1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Killing in War - Ok or Not?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Rex, Jan 23, 2015.

  1. Rex

    Rex Founder

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,973
    Ratings:
    +379
    Religion:
    I won't tell
    Those that go to war for their country and kill others.

    Is that OK in the eyes of your religion?

    Can they be forgiven? Is it an automatic pass because it is war? Etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Sees

    Sees Dragonslayer

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    4,730
    Ratings:
    +2,832
    Religion:
    Ásatrú - Path of Heroes™
    I have no problem with killing combatants or other people doing so, and most people in my tradition don't. War crimes and such are of course a different matter. I think it's much more solidified and univeral among folks when it is seen as a defensive war.

    As far as religious traditions, Ásatrú/Heathenry tend to be more warrior heavy/friendly than most.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. StarryNightshade

    StarryNightshade Aspiring Progressive Orthodox Jew
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    5,341
    Ratings:
    +1,779
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Hinduism teaches Ahimsa (non-violence), but there is the Kshatriya (warrior) varna which, historically, was presided by soldiers, guards, royalty, etc. People who may have had to kill (or carry out such orders) as a part of their dharma.

    Personally, I think non-violence is the best way to go, but that is not the world we live in. Sometimes, we have to protect ourselves and others; even if we don't think it's inherently the right or ethical thing to do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. jeager106

    jeager106 Learning more about Jehovah.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    4,611
    Ratings:
    +1,764
    Religion:
    Learning more about Jehovah.
    I lean towards a pacifist type Christianity tho claim no denomination.
    Would I kill in self defense or the defense of a loved one or another?
    Yes. I'm well trained, have the skills, abilties, and weapons.
    I would avoid deadly force if at all possible.
    I believe the Christian N.T. makes provision for taking a life in self defense.
    Those that would not defend loved ones, self, or another innocent I catagorize those types as "sheeple". Those people with the means to defend but would rather watch a child die though they could have stopped it.
    A story: A man took a fascination with a 15 year old high school cheerleader.
    A lovely child with a very adult womans body. She told her parents that this "man" had been in a car following her home from cheerleading practice. She was ignored.
    She complained several times to her parents who blew it off.
    One night around 2 am the "man" broke down the front door of her home, waking all up from sleep. The man finds the girl cowering in her bedroom. Dad avails himself of a handgun as the man drags the near naked girl down the stairs, the mother protesting with violence, hitting the man many times. The dad orders the man to stop or be shot. (really? he talks to the guy?) Mom gets her body beaten badly trying to free the daughter from the madman. Dad is still threatening to shoot.
    The comotion was so loud and violent nieghbors call the cops.
    6 cops responed, found the cheerleader being dragged into a running car while daddy dear is still pointing his pistol at the guy, crying, begging, to let the girl go.
    Mom is still beating the madman and getting beaten badly. Cops size the situation up real quick and it took all 6 big, young coppers to beat the madman into pudding.
    The daughter was released, mom and daughter treated for injuries, madman charged with agg. burglary, kidnapping, assult, etc. Madman looked like he'd been in a fight with an 18 wheeler and lost. Went to prison, was high on wine, "tee's 'n blues" a combination of alcohol and narcotic drugs.
    Dad was uninjured and apparently would have let the madman get away with his only child.
    Sheeple.
     
  5. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    46,029
    Ratings:
    +9,975
    How do you draw the line?
     
  6. Etritonakin

    Etritonakin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    3,203
    Ratings:
    +359
    From a biblical perspective.....

    Initially, Israel was to be obedient to God -and God would keep them from having to engage in warfare (it was dependent upon obedience).
    -Jos 24:12 And I sent the hornet before you, which drave them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites; but not with thy sword, nor with thy bow.

    Exo 23:27 I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.
    Exo 23:28 And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee

    After their disobedience -God gave them over to warfare by not protecting and prospering them otherwise -but they were then not allowed to war in any manner not prescribed by God, and unless instructed by God.

    Thereby, the decision lies with God.

    Personally, I will not kill under orders from man or willingly give that power of decision over to another man -and God does not presently have set up a system whereby he would make known his will known to the government over the descendents of the Israelites concerning such matters -or, more correctly, that system of judges and the priesthood given by God was rejected by Israel -their descendents have no conversation with God, and make their own decisions.
    This is not to say that their decisions, and the reasons for them, are acceptable before God.

    The reality of war is not an automatic pass for the breaking of the commandment, or for any decision which is of man.

    God said he would plead with all flesh by the sword -but this means giving them over to it due to disobedience -which includes disobedience to the commandment about killing.

    God also decides the course of human warfare -sometimes even deciding which nation will be against another (though they generally war anyway). Men will war, regardless, but it is turned by God to the end which he has declared -which will actually eventually bring about the end of warfare.
    God will end human warfare -just before it results in the destruction of "all flesh" -so that there can be no argument that such is the end to man's decisions -and will then cause, enforce and teach world peace to all nations.

    I believe the following to be of the utmost strategic advantage...

    Isa 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.

    Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
    Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

    This is not to say that those who would be harmed without cause cannot and should not defend themselves or be defended -but this need not include breaking the commandment about killing -and one can "turn the other cheek" and still do so.
    (Even then, unintended death could possibly result -but that is much different than the overall state and attitude of modern organized military forces).

    The world as a whole is apparently not going to go this route -so war will be a reality until it is not.
     
