# Military Snipers and Special Forces



## Brother John (Oct 22, 2009)

I am interested to get some input from the PB on a subject that I have been thinking about lately. It involves whether or not certain missions or positions are biblical within the special forces in the military. Specifically snipers and special forces teams that take out specific enemy personal. 

In regards to snipers what are yalls thoughts? Is there a difference between a mission during war time such as taking out a military/political leader and a sniper being sent in during peace time to remove a "threat"? Are snipers fine because they are military personal, or does it depend on the type of missions they do? Could or should a christian be a sniper for special forces or some black ops CIA?

What are yalls thoughts on a military or CIA team being sent in to remove a "threat" during peacetime or war? Are these teams fine or does it depend on the type of missions they run?

If a sniper or a team of special ops were sent in to a country to remove a political or military leader by "assassinating" them, would this act be unbiblical. Or would it depend on whether we were at war with this nation or peace time?

And finally would someone like the Jack Bauer character from 24 who does the countries "dirty work" to "protect" the average citizen from "the bad guys" by unbiblical?

I am looking forward to yalls thoughts.


----------



## rbcbob (Oct 22, 2009)

*First of all* I do not grant a pass, or blanket exoneration of anything soldiers do. But that being said, John the Baptist knew what soldiers do and yet, by inspiration of the Spirit said-



> Luke 3:14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."



If soldiering necessarily involved sinning then we should have expected a different answer from John.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 22, 2009)

Bob thanks for the post. I agree with you and do not believe that being a soldier is sinning I am trying to figure out whether or not there is a difference between regular soldiers and those I listed in my opening post. My questions are based on the fact that I highly respect the men who are special forces and I am trying to figure out if and where we cross the line from being a soldier. (As a side note and for another thread I have been thinking also what would a biblical military look like. So I am simply asking questions that I feel the need to figure out.)


----------



## rbcbob (Oct 22, 2009)

John, I appreciate your OP and would add that SpecOps guys in our military are no a less soldier under their CO's than the grunt on the front lines. 

The Christian soldier *must* do his soldiering while keeping a good conscience before God and men. The soldier (whether the grunt on the battlefield or the Marine Sniper) is not afforded the opportunity to critique his orders. If it were not otherwise every private would need access to the Commander- in- Chief on every (borderline) order he gets so as to obtain moral clarity.

His duty sometimes requires that he kill those deemed by his superiors as the enemy. May he tell a lie for military purposes? See John Murray's treatment of the Sanctity of Truth in his _Principles of Conduct_.

As implied in my previous post, I acknowledge that there can occur a situation where a Christian soldier must not obey an order that requires him to sin against the Lord; in such instance he must bravely endure the consequences.

Was the line crossed in the fictional Bourne character? That would certainly bring about a lively discussion!


----------



## SolaSaint (Oct 22, 2009)

In Christian ethics, as Christians we are required to obey God's absolute moral laws. There is a form of this ethic called graded absolutism. If I'm remembering it right, this is where we have a choice to make and we side on the greater good from God's perspective. In your question is it better to kill a man that has the projected potential to kill several of your fellow soldiers, or to pass on this and allow him the potential to kill them. In this ethical view God forgives you for the sin in choosing the greater good. Rahab the harlot is a good example of this, although not murder, she did lie (sin) for the greater good of helping the spies. Also the Apostles told the Jewish leaders in Acts 5 that they would not stop preaching the name of Jesus and this is clearly against the command of God in Romans 13 where we are to submit to appointed authorities, but they chose to disobey God's command to do what they felt was the greater good.


----------



## Brother John (Oct 22, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> The soldier (whether the grunt on the battlefield or the Marine Sniper) is not afforded the opportunity to critique his orders. If it were not otherwise every private would need access to the Commander- in- Chief on every (borderline) order he gets so as to obtain moral clarity.



This reminds me of a conversation I had when I was in college. One of my pledge brothers and very good friend had served as an Army Ranger prior to going to college (after school he reenlisted and has moved up from being a Ranger to a higher level) and he randomly told me one night that he thought I would make a good Ranger if it was not for two of my faults. One being that I get grumpy when I am hungry and two being that I was in his words to "political". I asked what he meant and he basically told me soldiers follow orders they don't question them.


