Why are christian soldiers considered brave?

As a Christian I would think you'd want to go to heaven. It seems like the sooner you can get there the better as your odds of not doing something evil that could get you damned would be lower. Muslim soldiers voluntarily die for their cause because they believe they will be rewarded in the after life with 72 virgins. While Christians believe something different I would still think that expediting your death in a way that is justifiable according to God would be a smart thing that every Christian would want to do?

If you're a Christian what % of Christian U.S. soldiers do you think go to heaven? Do you think it's most? All? Just about all? It sure seems like dying for freedom, liberty, America.... that has to be an incredibly noble cause doesn't it? If that's the case why aren't more people in a hurry to put their life on the line? I would think it would be almost braver for a Christian to not risk their life. The more time you spend on earth the higher the odds of Temptation are correct?

The old saying goes that there are no Atheists in Foxholes. The logic being that if you don't believe there is a life after death, you wouldn't be willing to risk your life for anything or anybody else. By that logic should Christians be extra willing to risk their life?

If you think your actions are getting you into heaven then you are not being brave.
Bravery is being afraid and doing it anyways.

-Most Christians believe once you are saved, you are saved. They aren't worried about screwing up tomorrow and going to hell.

-If you believe in an eternal afterlife then there is no hurry to get there. That and they may have other responsibilities here, like being parents and grandparents, they want to see through.

-Death may not be scary, but dying is for most people.

Quag said:

If you think your actions are getting you into heaven then you are not being brave.
Bravery is being afraid and doing it anyways.

Click to expand...

You can think you will be rewarded and still be afraid.

I would bet good money that nearly every suicide bomber was sweating bullets up until they triggered the explosion.

Skeptic Bob said:

You can think you will be rewarded and still be afraid.

I would bet good money that nearly every suicide bomber was sweating bullets up until they triggered the explosion.

Click to expand...

Then their bravery isnt about being Chrisitan.

*edit*
Who would you consider braver the guy who jumps on a grenade hoping to get into heaven or the guy who do so only to save his fellow soldiers?

MrWonka said:

As a Christian I would think you'd want to go to heaven. It seems like the sooner you can get there the better as your odds of not doing something evil that could get you damned would be lower. Muslim soldiers voluntarily die for their cause because they believe they will be rewarded in the after life with 72 virgins. While Christians believe something different I would still think that expediting your death in a way that is justifiable according to God would be a smart thing that every Christian would want to do?

If you're a Christian what % of Christian U.S. soldiers do you think go to heaven? Do you think it's most? All? Just about all? It sure seems like dying for freedom, liberty, America.... that has to be an incredibly noble cause doesn't it? If that's the case why aren't more people in a hurry to put their life on the line? I would think it would be almost braver for a Christian to not risk their life. The more time you spend on earth the higher the odds of Temptation are correct?

The old saying goes that there are no Atheists in Foxholes. The logic being that if you don't believe there is a life after death, you wouldn't be willing to risk your life for anything or anybody else. By that logic should Christians be extra willing to risk their life?

Click to expand...

American christians prefer sending others into war to do the dying for them, that's why ~1% serve and the rest of the intrepid interventionists head for the mall and the ball park. Onward.

Fenton Lum said:

American christians prefer sending others into war to do the dying for them, that's why ~1% serve and the rest of the intrepid interventionists head for the mall and the ball park. Onward.

Click to expand...

Citation for you claim of 1%?

Being brave is knowing you are going to hell if you don't get through the conflict alive.

Does this sound as though God approves of His followers going to war?

"Return evil for evil to no one.+ Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” Romans 12:17-19

"You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you," Matthew 5:43,44

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things." 2 Corinthians 10:3,4

Or does this sound like all Christians have the heavenly hope?

"For evil men will be done away with,
But those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth.
Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;
You will look at where they were,
And they will not be there.
But the meek will possess the earth,
And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
The righteous will possess the earth,
And they will live forever on it." Psalm 37:9-11,29

MrWonka said:

As a Christian I would think you'd want to go to heaven. It seems like the sooner you can get there the better as your odds of not doing something evil that could get you damned would be lower.

Click to expand...

What makes you think few individual Christian soldiers are not in a state of what Catholics term "mortal sin" (as opposed to what Catholics term "venial sin") at any given moment?

For Catholics and Orthodox their respective faithful generally have to go through the sacrament of confession (sometimes called the sacrament of reconciliation) and perform the required thing, for the length of time prescribed by the Priest that confessed them, before they can be absolved. Complicating things is that you have to be truly sorry for what you did and have the *intent* never to do it again. The *intent* being critical. If you are gay or drug addicted or in love with your girlfriend you are not married to (but have sex with her), a repeated fall, for the 1,000th time does not necessarily mean you can't be absolved of your sins.

