wars for the sake of justice.

Furthermore, I would suggest we look at the attitude of God toward warfare in general and toward soldiers in particular. Did you know that God in the Old Testament is called YHWH Sabaoth - literally translated it means, "Lord of Armies" or "General YHWH." There is even a passage of Scripture that says that YHWH is a great Warrior, mighty in battle. In a very real sense, the God of Scripture is a war God. And this is also true in the New Testament, for the Lamb of God (Jesus) is said to make war against the enemies of God.

Furthermore, consider also that there were at least four great men of faith in the early church who were soldiers. There is a story of a Roman soldier who came to Jesus to have his servant healed, and Jesus not only healed the servant, but commended the soldier for his great faith.

It was a Roman soldier at the cross of Jesus who was the first to recognize the crucified Lord as the Son of God.

And the first Gentile Christian was a Roman soldier.

The fourth was a Philippian soldier who guarded St. Paul.

Now as for whether an individual Christian should serve in the Armed Forces, that depends. Some Christians are able to realize that taking life in defense of the lives of others is within the scope of their calling. Others may be less comfortable with it. When I was in, I didn't really give it much thought; I was a security augmentee, which meant I could have been sent to combat, but never was. But I wasn't exactly a devout Christian in those days, either. Now, I'm not so sure I would want to kill, except in a case where I know I must in order to protect someone else (for example, if a gunman were trying to kill someone, and only I could stop them).

Another factor is whether or not a Christian can serve in a support capacity. One can serve in the military and not necessarily be put in front line combat. But that is an issue that must be thoroughly discussed with one's recruiter beforehand, not when combat is taking place.

The Code of Chivalry in the Middle Ages was essentially an attempt to answer this question: and ultimately, it required that the soldier (or knight, if you will) must be conscientious of justice in all that he does. If he fights, he must fight for justice. If he refrains, he must do so because it is just. Never should he fight (or refrain from doing so) solely for his own benefit.

In short, I do not consider serving in the Armed Forces - or for that matter as a policeman or other law enforcement capacity - a violation of the Fifth Commandment. However, it does put the Christian in a place where he must exercise wisdom and diligently seek to serve justice.
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Tue May 30, 2006 10:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
But where is the line supposed to be drawn? If one joins the Armed Forces then they are presumeably putting themselves in the bible's "self defence loophole" every day they're in a hostile country.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue May 30, 2006 10:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
That is the responsibility of their leadership. Their leadership likewise must be making wise decisions regarding what battles to fight and how to conduct them.

Now, according to the LOAC and military law, soldiers are under obligation not to carry out orders that are morally wrong. For example, in those cases of torture a few years back. Those soldiers knew that what they were doing was wrong, even though the "authorities" ordered it. Therefore, they are culpable as well.
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Tue May 30, 2006 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
But isn't killing morally wrong to begin with? I mean, you're trying to keep yourself safe and your squad by firing back at the enemy, should that be considered a morally wrong order? And even if you do fire back, unless you're 5 feet away from your attacker and you know when s/he is dead you won't be able to tell either way if you committed any sort of sin or not. Sure, shooting at someone is wrong but it's still considered self defence if they're shooting back and especially if they shot first.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue May 30, 2006 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Killing in order to protect someone else is not morally wrong. In fact, if it is your job, then it is morally wrong not to fight. The commandment in question is concerned specifically with murder, not with self-defense. If someone were shooting at me or my buddies, you better believe I'd be shooting back. Ever seen that movie Sergeant York?
Author:  Capt. Ido Nos [ Tue May 30, 2006 10:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
But isn't killing morally wrong to begin with?


Ah, but that's the debate, isn't it? I think everyone can agreed that murder (thought out in advance, in cold blood, etc) is morally wrong, but how far does that "wrongness" extend? Is it out to all taking of life? Personally, I think that a lot of it can, but a lot of it doesn't as well. If you remember the fact that God did tell the Israelites to completely wipe out the people who were living in the lands, it is actually very arguable in those cases to say that not killing was morally wrong. God commanded it, the people disobeyed, and they had to reap the consequences, some of which are being felt today (which interestingly enough, often manifests itself in senseless killing) It's a tricky subject. That's more or less what I think, but where the line is drawn, I'm working on.
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:08 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm not sure if it's "murder" or "kill" in that commandment, but in any case, in ancient Hebrew law, there were crimes that were punishable by death, yet who did the deed? Was he breaking a commandment by carrying out the law? I think the commandment applies to cold-blooded murder, not self-defense or warfare. After all, David killed Goliath (cut off his head too if I remember correctly), and I'm pretty sure that the Isrealites went to battle a number of times at God's command. This is all my opinion however.
Author:  cyco [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Samson was sent by God to "kill" (not sure if thats the right term for it) lots of people, and for reasons. But if a Christain joins the wrong army...like nazis or something, thats obviously not what God wants from you. :p
Author:  Gorilla Knight [ Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:14 am ]
Post subject: 
I actually asked about that. I heard from Christians that war is different, because in war, you have to kill in order to survive. Also, you are defending your nation, so it is one of the only times you should kill.

Also, The Bible also states that there is, in fact, A Time to Kill.
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:28 am ]
Post subject: 
cyco wrote:
But if a Christain joins the wrong army...like nazis or something, thats obviously not what God wants from you. :p


But how are you supposed to know?
Author:  Mike D [ Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
If the question is whether or not Christians should volunteer for military service, the answer is "it depends," as other posters have already pointed out. If you're wondering whether Christians should register for the draft, then the answer is YES. Religion should not serve as a get-out-of-war-free card.

