Joining the Military

[sincereheart]

...committeement...



   


   

  I've been doing more and more of that lately!  

[JitC]

It doesn't say you can't give your word or make a committeement.

No. But signing a contract that binds you is more than a yes. It’s a written oath. And Jesus said: “…let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” - (Matt 5:37) Can you honestly say that a binding contract isn’t more than your word? If it’s not more than your word, then nothing is.

You make 'promises' everyday whether you realize it or not.

I don’t make promises, not since I realized the truth. But even if I did make promises, how would that justify others making promises? Does somehow what I do make it ok for others to do what Jesus said not to? I try to do what’s right, but even if I didn’t care at all right and wrong wouldn’t be different. So trying to bring up things you think I do is avoidance of the actual topic of debate.

Some [promises] are long-term (cell phone service)…

If you consider a cell phone necessary there are ways to have cell phone service without making a binding oath. Maybe you’ll spend a bit more, but if it means you’re obeying Jesus it’s worth it.

…some [promises] are day-by-day (job).

Aside from the military, I don’t remember ever making a promise to go to work. I said that I would, but I didn’t do more than that.

[JitC]

…I'll tell you what Matthew 5:33-37 is talking about. It is about perjury and violation of oaths and vows.

No it’s not. Jesus said:
“…it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all…”
Jesus was specifically pointing out that He wasn’t talking about violation of oaths, but that you shouldn’t make them at all, except for oaths to God. When you sign a binding contract, you are making the oath to people, not to God. And Jesus said not to do that.

[Shammu]

Please don't feed the trolls.

[nChrist]

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

He is:

AND, his posts are:

 

[Shammu]

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

He is:

AND, his posts are:

 

And also;
 

[JitC]

When your arguement is full of holes, just resort to personal insults. It takes the focus off the topic.

[sincereheart]

Instead of concentrating on why YOU think being military is bad - while you enjoy the benefits provided for you - how about starting a ministry to the military and their families? They make so many sacrifices - starting with the constant moving and trying to adapt to a new environment, that a ministry geared to those families might be a better compromise for you!  

[Shammu]

When your arguement is full of holes, just resort to personal insults. It takes the focus off the topic.

No your arguments are full of holes. You are also ignoring, the answers given. When you do that, you become a troll.

[Xith]

Fun!  I want an attempt to try and answer (some more).

  Ok, I don't have any biblical references or anything, but I believe I have thought of an answer.
 
  From what I gather, you say (well Jesus said), that it is wrong to make promises (beyond, "Yes, I can", or "No, I can't", and even then it isn't for sure), and that signing say a contract (in this case a military one) is wrong becuase it binds you and makes you a slave of man (please anyone correct me if I have followed this wrongly).

  From the way I see it, 1)  You are already a slave, in fact your contract has a footprint on it from birth, and a number.  You, as a citizen are obligated to this country, if a real draft were to be called (assuming your in the right age/health requirements) you would be obligated to fight, or you could run and are no longer welcome here.  Just as well you are a slave to all the rules of the U.S. and its economy; you obey traffic lights (I assume mostly), you buy gas regularly, you eat foods pre-approved for you.  You also have to pay taxes regularly.  
 
    2)   A promise is only worth as much as the person that gave it, even a written one.  If, in your mind, you decide to break the contract, then by definition you did not keep your promise.  So then you are either a liar, or are not bound by the moral obligation of promises.  You can then either accept or deny the consequences of your actions (which also have consequences).

   So the fact stands, that if you believe that a promise or a contract does bind you to someone.  Then you must also believe that your word is your bond, so you have let your own moral code do the binding.  You are a willing slave (with tons of benefits), and unless you go and hide in the woods with no human interaction, grow your own food, build your own home, and live a lawless existence.  Well then its the life of servitude for you.

  Personally, I say anyone who can be kept to their word should be admired, it is a trait we should cultivate.  I applaud blackeyedpeas for keeping promises like that (especially police service, I hear it can be rough).  As for what Jesus said on the subject, it seems that he had it right.  Don't make promises to serve someone as their lapdog, that is wrong (but not what the military does). And do your best to do what you say you will do.  The only reason I can see that Jesus would say to not swear to anything, is probably because you can never know what promises you can keep.  Probably Jesus's way of keeping people from becoming liars.

[JitC]

Finally someone who’s interested in debate, rather than mockery and name-calling.