Orthodox and Protestants are less "legalistic" than Catholics and don't separate sins into mortal and venial. Even Catholic clergy are not always in agreement on what constitutes a mortal sin anyways.

Protestants often have different doctrinal beliefs and reject not only the sacrament of confession but the concept of performing any sort of "work" to gain absolution. They place a heavier theological stress on grace. But to be honest, almost the entire Catholic Church has shifted to emphasize grace to the point of belief in a near empty hell.

MrWonka said:

Muslim soldiers voluntarily die for their cause because they believe they will be rewarded in the after life with 72 virgins.

Click to expand...

I think you are talking about martyrdom. "Martyrdom" as concepts are viewed as differently among Christians from Muslims as "gender identity" is viewed differently between Democrats and Republicans.

Blowing yourself up to kill a bunch of children in a Ariana Grande music concert is not martyrdom in Christianity but viewed as a mortal sin (by Catholics) that will likely get you damned to hell, not entrance into paradise with 72 virgins.

The science of biology says food and sexual intercourse are two of our (humans) strongest drives. So, it is interesting the sexual motivation theme in Islam among young men: potential for multiple wives on earth and multiple virgin women in heaven for a martyr.

While Christians believe something different I would still think that expediting your death in a way that is justifiable according to God would be a smart thing that every Christian would want to do?

If you're a Christian what % of Christian U.S. soldiers do you think go to heaven? Do you think it's most? All? Just about all? It sure seems like dying for freedom, liberty, America.... that has to be an incredibly noble cause doesn't it? If that's the case why aren't more people in a hurry to put their life on the line? I would think it would be almost braver for a Christian to not risk their life. The more time you spend on earth the higher the odds of Temptation are correct?

Click to expand...

Okay, let's clear a misunderstanding up here.

#1. One of the big theological disputes between Catholicism and Protestantism is over the "invisible Church" and "visible Church." Protestants claim only the former exists. Catholics claim both exist: that the Catholic Church is invisible and visible.

Essentially, to use Catholic terminology, the "invisible Church" is the "Church Triumphant" or that is to say the Church in heaven, along with all those in the earthly Church that are presently in a state of grace sufficient to enter heaven if they died right now.

The "invisible Church" for both Protestants and Catholics are made up of saints. Why? Because--at least according to Catholicism--only saints can enter heaven.

The exhausting investigation into a persons life to get them canonized a saint, simply means the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is saying the Catholic faithful can be assure said person is in heaven. Two miracles are required. Medical doctors or scientists have to review the case to rule out any cause naturally explainable, or that is to say explainable by the laws of chemistry and physics. In other words the outcome or must defy the known laws of science. A miracle.

The "visible Church" is the Church made up of the baptized faithful on earth but who may be significant sinners, may lack sufficient grace to enter heaven, and who may even be evil. Yet they are Christian and may be esteemed by society or hold high clerical ranks in the Catholic Church. They along with the "saints" on earth make up the "visible Church."

#2. The Catholic Church claims to have no authority to pronounce who is in hell. It only in limited and rare events uses its authority to state if an individual is in heaven (that being the canonization of saints process).

Catholics pray for their dead and have Masses said for their dead. Some fast for their dead. So, what does that tell you about how Catholics (and Orthodox) think regarding Christians that die, irrespective if they are soldiers?

The old saying goes that there are no Atheists in Foxholes. The logic being that if you don't believe there is a life after death, you wouldn't be willing to risk your life for anything or anybody else. By that logic should Christians be extra willing to risk their life?

Click to expand...

That's not what that old saw means.

It means to express my own personal experience in one of America's wars. That being as a Marine on .50 cal duty on a Navy ship, hearing "Strike" in ship command, state over intercom: "Brace for shock," with Strike counting off seconds to impact, and I first begged God to spare my life, then tried to bargain with God for my life, then finally accepted my approaching death. All within a second or so.

The old saw means even an atheist will beg God to spare his life when death approaches in a foxhole.

Fledermaus said:

Citation for you claim of 1%?

Click to expand...

It is not my claim, but rather common knowledge.

By The Numbers: Today's Military : NPR

Fenton Lum said:

It is not my claim, but rather common knowledge.

By The Numbers: Today's Military : NPR

Click to expand...

So it's not 1% of CHRISTIANS it is 1% of the TOTAL US POPULATION.

So where do you get "Christian" and what is your point?

Would this not be more appropriate in the religious thread?

Is the path to salvation willingly getting on a plane or boat to travel half way around the globe in order to kill or capture people who resist the policies of your nation's temporal lords in a war which those lords chose to start? How Christian is levelling much of Fallujah or destroying Grozny? How godly is firing WP into Raqqa or terror bombing Aleppo? Are the special forces soldiers who "canoe" Yemeni villagers and helicopter strike their wives and children acting as soldiers of Christ? As Marine General Smedley Butler wrote long ago "war is a racket" and too often operates in the service of cynical power and self-interested commerce. War has little to do with right or wrong. You may convince yourselves that a war is just but can you convince your god?

