Better off: Homosexual or Dead?

[AAFitz]

Here, I'll compromise with you. I'll accept being a coward for stating something that's clearly written in the currently accepted religious books of numerous religions and for abiding by my belief that war and killing is immoral.

In return, you get to accept being a coward for hiding behind so-called "patriotism" and support for your country through backing a senseless war that has resulted in more than its fair share of unnecessary deaths.

So, I get to be a coward for opposing killing and believing war is immoral, while you get to be a coward for openly supporting the unnecessary allocation of funding/human life (civilian and military personnel) for a war that need not have reached anywhere near the extent that it has.

There, we can all unite as cowards now.

You are free to post that a war is immoral, and certainly to oppose it. I am not necessarily supporting the war myself. I am however supporting the men and women who join the military and kill other people with the main purpose of protecting me, ultimately from death.

As far as your opinion that we can just sit back and not have wars and everyone will follow, well, let me just say Id love it if you were right, but if the cops stopped killing those they are forced to kill, and the military stopped killing those they are forced to kill, you would have to pick up a gun yourself real soon.

What I called you a coward for of course is not disagreeing with one particular war, but your blanket statement that all who have killed in the name of protecting their country have done so in sin, which is not only wrong, but cowardly, since you enjoy and benefit from those acts on a daily basis, and, because of those wars and sacrifices, do not have to pick up a weapon yourself and defend yourself, and are therefore saved from the need to take another life, in order to protect your own...and again, make no mistake, you would have to do, if others did not do it for you. But calling them sinners in the eyes of their God for making this sacrifice is just reprehensible as I said, though I suppose you just didnt put much thought into it at the time.

[lgoasklucyl]

What I called you a coward for of course is not disagreeing with one particular war, but your blanket statement that all who have killed in the name of protecting their country have done so in sin, which is not only wrong, but cowardly, since you enjoy and benefit from those acts on a daily basis, and, because of those wars and sacrifices, do not have to pick up a weapon yourself and defend yourself, and are therefore saved from the need to take another life, in order to protect your own...and again, make no mistake, you would have to do, if others did not do it for you. But calling them sinners in the eyes of their God for making this sacrifice is just reprehensible as I said, though I suppose you just didnt put much thought into it at the time.

At the time, no, I had not put a great deal of thought into the statement. Upon a quick glance of Jay's post it seemed as if he was stating that individuals are better off dead than homosexual in the eyes of God. Said statement was infuriating, so I posted quickly.

However, having been raised a Catholic and spent four years studying their holy book- I am fully aware of what is and what is not considered "sin". Seeing as I have not written the words, it's not my fault a religion shuns killing as sin. While I am morally opposed to killing, I am not the one who put it into text and practice that it is a 'sin' in the eyes of a 'higher power'. While modern-religious individuals may re-interpret/pick and choose what they like from their personal holy book, the facts of the matter stand: these books preached peace and loving ones neighbor; and spoke against violence and murder.

You can argue that what military personnel are doing is wonderful, grand, and therefore not killing as outlined in any holy book, but who are you (or anyone else) to judge? There's plenty of militant groups out their who believe they are killing for just causes too, yet outsiders would wholeheartedly disagree. Your worldview is going to govern whether or not you feel a war or military action is justified or not, yet someone else definitely exists who is going to believe otherwise. Who's right?

[mpjh]

Better Off This:

[bigimg]http://blog.newsok.com/television/files/2009/09/Modern-Fam-2-768x1024.jpg[/bigimg]
Than Dead

[ahunda]

I grew up in a country, that started 2 World Wars & committed genocide, its military playing a key-role in both events. The people leading the country in these years believed, their cause was just & they were doing the right thing. So did many, who carried out the orders & did the actual killing.

People, who disagreed, were labeled traitorous cowards & enemies of the fatherland. Most of them were carried off to camps & killed.

Enjoy your patriotism, guys. Seeing what it caused in the history of my home country, I never could.

[notyou2]

I grew up in a country, that started 2 World Wars & committed genocide, its military playing a key-role in both events. The people leading the country in these years believed, their cause was just & they were doing the right thing. So did many, who carried out the orders & did the actual killing.

People, who disagreed, were labeled traitorous cowards & enemies of the fatherland. Most of them were carried off to camps & killed.

Enjoy your patriotism, guys. Seeing what it caused in the history of my home country, I never could.

