Strangely enough there's a lot of people who called themselves christians and don't act on it. (hence why i don't go to church) You can't steal, lie, abuse your power during the week and redeem yourself on sundays.

so I don't think soldiers have much of a problems with religion. Except maybe the true christians, but then i don't think they would have chosen to be in the army

At one point pretty much anyone fighting for a European country was a Christian. Some of the most brutal soldiers were warrior knights, and I think we all knew what happened in the Holy Land.

There is a distinction of language now - the term “Christian” has come to mean someone who does good, good deeds done because “it is the Christian thing to do”. In the past the term was a badge, a label to pin to the mast. It was also something you had to do because if you didn’t the Latin speaking fear mongers would have bad things done to you.

Today, I feel that we should separate the military from religion in much the same way that government is supposed to be separated from it. However, we see military religious services taking place in Christian places of worship, reinforcing the link with the Christian faith. However, as has been rightly noted here, the military is a multi-faith group - and I would expect to see Muslim, Jewish, and even Humanist services on an equal footing with Christian services. This will not happen because at the very top of the military pile is the monarchy, which is also head of the Church of England. As long as this link remains, so the inexorable link with one of many flavours of Christianity will remain. There is little hope that there would be equality for Catholics in the whole Military/Monarchistic jumble, let alone anything beyond that limited mind set.

I cringe when I see our fighting forces told even today that God is on their side. We know only too well that Allah is no doubt being invoked by the Immans on the other side. Allah, God - same character - different name. We should not be invoking any deity in any conflict. In doing so, it gives a false justification to the action, implying a greater power is in control.

I quite agree with you. However, with the Commander in Chief being the Queen, who also happens to be the head of the Church of England, if you believe in all that stuff, you would have God on your side.

Every western nation always has God on their side, the motto on the belts of the Whermacht in WWII was "Gott Mit Uns" (God with us), strangely he wasn't there either.
I expect this thread will sink into the usual religious debate we used to get in the DUMP, personally I'm a Dawkinsist but so long as you don't try to convert me then believe in anything you want to

Isn't marketing wonderful .

There's an old military maxim that tells you to aim to destroy the other guy's military equipment and avoid killing.

The traditional way round this is to claim that a uniform is military equipment, and if someone happens to be wearing that equipment at the time, then more fool them

It depends on what your definition of "Christian" is.

If "christian" means lovely and nice, would never hurt a fly, likes wearing beige, would never lose their temper, has never been in a fight, thinks all conflict is wrong and is meek and mild and chinless then no, a soldier cannot be "christian".

However that's not what "christian" means. The word "Christian" is a derogatory word that means "little Christ"; this means that Christians, by definition, are supposed to act like Jesus. So what did Jesus do?

• Ruined every funeral he ever went to including his own
• Miracled up about 800 litres of of the best wine when they ran out at a wedding feast
• Made a whip and cleared a temple court at least 20 acres in area
• Publicly denounced the corrupt civil and religious authorities as hypocrites and charlatans
• Swore at his best friend
• Lost his temper many times
• Shouted
• Got frustrated
• Told his Jewish disciples to go out and eat anything that they were given
• Told people to pay their taxes properly
• Did things that weren't "the done thing" at the time e.g. touched dead bodies, worked on the Sabbath, stood up for women's rights, denounced child abuse, had dinner with lepers, collaborators and prostitutes
• Stood up for justice, truth and, above all, grace
• Committed federal crimes

So is it possible for a "little Christ" to be abrasive, loud, rude, iron-hard and to be prepared to fight for what he/she believes? It is not only possible - being a "little Christ" is impossible without it. As Dorothy Sayers wrote:


So then, if one accepts that, the issue of "Christian" soldiers comes down to "is killing wrong?" The answer - it depends. The sixth commandment, popularly rendered as "Do not kill", actually reads as "Do not commit murder". Let us define murder as "killing with malice aforethought". If one were to kill without any malice or hatred towards the deceased then it could not be defined as murder.

So then one has to ask oneself "is all war without malice?" I should hope so but in reality that's not how it works. However it is, in my opinion, perfectly possible for a soldier to serve in a war without malicious motive.

Is it possible for a "little Christ" to be a soldier? I think so, yes. However there is one proviso. If the christian soldier is certain that, for instance, his government's motives are such that his killing would be murder, he should be prepared to be imprisoned for refusing to fight and to be vilified for the rest of his life. After all, he was trained at great expense after promising to serve as a soldier for his government; by refusing to fight he is breaking a legally enforceable contract. He may be standing for truth and justice by doing so but he should still go to jail. If he is not prepared to either do as he is ordered or to go to prison then he should not sign up in the first place. Being a trained killer is no status symbol.

That's one of the most thought out and insightful posts I've EVER read here. Thank you.

No problem.

That should go for any sane human. It is inhuman to kill, maim, rape or torture while knowing it is wrong. Of course, very many soldiers struggle with their sanity and terrible crimes are committed.

"I was only following orders" is no defence against the judgement of God, Karma, your family and friends, strangers, war crimes commissions or your own conscience.

ditto + whatever is allowed

I have to read this again .

And yet…

For me it raises more questions than it answers.

Is it true that the Bible has been incorrectly translated? Has this not been noticed? Why has it not been corrected?

It seems to me that the truth is far more simple. "Christians" believe not what the Bible says with all of it's built in contradictions. Rather they believe what it is their church leaders tell them it says. In turn the church leaders "interpret" the Bible to say whatever is politically expedient at the time.

Thus the Bible has been used to justify pretty much every atrocity known to man. Likewise it is used to take the credit for every social advance too. If ever what the Bible says does not fit what it expedient there is always an apologist who will say "I know that the Bible says that, but what it means is…"

Simples.

Yes it is true. It has been noticed. It is being corrected. Patience will be needed though - it'll take a while.


The problems came because Christianity was used and bent for political, religious, monetary and social motives almost from minute one.

However, the mealy-mouthed bending of scripture to suit circumstance is heavily lambasted in the scripture itself. Sadly it seems, however, that in the rush to break free from the political and economic shackles of a then heavily corrupt Vatican, much scriptural integrity and doctrinal fidelity was sacrificed for spurious motive and short-sighted expediency.

Also remember that The Bible, being a collection of books and stories, is not the book it was a few hundred years ago. It’s contents change. At one point, Revelations was not included. Then it was. Then it wasn’t . Then it was again. At one point, the inclusion of the Old testament was questioned and may not have been included. If that happened, than we may not have all this gay-bvashing from certain Christian orders.

A) I can't [LIFTED] stand that simples [LIFTED]!!
B) No, it's not simple.

Questions are more important than answers in many ways. They force us to think in new ways and discuss things, and that's far better to an answer which allows you to stop thinking and move on. "Christians" infers contempt. Most people believe what their government says, the media, their friends. Very, very few people question things enough. This is not limited to Christians. As I understand it (and I'm open to correction from those endowed with "superior" knowledge) the Bible is a guide. The whole point is that it's open to interpretation. Just as with any other holy book. The only supposedly hard and fast rules are the commandments. Most of which actually form the basis for thousands of years of common law.

People need to look beyond religion. Yes, it's caused problems. It's also responsible for many good things. We, as people, are the problem. There are so many ills in society and many of them lead people toward religion for better or worse. In my humble opinion, all of this argument (don't get me started on Dawkins and his ilk) merely stirs hatred that is barely beneath the surface. Stand for justice, truth, peace and enlightenment. But don't hate a single group of people. Christians, Muslims, politicians, big business, criminals, it doesn't matter. Jesus (if you read the Bible) would try to change people with love - not argument.