Thou Shalt Not Kill and how it relates to Soldiers

[Z]

My great aunt and I were discussing the bible about (wow) 5 years ago (didn't realize it was that long) and I told her I was, at one point, considering joining the Air Force. The thing that held me back was the idea of murder.

She said that, somewhere in the bible, she found a passage that justified military action in the eyes of the bible. However, I cannot recall which passage she was talking about nor do I recall seeing this passage for my own eyes.

To those more versed than I: Is there anything in the bible that justifies military killing? I don't mean to offend anyone with this topic, I'm just genuinely curious.

[chefTENGU]

I think BC already mentioned elsewhere that the bible is actually quite vague about this subject, which is why you have christians who are pacifists (much like Christ was himself) getting into arguments with christians who can justify killing for various causes or purposes.

For what it's worth, I'll post the Catholic Church's position on what constitutes a just war once I find my copy of the catechism.

[Seegtease]

I don't have anything handy right now, since I'm not at home... but "there's a time for war and a time for peace." That's a verse (maybe paraphrased), but I'm not sure which.

And I'm pretty sure in "Thou shalt not kill" that the original Hebrew word is along the lines of murder, which is very different from military killing. I don't know if there's a verse specifically ALLOWING killing in war, but there's no verse specifically DISALLOWING killing in war. But many times in the Old Testament, God commanded Israel to fight and kill their way into the promised land. I don't know if anything in the New Testament that says anything about us no longer having wars.

[Z]

What would be the definition of Murder, then?

For instance, if it's just killing with malice, can we justify any of the killing after 9/11 in Afghanistan or Iraq where we saw a surge in military enlistments from people who wanted revenge?

[chefTENGU]

The following is taken directly from The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2307-14:

Avoiding War
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104

2308 All citizens and governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be detained the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

—the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

—all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

—there must be serious prospects of success;

—the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.106

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.107

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between warring parties."108

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes.

104 Gaudium et spes 81 § 4
105 Gaudium et spes 79 § 4
106 Gaudium et spes 79 § 5
107 Gaudium et spes 79 § 3
108 Gaudium et spes 79 § 4
109 Gaudium et spes 80 § 3

[Killer_Man_]

I've always felt and was told when I got confirmed as a Lutheran that if they have an 'equal' chance or 'are going to kill you,' that you have the right to defend yourself and if they die in the process of defending yourself then nothing is wrong.

[Seegtease]

What would be the definition of Murder, then?

For instance, if it's just killing with malice, can we justify any of the killing after 9/11 in Afghanistan or Iraq where we saw a surge in military enlistments from people who wanted revenge?

No, we can't. It depends on the heart of the individual.

If you join the military for revenge, you've certainly committed murder in your heart even before you ever left, because Jesus said whoever hates another has already committed murder. The kind of hate Jesus is talking about is "if it were legal, I'd kill that person."

Sometimes, the only thing that stops a person from killing another person is the consequences that ensue. If their true desire is to kill, then they don't have to actually kill to even commit the sin of murder, since they've already done it. Sin comes from the heart, not the mouth or hands. Sin is sin when it is conceived, not when it is actually executed.

If you join the military because you want to participate in the defense of your country, or you believe it will come down to protecting your liberties, then I don't think you're committing any sins. But if you join for vengeance, you are certainly committing a sin the moment you make that decision.

[chefTENGU]

This whole discussion reminds me of the book I had been transcribing, but no one wanted to read. Tony Hendra dealt with this sort of thing when he objected to being forced to participate in the Corps (a British version of ROTC).

[Seegtease]

On that topic... if you're forced to enlist (draft, perhaps), any killing you're involved in can be safely placed in self-defense. Or maybe kind of like an executioner, just doing your job (or obeying your government authorities, which is commanded in the Bible, obviously unless they tell you to disobey God). Of course, some executioners probably enjoy it, and again, that'd be sin.

It's very case-by-case.

[Arainach]

if you're forced to enlist (draft, perhaps), any killing you're involved in can be safely placed in self-defense.Care to elaborate on this? I'm not seeing how one logically follows from the other.

[Seegtease]

It's simple. You get sent to a battlefield. You're going to be attacked, so you have to defend yourself. You didn't choose to be there, so there's no aggression on your part. It's self-defense.

[Z]

Except this is 2009. Conventional warfare, while still existent, is mostly a thing of the past (See Jarhead). That's why I had a problem with the idea of enlisting in the Air Force. How does one justify dropping a bomb or shooting air-to-surface missiles? Unless the enemy has anti-air weapons, I'd be able to escape from any dangerous situation whether that's an emergency landing, an ejection, or a retreat. My life wouldn't be in immediate danger as often as I would put someone else's life in immediate danger.

For that matter, what about the R&D division of the military whose job is to create weapons to kill? How would the bible or God judge them if they know exactly what those weapons will be used for?

The person who immediately comes to mind is Albert Einstein, a pacifist, who said that if a war broke out he would "unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect... regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged." His science was later used to create the atomic bomb. While I don't feel that Einstein should be judged for the A-Bomb's creation, I feel those that do know what their science is being used for might hit that gray area.

While I can agree with self-preservation, I don't believe that all military action falls under that category. If the exemption from the label of murder is that your opponent has an equal chance and will seize the opportunity to kill you, I believe most modern military actions do not follow such a teaching.

For a while, we had no more than 20 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan while the Afghanis had hundreds dead by our hands. Clearly equal chance was not present here or the fatalities on the U.S. side, I would imagine, would be more comparable.

The more I think about it, the more it seems more imperialistic than defensive.