----------



## smhbbag (Oct 22, 2009)

> The soldier (whether the grunt on the battlefield or the Marine Sniper) is not afforded the opportunity to critique his orders. If it were not otherwise every private would need access to the Commander- in- Chief on every (borderline) order he gets so as to obtain moral clarity



Whatever is not from faith is sin.

If a soldier has the slightest shred of a doubt over whether pulling the trigger is justified, then for him it is sin to do so. 

Now, that still means that a soldier may be fully convinced (or partially convinced) an order to kill is wrong, when it fact it was just. Or, he may be convinced the killing was just, and yet it was not.

But, in either case, to quote Luther "to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 22, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> > The soldier (whether the grunt on the battlefield or the Marine Sniper) is not afforded the opportunity to critique his orders. If it were not otherwise every private would need access to the Commander- in- Chief on every (borderline) order he gets so as to obtain moral clarity
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually this argument would only work if he had no doubt that disobeying his commands would not be a form of rebellion. I would like to see the case made where one errs on the side of disobedience.

I see a much cleaner case of erring on the side of doing what one is told by ones superior.

CT


----------



## Wayne (Oct 22, 2009)

Blev3rd said:


> (As a side note and for another thread I have been thinking also what would a biblical military look like.



One resource that comes to mind would be one section in George Gillespie's _Miscellany Questions_. I don't have my copy at hand, but maybe someone else can supply that. You might even find it available online (Google Books, etc.). 

As I remember, his issue there is whether it is right to go to war alongside (as a part of the same unit with) unbelievers.


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

As long as you're taking out leaders of a country that has actually done something to you or otherwise qualifies for an enemy under Christian Just War theory. If not, then you are cursed no matter who gives the order.

12 And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD. So the LORD strengthened Eglon king of Moab against Israel, because they had done evil in the sight of the LORD. 13 Then he gathered to himself the people of Ammon and Amalek, went and defeated Israel, and took possession of the City of Palms. 14 So the children of Israel served Eglon king of Moab eighteen years. 
15 But when the children of Israel cried out to the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer for them: Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. By him the children of Israel sent tribute to Eglon king of Moab. 16 Now Ehud made himself a dagger (it was double-edged and a cubit in length) and fastened it under his clothes on his right thigh. 17 So he brought the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. (Now Eglon was a very fat man.) 18 And when he had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who had carried the tribute. 19 But he himself turned back from the stone images that were at Gilgal, and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” 
He said, “Keep silence!” And all who attended him went out from him. 
20 So Ehud came to him (now he was sitting upstairs in his cool private chamber). Then Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” So he arose from his seat. 21 Then Ehud reached with his left hand, took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. 22 Even the hilt went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the dagger out of his belly; and his entrails came out. 23 Then Ehud went out through the porch and shut the doors of the upper room behind him and locked them. 
24 When he had gone out, Eglon’s* servants came to look, and to their surprise, the doors of the upper room were locked. So they said, “He is probably attending to his needs in the cool chamber.” 25 So they waited till they were embarrassed, and still he had not opened the doors of the upper room. Therefore they took the key and opened them. And there was their master, fallen dead on the floor. 
26 But Ehud had escaped while they delayed, and passed beyond the stone images and escaped to Seirah. 27 And it happened, when he arrived, that he blew the trumpet in the mountains of Ephraim, and the children of Israel went down with him from the mountains; and he led them. 28 Then he said to them, “Follow me, for the LORD has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand.” So they went down after him, seized the fords of the Jordan leading to Moab, and did not allow anyone to cross over. 29 And at that time they killed about ten thousand men of Moab, all stout men of valor; not a man escaped. 30 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest for eighty years.*


----------



## SemperEruditio (Oct 22, 2009)

Blev3rd said:


> What are yalls thoughts on a military or CIA team being sent in to remove a "threat" during peacetime or war? Are these teams fine or does it depend on the type of missions they run?
> 
> If a sniper or a team of special ops were sent in to a country to remove a political or military leader by "assassinating" them, would this act be unbiblical. Or would it depend on whether we were at war with this nation or peace time?



