Should a Christian Serve in the Military?

[go2church]

I was wondering something. Those of you who seem to be against the idea of a Christian serving in the miltary mainly seem to be opposed to the idea that you may be required to kill somebody.

However, what do you think about our police force? What about state troopers? They may very well be required to kill somebody. They are trained for it and carry a weapon and often that situation does come up. So that must mean that you're against our police force just as much as our military force, and don't believe that Christians should have any part of it.

That's an insane thought, and I seriously doubt that anybody would agree that this is how they feel. This is probably because they can see first hand that our police force protects them. Everybody understands that without a police force, things would be chaos, deaths would be rampant, your property and family would never be safe. Even though there are deaths on both sides of the fence due to police action, its well worth it because it is necessary, worthy, and noble to protect everyone from those who try to cause harm.

So what is so different about our military force? Anymore, we're kind of the police of the world. A friend of mine is an MP, he went to Iraq in Fallujah or however you spell it, he carried a weapon, but he wasn't there to show aggression, he didn't pick any fights, he simply patrolled the streets and made sure everybody behaved. Luckily, nothing came up, he was not shot at, nobody tried to blow him up, so he came home unharmed without a single shot fired. He simply came home with a bunch of pictures, interesting stories, and trinkets where he freely shopped on the streets. Some of you don't seem to understand that this would be the outcome of every American soldier over there if everyone in Iraq behaved in that same manner and didn't try to kill our soldiers.

Your logic doesn't follow the premise of the inital question, the basic question would still be for the individual to answer, serve as a policeman or not. There wouldn't be a right answer or a wrong answer as far as I am concerned.

 

[corndogggy]

Your logic doesn't follow the premise of the inital question, the basic question would still be for the individual to answer, serve as a policeman or not. There wouldn't be a right answer or a wrong answer as far as I am concerned.

Then I am directing my question to military opposers who think there is in fact a right answer for everybody, such as this guy:

As to the OP. Christians should not serve in the military, those who live by the sword will die by the sword (research depleted uranium to see how this is and will come to pass). Yes, I know about the centurion but I gotta wonder how many tours he signed up for after learning about Jesus.

Just wondering what somebody like that thinks about police service. If he's still opposed to it, then the ideas portrayed by BruceB is entirely correct, because the lack of a police force over here would turn America upside down and it would be worse than Iraq and that would affect us directly. We're not talking about stuff halfway around the world anymore, it's a direct impact, yet it could still require that you kill somebody and often does, which is the main argument. At least Iraq has tens of thousands of our soldiers and their own police force attempting to make everybody behave. No police force over here means people do whatever they want, then victims take the law into their own hands, would be much worse than the wild west days.

You have hit the nail on the head, most (probably not every) but most "war opposer's" are cowards. They embrace the fruits of freedom but are not willing to invest "blood equity" to maintain that freedom. They have well constructed arguments based on politics and/or faith, but the bottom line is a shirking of the duty the Soldier accepts. That is our system (few other nations have a system like ours) and I accept it; I swore an oath to the Constitution (not to any man) so I accept their refusal to serve, but they have no respect from me. My respect is reserved for those that are willing to fight and even die for our freedom. Bruce

 

[Rufus_1611]

Just wondering what somebody like that thinks about police service. If he's still opposed to it, then the ideas portrayed by BruceB is entirely correct, because the lack of a police force over here would turn America upside down and it would be worse than Iraq and that would affect us directly. We're not talking about stuff halfway around the world anymore, it's a direct impact, yet it could still require that you kill somebody and often does, which is the main argument. At least Iraq has tens of thousands of our soldiers and their own police force attempting to make everybody behave. No police force over here means people do whatever they want, then victims take the law into their own hands, would be much worse than the wild west days.

I am an advocate of and for Peace Officers.

 

[corndogggy]

I am an advocate of and for Peace Officers.

You say that, but you also say the following, and this is apparently why you're against Christians serving in the military:

I am a Christian who thinks that killing, according to the Bible is wrong, thus I preach against it.

