Evil and Violence

[Ernie]

Do you support the use of the sword to kill evil people who want to destroy the enemy while hiding behind their own civilians?

No. I do not support the use of the sword.
I'm simply stating what the apostle Paul says the purpose of the sword is.
Yes, I am making conclusions about what is evil.

What about Jewish soldiers who want to kill Hamas soldiers without harming the rest of the population - or vice versa? Are they evil?

Some are evil for reasons other than this, I am fairly certain, but I don't know if being a soldier is evil.

I do know that being a soldier requires becoming the opposite of what humans were created to be. I think every soldier should lay down his sword and take up the cross of Jesus.
Will they?
No.
So I think God uses them to accomplish certain tasks based on their choice to be a soldier, not that he wants them to be a soldier.

[Ernie]

I think that God does use unregenerate persons to do His will even when they have no desire to do so, but I'm not sure how a person can go to war and kill other people without being evil. Is it not evil to reject Jesus and his way?

Yes, I think that could be one definition of evil. Does the same definition apply to a "good" policeman who hasn't yet killed someone but would do so if he needed to? And does the same definition apply to a cook on a battleship? And does it make any difference if the cook was drafted and didn't want to help with warfare. Is he still evil for going along with the draft?

[Ernie]

Your thoughts?

[Ken]

I think that God does use unregenerate persons to do His will even when they have no desire to do so, but I'm not sure how a person can go to war and kill other people without being evil. Is it not evil to reject Jesus and his way?

Yes, I think that could be one definition of evil. Does the same definition apply to a "good" policeman who hasn't yet killed someone but would do so if he needed to? And does the same definition apply to a cook on a battleship? And does it make any difference if the cook was drafted and didn't want to help with warfare. Is he still evil for going along with the draft?

The vast majority of police officers (about 75%) go through their entire careers without ever firing their weapons in the line of duty. And of those who do, the majority do not actually kill anyone, only a small percentage of police officers ever take a life during their careers. Interestingly, we can also break it down by race and gender. Women police officers are about half as likely to ever fire their weapons as male officers. And Black officers are less likely to use their weapons as white officers. Pew did a big study on this: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... n-on-duty/

Studies also find that a majority of police shootings are also done by a small percentage of repeat offenders. In other words, a small number of cops are doing most of the shooting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mo ... e-n1264795 In effect, it seems to actually be a small subculture of police who do most of the shooting. Which also demonstrates that it is probably very possible to spend an entire career as a police officer and never once deploy deadly force. While going out every single day to serve the public. In fact that is what the vast majority (75%) of police actually do. And if you adjust for those who are trigger happy and exclude them, the likelihood of an officer ever firing their weapon is smaller still.

In my mind, that makes working as a police officer absolutely no different from any civilian who chooses to carry a weapon or own a weapon for "protection". There are those here who support owning and carrying weapons but would reject ever serving as a police officer. I have relatives who are like that. They have gun collections, keep weapons in their cars, attend Mennonite churches, and would never serve as police officers "because of their beliefs". Which I find morally inconsistent in my mind. they are no different than the police officer who carries a weapon on the job but seeks to avoid using it. Worse perhaps, because they are doing it voluntarily.

[ken_sylvania]

I think that God does use unregenerate persons to do His will even when they have no desire to do so, but I'm not sure how a person can go to war and kill other people without being evil. Is it not evil to reject Jesus and his way?

Yes, I think that could be one definition of evil. Does the same definition apply to a "good" policeman who hasn't yet killed someone but would do so if he needed to? And does the same definition apply to a cook on a battleship? And does it make any difference if the cook was drafted and didn't want to help with warfare. Is he still evil for going along with the draft?

I don't know the answer to all of that, but it certainly all has enough of a taste of complicity that I wouldn't want to be involved. The logic of "rules of war" puts the drafted cook in the same category as the volunteer machine gunner. On a certain gut level it seems the man who pulls the trigger is "more evil" than the cook, but I'm not sure that God looks at it that way.

[Ken]

I think that God does use unregenerate persons to do His will even when they have no desire to do so, but I'm not sure how a person can go to war and kill other people without being evil. Is it not evil to reject Jesus and his way?

Yes, I think that could be one definition of evil. Does the same definition apply to a "good" policeman who hasn't yet killed someone but would do so if he needed to? And does the same definition apply to a cook on a battleship? And does it make any difference if the cook was drafted and didn't want to help with warfare. Is he still evil for going along with the draft?