First, everything the CIA does is right since their acronym stands for Christians In Action. 

_Executive Order 12333
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination.
No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
_

For the assassination scenario our SpecFor men are not assassins. So it unbiblical and illegal to murder for any reason.


----------



## AVT (Oct 22, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> Blev3rd said:
> 
> 
> > What are yalls thoughts on a military or CIA team being sent in to remove a "threat" during peacetime or war? Are these teams fine or does it depend on the type of missions they run?
> ...



Hmnn, if there was an assassin during the rise of Hitler,we could have avoided
a greater evil...the annihilation of 6 million Jews.

I think ,there comes a time when a christian has to choose between a greater and a lesser evil.

Which one would you endorse as a christian ?#1 Remove Hitler with one bullet ...#2 )or save 6 million Jews from the Gas Chamber ?


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 22, 2009)

AVT said:


> Hmnn, if there was an assassin during the rise of Hitler,we could have avoided
> a greater evil...the annihilation of 6 million Jews.
> 
> I think ,there comes a time when a christian has to choose between a greater and a lesser evil.
> ...



Both your options are the same.


----------



## AVT (Oct 22, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> > Hmnn, if there was an assassin during the rise of Hitler,we could have avoided
> ...



Oh,I see. So what will be a different option?

#1. Let Hitler live and save one bullet or #2 .or spend one bullet to remove Hitler---and let 6 million Jews live.

I think #2 is the best answerfinancially and morally


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

No one claims anywhere near 6 million Jews dead in gas chambers, but leaving American propaganda aside, what do you suggest would have happened if Hitler had been killed early in his career? Peace and love and harmony?

Are you suggesting that one man influenced the entire course of events in WW2? What if a Soviet style socialist were running things in 1937? And the Pact of Steel were never broken?

One of the problems with assuming the ends justify the means is that you really never have any idea what the ends will be. Far safer to act from principle.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Oct 22, 2009)

AVT said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> > Blev3rd said:
> ...



If there were an assassination of Adam we could have avoided Hitler all together. 

"What if" time travel didn't exist and we were left with dealing with the way things currently are?


----------



## Blue Tick (Oct 22, 2009)

> No one claims anywhere near 6 million Jews dead in gas chambers, but leaving American propaganda aside, *what do you suggest would have happened if Hitler had been killed early in his career? Peace and love and harmony?*


No, only if he got accepted to art school... If only he could've been an artist...


----------



## AVT (Oct 22, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> > SemperEruditio said:
> ...



God slapped Adam with spiritual and physical death as a verdict,don't forget that.

I just vouched for an assassin for Hitler---lesser evil.

-----Added 10/22/2009 at 10:32:20 EST-----



TimV said:


> No one claims anywhere near 6 million Jews dead in gas chambers, but leaving American propaganda aside, what do you suggest would have happened if Hitler had been killed early in his career? Peace and love and harmony?
> 
> Are you suggesting that one man influenced the entire course of events in WW2? What if a Soviet style socialist were running things in 1937? And the Pact of Steel were never broken?
> 
> One of the problems with assuming the ends justify the means is that you really never have any idea what the ends will be. Far safer to act from principle.




For evil to triumph, good men simply need to stand and do nothing.

So let's join the Germans in chanting "Long live Hitler!" and be principled. Let's endorse the status quo.


----------



## Jon Peters (Oct 22, 2009)

TimV said:


> No one claims anywhere near 6 million Jews dead in gas chambers, but leaving American propaganda aside, what do you suggest would have happened if Hitler had been killed early in his career? Peace and love and harmony?



 Six million killed in the gas chambers may be inaccurate, but six million jews were killed in the Holocaust (contrary to Rushdooney), so what does it really matter? Starved to death; firing squads; gas chambers; six million murdered is six million murdered.


----------



## matt01 (Oct 22, 2009)

TimV said:


> No one claims anywhere near 6 million Jews dead in gas chambers, but leaving American propaganda aside...



Do you have a more accurate estimate on the number of people to die in the gas chambers, or through the Nazi programs?



Blev3rd said:


> And finally would someone like the Jack Bauer character from 24 who does the countries "dirty work" to "protect" the average citizen from "the bad guys" by unbiblical?