Some of the things you are saying sound eerily similar to a modern country

[AAFitz]

What I called you a coward for of course is not disagreeing with one particular war, but your blanket statement that all who have killed in the name of protecting their country have done so in sin, which is not only wrong, but cowardly, since you enjoy and benefit from those acts on a daily basis, and, because of those wars and sacrifices, do not have to pick up a weapon yourself and defend yourself, and are therefore saved from the need to take another life, in order to protect your own...and again, make no mistake, you would have to do, if others did not do it for you. But calling them sinners in the eyes of their God for making this sacrifice is just reprehensible as I said, though I suppose you just didnt put much thought into it at the time.

At the time, no, I had not put a great deal of thought into the statement. Upon a quick glance of Jay's post it seemed as if he was stating that individuals are better off dead than homosexual in the eyes of God. Said statement was infuriating, so I posted quickly.

However, having been raised a Catholic and spent four years studying their holy book- I am fully aware of what is and what is not considered "sin". Seeing as I have not written the words, it's not my fault a religion shuns killing as sin. While I am morally opposed to killing, I am not the one who put it into text and practice that it is a 'sin' in the eyes of a 'higher power'. While modern-religious individuals may re-interpret/pick and choose what they like from their personal holy book, the facts of the matter stand: these books preached peace and loving ones neighbor; and spoke against violence and murder.

You can argue that what military personnel are doing is wonderful, grand, and therefore not killing as outlined in any holy book, but who are you (or anyone else) to judge? There's plenty of militant groups out their who believe they are killing for just causes too, yet outsiders would wholeheartedly disagree. Your worldview is going to govern whether or not you feel a war or military action is justified or not, yet someone else definitely exists who is going to believe otherwise. Who's right?

modern religious individuals are not re-interpreting anything. As explained, though shalt not kill is better translated to though shalt not murder. If the ten commandments were to be taken so literally, then there would be no need for the other pages of the bible, which are completely about translation, and thinking and determining from examples what is morally just and what is not.

As far as just and not just, it usually does not matter in most cases. If someone is fighting in a war to protect their country and family, than they are simply defending themselves. Certainly many are murdering, but most are not, and are only looking to protect their homes.

In any case, I understand you you misunderstood what jay wrote, because it simply didn't make any sense in the first place, and you obviously just assumed he meant something else.

[Symmetry]

Huh, interesting- is it ok to kill if you're being robbed? If so, is it ok to go on and kill everyone who might rob you?

[AAFitz]

I grew up in a country, that started 2 World Wars & committed genocide, its military playing a key-role in both events. The people leading the country in these years believed, their cause was just & they were doing the right thing. So did many, who carried out the orders & did the actual killing.

People, who disagreed, were labeled traitorous cowards & enemies of the fatherland. Most of them were carried off to camps & killed.

Enjoy your patriotism, guys. Seeing what it caused in the history of my home country, I never could.

Some of the things you are saying sound eerily similar to a modern country

Perhaps, luckilly though we live in the US and we are free to disagree vocally. Unless of course you are suggesting they are carried off to camps and killed now.

I agree that patriotism for the sake of it is a very dangerous thing, and I am not at all suggesting that we back our military no matter what they decide to do. My point is not to agree or disagree with war, only that calling the servicemen and women as sinners is uncalled for.

No doubt some are, but most are good men and women who give their lives and are forced to kill others to protect us, as do many law enforcement officers. Calling them sinners, or essentially murderers because they occasionally have to do this is just wrong.

Even in the case of Germany, there were no doubt many, many soldiers that went way too far and did things that can only be describe as sins against humanity, but at the same time, many were simply fighting to protect their country. To suggest an 18 year old kid who gets dressed up in a uniform and is marched out to the front line and is then forced to shoot at the enemy, or be killed himself as a murderer is simply wrong, especially by those who profit, and enjoy the benefits provided from that sacrifice.

[notyou2]

I am not saying they are sinners, and I would never say that. I served in the military. My father was a brigadier general. I was simply pointing out the parallels.

[AAFitz]

Huh, interesting- is it ok to kill if you're being robbed? If so, is it ok to go on and kill everyone who might rob you?

It isnt necessarily ok to kill if youre being robbed, and obviously its not ok to kill everyone who might rob you, unless of course by might, you mean they are standing around you with knives saying they are going to rob you and possibly hurt or kill you. However, it is not a sin if you kill someone if you are trying to protect yourself assuming that you just arent trying to kill them when you really dont have to, or obviously dont have to, or if that person is about to break into your house, and you fear he is about to harm your wife or child. If you kill someone in self defense, than it is a bit much to say it is ok, but certainly the commandment in question was not meant for this situation.

