You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Here in Canada we just had the conclusion of a court martial of an officer in the Canadian army who apparently shot and killed a wounded unarmed Afghanee fighter.
Court martialed on the charge ( among others )of second degree murder he was convicted of "disgraceful conduct" and punished by being reduced in rank and discharged from the army.
The Afghanee was apparently severely wounded( by an American gunship) and in great agony.
My question is, " Are there times/occasions when mercy killing is the lesser of two evils and within the parameters of Christian conduct.?
Offline
Ole Abe, there are times even if that enemy soldier is begging for a bullet to kill him, you better turn to a sedative or there would be another soldier court marshalled. Those are decision to leave to God, yours is to do no harm if he is unarmed.
Last edited by bob_2 (10-20-10 12:40 am)
Offline
Bob
Why do we say that the fate of a wounded suffering soldier is best left to God but we can kill maim or otherwise destroy a healthy one.
Or what about the bystander women and children who are killed in a rocket attack on a known terrorist.
Seems to me that God is a convenient excuse to avoid taking a responsibility.Would Jesus who prayed for his enemies use gunships, napalm ,bullets to solve differences.
Offline
Whoa!!! Old Abe, I answered your question about killing a suffering enemy to put him out of his misery. Abe, unfortunately the good ole USA has laws. When you get into Abortion the same is true, our laws are clear about what is allow or not. For you to think putting a man out of his misery is not your call. You want to make it your call you are going to run into the Law of the US of A.
Offline
The famous turn of phrase "kill them all and let God sort them out" actually originated during the Dark Ages, and was used by the Pope to determine that they should kill all people in cities where Waldensians were found. "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" to quote the ironically named Pope Innocent III.
Hitler had nothing on good old Innocent.
I think what's legal and what's moral are two separate questions. Certainly a great deal is allowed in the US and Canada that God would not be happy with. I think that's as it should be.
Offline
Old Abe asked:
Would Jesus who prayed for his enemies use gunships, napalm ,bullets to solve differences?
My question follows from his:
Would Jesus serve His community as a policeman; following Romans 13 as a "minister of God?"
Offline
It is a sad commentary that indeed what is moral and what is legal are not one and the same.The law allows those with wealth to escape the penalities which would otherwise be imposed were it not for the ability to buy one way out.
But for a Christian the question must be "Does the end justify the means?" That is not a question that arrises in the minds of those who strap on scuicide belts and kill indiscrininately but are we not to subscribe to a higher moral code.
The US and possibly our Canadian military have no compunction at targeting a suspected "insurgent" and killing innocent women children bystanders in the process.So how are we any different than those we oppose.
What is even more appalling is the enormous silence of the Christian Church in such matters
Offline
As to moral and legal not being the same. Should the government ban and punish adultery or fornication? Envy? Looking at someone with lust in their heart? Should it mandate worship of God and ban all other religions?
Offline
Since most here want to maintain the Old Covenant, rhwy ought to stay Jewish with all their rules and habit. TIC
Otherwise it is too hard to sort out Old Covenant from New, right Old Abe and Yitzak? After all we worship an unchangeable God, right????
Offline
Bob
Personally I am not into this OC NC thingy.Just a buch of blather as far as I am concerned.
Jesus walked the walk as well as talking the talk.If I can turn the other cheek, not return evil for evil and die as bravely as He did then I will be satisfied.
And speak up for those who cannot defend themselves like the women and children who are deemed expendable by both the Taliban and NATO military.
Offline
Bob, I have no idea why your tone is directed at me. I have no interest in the old covenant and am on your side in many of the disputes. I agree with Old Abe- this old-new covenant dispute is your issue with others here, it has no bearing whatsoever on my life.
But, if it matters, I chose examples that were either mentioned by Christ as immoral, or mentioned by Paul as such. So, unless either Paul or Christ represent Old Covenant, I fail to see why you got snide with me, or for that matter, Old Abe.
You gave very good practical advice about how to avoid a court martial. But that advice has no bearing, one way or the other, on Old Abe's question about morality.
Sorry if that bothers you.
Offline
Furthermore, Old Abe focused on turning the other cheek, and asked what Christ would do. As with my questions, if you believe that turning the other cheek, and WWJD represents Old Covenant theology, then we're probably better off agreeing to disagree.
Offline
Christ is no pacificist. His mission was to die at the hands of man. I don believe are's is.
Last edited by bob_2 (10-21-10 11:39 pm)
Offline
Bob
Jesus mission was not to die at the hands of men.His mission was to reveal God the Father in a way all could understand and to demonstrate that one could live a loving victorious life in the most adverse conditions.
Had those that heard Him accepted His message He would not have died on a cross at all.Possibly offered as Issac almost was but even that would be unlikely.
Jesus was both our example and substitute by choice.The Bible makes it plain that Michael and the legions of angels he commands would have delivered Jesus from the cross had He so chosen.