The Muslim jihadis who kill themselves in their external holy wars will likely be disappointed when they realise that Paradise is closed to them for offending Allah and breaking faith with the preponderance of the Prophet's teachings. Even if they are earnest in their sacrifice they will be disappointed as the Quran promises 72 raisins for their sacrifice and not 72 virgins. They could have got that in any grocery store. Likewise, the secular jihadis of the West's War on Terror are likely to be denied their salvation too, even if their bombing and killing does not require their own suicide.

War is never "holy" and is very seldom "just". It is the brutal exercise of will and temporal power, by the most violent means possible to break an enemy's will and then subjugate them to your masters' wills. You are not soldiers of God or heroes of justice, no matter which side you kill and die for. On all sides you are patsies and pawns who kill and die to satisfy the greed and megalomania of very human and temporal masters, who are also very adept at cloaking their rapacious appetites in the mantles of religion, ideology, salvation or justice.

If you must go to war, and sometimes that is necessary, then at least have the honesty and self-awareness to understand who you serve and why you are asked to kill and risk death or mutilation. Don't try to pop a powdered wig and lace-frilled coat on war in order to call it a noble pursuit. It is societally accepted, violent coercion and murder, on a grand scale, and should always be seen as such by sane people. There is only one thing more dangerous then militarism and that is militarism driven by temporal illusion and spiritual self-delusion. If you're going to kill in war then take responsibility for it and don't hang your culpability on gods or ideals.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.

Great points, Evilroddy...and to add to your post...there are Christians all over the world so if you go to war against another country, who's to say you won't be in combat with another Christian from that country? In essence, according to the Bible you will be killing one of your own spiritual brothers...or they will kill you? Either way, is that what the Bible teaches? Hardly...Christians going to war is against scriptural teachings...

The whole point of Jesus being the Lamb of God was to demonstrate that we are already saved. No pre-approval process is necessary.

Live your life out of alignment with God and you will suffer. Live it according to what is good and wonderful about God and you will live a life of wellness. It's not about God deciding which is right or wrong but the human nature of goodness He built into us as guide.

We don't need to delve too much into the holy wars of the Bible. Just look at what Jesus said. Listen to what your own spirit is telling you.

Deep down, humans know what's right and what's wrong but they get confused by the human world of sin. We have free will so that the achievement of finding the presence of God in our own lives - through our daily toils, trials and expiations - becomes all the more meaningful.

The crusades and the holy wars were brought to us by Christiandom and Roman Catholicism, not true Christianity. Jesus would never have supported such wars... and as the Son of God we can infer through him what the true nature of God is like: loving, healing, forgiving, giving, compassionate.

The only time God seems to show true wrath is when people twist his nature to suit their agendas, and in those cases the wrath is brought on by their own corrupt nature that is in dissonance to the loving, compassionate true nature of humanity.

MrWonka said:

If that's the case why aren't more people in a hurry to put their life on the line?

Click to expand...

Not a christian but even I can tell you the answer though listening: grace.

God is not seen as a judge looking down on people placing each act into two categories: righteous and sinful. This is said to be how the Law was taken by people and warped (according to the stories in the bible) to lose the spirit of Law to the letter. God prescribed a path through the Law for the body to be purified not as an act of salvation; as such, any who are saved will “wrestle with God” that they might find their way back to Him but their souls shall be with Him always.

In est, Grace saves. Right actions redeem the vessel.

In bible talk: “Live your life righteously but God alone knows who’s name is written in the book of life.”

Nobility, courage and patriotism are characteristics encouraged to purify the vessel so that the Spirit of God may shine through(the goal of a christian life to be a hand of god). This leads one to look fondly on the life of a solider as long as they live in a country they believe is good, that being an army which more or less stands for principles which defend their families right to live Christian values and practice their faith.

I would think it would be almost braver for a Christian to not risk their life. The more time you spend on earth the higher the odds of Temptation are correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, but christians do not believe they are ready for paradise as you suggest but must be made pure by the Spirit. Although this likely sounds like more jibber jabber it basically refutes this idea of a short life is a good life. Life is viewed as a holy gift and fate the will of God. So they are encouraged then to live it to their best of their abilities for as long as possible lest they reject a gift of God: life. rejecting a gift worse than sin since salvation(heaven) is another example of a gift.

Evilroddy said:

You may convince yourselves that a war is just but can you convince your god?

Click to expand...

“Lord give my the strength to protect my family” - yes easy

“Lord thy will be done” - Nope also easy, :2razz:

If you must go to war, and sometimes that is necessary, at least have the honesty and self-awareness to understand who you serve and why you are asked to kill and risk death or mutilation.

Click to expand...