Your question is simple and quite bland. There are obviously countless situations where one can debate the sin or non sinful act of taking another life, but this conversation is not about that. Its about labeling all those in military that have had to take a life as breaking the law of God, which is what lucy in no uncertain terms said.

If youd like to debate the other million other possibilities of killing vs murder, I somehow suspect based on this question, it will be rather easy.

[AAFitz]

I am not saying they are sinners, and I would never say that. I served in the military. My father was a brigadier general. I was simply pointing out the parallels.

I was not referring to you saying they were sinners. It was lucy that called them sinners which was in the quote at the beginning of this thread, which is what we are really discussing...which quite frankly, many dont even realize at this point.

Most would never say that, and personally I feel any that do, while living in the comfort provided by that sacrifice are simply cowards. I know many in my life that have had to kill to protect me and my family. I also suspect that at times they possibly even had to kill in a way that could be considered sinful. However, to say that any that have killed in the military, and by association law enforcement are sinners and broke the word of their God is just reprehensible.

But again, most missed the beginning of this conversation, which is why it is being mistaken for suggesting patriotism at all costs.

It is important to point out any possible parallels though, and thanks to people like your father, we still have the right to do so.

The parallels are hardly very parallel though. Hitler did not invade countries and try to liberate them from dictatorship regimes, one of which mirrored Hitlers own dictatorship in many ways. The current wars are in some ways unique to what the world has seen before, because technology has made it possible for a small number of people to do a very, very large amount of destruction. We may never know if the WMD were made up, or not made up, or who knew either way, but since they very well were possible, and could still be possible, the men and women who fought in these wars could very well have indeed saved their families lives by doing so. Unfortunately, the elimination of one dictator has created a near impossible situation to control.

[Symmetry]

Huh, interesting- is it ok to kill if you're being robbed? If so, is it ok to go on and kill everyone who might rob you?

It isnt necessarily ok to kill if youre being robbed, and obviously its not ok to kill everyone who might rob you. However, it is not a sin if you kill someone if you are trying to protect yourself, or if that person is about to break into your house, and you fear he is about to harm your wife or child.

Your question is simple and quite bland. There are obviously countless situations where one can debate the sin or non sinful act of taking another life, but this conversation is not about that. Its about labeling all those in military that have had to take a life as breaking the law of God, which is what lucy in no uncertain terms said.

If youd like to debate the other million other possibilities of killing vs murder, I somehow suspect based on this question, it will be rather easy.

Damn right it's simple and bland, and that's because I don't believe in sin. I don't feel any compunction to debate the definition and translation of a word in Hebrew scripture when I define what is morally right or wrong. It's a quibble, a non-point.

If you want to go Christian, then soldiers don't really obey the teachings of Jesus. Who does? I don't believe in the stuff myself, so I tend to judge on my own terms, rather than who is righteous or not based on a given translation of the Bible.

[AAFitz]

Huh, interesting- is it ok to kill if you're being robbed? If so, is it ok to go on and kill everyone who might rob you?

It isnt necessarily ok to kill if youre being robbed, and obviously its not ok to kill everyone who might rob you. However, it is not a sin if you kill someone if you are trying to protect yourself, or if that person is about to break into your house, and you fear he is about to harm your wife or child.

Your question is simple and quite bland. There are obviously countless situations where one can debate the sin or non sinful act of taking another life, but this conversation is not about that. Its about labeling all those in military that have had to take a life as breaking the law of God, which is what lucy in no uncertain terms said.

If youd like to debate the other million other possibilities of killing vs murder, I somehow suspect based on this question, it will be rather easy.

Damn right it's simple and bland, and that's because I don't believe in sin. I don't feel any compunction to debate the definition and translation of a word in Hebrew scripture when I define what is morally right or wrong. It's a quibble, a non-point.

If you want to go Christian, then soldiers don't really obey the teachings of Jesus. Who does? I don't believe in the stuff myself, so I tend to judge on my own terms, rather than who is righteous or not based on a given translation of the Bible.

Well i was being polite when I said would you like to debate anything anyways...what I really meant was do you have any more stupid questions that mean nothing.

As far as not obeying the teachings of Jesus, perhaps you are correct perhaps you are not, but the bible is a very large book, and to say that if you kill in the military you have sinned, is just as simple and bland as your earlier question...which...was about robbing by the way, and not even related to the topic.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure that the question of killing in the military vs murder is all that related to the topic of whether you'd be better off gay or dead, but nevermind.

