Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Backstory: I was watching the Netflix series Marco Polo. And there is a scene where Marco, who is working for the great Mongol Leader Khublai Khan and who had begun to befriend a captive Chinese, comes upon a scene the night before the next big advance. The captives, including his friend, are being slain, butchered, and boiled and rendered in giant cauldrons for their body fat, which will be used for incendiary purposes against the Song Dynasty, which is holding out against the Mongol Invasion. Polo, overwhelmed, says to his advisor, Hundred Eyes, "This is sin!" Hundred Eyes responds. "No. This is War! If you cannot face it, shield your eyes." Thankfully, this conversation is out of ear shot of the soldiers or Khublai, who probably would not have responded well to Marco's outrage (or squeamishness).
This conundrum struck me. The obvious answer (to me) is that War does not at all erase the sin in senseless killing. But then again, not all killing is senseless, nor are all wars.
Backstory: I was watching the Netflix series Marco Polo. And there is a scene where Marco, who is working for the great Mongol Leader Khublai Khan and who had begun to befriend a captive Chinese, comes upon a scene the night before the next big advance. The captives, including his friend, are being slain, butchered, and boiled and rendered in giant cauldrons for their body fat, which will be used for incendiary purposes against the Song Dynasty, which is holding out against the Mongol Invasion. Polo, overwhelmed, says to his advisor, Hundred Eyes, "This is sin!" Hundred Eyes responds. "No. This is War! If you cannot face it, shield your eyes." Thankfully, this conversation is out of ear shot of the soldiers or Khublai, who probably would not have responded well to Marco's outrage (or squeamishness).
This conundrum struck me. The obvious answer (to me) is that War does not at all erase the sin in senseless killing. But then again, not all killing is senseless, nor are all wars.
Just cause
right authority
right intention
reasonable chances of success
proportionality
last resort
Above are some of the principles of just war theory.
In my humble opinion, WWII is just war, everything else, not so much.
What are your thoughts on this logic...
If something is wrong for anyone to do individually, how does it become morally acceptable? In this case, if an individual attacks or kills someone on their own it is morally wrong (excluding self-defense), but when it is sanctioned by government it is believed to be okay.
If no human has the right to kill another outside of self-defense, how can they delegate that right to anyone else? That's my reasoning for answering yes to the OP's question.
God never tells people to sin, so the Israelites who followed God's commands to wage war were not sinning. Killing in war cannot be equated with murder. This is not to say that killing in war has no effects. David wanted badly to build the temple in Jerusalem, but God did not let him.
I struggled for quite some time after somebody in the church casually mentioned about soldiers might not go to heaven after they died. Then I found comfort from bible and Christianity, there are just war according to just war theory.
War in itself is not a sin.
I myself do not believe in sin period. Killing others in the name of God/religion is wrong there is NO gray area in that. Furthermore all the things you don't hear about during said war. Rape, etc. War isn't a sin it's just wrong period.
If something is wrong for anyone to do individually, how does it become morally acceptable? In this case, if an individual attacks or kills someone on their own it is morally wrong (excluding self-defense), but when it is sanctioned by government it is believed to be okay.
If no human has the right to kill another outside of self-defense, how can they delegate that right to anyone else? That's my reasoning for answering yes to the OP's question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
I myself do not believe in sin period. Killing others in the name of God/religion is wrong there is NO gray area in that. Furthermore all the things you don't hear about during said war. Rape, etc. War isn't a sin it's just wrong period.
I agree with you both.
These questions you asked, however, I don't think I am qualified to answer.
Winston Churchill once said, "
Courage is the most important virtue because it makes all other virtues possible."
I always thought it was a great statement because it sounded right when I was a teenager. Throughout the years, my view towards Christianity, Christians, and war, have changed quite a bit.
I remember that I read it somewhere, don't remember the source, somebody said the following, "
As a 26-year old veteran of front-line combat in two wars, I came to understand that Churchill was not accurate. Courage is not the prime virtue. It is faithfulness/loyalty/commitment that is the prime virtue. It is being faithful that makes all other virtues possible, including courage. The Corps has it right: semper fidelis. Always faithful. "
Many have told me that there are no atheists in foxholes, some also told me people become atheists in foxholes. I think both sound interesting but I cannot relate to either. What I do believe is the universal moral code. There is a strange comfort in the unknown.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 03-22-2015 at 10:13 PM..
What does it mean in the ten commandments about thou shall not kill?
It needs no further explanation except man will do it anyway.
Some will say God changed his mind but that would mean he is not Omniscience.
People tend to twist and turn everything around to meet their agenda.
I recall something in there about good will be called evil and evil will be called good in those days.
Greed is Good
Lying is Good
Corruption is good
Killing is good
not if it's for a good cause, liberating people from an evil dictator like Hitler, defending yourself from invaders like Al Qaida, ISIS, North Korea, or Iran
I agree, if by good cause you mean a people shaking off an aggressor or oppressive rule such as was the case in the Revolutionary War or the War for Southern Independence ( the south having good cause).
Now all of Americas other wars have it on the wrong end of the cause or inserting itself without cause.
A conflict where corporate America profits from the lives of our fathers, sons, brothers and sisters. War is simply immoral at best when lives are lost for wealth!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
War is a racket
