Does a Soldier in War Break the 6th Commandment?

[Nakosis]

When you step back and take a look, what is going on here in this thread, is that a number of people are trying to justify the killing of another human with their scripture. Making claims of when they have God's approval to take another life. I find that very disturbing.

Is there ever a time when someone should take another life?

Most state civil laws are like the Bible. Usually as a punishment for taking someone else's life.

According the the Jewish Rabbi I quoted it should only be done in defense of life.

A soldier may not made the choice to be there but they are defending the lives of their fellow soldiers.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What should they dictate their lives by?
And don't say science...

I didn't say their lives I said " dictate who lives and dies", that is someone else's life. A very important difference.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Is there ever a time when someone should take another life?

Most state civil laws are like the Bible. Usually as a punishment for taking someone else's life.

According the the Jewish Rabbi I quoted it should only be done in defense of life.

A soldier may not made the choice to be there but they are defending the lives of their fellow soldiers.

"Is there ever a time when someone should take another life?"

I don't have the wisdom to answer that question and I feel extremely fortunate that because of where I was born I may never have to face that question.

 

[leibowde84]

The The Sixth Commandment is: "Thou shalt not kill."

Does a soldier in war break the 6th commandment?

What are your thoughts? Please explain your reasoning.

Depends, I would think. Serving in a military under duress should probably exclude some soldiers. And, whether the war was one of conquest or defense (including the defense of our allies). But, there certainly have been times when military action was absolutely necessary. Germany in the early 1940s comes to mind.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

If it's a war fought in such a way that it is legal under the Laws Of Armed Conflict, yes.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law1_final.pdf

It’s interesting to hear people rationalize killing.
To me the commandment is self explanatory.
And even more important, what did Jesus say?
Read Matthew 5 from the sermon on the mount.
Quite a bit of information there tells us what Jesus would do.
If you want to search through the whole bible to find a verse here and there to try to justify killing, so be it.

 

[Nakosis]

I didn't say their lives I said " dictate who lives and dies", that is someone else's life. A very important difference.

Deciding who lives and who dies is sometimes part of it, but ok if you feel there is a difference.

Folks have to dictate their lives by something. If you had to make a choice between who lives and dies, someone is going to find fault with it.

Me, I'd make the choice based on what I feel is right in that moment. I'd take all of the blame and responsibility.

Probably a lot easier to justify it by God's Word. An eye for an eye.

Trump appears to be referring to a passage from Exodus 21-24, which lays out the Old Testament rules governing personal behavior.

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows," the passage reads, in the King James translation. "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Another passage, Leviticus 24:19-21, reads, "And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

Trump's favorite Bible verse: 'Eye for an eye'

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Deciding who lives and who dies is sometimes part of it, but ok if you feel there is a difference.

Folks have to dictate their lives by something. If you had to make a choice between who lives and dies, someone is going to find fault with it.

Me, I'd make the choice based on what I feel is right in that moment. I'd take all of the blame and responsibility.

Probably a lot easier to justify it by God's Word. An eye for an eye.

Trump appears to be referring to a passage from Exodus 21-24, which lays out the Old Testament rules governing personal behavior.

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows," the passage reads, in the King James translation. "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Another passage, Leviticus 24:19-21, reads, "And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

Trump's favorite Bible verse: 'Eye for an eye'

We really have to do this again? You can't see what I am going to do? Really?

OK here we go. . .

"An eye for an eye"

Whose eye? Do I get to choose? If you take my eye, can I take your wife's eye? What if I only partly damage the eye, is that OK?


"life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

What if I take a finger? It says nothing about a finger. What defines a "bruise"? How about I just punch her really hard but don't take anything, is that OK? What if it was an accident?

"and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

What if I kill a women? A child?

I would have thought you'd have got this by now.

 

[Nakosis]

We really have to do this again? You can't see what I am going to do? Really?

OK here we go. . .

"An eye for an eye"

Whose eye? Do I get to choose? If you take my eye, can I take your wife's eye? What if I only partly damage the eye, is that OK?


"life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

What if I take a finger? It says nothing about a finger. What defines a "bruise"? How about I just punch her really hard but don't take anything, is that OK? What if it was an accident?

"and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

What if I kill a women? A child?

I would have thought you'd have got this by now, but I guess you are just. . .

