[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Suzuki

Nothing indicates that a believer is going to hell for being drafted and forced to fight in a war either. Neither is it indicated that a believer is going to hell for killing another person in self-defense.

Actually, a passage from James could indicate that. But we are not speaking of going to hell. We are speaking of sin.

You don't understand the definition of "murder". Murder is the intentional act of killing someone in cold-blood. The innocents that are killed in US and other countries' bombings (remember, it's not just the US, there are other countries involved as well) are collateral damage, i.e. accidents. They are not intentional and are therefore not murder. Not to mention bombing has come a long way. What about the bomber pilots in WWII (like one of my family members) who carpet bombed entire cities, killing thousands of innocents? Are they going to hell for that?

1) dropping a bomb in a city is cold blooded intentional killing.
2) That is not a definition from scripture.
3) Collateral damage is murder.

Carpet bombing of cities is mass murder. It is nothing more.

I don't know vets? That's a bold statement considering that you don't even know me. My granduncle and grandfather fought in WWII. My other grand uncle fought in the Korean War. A buddy of mine is currently in Afghanistan. Only one of them was not a combatant, and yet he was the only one to have emotional baggage from it.

You clearly haven't talked to veterans candidly about the issues of killing people. I have talked to dozens of veterans. There is baggage. Every kill stays with people. I know many folks from black ops teams, special forces, intelligence, etc. You kill people, it haunts you. It is not something you do that does nothing. I note that only one of these is someone you would discuss with as a peer.

Where did I mention anything about killing for a political agenda? I didn't. Then again I was referring to the military as a whole and not specifically the SEALs, which would, in a sense, kill for a political agenda. However that "political agenda" may in fact save the lives of innocents. Also, what in the world is not a political agenda?

Killing for a national interest is a political agenda and immoral.

The kingdom of God is not a political agenda. Christianity, and following Christ are not.

All I know is that if I served in the military, I may be somewhere for a "political agenda", but once the bullets start flying I'm fighting for my own life and the lives of those around me.

You are choosing the kingdom of this world over the kingdom of God.

[Suzuki]

The kingdom of God is not a political agenda. Christianity, and following Christ are not

Of course the Kingdom of God is not a political agenda. Nor is following Christ. However it can be argued that Christianity and organized religion as a whole can be a political (or social) agenda.

Actually, a passage from James could indicate that. But we are not speaking of going to hell. We are speaking of sin.

But the wages of sin is death (hell), no? And don't get me started on the book of James. There's one contradiction in there that drives me insane, yet it's always harped about from the pulpit.

1) dropping a bomb in a city is cold blooded intentional killing.
2) That is not a definition from scripture.
3) Collateral damage is murder.

Carpet bombing of cities is mass murder. It is nothing more.

1) dropping a bomb on your enemy is not murder. And most bombs these days are precise enough to take out your enemy and no one else. Collateral damage cases are relatively rare, but the media eats those stories up with their sensationalism.
2) Scripture does not define everything, and it is foolish and naive to think it does so.
3) So if I run over someone who jumps in front of my car, is that murder? Both are accidents. Neither are murder.

You are choosing the kingdom of this world over the kingdom of God.

Taking the military factor out, and simplifying it to my life and the lives of loved ones: where exactly in the Bible does it say that I'm choosing the kingdom of this world for protecting my life and the lives of loved ones? I don't recall anyone in the Bible saying I should stand by and watch someone murder my wife, or submit to a mugger and let him kill me.

EDIT: I take back my implication that "murder" is not defined by scripture. It indeed is. It is Biblically defined as unlawful killing. According to the Bible, killing for self-defense, defense of a nation (i.e. war), and capital punishment are not sins, and taking life in such circumstances is lawful.

In conclusion, we both need to study our Bibles more, as you're definition of murder is not in-line with the Biblical definition, and I was completely unaware that it was defined.

We are also missing the bigger picture here. Who's to say that it isn't God's plan for a Christian to serve in the military, go into combat, and witness to other soldiers? Whether it is in God's plan or not, that is the most important thing above all.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Suzuki

1) dropping a bomb on your enemy is not murder. And most bombs these days are precise enough to take out your enemy and no one else. Collateral damage cases are relatively rare, but the media eats those stories up with their sensationalism.
2) Scripture does not define everything, and it is foolish and naive to think it does so.
3) So if I run over someone who jumps in front of my car, is that murder? Both are accidents. Neither are murder.

I'm not really going to hit on the rest of the post too much, these three points just sort of struck me...

First, I don't know about the bomb precision you describe here or the rarity of collateral damage cases. In the eight years of the Iraq War, the civilian death toll is estimated as low as 103,000 and as high as 700,000 (though this second figure includes approximations on non-violent collateral deaths). The lower figure is higher that the combined death toll for both sides combined.

As far as the car analogy goes, that's some pretty weak stuff.

If I go to a bank and plant a bomb in the bank with the intention of bringing the building down and it kills the 50 or so people at the bank, I don't think it will matter that their deaths weren't intentional. I'm pretty sure that in addition to destruction and what not, I'll also be taken to court for 50 counts of murder.

[beanbag]

most human beings, so-called "collateral damage," don't jump in front of bombs.

i know several men between 18-30 who served or are serving in afghanistan and iraq. they all drink heavily to cope with what they have seen and done. one of them is very good at pretending things are fine but we have had conversations and i am good friends with his girlfriend, who wakes up to his ptsd nightmares.

war is hell, and just because older generations didn't talk about it doesn't mean they don't carry the scars.

one last thing. i cannot stand human life being tossed aside carelessly under the blanket term collateral damage. that is what you say about buildings, machinery, not life. i know boys who are fighting for the US, and i have family in those "hostile" countries. no one ever wins in war.

