• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will God Bless the Military Beacuse of New Policy?

Will God Bless the Military Because of New Policy?

  • God will Continue to bless our Country but not our Military

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • God will continue to bless BOTH country and military

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • God blesses individuals NOT groups

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • God blesses individuals AND groups seperatly

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • God doesnt work like this at all!

    Votes: 10 27.0%
  • I dont believe in God of the Chirstian Bible

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Im an Athiest

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • Other / I dont know

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • The person that said this to you Noodle is a idiot

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • The person that said this to you Noodle is a wise person

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
You can throw as many bible verses as you want to try to justify it, but my statement still stands. People tend to cherry pick issues that they care about and try to justify them, and then throw the others by the wayside and believe them without the same kind of scrutiny.

Doc, Blackhawk and I were explaining, within the context of Christianity, why most Christians believe that killing is sometimes justified, and using scripture to explain it.
In the thread "Church and Homosexuality", myself, Blackhawk and Baron exhaustively analyzed Christian scripture about homosexuality, including delving into the original Greek and Hebrew and discussing ancient social and religious practices in debate with CT.

I don't think you can rightly accuse either of us of cherry picking and ignoring what we will in either case. Both issues have been subjected to in-depth analysis within the context of Christianity.

If you want to take it outside that context, then that's an entirely different matter, but we were speaking as Christians about Christian beliefs.
 
You can throw as many bible verses as you want to try to justify it, but my statement still stands.

Oh I have no problem with it standing, but it is not on the mark as far as scripture and homosexuality are concerned.

I have no problem with the spirit of your statement. It is the reference to homosexuality and the Bible that needed to be corrected according to what the Bible says.

People tend to cherry pick issues that they care about and try to justify them, and then throw the others by the wayside and believe them without the same kind of scrutiny.

I absolutely agree.
 
Last edited:
Doc, Blackhawk and I were explaining, within the context of Christianity, why most Christians believe that killing is sometimes justified, and using scripture to explain it.
In the thread "Church and Homosexuality", myself, Blackhawk and Baron exhaustively analyzed Christian scripture about homosexuality, including delving into the original Greek and Hebrew and discussing ancient social and religious practices in debate with CT.

I don't think you can rightly accuse either of us of cherry picking and ignoring what we will in either case. Both issues have been subjected to in-depth analysis within the context of Christianity.

If you want to take it outside that context, then that's an entirely different matter, but we were speaking as Christians about Christian beliefs.

Hey! That's Blackdog to you Mr! :lol: ;)
 
Hey! That's Blackdog to you Mr! :lol: ;)

:doh

Dude, don't know what I was thinking. :doh

Well, actually I do. I have an Indian bud whose name is Blackhawk. :mrgreen:
 
Since I was taught in the Lutheran Sunday schools back in the early sixties, I thought I'd recheck my "word of God" from my current Bible. I have the King James Study Bible, copyright 1988. The commandment is clearly printed as: "Thou shall not Kill".

So, if my Bible uses the incorrect translation of the commandment, would someone please explain to me the status of conscientious objector as it is viewed by the US Selective Service department?
 
I almost bought a book the other day about mistranslations of words and so on in various religious books and important documents - it was in the linguistics section at the bookstore. It explored the legitimate roots of words with close regard to origins and common usage in that specific time period.

It covered the Christian Bible and many other things.

I wish I bought it but it was like $30.00 - but it would have been very interesting indeed.
 
Since I was taught in the Lutheran Sunday schools back in the early sixties, I thought I'd recheck my "word of God" from my current Bible. I have the King James Study Bible, copyright 1988. The commandment is clearly printed as: "Thou shall not Kill".

So, if my Bible uses the incorrect translation of the commandment, would someone please explain to me the status of conscientious objector as it is viewed by the US Selective Service department?

I don't know about the C.O. issue, so I won't address it.

I would like to call your attention to a Reformed Theology position paper that explains some of how most denominations view the sixth commandment...

From these obligations we may discern three basic prohibitions. First, we are, in a passive sense, to do no willful harm. Second, in a positive sense, we are to promote the well-being of others and therefore, to protect from harm. Third, we are not unjustifiably or unlawfully to take a life.