I am not familiar with Mr. Bauer, but read this quote (often attributed to Orwell) the other day about "dirty work":

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."​


----------



## rbcbob (Oct 22, 2009)

Arlene writes



> For evil to triumph, good men simply need to stand and do nothing.
> 
> So let's join the Germans in chanting "Long live Hitler!" and be principled. Let's endorse the status quo



God never puts the believer in a _Catch 22_ situation where our only options are to sin against Him.
*Romans 3:8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? -- as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.*

How many deaths or misfortunes are necessary to get a pass on obeying His will?.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 22, 2009)

When I was a teen the two things I wanted to be was either a bush pilot or a snipper. Man, I missed that boat!


----------



## Wayne (Oct 22, 2009)

> Which one would you endorse as a christian ?#1 Remove Hitler with one bullet ...#2 )or save 6 million Jews from the Gas Chamber ?



That question is based on the premise that removing one man would have brought peace to the world at that time. But isn't it true that Hitler's ineptitude actually sped along the end of the war, and had his generals truly been in charge, the results would have been far different? 

[Cruise control: I didn't see the recent movie. Is the lead character painted as one seeking to bring peace, love and harmony, or as one seeking to get a bumbler out of the way so they can win the war?]


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

> Do you have a more accurate estimate on the number of people to die in the gas chambers, or through the Nazi programs?



2.0 to 2.5 is what historians say as to gas chambers. Others were killed due to the natural progression of a darwinian socialist war which didn't need to be fought.



> Six million killed in the gas chambers may be inaccurate, but six million jews were killed in the Holocaust (contrary to Rushdooney), so what does it really matter? Starved to death; firing squads; gas chambers; six million murdered is six million murdered.



Your info is old on the numbers and what Rush said.



> God never puts the believer in a Catch 22 situation where our only options are to sin against Him.
> Romans 3:8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? -- as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.



I wondered why it took so long for someone to post that.



> For evil to triumph, good men simply need to stand and do nothing.
> 
> So let's join the Germans in chanting "Long live Hitler!" and be principled. Let's endorse the status quo


.

So we joined the Soviets who killed 4 or 5 Christians for every one Christian killed by the Nazis. Why are Jews more important to you?


----------



## SemperEruditio (Oct 22, 2009)

AVT said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> > AVT said:
> ...


My point is why stop at murdering Hitler when instead you should go to the root. Instead of falling under Adam's curse we can fall under the curse of a murderer. Either way the end result is we are cursed.



AVT said:


> I just vouched for an assassin for Hitler---lesser evil.



Evil is still....evil.


----------



## smhbbag (Oct 22, 2009)

> Actually this argument would only work if he had no doubt that disobeying his commands would not be a form of rebellion. I would like to see the case made where one errs on the side of disobedience.
> 
> I see a much cleaner case of erring on the side of doing what one is told by ones superior.



There are a few different kinds of doubts that I did not distinguish.

I do not in any way advocate the soldier putting the burden of proof on his superior to justify the orders to him. That is completely unworkable in a military context, and would put the soldier in an unjustifiable position of inquisitor at every turn. This type of doubt or skepticism - that the orders are immoral until shown otherwise - has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

A second type of doubt would be when the superior _does_, of his own volition, spell out the case for the orders (like a case made to the public to go to war, and then Executive orders to deploy), and the soldier doubts the adequacy of the justification that was freely offered. In my mind, that's a fundamentally different situation.

This is why it is terribly important for the soldier to have standing, well-defined principles to follow. A lack of clarity regarding the moral acceptability of the orders is a terrible situation to be in. He doubts whether it is right to obey, and he doubts whether it is right to disobey. No matter which way he goes (and one must be chosen), he will be violating his conscience and not acting in faith. So then, as you say, the question becomes - which way do we lean when there is doubt?

We all recognize that some sins are worse than others, though all bear the penalty of death and hell without faith and atonement by Christ. So, I think the logical conclusion would be that, in the case where we cannot act in faith because we don't know which path is right, then we ought to err on the side of the smaller sin. And, simply, I think that unjustified killing (murder) is a worse sin than passive (lack of action) disobedience to a proper authority. Thus, the soldier should not fight if he doubts the validity of the justification his superiors offered.