Even most normal "peace officers" in the traditional sense such as sheriffs, state troopers, and city police, are trained to kill, they carry deadly weapons, and they use deadly force when needed. What is so different with this situation than with a guy in the military? If your original quoted statement above is true and that's why you're against military service, then you ought to be against peace officers too, since they do in fact kill people.

What about SWAT teams? They are considered peace officers? How can you be an advocate of SWAT teams, yet you look down upon somebody in the army, especially when your justification is the idea of having to kill somebody? Did you forget that SWAT teams use some pretty amazing weapons and sometimes has to kill with them? MP's in the military are peace officers as well, yet you're against these guys.

I think it really boils down to the fact that what you are really against is some choices made by our administration, not the fact that a Christian chooses to serve in the military. You can't say that it's horribly wrong for a Marine to kill somebody so Christians shouldn't be involved in any military service because of that, yet it's perfectly acceptable for a Christian to be a State Trooper, because State Troopers will also kill when necessary as well. It makes no sense.

 

[Rufus_1611]

You say that, but you also say the following, and this is apparently why you're against Christians serving in the military:

Even most normal "peace officers" in the traditional sense such as sheriffs, state troopers, and city police, are trained to kill, they carry deadly weapons, and they use deadly force when needed. What is so different with this situation than with a guy in the military? If your original quoted statement above is true and that's why you're against military service, then you ought to be against peace officers too, since they do in fact kill people.

What about SWAT teams? They are considered peace officers? How can you be an advocate of SWAT teams, yet you look down upon somebody in the army, especially when your justification is the idea of having to kill somebody? Did you forget that SWAT teams use some pretty amazing weapons and sometimes has to kill with them? MP's in the military are peace officers as well, yet you're against these guys.

I think it really boils down to the fact that what you are really against is some choices made by our administration, not the fact that a Christian chooses to serve in the military. You can't say that it's horribly wrong for a Marine to kill somebody so Christians shouldn't be involved in any military service because of that, yet it's perfectly acceptable for a Christian to be a State Trooper, because State Troopers will also kill when necessary as well. It makes no sense.

The role of a State Trooper, Sheriff, et al., is not to kill but to keep the peace. If a bad guy acts as an aggressor towards an innocent or towards the Peace Officer then the Peace Officer is right to defend the innocent or himself.

Standing armies of empires are not used in the defense of the innocent nor, as in our case, are they used for the defense of this nation (if they were, we would not need the Department of Homeland Security and our nation would have borders). The standing armies of the United States of America are being utilized for the purpose of invasion and occupation of foreign lands for the purpose of destroying the persons and property of that foreign land and absconding of and control of the valued resources of those lands. In the course of these actions, there are hundreds of thousands of non-combatant, innocents whose lives are being terminated or crippled. Peace officers are not commonly responsible for the taking of innocent lives, whereas standing armies who are 'just following orders' are.

 

[ktn4eg]

How 'bout we all take a time out and catch our breath on this issue?

If you'll review what Brice was asking in his OP (and subesquent postings), you'll recall that he was asking about whether or not it would be advisable for him to enter the military as an officer in the JAG (the military's term for a lawyer).

Now, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall reading of any JAG having the duty to go out on the front lines and kill anyone.

There are many occupations in our armed forces that do not involve killing people--medics, personnel clerks, chaplains, civil engineering, etc.

While everyone's entitled to express his or her opinions here on BB (a right that was secured down through the years by the brave sacrifices of the men and women of our armed forces), to infer that it is somehow inherently sinful for a Christian to serve as a military lawyer seems to me to be really stretching the point.

Personally, I am thankful for all those who served in our military from Valley Forge to Vietnam and currently in the various world-wide trouble spots. Were it not for them, I seriously doubt whether we'd even have a Baptist Board where we are free to express such a diversity of opinions on all sorts of topics.

 

[corndogggy]

The role of a State Trooper, Sheriff, et al., is not to kill but to keep the peace. If a bad guy acts as an aggressor towards an innocent or towards the Peace Officer then the Peace Officer is right to defend the innocent or himself.

