Do soldiers end up in hell?

I'd like to make some observations on all that has gone before...

I am ex Military (many years ago) and I follow no 'faith'. When I consider all the people throughout all the ages who have died due to religious, racial and ethnic differences, I can find no place in my heart or mind for a belief in a god! Therefore, I could say that the original question holds no meaning for me, since I do not believe in heaven or hell (or any of the other possible destinations of non-Christian beliefs).

However, not believing in an omnipotent supernatural creation figure does not absolve me from law, ethics or personal behaviour consistant with the standards of the day. Just because I don't believe in a god, does not mean that I can go around killing people for any unlawful reason, now does it. In fact, there is no reason to suppose that just because I do not believe in a god that my ethical behaviour or personal standards are lower than those who do. In reality they may be higher!

Firstly, consider ethics and morals. Morality is a measure, if you like, of what is appropriate behaviour in a particular place and time. For instance, what may be considered quite moral in most western civilizations right now (such as, say, topless sunbathing), would not be moral in either another time (past or future) or perhaps in another place. So morality changes from place to place and from time to time.

Ethics is a measure of what you (or I) as an individual (or an organisation of individuals) consider to be right and wrong. And deep inside all of us we can easily define whether we consider any particular action to be right or wrong.

This matter of 'thou shall not kill' vs 'thou shall not murder'. Is this a particularly American thing? I have never in all my many years heard of 'thou shall not murder'! From the outside looking in, this sounds a lot like propaganda to me - an attempt to influence morality. Many religious texts are contradictory in any case. For instance where does 'thou shall not kill' stand in relation to 'an eye for an eye', etc......

The modern concept (at least since the Romans) of a military force, unless one is bent upon conquest, is the concept of defence. Since the end of WWII, Japan's military forces have possessed no offensive weaponry (although they have lived under the umbrella of America's offensive capabilities). Military strategic and tactical thinking over the years has determined that, as the saying goes, ' The best form of defence, is offense', culminating in the cold war scenario of mutual deterent (that is the threat of mutual annihilation). Therefore, I would say that anyone who joined the military 'to kill' has about the same morals and ethics as Adolf Hitler, whereas to join the military 'to protect and defend' can be seen as a noble and ethical following - much the same as joining the police forces, for instance. That one may be called upon to act pre-emptively in the act of defence does not change matters. In reality a modern military force is a balance of defensive and offensive capabilities.

And don't be fooled into thinking that a state can exist without defensive military forces. Even the Vatican has a well trained military force, albeit these days mostly ceremonial (as far as the public is concerned). But these forces are Swiss, and the reason that they are Swiss is that the last conflict that the Swiss fought (a couple of centuries ago) proved them to be the most fierce fighters in Europe (at the time) and that was the reason that they were appointed as the Vatican guard.

So, to paraphrase the original question... Is it ethical for soldiers to kill in war?

The answer to that is dependent upon the judgment and ethics of the military and political leaders who send them into war, and what they command them to do. It is not just a matter of 'just following orders' either. There was NEVER any army that was sent into battle that did not believe that they were doing 'the right thing' or that it was necessary to win the battle, win the war and restore peace.

Beyond this, an individual soldier's actions must stand the test of ethics and morals.

So, if you believe that it is not ethical for a soldier to kill in war (within ethical rules of engagement, of course) and that soldier should be held accountable, then so should all those 'civilians' who helped put the political leadership in power that deploys that soldier. You are just as responsible, because it is 'you' that the soldier is 'defending' - in a democracy, it is 'you' who sent him into battle in the first place, it is 'you' who decides what that soldier may or may not do on the battlefield.

Finally there is one, almost self evident truth about war that is worth remembering.....

People don't make war, armies don't make war - only politicians make war! And the true reasons for making war, the politicians keep to themselves, while telling the rest of us what they want us to believe.

Taken from the Bhagavad Gita (Nikhilananda)
I you are killed in battle, you will go to heaven; if you win , you will enjoy earth. Therefore arise, O son of Kunti, resolved to fight.