I am, however, open to hearing a case that such disobedience to authority is worse than the prospect of murdering a man bearing God's image.

In any case, I think this discussion ought to be pretty irrelevant. The soldier ought to have clarity, and the terrible choice between which sin to commit would be a non-issue.

I think it is also worth noting that a case can be made that rulers and commanders should let those who do not want to fight (for any reason) go home with no consequence. 

Deut 20:8


> 8 Then the officers shall add, "Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too."



A soldier who doesn't want to be there, or half-heartedly embraces his orders, is a danger to the rest of his unit and the whole operation.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 22, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> Deut 20:8
> 
> 
> > 8 Then the officers shall add, "Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too."
> ...



That. 

It does not really matter what your views are regarding just war, lawful disobedience, etc, etc; if you are at the point of pulling the trigger you had better not hesitate. 

All of the theorizing that was so comfortably done from the wi-fi connection at your local Starbucks goes out the window when you have boots on the ground with live enemy targets moving into the kill zone, and refusing to do your duty at the moment in which it is needed most will likely bring dire consequences not only upon your own head, but upon the heads of your fellow teammates and chain of command as well.


----------



## smhbbag (Oct 22, 2009)

> It does not really matter what your views are regarding just war, lawful disobedience, etc, etc; if you are at the point of pulling the trigger you had better not hesitate.
> 
> All of the theorizing that was so comfortably done from the wi-fi connection at your local Starbucks goes out the window when you have boots on the ground with live enemy targets moving into the kill zone, and refusing to do your duty at the moment in which it is needed most will likely bring dire consequences not only upon your own head, but upon the heads of your fellow teammates and chain of command as well.



My "theorizing" as you so derisively call it did not, in any way, address live battlefield situations in progress. If the war is unjust, or if you have doubts about it, I don't think you should be on the battlefield in the first place. So this whole point is irrelevant.

I recognize a very wide latitude for the means, methods, and tactics of commanders on the ground in a just war. Once in the arena, the types of orders that demand disobedience will scream it loudly - intentional targeting of non-combatants, and other such things. Outside of extreme, gross, and heinous orders that will be very easy to recognize, you bet you follow the orders to a T and never hesitate to pull the trigger if you have deemed the overall conflict to be just.

But I never spoke about that. The most important decision is whether to go to the warzone in the first place. And that is not to be taken lightly. 

If you go, then you have made the decision that it is just, and there is no reason to believe any standard orders in pursuit of a just war would be unjust....and if they are, like I said, it will be obvious.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 22, 2009)

Maybe you missed it, but that was a general "your" regarding whoever would take such a position, and not a point directed specifically toward you. I actually cited your quote, because I agreed with it.


----------



## HokieAirman (Oct 22, 2009)

> As long as you're taking out leaders of a country that has actually done something to you or otherwise qualifies for an enemy under Christian Just War theory. If not, then you are cursed no matter who gives the order.



While I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, but not the 'Christian' Just War Theory. Is there a difference because the Just War Theory does not allow for a lower Magistrate to execute justice on a Higher Magistrate who is a tyrant (e.g. American War for Independence).


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

> While I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, but not the 'Christian' Just War Theory. Is there a difference because the Just War Theory does not allow for a lower Magistrate to execute justice on a Higher Magistrate who is a tyrant (e.g. American War for Independence).



If it didn't, then we'd never have gotten our independence, since you've just described the difference between Luther and Calvin, and the Reformed have held to Just War from the beginning.


----------



## Herald (Oct 22, 2009)

Blev3rd said:


> I am interested to get some input from the PB on a subject that I have been thinking about lately. It involves whether or not certain missions or positions are biblical within the special forces in the military. Specifically snipers and special forces teams that take out specific enemy personal.
> 
> In regards to snipers what are yalls thoughts? Is there a difference between a mission during war time such as taking out a military/political leader and a sniper being sent in during peace time to remove a "threat"? Are snipers fine because they are military personal, or does it depend on the type of missions they do? Could or should a christian be a sniper for special forces or some black ops CIA?
> 
> ...



