Christian soldiers: how do you reconcile your duty with the Sixth Commandment?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Until the question of god's actual existence and actual intentions is settled, God's law is (ideally) and should be irrelevant in the eyes of the state.

That wasn't my point. My point was that spiritual concerns should supercede temporal ones. I hope this doesn't need explaining.

 

[MobBoss]

Then why do some translations say "kill" and some say "murder?"

Because the two words are very similar in meaning. Its a common occurance in translating text thats thousands of years old.

So are you saying that God is saying "[humans] follow your laws?"

No. I dont think God really cares about our laws. He cares about his laws.

How do you define "cold blood," anyway?

Killing someone while they are at your mercy. Executing captured prisoners for no reason is murder, for instance.

 

[greenpeace]

It isn't.

If you have a gun you don't have to kill someone.

Don't turn my thread into a political thing. You will not focus on specific things such as this in my thread. The subject is killing and Christianity, discuss that, not Iraq.

Um, I wasn't refering to Iraq. In fact, the US tries its best to not fire on innocent civilians.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No. I dont think God really cares about our laws. He cares about his laws.

So then why don't we use his definition of murder? Why do we use ours?

Killing someone while they are at your mercy. Executing captured prisoners for no reason is murder, for instance.

I hope you have the wisdom to see the normative bias in that statement.

 

[emzie]

Then why do some translations say "kill" and some say "murder?"

So are you saying that God is saying "[humans] follow your laws?"

How do you define "cold blood," anyway?

'Kill' comes from a translation about to celebrate a 400th birthday.

Look at how the Jews lived, the ones who had the original text. They wern't worried about killing another people on the battlefield, yet at least once wouldn't pick up arms to defend themselves on the Sabbath. If someone's willing to die without a fight on a specific day, because that's what they think God says to do, they're not going to fight on any other day if the 6th means don't kill people.

 

[Perfection]

So then why don't we use his definition of murder? Why do we use ours?

Well, the presumption is that the reader knows what murder is, and God doesn't have to decide it for you.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

That wasn't my point. My point was that spiritual concerns should supercede temporal ones. I hope this doesn't need explaining.

Depends who you're talking about. I think a public servant and/or government official of any kind has an ethical and moral obligation to place the temporal above the spiritual. He is serving a diverse people with a multitude of religious beliefs, and some with none at all. Placing one set of spiritual beliefs above another in the process of governing violates his duty to these people. (and that still applies if he has a 99% evangelical constituency who want him to place the spiritual above all else.)

On a personal level, people are and should be free to prioritize spiritual vs. temporal in any fashion they like. So long as it doesn't violate the existing just laws of that society.

 

[Perfection]

If you have a gun you don't have to kill someone.

That's false.

 

[Bill3000]

No. I dont think God really cares about our laws. He cares about his laws.

That's false; see the seventh law of Noah, which mandates mankind to establish courts of justice. (And is traditionally considered a subset of the 10 commandments anyway and applied to all of mankind as opposed to just the jews in judaism)

 

[greenpeace]

That's false.

huh

 

[Perfection]

Having a gun doesn't make you able to prevent someone from doing harm to you or others without killing them.

 

[MobBoss]

So then why don't we use his definition of murder? Why do we use ours?

Well, cheezy, I would say our definition most certainly has its origins in how God defines it. For example, killing a person in the eyes of the law isnt always murder....it can also be manslaughter.....which is typically the charge given for a negligent, but accidental death and it carries a much lower punishment that all the levels of murder.

 

[MobBoss]

That's false; see the seventh law of Noah, which mandates mankind to establish courts of justice. (And is traditionally considered a subset of the 10 commandments anyway and applied to all of mankind as opposed to just the jews in judaism)

Again, thats assuming that our laws are subsets of Gods laws by following his rules. "Courts of Justice' in Noahs time were religious courts, not secular ones. Its a given that the laws enforce in those courts were indeed Gods laws.

If our laws deviate from Gods laws, Gods not going to care about them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's false; see the seventh law of Noah, which mandates mankind to establish courts of justice. (And is traditionally considered a subset of the 10 commandments anyway and applied to all of mankind as opposed to just the jews in judaism)

Surely you are aware that Christians established a new Covenant with God.

Well, cheezy, I would say our definition most certainly has its origins in how God defines it. For example, killing a person in the eyes of the law isnt always murder....it can also be manslaughter.....which is typically the charge given for a negligent, but accidental death and it carries a much lower punishment that all the levels of murder.

That's still a human construct, though. I'm not aware of God ever defining manslaughter as being not murder, or of man even defining it as that. Manslaughter being "accidental murder;" if you hit a girl with your car, it's manslaughter, if you go after the girl with your car, it's murder murder. So constructs like manslaughter recognize the unintentional nature of the crime, and it's our tendency to say "well it's not their fault, they shouldn't be faulted for it," but just beacuse man thinks it's unfair doesn't mean God thinks that way.

 

[greenpeace]

Having a gun doesn't make you able to prevent someone from doing harm to you or others without killing them.