It is immediately apparent that these three responsibilities may come in conflict with one another. For example, the duty to do no harm to someone who might be attacking another person with malicious intent may come in conflict with the duty to protect from hard the one being attacked. Within the Reformed tradition, historically there has been weight towards the obligation to protect from harm when that duty is in conflict with the obligation to do no harm. This has been based on the judgment that protecting from harm is ordinarily more in keeping with respect for life.
It is on that judgment, for example, that when an attacker is threatening the life of another who is innocent or does not seek to do harm, we are not permitted the luxury of non-action or of pacifism, for that is not consistent with respect for life that is in keeping with God’s ordering.

Evangelical Presbyterian Church > Position Paper on the Value of and Respect for Human Life
 
I don't know about the C.O. issue, so I won't address it.

I would like to call your attention to a Reformed Theology position paper that explains some of how most denominations view the sixth commandment...



Evangelical Presbyterian Church > Position Paper on the Value of and Respect for Human Life

You would know about CO status if you had clicked on my link:
Selective Service said:
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.

HOW TO APPLY
In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service, he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). A registrant making a claim for Conscientious Objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs.

He may provide written documentation or include personal appearances by people he knows who can attest to his claims. His written statement might explain:

how he arrived at his beliefs; and

the influence his beliefs have had on how he lives his life.

The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented.

A man may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board also denies his claim, but the vote is not unanimous, he may further appeal the decision to the National Appeal Board. See also Classifications.

WHO QUALIFIES?
Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:

conservation

caring for the very young or very old

education

health care

Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.

I read your post. Why couldn't someone stop an attacker from hurting someone else without shooting them dead?
 
Since I was taught in the Lutheran Sunday schools back in the early sixties, I thought I'd recheck my "word of God" from my current Bible. I have the King James Study Bible, copyright 1988. The commandment is clearly printed as: "Thou shall not Kill".

So, if my Bible uses the incorrect translation of the commandment, would someone please explain to me the status of conscientious objector as it is viewed by the US Selective Service department?

The problem is the KJV. It is a good Bible, but the first real attempt at translating Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic into Old English, notice the term "old English." Since that time the translations from the original languages have gotten better and corrected. In defense of the KJV it is still morally the same and the overall message is as good as the more modern translations. This does not however change the fact mistakes in translations were made.
 
You would know about CO status if you had clicked on my link:


I read your post. Why couldn't someone stop an attacker from hurting someone else without shooting them dead?

Well if you want to take that chance you be my guest. As an X- LEO we were trained to protect ourselves and use lethal force if necessary. In the military the other guys are trying to kill us, end of story.
 
The problem is the KJV. It is a good Bible, but the first real attempt at translating Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic into Old English, notice the term "old English." Since that time the translations from the original languages have gotten better and corrected. In defense of the KJV it is still morally the same and the overall message is as good as the more modern translations. This does not however change the fact mistakes in translations were made.

OK, so there are more accurate translations in other Bibles. "Thall shalt not murder" is the better translation, and it's because some mortal linguistics expert says that it is so. That's good enough for me, because I believe that soldiers in opposing armies are in fact murdering each other.

Do I then qualify for conscientious objector status with the Selective Service based upon my beliefs?
 
OK, so there are more accurate translations in other Bibles. "Thall shalt not murder" is the better translation, and it's because some mortal linguistics expert says that it is so. That's good enough for me, because I believe that soldiers in opposing armies are in fact murdering each other.

It does not fit the accepted modern definition of murder...

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1303

Do I then qualify for conscientious objector status with the Selective Service based upon my beliefs?

According to the law, no. I think you would be though based purely on my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I read your post. Why couldn't someone stop an attacker from hurting someone else without shooting them dead?

By preference, if I can stop someone without killing them, I will. However, this is often not feasible when a situation has escalated to the point that someone is trying to kill someone.

If your conscience tells you that you must never kill, then more power to you, and I hope your conviction is never tested to the extreme.

I for one believe total pacifism to be an immoral position, because it allows evil to flourish unresisted. Yes, I include refusing to kill in that definition. I've explained more than adequately why I believe the Bible, in a holistic context, allows for justifiable killing.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
 
By preference, if I can stop someone without killing them, I will. However, this is often not feasible when a situation has escalated to the point that someone is trying to kill someone.