I don't know the answer to all of that, but it certainly all has enough of a taste of complicity that I wouldn't want to be involved. The logic of "rules of war" puts the drafted cook in the same category as the volunteer machine gunner. On a certain gut level it seems the man who pulls the trigger is "more evil" than the cook, but I'm not sure that God looks at it that way.

What about the businessman whose taxes paid for the weapons that were used? And who voted for and supported the politicians who took the country into war? Is he more or less complicit than the cook who was too poor to figure out how to get out of the draft?

[Soloist]

I think that God does use unregenerate persons to do His will even when they have no desire to do so, but I'm not sure how a person can go to war and kill other people without being evil. Is it not evil to reject Jesus and his way?

Yes, I think that could be one definition of evil. Does the same definition apply to a "good" policeman who hasn't yet killed someone but would do so if he needed to? And does the same definition apply to a cook on a battleship? And does it make any difference if the cook was drafted and didn't want to help with warfare. Is he still evil for going along with the draft?

I don't know the answer to all of that, but it certainly all has enough of a taste of complicity that I wouldn't want to be involved. The logic of "rules of war" puts the drafted cook in the same category as the volunteer machine gunner. On a certain gut level it seems the man who pulls the trigger is "more evil" than the cook, but I'm not sure that God looks at it that way.

There is an expression, every soldier is a rifleman, every marine is a rifleman (can’t remember their catch name) everyone in the navy is a sailor.
What this means is rates and mos are set aside as needs.
I was a “non-combatant” who could have been attached to the Marines as their “doc” don’t make any mistake, they could/would demand that I was a shooter too in violation of Geneva conventions.
If enemy boards your ship the master at arms would issue weapons to all to repel boarders.
The non-combat positions in the airforce load bombs but don’t drop them…

Ultimately, it doesn’t serve to judge the drafted cook by our standards.

[ken_sylvania]

Yes, I think that could be one definition of evil. Does the same definition apply to a "good" policeman who hasn't yet killed someone but would do so if he needed to? And does the same definition apply to a cook on a battleship? And does it make any difference if the cook was drafted and didn't want to help with warfare. Is he still evil for going along with the draft?

I don't know the answer to all of that, but it certainly all has enough of a taste of complicity that I wouldn't want to be involved. The logic of "rules of war" puts the drafted cook in the same category as the volunteer machine gunner. On a certain gut level it seems the man who pulls the trigger is "more evil" than the cook, but I'm not sure that God looks at it that way.

What about the businessman whose taxes paid for the weapons that were used? And who voted for and supported the politicians who took the country into war? Is he more or less complicit than the cook who was too poor to figure out how to get out of the draft?

Best I can tell Jesus told us to pay our taxes - I don't think I'm responsible for what the government decides to do with the money. I agree that the man who votes for and supports the politicians who take the country to war bears responsibility for the war.

[Ken]

I don't know the answer to all of that, but it certainly all has enough of a taste of complicity that I wouldn't want to be involved. The logic of "rules of war" puts the drafted cook in the same category as the volunteer machine gunner. On a certain gut level it seems the man who pulls the trigger is "more evil" than the cook, but I'm not sure that God looks at it that way.

What about the businessman whose taxes paid for the weapons that were used? And who voted for and supported the politicians who took the country into war? Is he more or less complicit than the cook who was too poor to figure out how to get out of the draft?

Best I can tell Jesus told us to pay our taxes - I don't think I'm responsible for what the government decides to do with the money. I agree that the man who votes for and supports the politicians who take the country to war bears responsibility for the war.

In a republic and a democracy, you are as responsible as anyone else for what the government does with your money. Even if you choose not to vote or engage. That is the nature of living in a democracy.

[ken_sylvania]

What about the businessman whose taxes paid for the weapons that were used? And who voted for and supported the politicians who took the country into war? Is he more or less complicit than the cook who was too poor to figure out how to get out of the draft?

Best I can tell Jesus told us to pay our taxes - I don't think I'm responsible for what the government decides to do with the money. I agree that the man who votes for and supports the politicians who take the country to war bears responsibility for the war.

In a republic and a democracy, you are as responsible as anyone else for what the government does with your money. Even if you choose not to vote or engage. That is the nature of living in a democracy.

Taxes are not my money. If the government does anything with my money against my will I'm not responsible for it.