Though, I must admit, I am a bit drunk. I do want to note, though, that I do not mean to bash the military or the troops. I'm sure most of them do what they do with the idea that they're helping others around them and those at home. I mean only to understand the role of military and their actions in accordance with the Christian bible. Please do not take any offense and if I have offended, I deeply apologize as that is not my intention.

---------- Post added at 00:46 ---------- Previous post was at 00:42 ----------

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.And this, of course, doesn't bode well with what we did in Gitmo. Despite my political alliance (and, in fact, in spite of my political alliance) I would say our occupation in Iraq is completely against any teaching of Christianity. (If I understand this correctly)

[Seegtease]

Well, that's a Catholic Catechism, which not everybody agrees with. I can't comment on whether or not it conflicts with that.

For a while, we had no more than 20 U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan while the Afghanis had hundreds dead by our hands. Clearly equal chance was not present here or the fatalities on the U.S. side, I would imagine, would be more comparable.

The more I think about it, the more it seems more imperialistic than defensive.

There were Biblical battles where Israel annihilated its enemies with similar numbers. They were able to do this by God's blessing.

While God hasn't commanded any specific wars anytime recently, he hasn't condemned any either. There's no reason to think they suddenly became sinful when they never were before.

What matters is the cause and the motive. Are you invading a country to remove a tyrannical dictator? While that may be an invasion, which can often times be labeled as bad, that cause could be labeled as good. Just because we are much more skilled than they are doesn't mean we're being unfair. It's life or death. If a soldier puts their guard down, even an untrained enemy can kill him. If there's one person and 100 others who want to kill him, and the only way to stop them are to kill them, is it a sin to kill all 100? Just because they weren't skilled enough to get the job done doesn't make his skill become sinful.

I don't think defending liberty or freedom is inherently sinful. Vengeance is always sinful. Cold blooded murder is always sinful. Defending your life, or your country is not murder. Even if the defense is retroactive, if it's in good judgment, it's not necessarily sinful.

Launching a nuke on a city full of civilians is probably sinful. While it proved effective in ending the war, it was an unnecessary and possibly sinful means to a good end. The means to the end should also be pure. You should never attack somebody who is unarmed, and never if they surrender, either. But generally the military follows that code anyhow.

[chefTENGU]

Zeit is right. I can only speak for my own denomination. I can't imagine that most protestant denominations would be much different on this issue, but it's going to depend on how they interpret scripture and how closely they follow the Bible (and which translation they prefer).

Seeing how the Bible itself isn't entirely clear on this subject, I figured the catechism of the Catholic Church would come in handy.

As for your questions:
Except this is 2009. Conventional warfare, while still existent, is mostly a thing of the past (See Jarhead). That's why I had a problem with the idea of enlisting in the Air Force. How does one justify dropping a bomb or shooting air-to-surface missiles? Unless the enemy has anti-air weapons, I'd be able to escape from any dangerous situation whether that's an emergency landing, an ejection, or a retreat. My life wouldn't be in immediate danger as often as I would put someone else's life in immediate danger.

For that matter, what about the R&D division of the military whose job is to create weapons to kill? How would the bible or God judge them if they know exactly what those weapons will be used for?
I believe these would fall under 2312 and 2314. While the big boogeymen that are being eluded to are the horrors that came to us through the second world war (the Holocaust and atomic weaponry), they are general enough to cover any means of waging war that is inhumane or indiscriminate.

In my opinion, most conventional missiles and bombs are still fine. Especially with modern targeting technology, it's much easier to avoid soft targets like civilians and hospitals and focus on what our real objectives would be (military infrastructure).

However, clearly we can't rest on our laurels yet. Civilian casualties and friendly fire as the result of some of the done attacks we have done in Afghanistan are a clear indication that we have some ways to go in developing our technology to the point where we can be sure it will work according to how we want as often as possible. For now, I'd say methods like that remain morally ambiguous.

And this, of course, doesn't bode well with what we did in Gitmo. Despite my political alliance (and, in fact, in spite of my political alliance) I would say our occupation in Iraq is completely against any teaching of Christianity. (If I understand this correctly)
While God hasn't commanded any specific wars anytime recently, he hasn't condemned any either. There's no reason to think they suddenly became sinful when they never were before.
Certainly it doesn't. I think the worst fallout from what was done in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay is yet to come; Obama cited the reason why he asked to delay the release of the Gitmo photos was that it would likely enflame anti-American sentiment in the middle east, putting our own troops in danger of reprisal attacks.

And from a Catholic perspective, it could be argued that God did condemn the war in Iraq (through his homeboy, the pope).

[Seegtease]

I guess I should have said He hasn't condemned war in general, He may condemn specific wars, but obviously each war isn't going to be listed in the Bible, you're just going to have to judge each one with proper discernment.

[chefTENGU]

War itself is an evil, however, forbidden by the 5th commandment.

The point of the "just war" doctrine is to show that when war is truly unavoidable, necessary for self-defense, and fought in a way to treat the enemy and innocent non-combatants with the dignity that is due all human beings, then soldiers who conduct themselves honorably and for the good of their people are not engaging in sinful activity by participating in the war.

The problem is separating out what truly is good, and not just what someone wants you to believe is good, which isn't always apparent as the actions are taking place.

Z brought up a good point with mentioning how Einstein's research was used to create one of the most devastating weapons mankind has ever known. When Oppenheimer saw the success of the atomic bomb during testing, knowing he had helped to create something unprecedented and terrifying, he immediately regretted participating in the project. It's what brought that verse from the Bhagavad Gita to his mind: "Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds."

Undoubtedly he thought that this weapon he was working on would bring the war to a rapid close, but realizing how terrible it was, he immediately became opposed to its use and development.