Are there any passages from the bible that excuse murder in the name of war?

Exactly what are we trying to do here?

Two things to consider here.

Firstly, before translation, the word “kill” in Hebrew literally means the premeditated murder of someone in malice.

Secondly, there are many examples of God ordering people to be killed in warlike scenarios (example Deut 20:16–17). It can be argued that this means that killing people in the context of war (maybe only war based on defending Christianity) is excusable in the eyes of God.

I heard it rationalized by a christian thusly. the Bible says “do not murder”, not “do not kill”. so, kiss away! just don’t murder anyone! (note that I typed this before the response above.) what kind of God would tell you not to kill anyone or not fight in wars?! (evidently, strapping on a rifle and going into battle and having a pre-mediated plan to kill have nothing whatsoever in common.)

There is bound to be some verse that a Televangelist can divinely interpret to mean just about anything he/she wants it to mean. . .

Swords into plowshares I always say . . .

@lefteh, I noticed you said “ordering people to kill in warlike scenarios” and not ordering his people to kill other people. the way you phrased it, you made it sound like commanding his people to die at someone else’s hands.

yep, the Bible’s god had nothing against wars, if committed by the right people for the right reasons. what a guy!

@yoyoyoyoyo Well, I dunno, have you read THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT?

Lately, the @ function doesn’t work. Is there a bug report thread?

Most religions say killing is bad but that doesn’t stop the killing in the name of god.
These are humans saying it’s ok to kill.

David killed Goliath.

Sampson was a decorated war hero.

Like Oratio said, the Old Testament is full of killing that was “ok”.

Abraham was ready to kill his own child for God.

Still looking for actual verses or passages. Only lefteh has been able to do that so far. Thanks all.

By the way, only curious because I saw on TV a debate between a gay preacher for an extremely liberal secular church and a conservative soldier concerning homosexuality being a sin. The preacher said that the bible said that murder was a sin just like it said homosexuality was a sin, so why do conservative Christians have no problem excusing soldiers who murder but not people who identify as gay? I don’t wish to replay this debate with all of you on this forum by the way, but I was surprised that the soldier (who was very religious) could not refute that argument with another verse from the bible and I wanted to know if any verses (similar to it’s excerpt about homosexuality) existed.

I’m saying this so that my question has context, I realize the question alone makes it seem like I’m trying to justify murdering people or something. (Which I don’t)

@The Compassionate Heretics: I don’t go with your assertion that most religions oppose killing. humanist said that, and the religions adapted accordingly to reinterpret their messages in a more peaceful light.

if you actually go to the religious texts of the major religions (bar Buddhism), they show virtuous humans (and deities) slaughtering with the approval of the writer. as an example, the ’‘Bhagavad Gita’’ consists of a speech by the god Krishna to Arjuna to wage war when he has doubts about its morality.

if the Bible had good guys going out with other guys and godly women having sex with other godly women, I think that would put across a particular message. the Bible shows God wiping out cities and heroes killing other people. that also puts across a particular message.

(fundies tend to make the messages of the Old Testament “not have happened”, because in their view, Jesus’ coming, in effect, wiped the slate clean. that includes the Book of Leviticus with endless numbers of commandments not to wear mixed fibre clothes, for example. but still, the whacko Book of Revelations has plenty of slaughter by God. and the New Testament does explicitly condemn homosexuality.)

Exodus 21:23–27 (King James Version)

23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

26And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.

27And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

@Blondesjon Thanks a lot, perfect

how does “eye for eye” work? if someone pokes mine out, go I get to transplant the offender’s eye’s into the empty socket? that sounds pretty cool.

@Ria777 . . . In the Old Testamnet they didn’t turn the other cheek.

The Bible says many things and has been twisted and contorted to support all kinds of beliefs. The simple answer is Found in Exidous, Chapter 21,
starting at verse 24:
24.eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25.burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26.“If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.
27.And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.
28.“If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. That is a simple beginners answer.

@Blondesjon: well, yeah… but then you also have Jesus cursing a fig tree, Paul’s condemnation of homos and the entirety of the Book of Revelations. the New Testament does not turn everything peace and love.

@Ria777. . .The fig tree was an analogy, Paul was a closet case, and John the Baptist found some mushrooms on that island he was on. Still not a lot of murder approval there.

Yes, but the question was about ”...in the name of war”.