But right now, that is exactly what is happening to our military troops. The initial invasion was a little different, but right now, if everybody stopped shooting at our troops and trying to blow up their vehicles, then we wouldn't have a reason to fire back. We are there right now to keep the peace. If our troops are attacked, then they attack back to defend themselves and others... exactly what you said above. It's been like that for a good long while too. You act like we're an aggressor who tries to kill anything over there who looks at us crosseyed.

Standing armies of empires are not used in the defense of the innocent nor, as in our case, are they used for the defense of this nation (if they were, we would not need the Department of Homeland Security and our nation would have borders).

Standing armies are mostly a deterrent. If they didn't exist, I can guarantee you that we would be attacked and innocents would be hurt. If we were attacked anyway, I can also guarantee you that our military would be used in the defense of this nation. If something like Pearl Harbor happened again, do you really think that our military would sit on their hands and tell the Department of Homeland Security to handle it themselves? Do you really think that we weren't defending the innocent when we attacked Germany? Lots of our conflicts were based off of us trying to protect our smaller allies from an aggressor, and you're acting like this is evil.

The standing armies of the United States of America are being utilized for the purpose of invasion and occupation of foreign lands for the purpose of destroying the persons and property of that foreign land and absconding of and control of the valued resources of those lands.

You're basing the entire existence of all of our military branches based on your speculation of one experience in one area? Are we over in South Korea for oil? Are we in Japan for oil? We've got at least 725 foreign bases all around the globe. Do you really think that we're trying to significantly occupy every place that has a base and control that area's resources? Hardly. You're just dwelling on Iraq and not considering the rest of the picture.

Also, you're acting like we're the only nation picking on Iraq. There are lots of other nations who were doing the exact same thing as us. Canada, Romania, Denmark, Poland, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, New Zealand, Austrailia, South Korea, Lithuania, and others. Why are you so bent on blaming us for everything and denouncing our entire military of nearly 2.7 million people?

Peace officers are not commonly responsible for the taking of innocent lives, whereas standing armies who are 'just following orders' are.

Yeah I'm sure that domestic peace officers never just follow orders and end up hurting innocents. Waco Texas was just a myth. Why aren't you hung up on that?

 

[Rufus_1611]

But right now, that is exactly what is happening to our military troops. The initial invasion was a little different, but right now, if everybody stopped shooting at our troops and trying to blow up their vehicles, then we wouldn't have a reason to fire back. We are there right now to keep the peace. If our troops are attacked, then they attack back to defend themselves and others... exactly what you said above. It's been like that for a good long while too. You act like we're an aggressor who tries to kill anything over there who looks at us crosseyed.

Please note the term that you used, "invasion". We invaded a foreign nation that did not attack us and now the people there are fighting back against the invaders, the very same thing we would do if a foreign nation invaded our land.

Standing armies are mostly a deterrent. If they didn't exist, I can guarantee you that we would be attacked and innocents would be hurt. If we were attacked anyway, I can also guarantee you that our military would be used in the defense of this nation. If something like Pearl Harbor happened again, do you really think that our military would sit on their hands and tell the Department of Homeland Security to handle it themselves? Do you really think that we weren't defending the innocent when we attacked Germany? Lots of our conflicts were based off of us trying to protect our smaller allies from an aggressor, and you're acting like this is evil.

World War II is another discussion filled with similar deceptions as the incidents that led to this one.

"I said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - Franklin D Roosevelt​

You're basing the entire existence of all of our military branches based on your speculation of one experience in one area? Are we over in South Korea for oil? Are we in Japan for oil? We've got at least 725 foreign bases all around the globe. Do you really think that we're trying to significantly occupy every place that has a base and control that area's resources? Hardly. You're just dwelling on Iraq and not considering the rest of the picture.

Don't look now but you just described an empire.

Also, you're acting like we're the only nation picking on Iraq. There are lots of other nations who were doing the exact same thing as us. Canada, Romania, Denmark, Poland, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, New Zealand, Austrailia, South Korea, Lithuania, and others. Why are you so bent on blaming us for everything and denouncing our entire military of nearly 2.7 million people?