[Suzuki]

First, I don't know about the bomb precision you describe here or the rarity of collateral damage cases. In the eight years of the Iraq War, the civilian death toll is estimated as low as 103,000 and as high as 700,000 (though this second figure includes approximations on non-violent collateral deaths). The lower figure is higher that the combined death toll for both sides combined.

And most of those civilian deaths are from IEDs and suicide bombers--the bad guys. Not us. A JDAM can hit within 30 feet of a target. The collateral damage cases happen when someone fudged up the GPS coordinates or something in the guidance system malfunctioned and it hit the wrong target.

As far as the car analogy goes, that's some pretty weak stuff.

most human beings, so-called "collateral damage," don't jump in front of bombs.

You people are missing the point. Hitting a person who jumps in front of a car, and death from collateral damage are accidents. Apples to Apples.

If I go to a bank and plant a bomb in the bank with the intention of bringing the building down and it kills the 50 or so people at the bank, I don't think it will matter that their deaths weren't intentional. I'm pretty sure that in addition to destruction and what not, I'll also be taken to court for 50 counts of murder.

THAT is a weak analogy. Completely irrelevant to bombing military targets.

[Thrash]

Its very interesting to me how very little scripture is actually being used in this discussion. There are vague appeals to scripture, but very little substantive engagement. So far, the most overt was a dismissal of Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount, but no real interpretation of the text, except an appeal to what the interpreter thought it meant.

Maybe we could get back to scripture with this?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Suzuki

And most of those civilian deaths are from IEDs and suicide bombers--the bad guys. Not us. A JDAM can hit within 30 feet of a target. The collateral damage cases happen when someone fudged up the GPS coordinates or something in the guidance system malfunctioned and it hit the wrong target.

This assumes that we're the good guys. When you're the invading force with little provocation...

You people are missing the point. Hitting a person who jumps in front of a car, and death from collateral damage are accidents. Apples to Apples.

When I drive my car, I have a pretty good idea of what's going on in front of me. If a guy jumps in front of my car out of nowhere, that's outside of my control. If civilians are in an area that the military targets for destruction, their deaths might be "accidental", but the destruction of that area is most certainly intentional.

THAT is a weak analogy. Completely irrelevant to bombing military targets.

Because driving your car is a great analogy to bombing military targets...

[beanbag]

if i drop or detonate a bomb, my intent is to destroy or kill. resulting deaths are NOT accidental. perhaps the military doesn't intentionally target these faceless, nameless people, but if their intent wasn't to kill or maim, they wouldn't set off bombs in the first place.

i agree with taylor...there needs to be some scriptural support. i haven't had the opportunity to study biblical hebrew or greek so if someone could comment on the word Jesus uses for "kill" that would be great. in neo-aramaic, there are several words for death, but only one that describes intentional taking of life. that word is the one we see in our version of the sermon on the mount.

let's reverse the situation, suzuki. let's say your loved ones were killed in a war bombing. would you count that as collateral damage? acceptable loss?

victims of bombings may not be specific intended targets, but the intent to take life remains.

[Thrash]

Personally, I don't think it matters whether or not the military is concerned with killing it's enemies or not. Their intent of killing, period, is the problem. Period.

I don't think you can get past Christ's words on the mount. If you want a great survey of this read Richard B. Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament. He discusses in length the different interpretations of this section (and addresses Christ telling his disciples to take a sword later on) and says it is not solely about what Suzuki says it is about. This is a general concern about how his followers are to interact with others and employ this imperative. It is based on theology, and my grave concern, as I stated earlier, is that we completely separate these two aspects of reality and of what is said in scripture. Indicative and imperative are intimately connected.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

No idea. My ideas here come from personal relationships with specops guys, NOT movies. Movies can't begin to express the horror of reality. To cope, often the people a soldier has killed become subhumans in his mind. This effects people on a fundamental level. Without getting too into gore and things that probably should not be on this site, the actual use of a SEAL in warfare is often far more personal and different than a regular soldier. This requires viewing people as humans and subhumans, which is fundamentally at odds with the cross.

How so?

I was referencing "The Kill Team" to a Rolling Stones article about a wayward Army infantry troop committing war crimes in Afghanistan that the Pentagon tried to cover up. It contains images which may be graphic for some CGR readers so I will not post a link.

According to the article, after the kill team went through what they described as 'brainwashing,' they basically just stopped caring and did something they weren't supposed to do.

I would imagine that these Army infantries experience some sort of mental transformation similarly less than what a SEAL would. Except they 'slipped up,' whereas a SEAL would be able to 'stay in control?'

Finally, I'm not sure if the article is an accurate description, in terms of a military infantry mentality, how often or rare this occurs.

[gracioushelper]

Killing, murdering--who cares about the definition? In the end, the person who got the bullet in the head died.
I guess that's cause I was raised Anabaptist and don't see how killing or murdering is justified--God is the judge, not us. What gives you the right to say that person over there doesn't deserve to live when the Bible says we're all sinners, and none are righteous?

[bravesfan007]

I've debated on what to do with this thread over the length of it, and I'm still not quite sure it's the right choice, but I'm closing the thread as most of the central debate has been finalized and it's veered off course of the original topic. I'm willing to open it back up if someone wants to continue discussing it and can make a justification for opening it back up. Again, this may not be the correct course of action, but as it's kind of dated anyway and the thread has veered off topic, I've decided to close it.