I you look up the Pentateuch there are several parts where God instructs his people to kill all women, men and children in their cities, and some instances where their whole culture is to be obliterated. I’d have to look up the the exact verses, but then again, so can you easily.

And that is not twisting the meaning of God’s word. It is there in ink. “Kill’em all!” are his words.

Regarding murder and war over religion- basically it is promotes killing each other to see who has the better imaginary friend.

@AstroChuck . . . imaginary boss. because real ones aren’t bad enough.

I hate it when people say the new testament changed everything. Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law, he came to complete it.

@Blondesjon, I don’t care about the historical Paul or whether he got up to bum banditry on the side. I mean what he says in the New Testament which got accepted as canonical later. same with John. (figure you did not reply seriously, though.)

Jesus also said the thing about coming not in peace but with a sword. whatever that might have meant.

(or, strictly speaking, a few people decades after his death reported him as having said those things.)

by the way, I do get seriously bothered by the statement that John took hallucinogens. you can come up with crazy imagery without them, you know. imagination does not equal having taken drugs and taking drugs do not equal having an imagination. end of sermon.

@Ria777 . . . It’s better to believe that John was bipolar?

@Judi, okay. I meant to talk about fundamentalists’ rationales. not what I believe. anyway, you had best comply with the Book of Leviticus and not wear any mixed-fibre clothes. (can’t think of the other goofy laws from there right at the moment.)

@Ria777 I am an atheist and thus quite biased. I am of the belief that there is no God, but it doesn’t mean I’m right. I do see a difference between Sola Fidelis and Sola Scriptura. I have respect for peoples faith, but I have little respect for accepting every part of the bible as holy and true. There are a good fruits and berries in that shrubbery of thorns, but as you say, there some very questionable aspects of it all. Thomas Jefferson was on that track too.

This has strayed a bit towards the usual religion bashing, and it’s wasn’t my intent, though I am guilty of it. Sorry for that.

@oratio: I don’t reject every part of the Bible. I bet I could find bits that I agree with in virtually every book ever written. I actually had a harsher opinion of christians after having read one of the Gospels. (I forget which one.) they didn’t live up enough to the teachings. (the good ones, I mean.)

@Blondesjon: no.

In the OT, murder seems to be defined within the context of one’s community. In other words, killing a kinsman (i.e. a fellow Israelite) is murder, but killing one’s enemy is not. Thus, Exod. 20:13 “Don’t murder” refers to killing fellow Israelites. Notably, Moses killed an Egyptian (Exod. 2:12) but he is not put to death by fellow Israelites for it because the Egyptian is an outsider. When an Israelite killed a fellow Israelite, blood vengeance was enacted (to fulfill “an eye for an eye”). In this case, an appointed family member was to seek out the murderer and kill him—the penalty for murder was death (Gen. 9:5–6; Num. 35:6–33—which is actually dealing with accidental murder and avoiding blood vengeance).

In the OT, killing others in an act of war is not considered murder; in fact, failing to kill certain foreigners was considered a sin! Examples: Deuteronomy 7:1–5; 20:16–18; 1 Sam. 15:1–35. These texts should make us pause: genocide commanded by the Hebrew God?

As for comparing homosexuality with murder, Lev. 20:13 does state that if a man lies with a man as one would lie with a woman, both participants should be put to death. Thus, the death penalty is applied to both situations, but keep in mind that the death penalty was applied to many things, including blaspheming God, blaspheming your parents, committing adultery, etc. So, I don’t think it’s necessary to single one thing out over another when it comes to the way they applied death penalty back then.

All that said, the OT system of justice was very different from our system of justice. I think it’s a grave mistake when people try to use the Bible as the basis for a modern justice system. I also think it’s hypocritical for people to point out verses like Lev. 20:13 but ignore other verses in the same chapter, for example, “If a man sleeps with a woman while she is menstruating, both he and the woman will be cut off from their people” (Lev. 20:18, I paraphrased it). When’s the last time you’ve seen some moron holding a sign saying “God hates men who sleep with their wives during their periods”?

If you kill someone in self defense are you charged for murder?

If a soldier kills an enemy is he a murderer?

The very definition of the word murder allows for instances in which taking another person’s life isn’t against the law.

@NaturalMineralWater . . . And that makes it ok?

@Blondesjon If someone breaks into your house and threatens to kill your wife or kids and is about to pull the trigger.. you get the upper hand and shoot them… you think that’s wrong? YES there are instances where taking another’s life is justified!

