• 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?

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
"Most" don't have the vision, or the courage, of a Martin Luther King, or a Gandhi. They don't understand the root cause of war, or violence, and so they aren't able to find that most efficient solution. These people further perpetuate violence, finding pride in its immediate aftermath.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
U misunderstood me.

I mean when the religion and the islamic country is attacked through invasion.
I mean even non-muslims believe in selfdefence.
Well, I can see how a country can be attacked or invaded, but a religion is a set of moral principles. You can't shoot a principle. They exist only in the hearts of the faithful.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
"Most" don't have the vision, or the courage, of a Martin Luther King, or a Gandhi. They don't understand the root cause of war, or violence, and so they aren't able to find that most efficient solution. These people further perpetuate violence, finding pride in its immediate aftermath.
To some degree: The success of King and Gandhi illustrates the civilization level of England and the US.

A guarantee that hunger strikes and rallies would have been completely ineffective at enacting change with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein, or the person I will not name to avoid a Godwin invocation.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
To some degree: The success of King and Gandhi illustrates the civilization level of England and the US.

A guarantee that hunger strikes and rallies would have been completely ineffective at enacting change with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein, or the person I will not name to avoid a Godwin invocation.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hussein were not alone. They did not work alone. Pacifism would have been completely effective against them, and any other violent person. If you were commanded by any of these individuals to terrorize, or die- what would you choose? Would you become a terrorist? Or would you die? -- The problem here isn't with Pacifism; it's with the people who do not practice it. . If you and everyone else refused to wage war, there would be no Stalin, no Mao, no Pol Pot, and no Hussein.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hussein were not alone. They did not work alone. Pacifism would have been completely effective against them, and any other violent person. If you were commanded by any of these individuals to terrorize, or die- what would you choose? Would you become a terrorist? Or would you die? -- The problem here isn't with Pacifism; it's with the people who do not practice it. . If you and everyone else refused to wage war, there would be no Stalin, no Mao, no Pol Pot, and no Hussein.
one wonders how many pacifists are really pacifists when their own *** is on the line.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
one wonders how many pacifists are really pacifists when their own *** is on the line.

Is that the question? -- Or is the question: Will you, yourself become an instrument for people like Hitler, because your "own *** is on the line"? What is your answer?
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
A Christian should be very active in the world. Doing his best to live virtuously, doing good works and spreading the Gospel cannot be done by someone separate from the world. God did not put us here to sit around. What we are to try and not do is to lose sight of the spiritual reality beyond this world. Attempting to find fulfilment in transient things is spiritually self-defeating, because we were made to enjoy something much greater than this world.

Some are called to a life of contemplation and prayer, but even monks must still work to maintain themselves.


Because sometimes reality is harsh, and violence is a means to defend yourself and others from even greater evil. Would it have been moral to allow Hitler to be unopposed to annex Poland? It doesn't matter how many die so long as you live in peace?
Ok, I think you didnt understand what I was implying. I"ll explain it differently. Separate from the world... what I mean by that is not to get involved in the world as far as war, politics, voting, etc. Yes, we need to go out into the world to preach and do our works. Absolutely. That's what I mean. I do believe that we shouldnt go to war. Fighting for our country? That is not God's way.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
To some degree: The success of King and Gandhi illustrates the civilization level of England and the US.

A guarantee that hunger strikes and rallies would have been completely ineffective at enacting change with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein, or the person I will not name to avoid a Godwin invocation.
In fact, there's a famous quote which just made up about Stalin's response when told of a prisoner hunger strike.....
"Cor blimey, that'll save us a few quid on their rations!"
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Really?
So why you are killing Palestinian childs?
I'm not killing anyone. I"m trying to think why you would write something like that. Israel does not go in and purposely kill Palestinian children. Israel defends herself from the nations around her that attack them. Israel wants to live in peace. How come you didnt say why does Palestine kill Israeli children?
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hussein were not alone. They did not work alone. Pacifism would have been completely effective against them, and any other violent person. If you were commanded by any of these individuals to terrorize, or die- what would you choose? Would you become a terrorist? Or would you die? -- The problem here isn't with Pacifism; it's with the people who do not practice it. . If you and everyone else refused to wage war, there would be no Stalin, no Mao, no Pol Pot, and no Hussein.
Um... OK.

Your first precept is wrong. Pacifists get killed by non-pacifists all the time. In fact, with no distinction between a pacifist and a non-pacifist who is not fighting back at that moment; the bulk of people killed were effectively pacifists.