John,

As we sit at our computers and opine about snipers and special ops teams, we do so from a sanitized venue. I am convinced that special ops teams have carried out "hits" on high value targets when we have not be technically at war. I can think of a few different scenarios where these tactics would be employed: counter terrorism threats, drug interdiction (in Colombia and Central America for example), political targets that threaten U.S. interests, and military targets (ibid). A recent example would be the Somali pirates who hijacked an American crew in the Indian Ocean. After negotiations failed, SEAL snipers killed the pirates. Justified? I think so. There was a real threat to life and property by criminals in international waters. How about the kingpins of the drug cartels in Colombia? The DEA, working with local Colombian authorities, may have killed drug cartel members. Is this justifiable? It depends on the circumstances. Is narcotic use in the United States a threat to our national security? Some folks would answer in the affirmative. How about a political target? This one is rather sticky. How much of a threat is the target to its neighbors? Is the hit for purely political reasons, or is there a real military value associated with it? Hard questions to answer on a message board. 

Special ops teams usually have a different mission. The Israeli raid on Entebbe, Uganda was a special mission to free Israeli citizens who were held hostage. The purpose of the rescue attempt was not to invade sovereign Ugandan territory or for plunder; it was to rescue Israeli citizens that were in peril. Coming on the heels of the Munich Olympic killings, many believe Israel was justified. There was the botched U.S. rescue attempt in Iran in 1979. 44 American hostages were being held in the U.S. embassy. Had the rescue attempt succeeded, was it justifiable? 

In my humble opinion special ops teams and snipers are not sinful, and I believe Christians can operate in these roles. That said, they can be used for unrighteous purposes that would place Christians serving in those roles in a complicated position.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 22, 2009)

“Of two evils, choose neither." - Spurgeon


----------



## Jack K (Oct 22, 2009)

Interesting question about black ops and assassinations. A handful of assassinations in the Bible seem to be commended, or at least not condemned. Ehud, Jael and Jehu were all assassins (sneaky ones at that). They seem to have been serving God's purposes, although I don't think we can say this with certainty. Jehu was even anointed by Elisha's servant, then went out and assassinated the king.


----------



## AVT (Oct 22, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> “Of two evils, choose neither." - Spurgeon



Question: If a man breaks in into your house at night and attempts to rape your wife, steal and threatens to kill your family, will you shoot him?

I am a woman but I won't hesitate!


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 22, 2009)

Are you implying that it is evil to protect your family? 

I would commit sins of omission if I sat in the corner and let the man do such things. Whether or not I would shoot him depends entirely on the circumstance. Does the man have a weapon? If he doesn't have a weapon, how large is he? Can I subdue him without killing him? Et cetera. If the situation unfolds in such a way that I can't answer such questions without making a decision, I will of course do what is necessary to protect my family assuming that I have no other option but to shoot. That is _not_ evil though, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post and asked such a thing.


----------



## AVT (Oct 22, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> > SemperEruditio said:
> ...



Hitler was evil incarnate, so it is just to remove him,so he will not commit more evil. 

And yes, God made the first attempt to destroy all men with a flood because man has multiplied and has filled the world with wickedness.

Though we are all sinful in the sight of God, not all men are worthy of the Death penalty.

Hitler deserves the death penalty anyway, for sterilizing women that are not of Aryan race (so they cannot produce babies).The pure German race is far more superior according to him and for children with deformities, he sent them to the lab to have lethal injection because they are just a burden to society.

One bullet from a sniper or a sharp shooter will be just fine! And I pray to God he will hit the target head on!


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 22, 2009)

AVT said:


> Hitler was evil incarnate . . .




No he wasn't. He was a human being who God allowed to do great wickedness. Given the opportunity, anyone could do far worse. We act like Hitler was depraved more than the rest of us. No, he simply reflected the hearts of men by his actions. The Lord, in His sovereignty, chose to loosen the leash on Hitler's neck.

Besides, the vast majority of the time Hitler's hands were not the hands that pulled the trigger or pushed the button or moved the lever. What do you say of those who willingly did the killing?