Ok, if you killed a woman or a child, what do you think should happen to you?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Ok, if you killed a woman or a child, what do you think should happen to you?

I am gonna assume God will do nothing.

 

[Tumah]

I would not consider it illegal killing, because of the variation in the laws of different countries and interpretations of laws. I consider it morally wrongful death, and laws are understood based on this.

I think that it just means that what may be murder in one country, is not murder in another.

 

[Tumah]

"You seem to be assuming that Torah Law is for all of mankind? It is not."

Sounds like another interpretation issue to me.

I'm not sure if that's an issue, considering just about every commandment is preceded by the words "speak to the children of Israel and tell them".

I did ask about war, but that was a new statement about murder based off new content you posted, sorry if that confused you.

You did not prove that war is not synonymous with murder. As far as I'm aware, they are two different things and I responded accordingly.

God forbid you are specific. Are you teaching your kids to be as lazy?

I'm teaching them to critically read. This seems to be something you need guidance with.

Who are the children of Israel and how do you identify them?

The children of Israel are the Jews. You identify them by looking for the children of Israel....

How do you define nation?

In a Biblical context? It seems to refer to the descendants of specific people.

What is the vengeance of God?

Google vengeance. It's when it's for G-d.

What if I use a wood club?

Num. 35:18 "Or with a wooden vessel of the hand which will kill him, he killed him, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death."

I am kind of hoping at some point you will realize where this is going, I mean you said you have kids, right? Then you should realize that questions can always be raised. Scripture has to be interpreted by humans, and in doing so we put our moral stamp on it.

Deut. 17:8-13 "When a matter will be enigmatic for you in judgment...and you shall go to the priests of the Levites and to the judge...and you shall do according to the matter which he tells you..."

It seems like the Scriptures already foresaw that necessity.

 

[Etritonakin]

The The Sixth Commandment is: "Thou shalt not kill."

Does a soldier in war break the 6th commandment?

What are your thoughts? Please explain your reasoning.

When ancient Israel was specifically told to war/kill by God, they did not bear guilt.
When they did other than was specified by God, they were punished.

Not judging anyone -but that was the case.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm not sure if that's an issue, considering just about every commandment is preceded by the words "speak to the children of Israel and tell them".


You did not prove that war is not synonymous with murder. As far as I'm aware, they are two different things and I responded accordingly.


I'm teaching them to critically read. This seems to be something you need guidance with.


The children of Israel are the Jews. You identify them by looking for the children of Israel....


In a Biblical context? It seems to refer to the descendants of specific people.


Google vengeance. It's when it's for G-d.


Num. 35:18 "Or with a wooden vessel of the hand which will kill him, he killed him, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death."


Deut. 17:8-13 "When a matter will be enigmatic for you in judgment...and you shall go to the priests of the Levites and to the judge...and you shall do according to the matter which he tells you..."

It seems like the Scriptures already foresaw that necessity.

Not getting it yet?

"I'm not sure if that's an issue, considering just about every commandment is preceded by the words "speak to the children of Israel and tell them"."

So what about the ones that don't have those words? And what are "children of Israel" and in matters of killing how do you determine who is who? Are you going to do genetic testing on the battle field? And how much of their genetic ancestry must be these "children of Israel" before the laws apply? Even if you could tell me what constitutes a "child of Israel" they probably don't exist any more. The world is full of mutts these days.

"You did not prove that war is not synonymous with murder. As far as I'm aware, they are two different things and I responded accordingly."

You need to learn how to read. I am talking about something different in that instance.

"I'm teaching them to critically read."

Then I feel sorry for them. In debate if you are going to refer to a text then you need to be specific about what you are referring to and when you quote something you actually need to quote it.

"In a Biblical context? It seems to refer to the descendants of specific people."

Wait a second here. It "seems" to? Are you joking? How is that not your personal human interpretation?

"Google vengeance. It's when it's for G-d."

Really? Where is the scripture to support that one? So you can just kill someone if you say "Oh, it was for God"? And now Google is part of your holy words? You are making stuff up off the top head just to prove that you have a holy right to kill another human.

"Num. 35:18 "Or with a wooden vessel of the hand which will kill him, he killed him, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death.""

Well I said club, but how about just stab them with steel, with plastic, with glass, hit them with a rock, use a flamethrower, take your pick.