From what I gather, you say (well Jesus said), that it is wrong to make promises (beyond, "Yes, I can", or "No, I can't", and even then it isn't for sure), and that signing say a contract (in this case a military one) is wrong because it binds you and makes you a slave of man (please anyone correct me if I have followed this wrongly).

That’s about right. I might add that Jesus gave no exceptions on the subject of promises. However, on other subjects He did give exceptions. Divorce for example; He gave the exception that it’s ok to divorce your spouse if he/she was sexually immoral. But on the subject of promises, there were no exceptions, even though we might like there to be.

From the way I see it, 1)  You are already a slave, in fact your contract has a footprint on it from birth, and a number.

Contracts bind people. I’m no more bound by my birth certificate than somebody is without one. I have to obey the same laws as somebody without one. If there were a draft, and I got drafted, then I would become a slave. But since that’s not currently the case, I’m free. Now, for people who are slaves, it would seem logical that they shouldn’t volunteer to be further enslaved.

You, as a citizen are obligated to this country…

Possibly in a moral sense. But that aside, I’m no more bound to this country than somebody who’s not a citizen. Which is to say, I’m not bound at all, except to obey the law.
 

Just as well you are a slave to all the rules of the U.S.

The church in Corinth was obligated to obey the laws of the land too. If that constitutes slavery, then virtually everybody is a slave. But Paul said to the Corinthian church: “…do not become slaves of men.” - (1 Cor 7:23) It seems that Paul was telling that to people who he didn’t consider to be slaves, even though there were laws they had to obey.

So the fact stands, that if you believe that a promise or a contract does bind you to someone.  Then you must also believe that your word is your bond, so you have let your own moral code do the binding.

Exactly; when you give your word your own moral code does the binding. You are not bound by people, but your own morals. So you are not a slave to people, instead you’re a slave to your own morals.
 

As for what Jesus said on the subject, it seems that he had it right.  Don't make promises to serve someone as their lapdog, that is wrong (but not what the military does).

“…but not what the military does.”? Jesus didn’t give exceptions. He simply said not to. He didn’t say it’s ok if you think it’s best. He said not to “at all”.

The only reason I can see that Jesus would say to not swear to anything, is probably because you can never know what promises you can keep.

But you can’t assume that Jesus meant something different than what He said based solely on your own assumptions on why He said it. That seems to be what a lot of people do when they want to do something contrary to the bible. For example; people who divorce and want to remarry. Even though Jesus said it’s adultery, they assume He meant it in a way that makes it ok for them to remarry. He didn’t say it’s ok to remarry another person after a divorce, but those who want to anyway come up with “reasons” why it’s not against what Jesus said. The same with making promises, and hundreds of other things. It’s convenient to do that, but it’s not right.

[Shammu]

Finally someone who’s interested in debate, rather than mockery and name-calling.

[Xith]

  Your willingness to obey the laws of the land is a form of slavery, you accept a rule above yourself that is comprised of men.  All organizations, groups, governments are forms of this selective slavery.  Sure you can make decisions, even voice your opinion, but at the end of the day you still bend to the law of man.  The birth certificate is your contract to the United States, you were born here, so you fall under its protections, and its rules.  Even internationally you are still in the U.S. jurisdiction, if you commit a crime you will be arrested, and more likely than not, sent to the U.S. for prosecution.  So unless you defect, that birth certificate is a direct bond to who holds main sway over your fate in the eyes of the law.
   
   As for what I meant about your moral code binding you, that is merely an observation on your choice.  Since you choose to put validity in contracts, and promises (meaning that you believe that they bind you).  Then it says you have really already made your choice, you choose to be bound.  You can just as easily pack up and leave, leave everything, and in doing so you would prove you have denied the validity of the bindings of society.  But since you haven't done this, then I can come to the conclusion that you accept the way things are.

  Finally, I do not mean to try to contradict or re-word something Jesus said.   But to take all meanings directly seems to go against the lesson that is trying to be taught.  All I am saying is that from the quote it sounds as if Jesus is trying to warn people.  Not only about wrongness of being bound like a slave (and I mean a true slave, one with no say or rights), but he is also trying to warn others.  A promise to do good cannot be a wrong, but breaking that promise would be, it would make you into a liar.  So he gives an alternative, instead of giving a promise you may not be able keep, why not just give your word (which is measured by your character) to do what you can.  That way you will not put yourself in the position to be a potential liar.