The United States is the lead nation in the "Coalition of the Willing". It is the United States that is bearing the burden of this, "Use of Military Force" both in blood and money.

Yeah I'm sure that domestic peace officers never just follow orders and end up hurting innocents. Waco Texas was just a myth. Why aren't you hung up on that?

I don't recall stating that I was not hung up on Waco, I assure you I am quite hung up on that incident. It was a military operation on U.S. soil in direct violation of Posse Comitatus which, like Iraq, included the murder of women and children.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Whomever: //We invaded a foreign nation
that did not attack us and now the people there
are fighting back against the invaders,
the very same thing we would do if a foreign
nation invaded our land.//

Only about 8% are fighting back,
they are holding the other 92% hostage.

30,000 foriegn troups from neighboring countries
are helping the 8% terrorize the 92%.
Sorry, we need to be there, it is the least
we can do as a proper world citizen.

 

[TC]

I spent over six years in the military and I would do it all over again. There is nothing wrong with that. Seems to me that some people want the benefits of the freedoms we enjoy without making the sacrifices to keep them.

 

[HankD]

To me this is a question of personal conscience.

I was saved while in the military and yes, it troubled me somewhat that I might have to kill people.

However there is scriptural support for the military and deadly law enforcement: (these Scripture may already have been covered, I didn't read the whole thread).

Genesis 9

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

Romans 13:
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.​

After being in the Scriptures for over 40 years, I see the military and/or law enforcement as Paul does (imagine that ) as ordained of God for the protection of the innocent and a worthy and honorable profession.​

I thank Him for all those who serve in this capacity.
The officer who stops you for speeding would also stop a bullet for you.​

In the words of Michael Savage: "If it were not for our soldiers we would be speaking German or we would be lampshades".​

HankD​

 

[AF Guy N Paradise]

Even though I think I was saved before I entered the AF, I didn't really start getting serious and grow until I was in after the 10 year mark. I am now over 20 years and there are so many military ministries and churches not to mention missonairies that cater to the military that have saved hundreds or even thousands of lives.

Just in my church in Hawaii that was about 75% military there were dozens of men that I knew of that ended up going into full time ministry and ended up going all over the world spreading the Gospel. I also knew of such churches in Japan, Korea, Alaska, Guam, Germany, England, and Iceland just to name a few that had similar results.

Praise to God for churches like this that cater and preach and teach, and mature our men and women in uniform. By the way, I also have known many men from these same churches that have been deployed to Iraq and other dangerous spots in the world that have led many other men and even in some cases the actual country people even in places like Iraq to the Lord.

 

[corndogggy]

Please note the term that you used, "invasion". We invaded a foreign nation that did not attack us and now the people there are fighting back against the invaders, the very same thing we would do if a foreign nation invaded our land.

Do you think that we would kill our own people if we were invaded? Because that's exactly what's happening over there. Who do you think is killing the Iraqi police? Who is kidnapping Iraqi security guards and videotaping their execution? Who do you think is killing Iraqi political figures? Who do you think is killing other innocents for no apparent reason other than racial, religious, or whatever other secretarian reason they can come up with? Other Iraqi's, that's who, and probably guys from other nationalities that are traveling to Iraq. You're trying to blame it all on us for some reason. They are killing each other left and right, including innocents in cold blood, and you're acting like it's us that are doing it. We simply try to kill the guys who are carrying out these brutal and senseless acts. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

But yeah, pay attention to the attacks on the Iraqi's that make the news. Most of them are other Iraqi's either planting roadside bombs that are targeting the police force, or suicide bombers who are targeting the police force, or any number of things. I just have a hard time believing that this is the very same thing we would do if a foreign nation invaded our land. We would not kill our neighbors for putting on a uniform and trying to maintain peace.