@NaturalMineralWater. . .If I get the upper hand doesn’t that mean I have it within my power to subdue them instead of kill them?

@NaturalMineralWater

“If a soldier kills an enemy is he a murderer?”

Do not pretend that this question has an obvious answer.

“If someone breaks into your house and threatens to kill your wife or kids and is about to pull the trigger.. you get the upper hand and shoot them… you think that’s wrong?”

Yes, I do.

Amazing. Simply amazing. Somehow I wandered into liberalville again… this isn’t where I parked my car.

Someone gave the Araham and Isaac example above, but be sure not to confuse sacrifice with murder when debating with whomever it is you’re debating.

@NaturalMineralWater: I wish you wouldn’t put all non-Christians into the “liberal” category. I am far from liberal, but also far from Christian. It’s not accurate… politics have (or should have) nothing to do with one’s religious view.

@NaturalMineralWater

Strangely, “Liberalville” looks a lot like “Rationally-defend-your-claims-ville.”

@NaturalMineralWater . . .if it makes you feel any better i’m just being a dick…

@NaturalMineralWater

If someone was about to kill me or someone I loved and I had the chance to kill them, I would do it. What else are you supposed to do? Sacrifice yourself or your family members just because you believe it’s wrong to kill someone under any circumstances? Aren’t you inadvertently killing them if you refuse to defend them and let them die?

Usually I’m pretty liberal, but in this case I’m not at all. I also am not against people owning guns.

@Dansedescygnes

The problem here is the notion that there are only two options: kill or be killed. We beat this to death (no pun intended) in the Somalian Pirate thread.

@Ivan

But what if those really were the only two options? What if it was too hard to tell if the third would work? Would you risk going with the third option? What if you got killed or your loved ones got killed because of that?

Personally, I don’t think I would risk it, but I suppose some people would. I just happen to believe that killing in self-defense is okay and I would do it if I felt that was the safest option.

@Dansedescygnes

My argument is this:

1) There is always a third option, even if we can’t think of it, or even if it’s absurd.
2) The nonlethal solution should always be favored over the lethal solution, even if it is impractical.

@Ivan

But what if the third option leads to another person dying (as in a hostage situation)? I don’t see how that’s non-lethal.

@Ivan . . .That logic goes against the way the rest of the natural world works. We are no better, or different, than any of the other species on this planet.

I really don’t want to go through all of this again. Please read the Pirate question.

@Blondesjon

huh?

Well, neither do I really because it’s an opinion of mine that’s not going to change. I have no idea how I’d react if I were actually in one of those situations, but from a principled point of view, I’m all for killing in self-defense. It’s the only time I would ever condone killing another person.

@Ivan . . .In nature you only have two choices, fight or flee.

Man has tried to remove himself from nature for so long that he now believes nature to be unnatural and somehow thinks that the rules that govern all other life do not apply to him.

@Dansedescygnes

“it’s an opinion of mine that’s not going to change.”

Then why the hell are we talking about this?

@Blondesjon

So we should only do things that other animals do, and we shouldn’t have morals that other animals don’t? Thankfully for humans, we have an alternative to fighting or fleeing: thinking.

@Ivan

Because I’m not here to change my opinion and neither are you. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want to know what the other opinion is and I haven’t really been given a complete answer. Your thing about the “non lethal” was a good summary, but there’s stillmore I would like to know.

Edited: Yes, I’ll read the damn Pirate thread. :P

@Ivan . . .If I’m pointing a .38 at your face you have two choices. You can try to take the gun (fight) or you can run away (flee). I am going to pull the trigger on the count of three. How do you think your way out of that?

@Blondesjon maybe he’ll bore you to death with his thinking-out-loud, and then he can take the gun away from you.

@Dansedescygnes

“Because I’m not here to change my opinion and neither are you.”

Speak for yourself, please.

@Blondesjon

I think you are confusing “fighting” with “killing.” The idea is to think of a solution that results in zero deaths.

@Ivan . . .I am a lion crouching five feet away from you and hungry as fuck. You have two choices. You can fight or you can run away.

Is the lion wrong for wanting to eat just because he is trying to eat you?

@Blondesjon

Again, fight =/= kill.
Are we applying human morality to Lions now?

Interesting discussion. I think that there is an exception to every rule, but it seems to me that you guys are bringing out extreme situations to prove a general point. I am against all killing.