Regarding alike pleasure and pain, gain and loss, success and defeat, prepare yourself for battle.

Thus you will incur no sin.

So... if you are a soldier because you WANT to pay your mortgage and the Army looked like a good job... Then you get to the warzone and don't WANT to be there anymore...

Yep... you've found Hell.

But if you have resolved to believe you are fighting the good fight... Then battle wounded or victorious... you find Heaven.

What is Jihad?

Fighting for the Supreme Godhead alone.

When you fight for personal reasons or nationalistic reasons you bind yourself to the event; the benefits you gain are stained with the memory of who you had to kill to get there. An anxious Hell.

When you fight for the Lord you are free from bondage. Blood sacrifice becomes no different than altar wine.

BG 5.10: One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful action, as the lotus leaf is untouched by water.

Blessings,

Sri Oracle.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
And, though the physical world is a dismal place, the birth of a soul is the birth of a clean slate.

"Prarabdha is that portion of the past karma which is responsible for the present body. That portion of the sanchita karma which influences human life in the present incarnation is called prarabdha. It is ripe for reaping. It cannot be avoided or changed. It is only exhausted by being experienced. You pay your past debts. prarabdha karma is that which has begun and is actually bearing fruit." - Sri Swami Sivananda

Actually you are handed a quite full and messy slate at birth. It is your mission to empty, clean, and polish it before you die.

Sri Oracle

What is Jihad?

Fighting for the Supreme Godhead alone.

Incorrect. Jihad means struggle.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

What is Jihad?

Fighting for the Supreme Godhead alone.

Incorrect. Jihad means struggle.
en.wikipedia.org...

Read it all...

It goes on to say there are 5 forms of Jihad... the one I spoke of is:

"jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God)"

Sri Oracle

There is no place of eternal torment. Hell literally means "the grave". In that sense, we all "go to hell". There are multiple verses if anyone is interested. Christ, in the judgment, will determine whether we "knew God" and were known by God not whether we did a particular sin or not.

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. If we are guilty in any portion of the law, we are guilty of the whole law and therefore separated from The Father. Christ has made a way to The Father where our sins (all of them and whatever they may be) are blotted out.

The OP question is one of situational ethics and misses the point. To him who thinks it to be a sin and does it, it is a sin. If we refuse Christ's salvation, we will die-be blotted out for all eternity, which is certainly more just and merciful than being tormented by flames forever and ever. Besides, even the lake of fire (which is reserved for Satan and his angels-not human beings) will eventually be destroyed.

"The gift of God is eternal LIFE". "The wages of sin is DEATH", not eternal life in some place of torment. Death, as in, you don't exist at all anymore in any form or fashion. "The dead know not anything".

If the wages of sin were eternal torment then Christ has not yet paid the price for our sins. Something to think about.

If we are to look at this in the sense of Christianity as hell is the name in the Christian faith then I would say no, soldiers do not go to hell. I quote Ecclesiastes chapter 3 verse 8.

8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Here is also another site, a Christian one that interprets the bibles views on war.
What the bible says about war

The bible bases its views on war with the principle of Just War, that being that the purpose of the war in the first place is to restore peace. Just a push in a different direction than I've seen on this thread so far.

Hey guys and girls,

well I was just searching for videos on youtube and I found this...

www.youtube.com...

What do you think about soldiers ending up in hell now? This is pretty evil stuff...I understand he was a suicide bomber but theres no way they needed to act like they've just played on the xbox

[edit on 31-10-2006 by twisted_fate]

reply to post by MCory1


What about people how got drafted? They didn't choose to be in the army, maybe because they didn't believe they would be forgiven; but unfortunately were called to war whether they liked it or not. Are all of those people in hell too?

reply to post by twisted_fate


hello there

have you heard of HArry Patch?

he was in WW1 he shot legs and arms and never to kill. if you aim not to kill then its a mistake when you do. your heart is the truth in this respect and God will judge it

david