Yes. If *everyone* was a pacifist, then they wouldn't kill each other. That's pretty tautological; but also irrelevant to the context.

A pacifist, or pacifistic movement, will simply be killed by (sufficiently) non-pacifists they annoy. This is why there is no history of successful pacifist movements within states like Mao's China, or Hitler's Germany.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hussein were not alone. They did not work alone. Pacifism would have been completely effective against them,
Gandhi wouldn't even have needed to go on hunger strike to starve like the thousands of others under those regimes. Perhaps a stern talking to would work in their case.

Separate from the world... what I mean by that is not to get involved in the world as far as war, politics, voting, etc. Yes, we need to go out into the world to preach and do our works. Absolutely. That's what I mean. I do believe that we shouldnt go to war. Fighting for our country? That is not God's way.
Oh, so Christians should be a part of the world, but should not participate in society? Yeah, no. We live in a society and it is good to participate and work for the common good.

You are free to enjoy all the benefits of society, but in no instance should you contribute in maintaining those benefits, or defend it from those you want to attack it? I don't think you've really thought your position though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Um... OK.

Your first precept is wrong. Pacifists get killed by non-pacifists all the time. In fact, with no distinction between a pacifist and a non-pacifist who is not fighting back at that moment; the bulk of people killed were effectively pacifists.

I didn't claim that pacifists are not killed, did I? And if pacifists are the ones who don't do the killing, wouldn't it be obvious that those killing pacifists are not pacifists themselves?

Let's not ignore distinctions that exist. What distinguishes non-pacifists being killed, from those doing the killing? Opportunity. -- If you were commanded to kill, at the threat of death, torture, or even imprisonment - what would you do?


Yes. If *everyone was a pacifist, then they wouldn't kill each other. That's pretty tautological; but also irrelevant to the context.

Completely relevant. How is it irrelevant?

A pacifist, or pacifistic movement, will simply be killed by (sufficiently) non-pacifists they annoy. This is why there is no history of successful pacifist movements within states like Mao's China, or Hitler's Germany.

Not if there is no reason for violent retaliation. --There was no successful pacifist movement, because of those like you, who have no other understanding. You'd rather sell yourself to these regimes, alive, than die giving a foundation to the tautological alternative.
 
Last edited:

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I'm not killing anyone. I"m trying to think why you would write something like that. Israel does not go in and purposely kill Palestinian children. Israel defends herself from the nations around her that attack them. Israel wants to live in peace. How come you didnt say why does Palestine kill Israeli children?
War is not God's way. War is either wrong or it can be justified. Make up your mind.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Surprised to hear a Christian make that claim:
1 Samuel 15:18 says, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.”
I'm not a pacifist if you read my previous posts. The context of that comment was that moorea was telling me that Christians ought to be pacifists as they should not be involved in the political realm. I reject that then he says that Israel is justified in their conflict. I'm pointing out the obvious disconnect here.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Is that the question? -- Or is the question: Will you, yourself become an instrument for people like Hitler, because your "own *** is on the line"? What is your answer?
I have no problem defending myself, my loved ones, my friends, my neighbors....
To the death if need be.

But then, I do not claim to be a pacifist.
I have, however, seen many a self proclaimed pacifist turn violent when their own *** was on the line.
They felt bad afterwords, but they still did not act very pacifistic when it came down to it.
Thus the reason I wonder "how many pacifists are really pacifists when their own *** is on the line"

Now perhaps you would like to answer the same?
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
War is not God's way. War is either wrong or it can be justified. Make up your mind.
I'm not a pacifist if you read my previous posts. The context of that comment was that moorea was telling me that Christians ought to be pacifists as they should not be involved in the political realm. I reject that then he says that Israel is justified in their conflict. I'm pointing out the obvious disconnect here.
I dont think Israel is justified in their conflict. One of their problems is that they dont trust in God. They trust in themselves. They need to start really trusting in their God, again.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
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.
Yes, I believe killing in a just war is an unfortunate evil necessity. Killing Nazi soldiers is one such example.

In fact the most famous Hindu book, the Bhagavad Gita, discussed the moral quandary of the good warrior, Arjuna. Krishna guided him to realize he must do his job (dharma) in the just war.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
I dont think Israel is justified in their conflict. One of their problems is that they dont trust in God. They trust in themselves. They need to start really trusting in their God, again.
There's an interesting story about the Christian Vikings who first settled Greenland and how they all died.
 
Top