the government would collapse on itself if it had to put to court all of the military, and then, who would join? that's a weird question, and I'm sure my answer is making it worse.
sorry 'bout that.
2006-12-31 06:10:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by apple 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is not OK to kill under the banner of war either, from a moral sense. You still must repay the wrong you've done, whether killing in war, or outside of it.
2006-12-31 14:22:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Joe Carioca 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not all death is murder.
Men in power might start wars with murder in their hearts, but those fighting the wars are simply killing and dying to save themselves and what they believe to be a good way of life for theri country and families.
When you kill someone who irritates the hell out of you, you're harboring feelings of hatered towards that individual instead of love. Killing them is murder.
War is war. Its a whole different thing.
2006-12-31 14:09:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by amosunknown 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Killing in war is sanctioned by God when there is a moral objective. Saddam was killing thousands of his own people, and would have continued to do so if we didn't stop him Is there anyone in here who can say we weren't justified in stopping Hitler?
Justified killing is also the protection of yourself or a loved one. No one would step aside and let someone kill there child because they don't believe in killing the perpetrator.
The restriction that God implores is against murder.
2006-12-31 14:19:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by ted.nardo 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
killing is never ok under any banner. Now in the Bible God did tell the Isrealites to kill everything in the land that God had promised them. I, myself don't approve of killing anybody. Only God should have the power to take away someone's life.
2006-12-31 14:13:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by legogate 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
maybe because public acts of violence need no review by the court...the world is a witness against the offender...
if someone who attacks you in the home and is killed, this is more private...
some wars are justified and some are not.
2006-12-31 14:25:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, neither is condoned by God.
Isaiah 2: 4: " And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."
2006-12-31 14:16:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by wannaknow 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's called survival of the fittest. Killing one of your own diminishes your chances of survival (so is not condoned). Killing one who is not of your ilk, improves your chance of survival. It has always been so. In history when populations grow fat and cowardly they are killed in mass if they can't hire outside armies to defend them. Romans toward the end hired Goths and then they hired the Vandals to defend Rome until they ran out of money and they were killed in mass. Who will we hire after this "professional army" is depleted?? Chinese Army? There are two "private armies" in the world your generation could hire. One of the best is in South Africa. If you are young and cowardly you might ought to be thinking about this...The commandment was "Thou shalt not murder". Not; "Thou shalt not kill".
Otherwise; Mosses, would not have sent Joshua to kill (not murder) the fat and sassy Canaanites in mass.
2006-12-31 14:35:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by HeyDude 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The saying states:
'All is fair in love and war.'
That does not include your personal wars.
2006-12-31 14:13:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by ladyoftherrlake 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I intended to answer your question, but then I realized that if you don't already know the answer, you wouldn't understand the explaination anyway.
2006-12-31 14:10:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