Everybody over in Iraq HATED Saddam. Their army barely even fought at all when we did invade, we were almost welcomed with open arms. It's the aftermath that is the problem. If they knew what was good for them they'd calm down and let the new government do its thing and let the police force maintain the peace. So many of those guys are greedy racists (or at least hate each other's religion) though, there are so many groups in Iraq who want the power for themselves, and are willing to kill to get it, except other groups feel the same way, so they end up killing each other, and we try to hang around and police that, which is totally misinterpreted by many extremists over there, and in the meantime we're a magnet for anybody with nothing else better to do who can get their hands on an AK-47, bomb materials, or a sniper rifle. THAT is what is truly evil about the Iraq situation, not that we invaded it or are still there. The evil is that these guys are trying to kill most anybody, including themselves, and if we leave them to do this, everything will collapse, everything we worked for will be lost. It would be much worse of us to leave than to try to stick it out, many more innocent people will die if we do leave, even though it won't be us pulling the trigger.

Do some searches on Shi'ites vs. Sunni's. Are we to leave them alone to kill themselves? Are we to leave the Iraqi police alone to be slaughtered by terrorist groups? Are we to let political figures be assassinated? This is not how America would act if we were invaded. There are alot of incredibly evil people in that area. They're all not as innocent as you make them out to be. We're actually trying to protect the innocents from these people yet you act like this is the evil act.

 

[IFB Mole]

I think the question would best be served is CAN a Christian serve rather than SHOULD he serve. Example, during WWII when we were viciously attacked, so in defense of our land, I would see no problem Christians defending their family and homes, especially if you were drafted!!

Now in a "police action" - i.e. 'Nam, Korea, Iraq, I would have no problem with Christians objecting to those actions on conscience sake. But if drafted, you have no choice. No with an action like in Iraq, SHOULD Christians volunteer for action that would put them in a situation to kill another human being? I would say NO. We should not VOLUNTARILY put ourselves in such a position. I really do believe Jesus would not want Christians to volunteer for such action. Now there are many non-combative duties in the military that Christians could serve and also be in a great position to witness to military personel.

That is more personal opinion and I would never condemn a Christian for volunteering to combative military service. I would and do pray that God keeps them alive, that they maintain an upright Christian testimony and they see ltheir lost military comrades get born-again.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Do you think that we would kill our own people if we were invaded?

If "we" means Americans, most certainly I do. We are killing each other now without an invasionary force destroying our infrastructure and economy. Without revival, just wait and see the bloodbath that will occur here when these things come to pass in our land.

Because that's exactly what's happening over there. Who do you think is killing the Iraqi police? Who is kidnapping Iraqi security guards and videotaping their execution? Who do you think is killing Iraqi political figures? Who do you think is killing other innocents for no apparent reason other than racial, religious, or whatever other secretarian reason they can come up with? Other Iraqi's, that's who, and probably guys from other nationalities that are traveling to Iraq. You're trying to blame it all on us for some reason.

The some reason is that these things were not occurring prior to the US led invasion and whatever blood was being spilled was on the hands of their people rather than ours.

They are killing each other left and right, including innocents in cold blood, and you're acting like it's us that are doing it.

We are doing it. Here's the testimony of one soldier...
Jesse MacBeth

We simply try to kill the guys who are carrying out these brutal and senseless acts. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

We kill those guys and anyone else that happens to get in the way.

But yeah, pay attention to the attacks on the Iraqi's that make the news. Most of them are other Iraqi's either planting roadside bombs that are targeting the police force, or suicide bombers who are targeting the police force, or any number of things. I just have a hard time believing that this is the very same thing we would do if a foreign nation invaded our land. We would not kill our neighbors for putting on a uniform and trying to maintain peace.

I don't put myself in the "we" category but Americans will most certainly kill each other. We will have race based and religious based killing when America falls, just like Iraq.

Everybody over in Iraq HATED Saddam. Their army barely even fought at all when we did invade, we were almost welcomed with open arms.

Their army didn't fight because they didn't stand a chance. They were decimated by the previous war (where they only killed 148 Americans) and by a decade of economic sanctions and did not possess an Air Force or a Navy. Another way to say this is that Iraq was not a threat to us or anyone else in the region. Once the military removed Saddam from power, once he was captured, once he was hanged, somewhere along that line regime change was accomplished and it would seem time to exit. Remember Manuel Noriega?