"Deut. 17:8-13 "When a matter will be enigmatic for you in judgment...and you shall go to the priests of the Levites and to the judge...and you shall do according to the matter which he tells you..."

What a makes a priests and what makes a judge? What defines a Levites these days? Must it always be a he? What if he tells you to do something against God? What if he tells you to murder yourself? What if the priests or judge is corrupt? What if they are not a Child of Israel? How do you tell? Do you do a DNA test on them to find out?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Does a Soldier in war break the 6th Commandment?
Not in self defense, when a person goes into war, they are defending themselves and their Country men,women, children.
And other countries they are friends with.

The 6th Commandment pertains to those who takes a innocent life, like Terrorist, bank robbers, abortions that takes innocent babies lives.

 

[Nakosis]

I am gonna assume God will do nothing.

I'm just wondering if you have a counterpoint. I understand you don't like folks using God or the Bible to justify killing. Is there ever a time you feel killing a human being is justified? According to the Rabbi it is understandable when necessary to defend life. I think I pretty much agree with the Rabbi.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that it just means that what may be murder in one country, is not murder in another.

I acknowledged this, and that laws are generally based on underlying morals and ethics of all cultures in history. Virtually all cultures acknowledged both 'wrongful death,' and justified killing, or violators of the 'codified law' for advanced cultures, and killing of enemies in war. Biblically this described in considerable detail.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure if that's an issue, considering just about every commandment is preceded by the words "speak to the children of Israel and tell them".

You did not prove that war is not synonymous with murder. As far as I'm aware, they are two different things and I responded accordingly.


I'm teaching them to critically read. This seems to be something you need guidance with.

The children of Israel are the Jews. You identify them by looking for the children of Israel....

In a Biblical context? It seems to refer to the descendants of specific people.

Google vengeance. It's when it's for G-d.

Num. 35:18 "Or with a wooden vessel of the hand which will kill him, he killed him, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death."

Deut. 17:8-13 "When a matter will be enigmatic for you in judgment...and you shall go to the priests of the Levites and to the judge...and you shall do according to the matter which he tells you..."

It seems like the Scriptures already foresaw that necessity.

The intent of the Hebrew commandments (far more than ten) were to apply to the Hebrews, but . . .

Actually the commandments in the Hebrew scriptures are the codification of natural morals and ethics common to virtually all cultures throughout the history of humanity. As with all cultures they do contain unique laws that apply to each culture. They did not foresee anything other than the fundamental morals and ethics and there later codification as cultures developed into civilizations in both the the East and the West..

 

[Tmac]

The The Sixth Commandment is: "Thou shalt not kill."

Does a soldier in war break the 6th commandment?

What are your thoughts? Please explain your reasoning.

Wouldn't you only be able to answer that if it were your commandment.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

The The Sixth Commandment is: "Thou shalt not kill."

Does a soldier in war break the 6th commandment?

What are your thoughts? Please explain your reasoning.

I don't know about commandment specifically, but Quakers do not kill in war because for them God is in every person and they can't kill a being of God. This led at least one Quaker I knew as a child, though drafted into the First World War, to shoot into the ground rather than opposing troops. When a German soldier jumped into his trench he put aside his weapon and said "Brother." They sat and attempted conversation. The only time the German became uneasy was when he said "Ich liebe dich," perhaps due to homophobia, but when he reassured him they had discussion as best as possible. Then the German soldier climbed back out of the trench and disappeared. Many Quakers refuse to engage in war as result.

My feeling is that the Commandment, as in many of the directives of the religious texts, had to do with how one interacts within a community. The extent that it extends to encompass people outside one's community it seems to me depends upon how people define community. Quakers thus might define it as encompassing all people. Often it is treated as contingent upon another persons or group of people observing the rules of the community, which might allow some to say a criminal who murders people in a particularly egregious fashion might be legitimately executed. Or people of other nations when they come to be at war. Albert Schweitzer, on the other hand, extended it to all life in general -- he called it "kinship with all life" -- such that he wouldn't move a cat that had fallen asleep on his arm or swat a mosquito biting him. On the other hand, as a doctor he had no compunction killing microorganisms and parasites, which evidently fell outside of his bounds of community.

 

[whirlingmerc]

not for a just war, but taking things into your own hands out of vengeance perhaps
and if fighting out of hatred ... that would not be good either

The state has the power of the sword, not the church, nor individuals
Defense is a different issue