In an example of someone threatening you, the person who threatens you don’t want to kill you, otherwise you would be dead already. The threat is then kind of pointless.

If you bring your own gun into the equation, then you and the one threatening you, are then both defending themselves. The idea with a gun in the house or on he hip, is not a good solution.

@Ivan . . .Morality is an illusion. That lion is going to kill you and eat you. Is that immoral? Is there any way that you can “think” of a third alternative to either running from or killing the lion?

I believe that a human being’s greatest asset and biggest liability is our ability to “think”.

“Is there any way that you can “think” of a third alternative to either running from or killing the lion?”

Yes, of course there is. And why is running away such a bad thing anyway?

It’s not. I keep waiting for your third option.

My whole point is that there isn’t one. We live on this planet and are still subject to it’s most basic rules.

@Blondesjon

“Fight or flight” is not the same as “Kill or be killed.” If you want to define any possible action as either “fighting” or “fleeing,” fine, but that isn’t the same thing as “killing” or “being killed.”

It is. In the animal kingdom you are running away becuase you are about to be killed.

@Blondesjon

So it’s impossible to successfully run away from something? Running away always results in getting killed?

No. But in my fervor to be right I did overlook that you are indeed right. I guess I should being arguing that there isn’t a fourth alternative.

My bad. I’m infallible. Who knew?

i am horribly embarrassed right now

I think the real point of issue here is the notion that fighting is killing.

I have no issue with that, Fighting and killing are not the same. I really did just get too caught up in trying to be right and, in doing so, I made myself ten times as wrong.

Well, thanks for your honesty.

No problem. I’m a dick not a douche.

@Dansedescygnes Ditto. If someone breaks into your house intent on harming someone you’re better off defending your family at all costs.. rather than trying to devise a clever trap so that this bloody criminal assaulting your family can have a proper trial.

@whoever Obviously my comment about liberalville was a joke. I apologize if any liberals were harmed in the making of that comment.

@Ivan If you say so, it must be true.

@NaturalMineralWater

Don’t play that stupid game with me. I am the one defending my claims here. You are the one simply asserting something as truth and refusing to address any concerns I have with your argument.

“bloody criminal assaulting your family”

Heh. Be afraid! Fear! Scary! Act on emotion and fear, not with your head!

@oratio – “instructs his people to kill all women, men and children…” Once my Religious Knowledge teacher – this is secondary school – tried to explain some of the more bloody passages. The ancient Jews shared most of the assumptions and behaviours of their pagan neighbours. Generally, the dependents of the conquered could expect no mercy: either wholesale slaughter or slavery. The Israelites were enjoined in one case to spare the virgins and the young children, that is, not kill them but take them as slaves. The Jews, compared to their enemies, were models of moderation. I do not say that I agree with this interpretation. But it is in the OT, all those rules about the treatment of one’s servants. They do suggest an awareness at least of the person-hood of the slave.

@bea2345 Yes. They were probably all barbaric. But the question in hand was if the bible excused murder in the name of war. Killing your prisoners would be one aspect of how the bible exercises excuses for murder in this manner. “God said so!”

There are no excuses for murder or war. God has commanded men go to war, but that is his business. Anybody who tries to damn God, who is above everything, or use his name for the sake of war is wrong.

Some applicable quotes from the early church:

“I am a soldier of Christ and it is not permissible for me to fight.” (St. Martin of Tours, 315–397)

“I serve Jesus Christ the eternal King. I will no longer serve your emperors… It is not right for a Christian to serve the armies of this world.” (Marcellus the Centurion, a saint who left the army of Emperor Diocletian in 298, and was executed while praying for his persecutors.)

“Christ, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.” (Tertullian)

“The divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the Devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: the Lord has abolished the sword.” (Tertullian)

“We who formerly formerly hated and murdered one another now live together and share the same table. We pray for our enemies and try to win those who hate us.” (Justin)

“We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for plowshares, our spears for farm tools… now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness, faith, and the expectation of the future given us through the crucified one… the more we are persecuted and martyred, the more do others in ever increasing numbers become believers.” (Justin, martyred in 165 AD)

Sure, Thou shall not MURDER. It is not “kill”. Two different meanings. One of those things about the bible that was never corrected.

Christians are bound by the injunctions in the NT (1) to love God and (2) to love one another (Mark 12:30–31). The passage goes on to say that there is no other commandment greater than these. The meaning is, I think, quite unmistakable. The new law supersedes the old.