Jesus was a pacifist who prayed for His enemies and loved those that hated him.
In our case that would be the Taliban and Alquieda.Hard as it is to reconcile, being Christian, means loving not only the unloved but also the unlovable.
Offline
bob_2, that's well and good, but it's pretty clear that He commanded His disciplines to turn the other cheek.
Now, I understand the problems with that- society depends on a set of people who use violence (appropriately): police, prison guards, and soldiers, to name a few. So, a Christian living in society will find themselves depending on other people who are willing to use violence even if the Christian isn't. And one can certainly build a case for violence in specific cases.
But none of that is to claim that Jesus's commands aren't binding on us. And, I would think, A Christian would at least have to grapple with the issue; I know of many Christian soldiers and policemen who have and do, but theirs is not a simple path. Not simply say, with no biblical support, "Jesus was no pacifist, and His commands don't apply to us."
What does Christ (or, for that matter, the New Testament more generally) say about when it is appropriate for Christians to use violence?
Offline
Yitzak
One may use a certain degree of violence to restrain an offender or to prevent harm to the innocent. But there are limits that one must have. Here in Canada we had four mounties tasser an unarmed confused individual to death.
These mounties were quite capable of handling this individual without resorting to the use of potentially lethal force. In other words they were bullies not policemen.
The Christian must speak out in such cases or become partakers in the crime.
My understanding is that the remote drone missle launchers used in Pakistan are controlled from Texas.The person who operates these will kill a suspected terrorist and innocent bystanders in one push of a switch.Presumably they then go home to loved ones at the end of their shift and feel nothing about the evil done. Akin to the guards at Dachau or Auswhitch who thought nothing of what they did.
Jesus calls us to something better.
Offline
As you say, the issue is not always black and white when the eivl hide behind the innocent. Be thankful God is the judge, not you or I.
If your kids or wife were being held for ransome, you wouldn't feel so bad about pinpoint accurate bullet through the bad quys skulls but probably would be singing their praise. Individuals like you, do not take time to imagine those sort of situations so you go activist about no guns. Let the activity come to your street and house and then you'll wonder why you tax dollar isn't protecting you and yours.
Offline
If our military today was actually "defending" our country, what are they doing invading countries on the other side of the world that never invaded the U.S.
IOW, defending one's home does not including taking a gun to defend someone's home around the world, does it?
Since WWII, our nation has not been invaded, yet the U.S. has gone to war in Korea, Vietnam,
Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, for what? When did the U.S. become the police agent for the entire world? It seems that every time there is some military action in other parts of the world, the U.S. either gets involved or sends the military in to get in on the action, and our enemies one year turn out to be our allies the next year. We arm most of the nations around the world and that armament is used to kill U.S. soldiers.
Offline
Elaine, some of the nations we helped push the enemy off their soil, still don't appreciate it. Take the French, we had to fly around them and Spain to make a needed point by Reagan to Libya. If we stood back and never helped other countries, we might have the threats a lot closer. The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is where the perps of the Towers 9/11 came from. Let's see how the likes of Obama get out of it without an embarassment to the military.
Offline
bob_2, you really seem to be insistent on oversimplifying and caricaturing what Old Abe said. I didn't see him calling for a banning of guns. Clearly you feel strongly about supporting most military actions, and that's a reasonable stance, but you don't seem to be "hearing" what others are actually saying, kind of like how conservative Adventists get when EGW is criticized.
Even assuming the concept of just war is a valid one, it's not completely crazy to have concerns about a situation that alienates one from the killing one does (whether justifiable/necessary or not). It's similar to how one can have concerns about the fact that most people here who eat meat have never seen a farm animal and know nothing about how said meat is produced, and under what conditions for the animals. One doesn't have to be a vegetarian (I certainly am as big a carnivore as anyone) to have concerns about the degree to which we are alienated from, and don't have to think about, the possible mistreatment of animals, to say nothing of food safety.
Similarly, here, one doesn't have to be a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist to have concerns about a system wherein killing can be done by remote control by a few people with the tacit approval of mostly everyone else, with no one having to face to real people affected by this.
Offline
This thread began with reference to a Canadian army captain convicted of "disgraceful conduct" in the killing of a wounded unarmed Afghan "insurgent".
My position is this.Why should the killing of a suffering individual be deemed disgracful conduct when colatteral killing of women and children is not.
It seems to me that we have a serious moral disconnect when we concern ourselves over the one and ignore the other.
As far as a "just" war is concerned that is largely in the eye of the beholder. Certainly Jesus did not advocate the use of force to either protect himself nor to rid Palestine of the brutal oppression of Rome.
His reprimand to Peter and his healing of the man Peter had injured speaks volumes of what the Christian's approach must be.
The priests ,shamans and witch doctors who bless national armies and celebrate "victory"are far from the ideals that Jesus proposed.
Time reduces both the tyrant and the terrorised to dust.What then is gained from the violence
Offline
Pages: 1