----------



## AVT (Oct 22, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> Are you implying that it is evil to protect your family?
> 
> I would commit sins of omission if I sat in the corner and let the man do such things. Whether or not I would shoot him depends entirely on the circumstance. Does the man have a weapon? If he doesn't have a weapon, how large is he? Can I subdue him without killing him? Et cetera. If the situation unfolds in such a way that I can't answer such questions without making a decision, I will of course do what is necessary to protect my family assuming that I have no other option but to shoot. That is _not_ evil though, so I'm not sure why you quoted my post and asked such a thing.



I am asking if it is evil to remove an evil person (one that can kill or do tremendous damage to the life of others) .Could be your family or others not related to you like Hitler.

Is there such thing as lesser evil for a Christian?(If the option to kill Hitler is also evil?)
Just as what Spurgeon said "between two evils, choose neither." What other options do we have aside from prayer when facing evil?

-----Added 10/22/2009 at 06:34:18 EST-----



AThornquist said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> > Hitler was evil incarnate . . .
> ...



All men are wicked and depraved but Hitler in his depravity expressed the evil intentions of his heart by killing massively---He led the whole nation through intimidation and lies to commit evil. He ordered his subordinates to kill or they will be killed themselves. His subordinates are guilty of the crimes they committed but Hitler is still instrumental, he used brainwashing,Propaganda and instilled fear on those who will not obey his orders.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 22, 2009)

Ah, but simply "removing an evil person" _is not the same_ as someone breaking into your house with the clear intention of doing harm.

-----Added 10/22/2009 at 06:39:09 EST-----



AVT said:


> All men are wicked and depraved but Hitler in his depravity expressed the evil intentions of his heart by killing massively---*He led the whole nation through intimidation and lies to commit evil.* He ordered his subordinates to kill or they will be killed themselves.



Partially true. While this happened in many cases, Hitler's power *was in the people!*


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

> He ordered his subordinates to kill or they will be killed themselves.



There was never one single case of a German being executed for refusing to kill civilians. That's an historical fact. But at this point you have dug your feet in, and won't say why it was right to ally ourselves with Stalin who killed literally millions more Christians... I'm out of this dispensational conversation.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Oct 22, 2009)

Ummm...Hitler was elected by the people was he not? Plus I never heard of a German being killed for not killing a Jew.

Now how do we go from assassinations in the present to some time-travel and talk about how right it would be to kill Hitler. In this it is clear you believe that it is right to kill someone who you know is going to kill others. The problem is without this time machine how do you know? In all of this it seems there is an attempt to play God and say that we know better than God what should or should not have happened. Are you saying that the suffering of the Jews was a mistake that God should have gotten right? It was asked before but what makes the Jews so special? What about all those dying in African countries, Slavic countries, Latin-American countries...? Is God wrong in those situations as well?

-----Added 10/22/2009 at 07:12:15 EST-----



TimV said:


> I'm out of this dispensational conversation.





Right behind ya.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 22, 2009)

Tim and Frank were raptured out of this discussion! Who else was left behind???


----------



## Edward (Oct 22, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > No one claims anywhere near 6 million Jews dead in gas chambers, but leaving American propaganda aside, what do you suggest would have happened if Hitler had been killed early in his career? Peace and love and harmony?
> ...



So the roughly equal number who weren't Jewish don't count?


----------



## jfschultz (Oct 23, 2009)

I noticed much said about just war issues. However "peace" is a bigger issue.

Contrary to the Washington party line "they" don't hate us because of our freedom. "They" hate us because of how free we are in interfering in their internal affairs. We have given a pass on this aspect of U.S. foreign policy for decades, and we are now reaping what we have sown.

How are the covert operations of special forces and other "black ops" groups used to advance our interventionist foreign policy?



> Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
> ~Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953


----------



## Jon Peters (Oct 23, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Six million killed in the gas chambers may be inaccurate, but six million jews were killed in the Holocaust (contrary to Rushdooney), so what does it really matter? Starved to death; firing squads; gas chambers; six million murdered is six million murdered.
> 
> 
> 
> Your info is old on the numbers and what Rush said.



I'll stand by the number. Frankly, the only reason I care in the least what Rushdooney thinks is because so many people seem to think he is a good teacher. I don't share that opinion. If later in life he reversed on his Holocaust denying tendencies then terrific.


----------