So ideally we want an army of amateur peaceniks protecting our families who only act when provoked? Pff…

"Who are you? Farmers, sculptures, butchers.. HA, and who are we? We are SOLDIERS OF SPARTA!!!"

Read more Art of War.

You see monsters and curse them. I see monsters and tame them. Peace in chaos is achieved when no one dares awake the true face of evil; in other words, that though cursing the horror of war is all great and good it ignores the entire basis of much of the peace we have today: such as "mutually-assured destruction" and "unmatched force". When violence becomes an option there are those who will use it, and they who speak in terms of violence shall not bend to words unless their raising to violence will awaken a dragon so fierce even their whispers will fade into silence.

Conaeolos:

Sun Tzu Wu was not a very Christian soldier, now was he? I have read The Art of War and Sun Tzu is a dangerous guide to military thinking unless you want to revive the Warring States period of Chinese history on a global scale. That and executing concubines to prove a point is the sign of a very dangerous sociopath.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

:inandout:

Evilroddy said:

Conaeolos: Sun Tzu Wu was not a very Christian soldier, now was he?

Click to expand...

He's not? :doh lol

I have read The Art of War and Sun Tzu is a dangerous guide to military thinking unless you want to revive the Warring States period of Chinese history on a global scale. That and executing concubines to prove a point is the sign of a very dangerous sociopath.

Click to expand...

So you don't think peace is maintained by beating an enemy psychologically before even one battle is fought?
I'd be curious, for you to explain your version of a just war cause because you said in your eariler post you beleived there were cases.
Do you think we should have an army?

Cheers,

Conaeolos said:

So you don't think peace is maintained by beating an enemy psychologically before even one battle is fought?
I'd be curious, for you to explain your version of a just war cause because you said in your eariler post you beleived there were cases.
Do you think we should have an army?

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Conaeolos:

I agree with you that a powerful military can be an effective psychological barrier to any potential enemy's willingness to wage war. Thus I conclude that the US needs a powerful armed forces. However there are profound problems with how the US military has been funded, supplied and used over the last quarter century or more, which has led to destabilising peace efforts and directly causing wars. This is not the correct thread to examine the role of militarism which has morphed the US Armed Forces from an instrument of national defence and a global stabiliser into a tool for disruption and the promotion of conflict in support of a predatory status quo.

What is a "Just War"? That's a tough one. Because each society or state that is party to a war or conflict has different interpretations of what "Just" is and means. From a Western perspective a just war might mean defending one's own state's territory or proactively responding to predatory military adventurism like WWII or the Korean conflict. It might mean military intervention in the service of humanitarian goals like stopping an unfolding genocide or an ongoing violent ethnic cleansing, so long as those goals are the real reasons for initiating military action (which is seldom the case). Again, it seems inappropriate to hijack this thread to give you a more complete answer, so I'll leave it at that.

If you want to discuss it further then please start a new thread and I will be happy to expound ad nauseum about militarism, the abuse of war in the modern post Cold War period and the concept of a "Just War". I hope these two short paragraphs answer your concerns.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

As Alan Watts noted in a 70s article in Playboy, wars have been waged in the name of religion ever since there was religion. Sunni v. Shia, Catholic v. Protestant, Christian v. Muslim.

The question then becomes, does religion cause more good on this planet, or more harm and wickedness?

Northern Light said:

The crusades and the holy wars were brought to us by Christiandom and Roman Catholicism, not true Christianity. Jesus would never have supported such wars... and as the Son of God we can infer through him what the true nature of God is like: loving, healing, forgiving, giving, compassionate.

Click to expand...

You ever hear of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

#1. Christianity is not a pacifist religion.

#2. I support the so-called Crusades to the same extent I support the Allie powers that fought in WWII.

#3. It is funny someone that regards themselves as a Christian--presumably from the West--wants to condemn the Crusades. Without the Crusader battles of Lepanto and Vienna you'd likely be bowing in Mosque and speaking Turkish.

The "Crusades" is a propaganda label. Notice the Muslim expansion long before the "Crusades" is not is never called "The Crusades." The 9-11 attacks on New York City was a tiny event relative to the events leading centuries before the Pope called fighting European factions to unite under the Cross for war against the Muslims. The whole of New York City would have had to fall to Muslim Al Qaida invading forces to be the equivalent of the fall of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria. Over 30,000 Muslim horsemen rode into Tours, France before being stopped by the Franks of Charles Martel. Muslim forces had raided Rome and Vatican City itself looting the Vatican long before any Pope ever called for a War for the Cross. None of the Christian people that fought in what we now term "The Crusades" called themselves Crusaders. No more than the Amerindians prior to Columbus called themselves "Indians" (Columbus thought he landed in Hindu India) or claimed to live in "America" (the name of an Italian Catholic).

Let me give you a word of advice. Just because someone repeats something 50 or 1 trillion times does not make it magically true.