[JitC]

Your willingness to obey the laws of the land is a form of slavery…

Paul said to obey the law, but he also said not to volunteer for slavery. So it seems that, according to the bible, slavery and obeying the law are two distinctly different things. Applying the term “slavery” to obeying the law is only word play. It’s not biblical though.

However, I do understand what you are saying. In some sense nobody is totally free, since there are rules for everybody. And nobody is totally enslaved, because everybody has some sort of freedom, even if it's an extremely small amount. So we could call the lack of total freedom by the term "slavery". (And doing such a thing would result in a lot of confusion on exactly what is meant.) That would mean that Paul meant we shouldn't further enslave ourselves. But, being that nobody has total freedom, the term slavery should be reserved for those who have a logically distinct lack of freedom.

Sure you can make decisions, even voice your opinion, but at the end of the day you still bend to the law of man.

There is nowhere that you could live where the law doesn’t apply. So if it were actually slavery, it would be an unavoidable slavery. And, based on what Paul said, we still shouldn’t volunteer for further enslavement.

The birth certificate is your contract to the United States…

I don’t understand how it’s a contract. I’m not obligated to do anything because of it.

…you were born here, so you fall under its protections, and its rules.

True. I don’t see how its protections are relevant though. But, as far as rules go, no matter where I was born I would be under the law of the land.

…you choose to be bound.  You can just as easily pack up and leave, leave everything…

And move where, outer space? There’s nowhere that I could move to where the only laws I’d have to obey are God’s. No matter where I live, I have to obey the laws of man. They’re unavoidable.

But since you haven't done this, then I can come to the conclusion that you accept the way things are.

I accept the laws because Paul said that I should, and I have no legal way to avoid them. Like I said, the law is everwhere that I could move to.

I do not mean to try to contradict or re-word something Jesus said. But to take all meanings directly seems to go against the lesson that is trying to be taught.

I don’t see how it goes against the lesson. You summed up what you consider the lesson;
“The only reason I can see that Jesus would say to not swear to anything, is probably because you can never know what promises you can keep.  Probably Jesus's way of keeping people from becoming liars.”
If that is the lesson, it’s probable that it’s really only part of the lesson. There must be more to the lesson than that, since Jesus didn’t give exceptions to the rule, like He did with other things.

A promise to do good cannot be a wrong…

Accomplishing something good by sinning is still wrong.

…but breaking that promise would be [wrong], it would make you into a liar.

True. I’m not advocating breaking promises. I’m advocating not making them in the first place.

So he gives an alternative, instead of giving a promise you may not be able keep, why not just give your word (which is measured by your character) to do what you can.  That way you will not put yourself in the position to be a potential liar.

So what He said was a suggestion, not a command? What Jesus said regarding promises seems to be a clear command to me. If it’s not, how could you distinguish between His suggestions and His commands? Maybe telling us not to divorce was only a suggestion too. Maybe His lesson was just to let us know to take marriage seriously. We could unravel everything Jesus said by making assumptions like that. Sadly that’s actually what many people do when they want to do something Jesus was against.

[Xith]

  Sorry, I merely refer to the birth certificate as a contract, because by being born here they take a foot print (signature?), and assign you a social sercurity number.  I am using it in the context of a contract, because it is a sure sign that you are bound to the U.S.  In fact you need your certificate to prove you are bound to the U.S. in order to get things like driver's license's and such.  You don't have to think of it as a contract, but just for arguments sake I am using it that way.

  Ok, to clarify on the whole Jesus issue (is it a command or a suggestion).  I am saying that the way you presented the quote makes me think of it as a suggestion, or better yet a guide line.  But like you said, where do you draw the line?  Where do you decide if something is implicitly commanded, or just implied that it might be a good idea.  To this I just say, context, some things can be unanimously decided on that "quote x" is indeed a command.  Others, however, are much harder to discern, so they may require some discussion into the true meaning. I mean if I stood on a hill and said something like "Always travel up hill towards the light, never down into darkness, for that is the path to damnation". Now of course I mean this as a metaphor, yet if someone printed it, it might sound like I mean that no one should every walk down hill. My argument is that, in the quote you gave, it seems to sound like Jesus is implying a greater meaning rather than commanding it.  The ambiguity of the quote seems to hint that there is a further meaning.  What it is though I can only guess at.