Mike
Author:  cyco [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
cyco wrote:
But if a Christain joins the wrong army...like nazis or something, thats obviously not what God wants from you. :p


But how are you supposed to know?



Ask God!Sometimes he will tell you before you ask, though.
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ooh, I'm about to kick this question up a notch:

You may have noticed Tef's avatar of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor involved in an attempt to assassinate The One Really Mean German Guy. TWUT?

EDIT: You might be surprised to find out what Bonhoeffer himself thought.
Author:  Schmelen [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:46 am ]
Post subject: 
I think, that if people just stop joining the army, maybe all the fighting will stop in the first place. But then, lots of other countries are not christian, right?
Author:  lazadisk [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, It's a difficult question. I mean, Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" more of a moral thing that no one should be born without? Cuz we all know that the success of a speicies is dependant on how many of that speicies there are, not how many of the same speicies a person can kill. That just CUTS DOWN population, ya know? So, I guess I don't think anyone should be in the army!

But, alas, since this IS a free country after all, I don't think that Christians should be any less able to join the army, than Jews, Agnostics, or even Buddists, if they would ever WANT to!(But of course they won't, then they wouldn't be Buddists! :p ) Not to mention, if there were no Christians in the army, who would be? We would have like, a quarter of an army then. Not good. :p
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Ooh, I'm about to kick this question up a notch:

You may have noticed Tef's avatar of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor involved in an attempt to assassinate Hitler. TWUT?

EDIT: You might be surprised to find out what Bonhoeffer himself thought.

you shouldnt be afraid to say his name, Harry Potter.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Thanks Choco.

THREAD = VERY OVER!! YOU = VERY LOSED!!
Author:  HHFOV [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Wait...what just happened? Do you mean you're locking the thread?
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, Choco lost the thread because he said BRELTIH backwards minus the first B. It's not allowed...
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Wait...what just happened? Do you mean you're locking the thread?
No, it's a joke. Whenever some says Hitler on this forum and Didy sees it, he reacts like that.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
There's a law that says your not supposed to mention Those Really Mean German Guys, and if you do, the thread is over and you lose.
Author:  Mike D [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
For those not in the know, there is an old internet tradition -- dates back to USENET -- that if any thread goes on long enough someone will inevitably mention Hitler and / or the Nazis. When this occurs the thread is over and that poster automatically loses the argument. Clearly Didymus is a believer in this tradition. Otherwise make of it what you will.

Mike
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mike D wrote:
For those not in the know, there is an old internet tradition -- dates back to USENET -- that if any thread goes on long enough someone will inevitably mention Hitler and / or the Nazis. When this occurs the thread is over and that poster automatically loses the argument. Clearly Didymus is a believer in this tradition. Otherwise make of it what you will.

Mike

I just want to clarify that the mention of those really mean german guys in and of itself does not trigger the end of a thread. It's only when a comparison is made between one of the people in the argument and one of the mean german guy that Godwin's Law is invoked.

...and now to apply a latex-based, pigmented liquid to some bread that has been heated until it turned brown and crispy..Image
Author:  DESTROY US ALL! [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Eh, it's not national defense if where attacking another country. That's national offense. I think it depends on each persons own belief structure. I as a humanist don't think anyone should be in any army. But, meh, thats for another thread.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
There's a problem with that, DUA. The problem is human depravity. As long as human beings continue to act like human beings, there will always be wars. The question then is, should those concerned about justice involve themselves in order to protect the innocent and help to restore order. If moral men fail to do these things, then they cannot rightly call themselves moral men, for they are allowing injustice and death to rule when they could, if they chose to act, prevent them.

The question in a nutshell is not whether war is good or bad - I certainly hope that most of us are on the same page with that - or whether there should be armies in an idealistic utopia, but, in this real and fallen world, whether or not moral men have a responsibility to fight against those who would rape, pillage, and kill unless otherwise stopped.

Which brings me back to a question I posed earlier. What would you say about a case like that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran Pastor, who was involved in an attempt to assassinate That One Really Mean German Guy? Fighting a war is one thing, but assassination? Discuss.
Author:  HHFOV [ Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:

...The question in a nutshell is not whether war is good or bad - I certainly hope that most of us are on the same page with that....


Not necessarily always. Sure, the idea of war itself is bad, but it is a fact of human nature that you must defeat your enemies in order to have peace. For instance, the U.S. Army recently assassinated Al-Zarqawi. This man was a very horrible man, perhaps one to rival the horribleness of Hitler. (Yes, I will say his name; fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.) Sure, it was definitely murder, but the target in question is whether this murder was for the better, i.e. Did it create more good/save more lives than evil/kill lives? It definitely did, since he was the reason much of the insurgency in Iraq had transpired. So what I'm saying here, Didy, is that war is bad, definitely, but since it is inevitable, just like many horrible things in life, we must do everything we can to stop it, at least for the moment. In the case of war, the action which, over the course of time and history, has proved most vital to its abolishment, is simply the destruction of enemies who caused the war primarily.

If even greater lives are claimed by the tragedy of the Iraq agenda, an option that may, if misfortune permits, be considered is: Should we destroy the entire conflicting Middle East (possibly with nuclear warfare)area in order to establish peace? Although it would definitely claim the lives of millions of innocent people, would it be for the better? Would the complete destruction of Iraq kill fewer than what it would if the conflicts were continued, and possibly never ceased?

We must decide now, not for the glory of our country, but for the good of
our planet...
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/