If your conscience tells you that you must never kill, then more power to you, and I hope your conviction is never tested to the extreme.

I for one believe total pacifism to be an immoral position, because it allows evil to flourish unresisted. Yes, I include refusing to kill in that definition. I've explained more than adequately why I believe the Bible, in a holistic context, allows for justifiable killing.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

It's really not that bad. I mean it's right alongside Not respecting your parents, or Giving false witness to your neighbor, Cheating on your wife, Coveting your neighbor's wife, new car, etc.

Jesus died for our sins. All I'm suggesting is that he who kills others, should pray for forgiveness from God for the taking of another life. I think it would relieve a huge burden.

It was your link that went into depth above how much God values life. Soldiers have to follow their orders without God's blessing.
 
It does not fit the accepted modern definition of murder...

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. - Legal Dictionary | Law.com



According to the law, no. I think you would be though based purely on my opinion.

Murder: Second degree



Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Murder: Second degree - Criminal Law
 
Murder: Second degree

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Murder: Second degree - Criminal Law

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. - Legal Dictionary | Law.com

Legal excuse and authority applies to all types of murder. :roll:
 
It's really not that bad. I mean it's right alongside Not respecting your parents, or Giving false witness to your neighbor, Cheating on your wife, Coveting your neighbor's wife, new car, etc.

Jesus died for our sins. All I'm suggesting is that he who kills others, should pray for forgiveness from God for the taking of another life. I think it would relieve a huge burden.

It was your link that went into depth above how much God values life. Soldiers have to follow their orders without God's blessing.

Mickey, I was ready to drop it. Obviously we aren't going to agree, and there's no point in butting heads forever. But then I got to the bolded sentence... and I just cannot let that stand.

My father fought in WW2 against the Nazis. You know, the Nazis, those wild and crazy guys who committed the mass murder of jews, socialists, gypsies, homosexuals, and basically anybody else they didn't like, in death camps, by the millions? Who wanted to run the world likewise? You're going to try to tell me that God would have preferred that we not use violence against the Nazis? Perhaps harsh language would have sufficed? Maybe we should have simply surrendered to them? Can you suggest a non-violent solution for dealing with Hitler that doesn't involve simply letting him murder millions of innocent people?

And you think the soldiers who fought that war to stop that evil were anathema in God's sight because they were killing Nazi's?

Psalm 144
(a psalm of David)
Blessed be the Lord my Strength, who teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight....

1 Samuel 16
Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither. ...And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this [is] he. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.
1 Samuel 17
Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. ...
And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang [it], and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth....
Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

Does God ever bless soldiers or armies?

1 Chronicles 11
He was with David at Pasdammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where was a parcel of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines.
And they set themselves in the midst of [that] parcel, and delivered it, and slew the Philistines; and the LORD saved [them] by a great deliverance.
Judges 15
And] when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that [were] upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands.
And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.

Luke 22
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
 
Has God ever blessed a soldier or an amry that wasn't Jewish? :2razz:

Does the 3rd Reich run Europe? No? Then I think the Allied army got blessed... 'cuz they were up against the toughest war machine in the world. :mrgreen:
 
Does the 3rd Reich run Europe? No? Then I think the Allied army got blessed... 'cuz they were up against the toughest war machine in the world. :mrgreen:

So he blessed the Soviets, but not the French? :2razz:
 
Last edited:
So he blessed the Soviets, but not the French? :2razz:

LMAO! Got to luv the spud. In a totally non-sexual way. :mrgreen:

Even godless communists can get on the good side occasionally.
 
Last edited:
I'm an Atheist, but I would have thought if a God existed he would have stopped blessing the US military when they killed over 100,000 people in Iraq. That would seem to have a little more persuasion than letting homosexuals serve openly in the military.

Even from a purely literalistic perspective, I think Yahweh might have more of a problem with us allowing their existence at all. Homosexuals are abominations who mix fabrics and eat shellfish.

Heck, take a look at the list of nations that prohibit homosexuals from openly serving in the military. Half of them are enemies of the US anyway lol. Do they get special blessing for hating on the gays?

HomoArmy.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom