Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

[Brekkie]

Pretty sure it's murder in both of the branches of Christianity.

Nope. For the Lutherans it's not to murder, for the Catholics and Orthodox it's not kill. I just checked my own bible and on the net so I am pretty damned sure it is so. That said, you are allowed to act in self-defense as the commandment relates to preserving life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_d ... mmandments

You are mistaken.
The Catholic Church believes in Just War Doctrine (i.e. there are certain circumstances where you are morally justified and morally obligated to use violence, when it comes down to a last resort). Pretty hard to fight a war without ever killing anyone.

EDIT: See below, from the very wikipedia article that you linked, but apparently misunderstood or didn't read thoroughly.

The Catechism asserts that "it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life."[89] Kreeft says, "self-defense is legitimate for the same reason suicide is not: because one's own life is a gift from God, a treasure we are responsible for preserving and defending."[90] The Catechism teaches that "someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."[89] Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.[89]

The Church requires all to pray and work to prevent unjust wars, but allows for just wars if certain conditions are met:

1. The reasons for going to war are defensive.
2. "The damage inflicted by the aggressor ... must be lasting, grave, and certain."
3. It is a last resort taken only after all other means of putting an end to the "grave damage" have been ineffective.
4. The ultimate aim is peace and there is a serious chance of success.
5. No graver evils are produced that overshadow the evil to be eliminated. This forbids the use of arms to eliminate whole cities and areas with their inhabitants.
6. Respect and care is required for non-combatants, wounded soldiers and prisoners. Soldiers are required to disobey commands to commit genocide and ones that violate universal principles.[65][91]

In this way, those Catholics, such as myself, who serve in the military may not be struck with some kind of moral paradox about the basic nature of our duties.
St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, the order who I've always had a very intimate connection with in my life, was originally a soldier. There have been many militant orders of Catholics in the Church's history.

[Mcduffie]

If the military "loses" a nuclear device (stolen) it's supposed to be gotten back at all costs. Meaning that if innocent bystanders are in the way, they die.

Just a "fun to know" fact. Since someone brought up "saving 1 for 1000."

Yes. And your point is? Would you prefer the alternative? Truly?

I fully support that idea. A nuclear weapon doesn't need to be in the hands of a bad guy. For me, I'd definitely shoot the civilians in the way. But it would be a morally confusing ground for most people.

Just stirring the pot.

[Barathorn]

There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

[Skye1013]

There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

I lol'd... so that being an action... with the intention neither good nor bad... does that mean I'm going to Hell?

[Masumi]

I myself do not go to church, but I believe that they would be judge on what is on their heart. no one is really truly bad so I would say that their intension would be judged.

[Santcuff]

I myself do not go to church, but I believe that they would be judge on what is on their heart. no one is really truly bad so I would say that their intension would be judged.

History would disagree with that, but I'm not going to start anything here

[Flipthebird]

There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

He'd dodge ya and remind you that we live in a fallen world, made fallen by adam and eve. Bad things are going to happen, but to good people? According to the bible no one is good. Jesus even asked why his disciples were calling him good.

[bldavis]

There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

He'd dodge ya and remind you that we live in a fallen world, made fallen by adam and eve. Bad things are going to happen, but to good people? According to the bible no one is good. Jesus even asked why his disciples were calling him good.

if we were good, we would be without evil

without evil, we would be without fualt and therefore perfect
...crap i forgot the name of the guy, but someone in the old testament was translated (taken to heaven without tasting death) as he was perfect

therefore: being here on earth and alive means we are not purely good.

[Mcduffie]

if we were good, we would be without evil

without evil, we would be without fualt and therefore perfect
...crap i forgot the name of the guy, but someone in the old testament was translated (taken to heaven without tasting death) as he was perfect

therefore: being here on earth and alive means we are not purely good.

Guy is Elijah. Years of Christian education finally doing something for me.

So, let's say a nuclear weapon is stolen by some terrorists. While escaping in their vehicle, a civilian SUV with a mother and her 3 kids inside is blocking traffic. You're pursuing the terrorists and trying to recover the nuclear weapon. The fastest way to get it back is to ram the vehicle, and potentially kill everyone inside. What do you do? How does it line up with "not murdering anyone" and having the "best intentions?"

[bldavis]

if we were good, we would be without evil

without evil, we would be without fualt and therefore perfect
...crap i forgot the name of the guy, but someone in the old testament was translated (taken to heaven without tasting death) as he was perfect

therefore: being here on earth and alive means we are not purely good.

Guy is Elijah. Years of Christian education finally doing something for me.

So, let's say a nuclear weapon is stolen by some terrorists. While escaping in their vehicle, a civilian SUV with a mother and her 3 kids inside is blocking traffic. You're pursuing the terrorists and trying to recover the nuclear weapon. The fastest way to get it back is to ram the vehicle, and potentially kill everyone inside. What do you do? How does it line up with "not murdering anyone" and having the "best intentions?"

<-- devout church go-er from age 4 to age 20, then just stopped, am now 27

anyway, sa bad as i feel saying this, sorry family, if i have to choose between avoiding hitting you and saving your lives, or stopping a terrorist with a nuke from killing potentionally millions.....
i dont get paid enough to make that desicision, i would have to follow orders

edit: i think it would look better to have the blood of a mother and 3 kids on my hands than who knows how many people if that nuke goes off

[Mcduffie]

<-- devout church go-er from age 4 to age 20, then just stopped, am now 27

anyway, sa bad as i feel saying this, sorry family, if i have to choose between avoiding hitting you and saving your lives, or stopping a terrorist with a nuke from killing potentionally millions.....
i dont get paid enough to make that desicision, i would have to follow orders

<--Atheist, went to Christian college to study Christianity.

Killing civilians wouldn't be an act of war. Double that, considering they're US citizens. Plus, what if you're killing off the inventor of a pill that cures cancer? Wouldn't that also kill millions of people?

My point is, life is made up of a lot of decisions. You have to make these decisions. Weighing the "eternal" benefits only creates problems. I'm with you, I'd kill the civilians. Short-term, foreseeable result is a nuclear weapon that could kill lots of people. Eternal, unforeseeable result is religious condemnation in the afterlife or maybe the death of someone that could invent something cool. I'm gonna go with what I can see.

inb4 "fath is being sure of what you hope for, and certain of what you do not see"

God might be pleased with you picking the "eternal" benefit. But the millions of people melting and suffering nuclear fallout wouldn't.

[Fivelives]

Faith is a good idea. The problem is, somewhere along the line it got turned into a belief. Ideas can be changed, but people will die for their beliefs.

[Brutalicus]

Faith is a good idea. The problem is, somewhere along the line it got turned into a belief. Ideas can be changed, but people will die for their beliefs.

Die, and do so much worse. I'm not ashamed to say I'm Catholic, but it's kind of hard not to be ashamed of a lot of things people of faith (not the least of whom were Catholic) have done some baaaaad things in the name of their religions. I think it would be kind of naive for a religious person to say people are only judged on their words, their actions, or their CBH (or appreciation thereof, for us males). That said, I'm voting CBH.

[Passionario]

So, let's say a nuclear weapon is stolen by some terrorists. While escaping in their vehicle, a civilian SUV with a mother and her 3 kids inside is blocking traffic. You're pursuing the terrorists and trying to recover the nuclear weapon. The fastest way to get it back is to ram the vehicle, and potentially kill everyone inside. What do you do? How does it line up with "not murdering anyone" and having the "best intentions?"

How about "don't let terrorists steal nuclear weapons"? Or, better yet, "don't create nuclear weapons in the first place"?

[bldavis]

better yet, "don't create nuclear weapons in the first place"?

if only it were possible to go back and stop WWII from happening....
but then again to do that you would have to go back and stop hitler from coming to power
in turn stop the great depression and WWI .....

can we have a redo of the 20th century pls?