What I meant was that people with the capability to commit violence (ie. have a gun) have a choice to either take violence or not (they don't have to kill someone), and it is possible to prevent people from taking violence.

 

[Perfection]

What I meant was that people with the capability to commit violence (ie. have a gun) have a choice to either take violence or not (they don't have to kill someone), and it is possible to prevent people from taking violence.

Not always. Violence happens, it's a fact of life. Sometimes the only workable solution to preventing a violent actor from seriously screwing stuff up is to commit violence upon them. It's crappy but that's the way it is.

 

[MobBoss]

That's still a human construct, though. I'm not aware of God ever defining manslaughter as being not murder, or of man even defining it as that. Manslaughter being "accidental murder;"

Well, I do seem to recall that they did define the difference between accidental death and murder....they also had the implementation of 'sanctuary cities' in which someone responsible for an accidental death was free from punishment or retribution from the dead guys family as long as he stayed in the confines of the sanctuary city. After a period of time - 7 years - the blood debt was removed and the guy could leave the city again.

if you hit a girl with your car, it's manslaughter, if you go after the girl with your car, it's murder murder.

Because one is intentional and one isnt.

So constructs like manslaughter recognize the unintentional nature of the crime, and it's our tendency to say "well it's not their fault, they shouldn't be faulted for it," but just beacuse man thinks it's unfair doesn't mean God thinks that way.

I am sure God understands intent and the status of a persons heart and feelings in regards to an issue. At least the bible states that he does. He would be able to discern between an accidental and intentional act, and in turn decide if the person sincere in asking for forgiveness of the act.

 

[greenpeace]

Not always. Violence happens, it's a fact of life. Sometimes the only workable solution to preventing a violent actor from seriously screwing stuff up is to commit violence upon them. It's crappy but that's the way it is.

Yeah, I know; if there is a sociopath who thinks everyone is an alien invader and is about to unleash the worlds nuclear bombs upon everyone and the only way to stop is to give him a wedgie, I say give him a wedgie. But, when it is it feasable to not commit violence (for example, lets say you are in a heated, emotionally intense arguement that looks like it is going to arupt into violence, one could simply stop and taking calming measures to prevent violence) than it is important to take those steps. In terms of preventing violence on a massive scale, a major point I support is that a pacifist movement should erupt when there is no war in sight for the near future, to stop a war from ever occuring.

 

[Narz]

It's easy to imagine both sides in a war believe their killing is justified. Yet in God's eyes (taking a leap of faith here) it seems impossible that both sides are justified in killing the other.

With that said, how can you be sure, as a soldier, that you're on the right side?

Fighting Nazi soldiers perhaps, the question of right & wrong seems fairly clear (even most modern Germans would probably agree) but what about in Vietnam? And in Iraq?

Putting all political ideology aside for a moment, how can you know these killings are justified?

Also... What about forgiveness & redemption? AFAIK, one of the tenants of Christianity is that all men can be redeemed thru repentance and giving their lives over to Christ. But if you kill them you've ruined that chance for them and if they are indeed evil (as you have claimed they are to justify their slaughter) then you are not only slaying them on this Earth but you are condemning them to an eternity of burning hellfire. With this in mind don't you want to make quite sure what you're doing is justified? Certainly doesn't seem like something to take lightly anyway!

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

This is an exact reason why I couldn't be in the military, regardless of how much I want to serve my country and show some honor. I just have that conviction. Others may not. It's a shady area, but I've always taken it literally from the original KJV.

(Thinking out loud here) Although if you want to take it that literal, "Thou shalt not kill" should also mean you cannot kill a chicken/pig/deer/goat/steer/cow/lamb etc, even if it is for food. Yet the killing of animals for food is not condemned and sacraficing lambs in the old testament jewish religion is even a nescessity to pay for the debts of sin. This is also the exact same reason Jesus Christ gave himself to die. Thus killing in that context is not only permited, but it's condoned throughout biblicle scriptures.

The BIGGEST thing is the distinction between "murder" and "killing". From what I've read, in the original Jewish text it used the word "murder". However somewhere along the translations the word "kill" was used instead.

Farthermore to the question at hand: I saw a website once that explained that there is a difference in a war between nations, and cold blooded murder. It cited some examples from the old testament, but the only example that I really remember was the one where they wrote about where in the New Testament is speaks of Christ acknowleging a Roman Centurion and recieved him. They used this to suggest that God does not judge one for having a military occupation, but that it is an honorable occupaton and with regard to war, they went on to use this passage...

1 Timothy 2:1-2

2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (NIV)

I personally hate the thought of war, killing of men and women of other nations, but within the framework of God's own ordinance that governments exists by his will, the preservation of that nation will sometimes necessitate war in order to provide security for its citizens.

Praetorians in the Roman army were also converted to Christianity by the Apostle Paul, yet there is never any indication they ever changed their occupation, nor were asked to. Cornelius, a centurion, is the first mentioned when this occured.

As a side note I did a google search to try and find it and instead I found this interesting article about scripture and war.