Clear Thinking About Military Service

[LifeHiscost]

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society". - Mark Twain.

Not when their streaking across a football field with nary a stitch on.

Five minutes of worldwide fame/shame depending on the culture you're from.

[LifeHiscost]

The worst part about it is the elevation of the military to the high respect levels in our society. I.e. these people should deserve higher respect because they protect our country. Never mind all of other who serve our the country in other capacity and make their military service possible, but that's the attitude... especially when it comes to the higher ranks.

Because we do live in the devil's domain, the answer to the question of waging war as opposed to being overrun by an enemy force can appear to be somewhat ambiguous. Those people who, in all good conscience, wage war on the battle field with the intent of protecting their family and country, of which we who stay at home and enjoy the insulation of peace as a buffer between the horror of war, it would seem should be commended for their personal sacrifice no matter how misguided we may think they are.

"Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends." John 15:13 NKJV

Blessings!

[fccool]

Lifehost, lay down one's life for his friends has nothing to do with dying in war. In fact wars are not won by dying, but by killing others.

The context of that verse you know very well. Wars are fought to maintain political boundaries and achieve political agendas. These are not fought to gain "freedom and peace". Peace is defined by lack of violence. Fighting for peace is like killing for life... oxymoron.

[oldsailor29]

Wars are fought to maintain political boundaries and achieve political agendas. These are not fought to gain "freedom and peace". Peace is defined by lack of violence. Fighting for peace is like killing for life... oxymoron.

Yes well, in order to have peace and stop oppression the oppressor must, in most cases, be killed. Oppressors are like germs of fatal diseases. They kill many people. In order to have health and safety for the many, the germ must die. it is more of an irony than an oxymoron.

And consider that God always has His hand in wars. He decides who wins and who loses. He sets up kingdoms and He sets them down. All is, according to His plan. Soldiers on either side are participating in God's plan, much more so than any of us who are sitting in the comfort of home, typing out messages for a message board.

[phkrause]

Good post fccool. I've always wondered about why there were so many wars back in the OT. I know God had told them that they would have this land, they just needed to go and posess (sp) it. But one of the things that I remember about all this, is that the Israelites complained about going in there because they were too few, but God said that he would fight for them. But of course they always thought that he meant that they would do the fighting. But if we look at some of the fights that God did for them you can see exactly what he was talking about, because they never had to lift a hand. God would take care of the problem. But unfortunately the countries in the world today including the USA are not God fearing countries, so there will be like Jesus said, "Wars and rumors of war." Its sad that so many advocate kill first than ask questions later. I do think that if all would make war as a last resort, we would be in better shape all around.

pk

[LifeHiscost]

In fact wars are not won by dying, but by killing others.

I suppose you would consider the GI who deliberately threw himself upon an exploding grenade to save his comrades who were in close proximity, to be without redeeming value.

Fighting for peace is like killing for life... oxymoron.

And I suppose Jesus would be part of that oxymoron, in some individuals eyes.

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.John 10:11 NIV

"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." John 10:15 KJV

As well the Sovereign God, our Father in heaven.

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven."Revelation 12:7,8

No doubt, fallen man, with all his efforts to prove himself capable to provide political solutions for solving the world's problems, God will and has in the end provided the best and only way to eternal peace.

"You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." John 11:50 NIV

If it could have been any other way, God would have provided another way.

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."Matthew 20:28 KJV

"“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”"John 10:17,18 NKJV

Regards!

[fccool]

Reply to both oldsailor and LIfehost:

Quote:

Yes well, in order to have peace and stop oppression the oppressor must, in most cases, be killed. Oppressors are like germs of fatal diseases. They kill many people. In order to have health and safety for the many, the germ must die. it is more of an irony than an oxymoron.

Not quite true.

http://libcom.org/history/gandhi-national-liberation-of-india

There are plenty of historical examples that will provide plenty of alternatives to warfare. My point still stands. On top of that, your analogy falls apart when you start comparing human to germs . You justify killing solely based from aggression standpoint, without even realizing that by killing you become aggressor.

Sure, God commanded Israelites to engage in warfare, but the same God said "don't resist the evil... turn the other cheek", likewise He said "Vengeance is mine".

So to sum up... God spoke directly to Israelites and told them when to wage war, and when to stand still. Israel was a theocracy. Today, I hardly think this is the case.

God alone has the right to take human life, although he may have used Israel as instrument of His judgment in the past. THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR THE FUTURE AND THE PRESENT.

Sure, you can make a case for defending national borders against aggressor, yet Ironically,throughout history the aggressors turned out to be the "Christian" nations who act on behalf of God to serve up justice around the world. So, I would not mix religion and war. Let God sort it out in the end. It's not our job to decide who's to live and who's to die.

[LifeHiscost]

It's not our job to decide who's to live and who's to die.

When one's mind is made up it is futile to add overlooked evidence. Nevertheless, God inspires His people to carry out justice today as He did in the past. The fact that man abuses that privilege and makes it unclear where God's will has been usurped by political scheming as a result of man's freewill and arrogance, does not abrogate justices' certain end, though it is admitted much of that justice is taken through the death of Jesus on the cross, for those who accept confession and repentance . For those who do not accept those gifts, justice will often prevail by God's guidance through the hand of man.