    #6 Etritonakin, Jan 23, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2015
  7. Sees

    Sees Dragonslayer

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    4,730
    Ratings:
    +2,832
    Religion:
    Ásatrú - Path of Heroes™

    Only threaten or act violently if necessary and treat people not threatening or acting violently towards "you" as you would any old person. That's how we did/do it. Sentiment and all varied reasons or excuses for the conflict don't really change that.
     
  8. Blackmarch

    Blackmarch W'rkncacntr

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    188
    Ratings:
    +14
    depends on the situation, the freedom of the individual, and their intents and purposes.
    In some cases yes it is justifiable, in other situations, no.
     
  9. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    39,081
    Ratings:
    +12,906
    Religion:
    Judaism
    That depends greatly on who is waging war and why.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Godobeyer

    Godobeyer the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,594
    Ratings:
    +3,345
    Religion:
    Islam
    others include civilians ?

    eyes of my religion:
    there is no forgiveness in killing civilians in Islam.
     
  11. Poeticus

    Poeticus | abhyAvartin |

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,500
    Ratings:
    +1,271
    As per my scriptural (and common sense) understanding, yes. I'm Hindu, BTW.

    To cower and allow marauders a free pass to loot and pillage their way through your cities is anti-Dharmic.

    To defend your land and your people from invaders is as natural as breathing in air.
    The problem with this is the way you have positioned it, Rex.

    Forgiven, for what? Automatic pass to kill because it's war? What do you mean?

    It would be awesome to have some tea and play cards with enemy combatants in an idealistic, lovey dovey world. But that's not how it works. There is no "automatic pass"; it's a natural response. People losing lives on the battlefield is a logical conclusion in the setting that is war.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Etritonakin

    Etritonakin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    3,203
    Ratings:
    +359
    Wasn't there. The situation could have ended better -better decisions -better tactics -better preparedness -but with two people near to and struggling with the bad guy -dad freaking out -startled and having unsteady hands -
    considering all possibilities as much as he was able -it could have been much worse.
     
  13. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,103
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Nope. Killing in war is just killing. It is never ok.

    It can of course lead to self-defense killing, but that only shows that war itself must be avoided.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. mainliner

    mainliner no one can de-borg my fact's ...NO-ONE!!

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,653
    Ratings:
    +232
    Religion:
    mainisium
    kill or be killed ........ If you don't want to the enemy or the people who are starting the war will come and kill your country and everyone you love .

    a defender has all rights in the universe to defend and kill ........ A killer doesn't :)
     
  15. PopeADope

    PopeADope Habemus papam

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2014
    Messages:
    14,867
    Ratings:
    +6,080
    Religion:
    Amish Taliban
    Depends on who your are killing imho, and what the circumstances are. If someone is bent on killing the men in your city/country and using the women as sex blow up dolls, as has often happened in war, you would be a coward to not fight back!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. jeager106

    jeager106 Learning more about Jehovah.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    Messages:
    4,611
    Ratings:
    +1,764
    Religion:
    Learning more about Jehovah.
    Yeah, gotta agree with that in those circumstances.
    Imagine if we have caved to the Japs after Pearl as they thought we'd do?
    What if we'd not gotten into WWII and stopped Hitlers dominance of Europe?
    The U.S. & Canada would have had a much,much, longer and bloody war to fight
    in the streets of New York.
    Have you ever considered what would have happened had the Japs developed the "bomb" first?
    Would they have used it? What if they had 10 bombs?
    We dropped two only because we only had two!
    The A bomb likely spared 1 million American Casualties and that in just the invasion of the mainland. Who knows how many Jap lives were spared because of the bomb?
    Most people don't know the U.S. had stockpiled tons of poison gas to release on the Japs had an invasion been necessary.
    Use of poison gas was against the Geneva Accords which the U.S. signed.
    However the Japs never did, thus fair game.
    Using gas and invading Japan would have been horrible.
     
  17. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    171,174
    Ratings:
    +54,053
    Religion:
    Bokononism & Atheism
    I'm in favor of things in this order:
    1) Avoid war by being strong, yet not threatening.
    2) Go to war to win as efficiently as possible by taking out their military.
    3) Go to war to win as efficiently as possible by taking out both their military & their industry.
    4) Go to war to win as efficiently as possible by taking out every threat, including civilians.
    5) Things aren't going well for us, time for nuclear, biological & chemical weapons. War crimes are an interesting thing to debate only if one wins.

    Forgiveness isn't the issue....survival is.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    24,480
    Ratings:
    +11,609
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Killing is killing. Self defense mitigates it somewhat, or defending another individual from an attack in progress, but killing sans direct threat, actually hunting down 'enemies,' is rarely justifiable, and killing on orders from an authority is all out.

    How is a drive-by shooting on orders from a Mafia capo or Crips leader any different, morally, than an army attacking a neighboring country on orders from a government?

    Where does a government get the authority to order someone to do something that would be a crime if an individual did it on his own? Aren't we individually responsible for our actions? How can a government or superior officer take responsibility for another's actions?

    Your government or captain is not Jesus. The sin is on you weather you commit it on your own or are ordered by an authority.

    Jump off a bridge and your just as dead weather you did it on your own or did it under orders.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    171,174
    Ratings:
    +54,053
    Religion:
    Bokononism & Atheism
    Do you realize that you're effectively encouraging the Un-Americastanian practice of draft dodging?
     
  20. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    24,480
    Ratings:
    +11,609
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    What if they gave a war and nobody came?
    Sweet!
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...