It's the aftermath that is the problem. If they knew what was good for them they'd calm down and let the new government do its thing and let the police force maintain the peace. So many of those guys are greedy racists (or at least hate each other's religion) though, there are so many groups in Iraq who want the power for themselves, and are willing to kill to get it, except other groups feel the same way, so they end up killing each other, and we try to hang around and police that, which is totally misinterpreted by many extremists over there, and in the meantime we're a magnet for anybody with nothing else better to do who can get their hands on an AK-47, bomb materials, or a sniper rifle. THAT is what is truly evil about the Iraq situation, not that we invaded it or are still there. The evil is that these guys are trying to kill most anybody, including themselves, and if we leave them to do this, everything will collapse, everything we worked for will be lost. It would be much worse of us to leave than to try to stick it out, many more innocent people will die if we do leave, even though it won't be us pulling the trigger.

This is what happens when you destroy the infrastructure, economy and government of a nation. In the process of regime changing, a vacuum is created. The best solution would have been to stay out of their business, the second best solution now, is to get out of their business.

Do some searches on Shi'ites vs. Sunni's. Are we to leave them alone to kill themselves?

Yes. If that is their decision.

Are we to leave the Iraqi police alone to be slaughtered by terrorist groups?

Yes or they will fight and not be slaughtered.

Are we to let political figures be assassinated?

Yes or they will protect their political figures.

This is not how America would act if we were invaded. There are alot of incredibly evil people in that area. They're all not as innocent as you make them out to be.

The children are.

We're actually trying to protect the innocents from these people yet you act like this is the evil act.

I see little protection of innocents but I see lots of pictures of dead and maimed children.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I spent over six years in the military and I would do it all over again. There is nothing wrong with that. Seems to me that some people want the benefits of the freedoms we enjoy without making the sacrifices to keep them.

Your statement starts from a faulty premise that the military secures the freedoms of its citizenry. The military is not tasked with preserving freedoms. When NorthEastern states restricted the 2nd amendment rights of gun owners, the military was not dispatched. When PA, CA and numerous other locales restrict the 1st amendment rights of street preachers, no one dispatches the military. When 2nd and 4th amendments of the citizens of Louisana were violated after the hurricanes, the military was dispatched for it was they that were responsible for infringing on the rights of the citizens.

The threat to the freedoms of the citizenry is an internal threat not an external one. The 1947 National Security Act expanded the power of the military and reduced the rights of the citizens, the Patriot Act of 2001 expanded the power of the military and reduced the rights of the citizens, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 expanded the power of the military and reduced the rights of the citizens. The Minhs, Husseins, Bin Ladens and Ahmadinejads of the world are not responsible for restricting the rights of the citizens of the United States of America, they are but boogey men for the bureaucrats bringing America into socialistic servitude.

 

[Rufus_1611]

"14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." - Luke 3:14​

I was doing a daily study and came across the above passage in Luke. Why did John tell soldiers to "Do violence to no man"? How does this apply to Christians today? Where does one find an exception verse that makes it alright for Christians to become soldiers of the state and do violence to some men?

 

[corndogggy]

Once the military removed Saddam from power, once he was captured, once he was hanged, somewhere along that line regime change was accomplished and it would seem time to exit.

Sounds great in theory, but based on your comments, I think you know good and well what would happen if we did exit immediately, and it wouldn't be pretty. I don't see how that can be perfectly acceptable in the eyes of someone who is supposedly very concerned about innocent lives.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Sounds great in theory, but based on your comments, I think you know good and well what would happen if we did exit immediately, and it wouldn't be pretty. I don't see how that can be perfectly acceptable in the eyes of someone who is supposedly very concerned about innocent lives.

Is it pretty now?

 

[corndogggy]

Is it pretty now?

It's much prettier than it would be if we left immediately and created a free-for-all for any group to do pretty much whatever they felt like doing.