"I am the Lord, I change not."

Malachi 3:6 KJV

"...law is not made for the righteous man but for those who are lawless and rebellious...according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted..." 1 Timothy 1:9,11 NASB

"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same;

for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. Romans 13:3,4

NASB

"Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves." Romans 13:2 NASB

Regards!

[Gregory Matthews]

Desmond Doss enlisted, he was not drafted but they tried to get him to change his conscientious objector status and even threatened to discharge him over it.

Shane, you are half-right and half-wrong. Doss was offered a deferment due to his occupation building ships. He refused the deferment. The result was that he wsa drafted.

I had a similar experience. I refused my theological deferment in writing. Following that I voluntered for the draft, which was an option and was promptly drafted. I did not enlist and neither did Doss.

[Gregory Matthews]

In order to receive the metal of honor a person's comrades have request it for them. It is not a recommendation that comes down from the upper brass. It is the men that actually serve side by side with the person that have to request it. That says a lot about Desmond Doss. The very same people that made fun of him were the ones that later recommended that he receive the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a soldier.

Half-right.

The recommendation can come from the so-called "upper-brass" and has at times. It can also come from lower ranking witnesses.

Typically it wil originate with the Company Commander, or BN, or BG. NOTE: I am using Army terms.

[Gregory Matthews]

Regrettably, Doss also compromised several times in the military (it's in the book). Would have been better not to have been in there, in my judgement.g

Why not tell us the details. There are people who would disagree with you. The SDA Church allows a spectrum of belief and practice. It is possible that Doss compromised on something that you would consider compromise and would violate your beliefs. But, it is also possible that Doss did not compromise either his beliefs or the central beleifs of the SDA Chruch.

By the way, your statement that "it is in the book" does not tell us much. I believe that at least three (3) books have been written about Doss. To which one do you refer?

[Gregory Matthews]

By the way, there are two (2) statemnts often made about Doss that are subject to challenge:

1) Doss was the first CO to recieve the Medal of Honor.

Perhaps?

2) Doss was the only CO to recieve the Medal of Honor.

False. A CO Medic in Viet Nam recieved the Medal of Honor. This one is clear. There are others that are not so clear.

NOTE: Sgt. York was not a CO.

Regardless of the above, in my opinon God used Doss in a great way to accomp[lilsh His will. We should honor Doss for his witness.

[nuff sed]

Those who are drafted have opportunity to have their religious convictions reviewed and respected. I do not believe that those who enlist have any such protection. "You joined of your own free will, now do what you are told...no exceptions". If you want to bring up the tired old argument of wanting to "serve your country" there are a kazillion other way to do it other than volunteering to kill people who do not believe as you do.

[Gregory Matthews]

Those who are drafted have opportunity to have their religious convictions reviewed and respected. I do not believe that those who enlist have any such protection. "You joined of your own free will, now do what you are told...no exceptions". If you want to bring up the tired old argument of wanting to "serve your country" there are a kazillion other way to do it other than volunteering to kill people who do not believe as you do.

In the current climate in the United States there is no such thing as a functional draft. Every person servin in the U.S. military has enlisted.

While the draft was functional those drafted had the opportunity to have their convictions against bearing arms respected. That was guaranteed by law. On a sometime basis, people were allowed to enlist in very limited circumstances with the right not to use weapons. These were the rare exception. I do not think that such an exceptions functionally exists today, but perhaps I am wrong?

NOTE: As an exception to the above, chaplains have always been allowed to be conscientious objectors who do not carry weapons. I spent 20 years in the U.S. Army as a registered conscientious objector. This esception remains in effect today.

The rationale for chaplains being allowed to be conscientious objectors is that the Geneva Conventions prohibit chaplains from using weapons. I know you may tell me stories of chaplains you have heard of who did. Those who did so placed there personal comfort in jeopardy.

NOTE: People who enlist in the U.S. Military have the right to request conscientious objector status. That right is granted them under the law.

Sabbath issues: No one has the right to keep the Sabbath in the manner of the traditional SDA, not people who were drafted and not people who enlist. All are on the same legal standing. However, in the past, people drafted were often granted Sabbath previliges more easily than were people who enlisted.

With a few exceptions, SDAs who hold to a traditional picture of Sabbath keeping will have problems in the military. Chaplains and medical personal will have an easier time of it. Others will typically have problems over years of service. Those who enlist in the Reserve components will have a worse time than those who serve in the Regular components.

The basic underlying question is: What is your (the enlistee) personal convictions in regard to Sabbath keeping and armed conflict? If they are traditional SDA, you will typically chose not to enlist if you intend to adhere to those convictions.

[Gregory Matthews]

Fccool said:

Quote:

Wars are fought to maintain political boundaries and achieve political agendas. These are not fought to gain "freedom and peace". Peace is defined by lack of violence. Fighting for peace is like killing for life... oxymoron.

The rationale for war comes from many aspects:

1) Some are clearly fought for political reasons.

2) Some area fought to defend oneself.

3) Military forces may be used in a police role.

4) Some would argue that there are such things as a "just war."

5) Some may be fought for illegal and immoral reasons.

There is no one characterization that fits all wars.