As, for the Bible, it is indeed a big book and says a lot of things. I don't think that debating the translation of one of the ten (if you really believe that there are ten) commandments says much about anything.

[AAFitz]

I'm not sure that the question of killing in the military vs murder is all that related to the topic of whether you'd be better off gay or dead, but nevermind.

As, for the Bible, it is indeed a big book and says a lot of things. I don't think that debating the translation of one of the ten (if you really believe that there are ten) commandments says much about anything.

Well, you have me there about being on topic actually, but certainly whether its ok to kill robbers is not even about the off topic conversation.

As far as the discussion of the one commandment in question, it was very relevant to the discussion, and since it is about killing and possibly being dead in a war situation, its at least connected to the topic.

As far as believing there are commandments, well thats just a fact. As far as believing they were inspired or transcribed by god, that is actually irrelevant to the conversation, except that it was relevant to lucys comment, because it was meant for those military men who did believe it. For those that dont, its really irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the entire subject did change gears, because of a misunderstanding of a rather cryptic post...and which is also the reason the entire post got up in the first place, because the person in question was not saying they would rather have their kid be dead than homosexual, but that they feared he might become homosexual more, because he felt there was not much danger of him getting killed.

No doubt it still just a ridiculous statement and devoid of much logic or common parenting, but not really as bad as implied at first...but again, only because of misunderstanding really.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure that the question of killing in the military vs murder is all that related to the topic of whether you'd be better off gay or dead, but nevermind.

As, for the Bible, it is indeed a big book and says a lot of things. I don't think that debating the translation of one of the ten (if you really believe that there are ten) commandments says much about anything.

Well, you have me there about being on topic actually, but certainly whether its ok to kill robbers is not even about the off topic conversation.

As far as the discussion of the one commandment in question, it was very relevant to the discussion, and since it is about killing and possibly being dead in a war situation, its at least connected to the topic.

As far as believing there are commandments, well thats just a fact. As far as believing they were inspired or transcribed by god, that is actually irrelevant to the conversation, except that it was relevant to lucys comment, because it was meant for those military men who did believe it. For those that dont, its really irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the entire subject did change gears, because of a misunderstanding of a rather cryptic post...and which is also the reason the entire post got up in the first place, because the person in question was not saying they would rather have their kid be dead than homosexual, but that they feared he might become homosexual more, because he felt there was not much danger of him getting killed.

No doubt it still just a ridiculous statement and devoid of much logic or common parenting, but not really as bad as implied at first...but again, only because of misunderstanding really.

Well, fair enough.

The commandment thing though- I'd suggest that you have a look at the way that the commandments are divided. Most agree that there are ten, but few agree on what those ten are out of the list. The first three being the big issue traditionally. "Thou shalt not kill" vs "murder" is a bit more recent.

There are commandments in the Bible, but it's important where you draw the lines and how you translate them.

[AAFitz]

I don't think that debating the translation of one of the ten ... commandments says much about anything.

You just posted this, and now this?

The commandment thing though- I'd suggest that you have a look at the way that the commandments are divided. Most agree that there are ten, but few agree on what those ten are out of the list. The first three being the big issue traditionally. "Thou shalt not kill" vs "murder" is a bit more recent.

There are commandments in the Bible, but it's important where you draw the lines and how you translate them.

Its in the same post even.

In any case, we were only using one commandment, which many believe is meant to mean murder....not kill

Oh...and I have to point his out... that earlier, longer post was one of my better weaving jobs I thought... I tied that together with some pretty thin strings if I do say so myself. And to be honest, I rolled my eyes at myself by the end of it.

[Symmetry]

I don't think that debating the translation of one of the ten ... commandments says much about anything.

You just posted this, and now this?

The commandment thing though- I'd suggest that you have a look at the way that the commandments are divided. Most agree that there are ten, but few agree on what those ten are out of the list. The first three being the big issue traditionally. "Thou shalt not kill" vs "murder" is a bit more recent.

There are commandments in the Bible, but it's important where you draw the lines and how you translate them.

Its in the same post even.

In any case, we were only using one commandment, which many believe is meant to mean murder....not kill

I think some of your replies turned up in my post. Anyway- I'm not sure what you want to say. Perhaps it would be better for me to leave the topic and let it get back on track. P.M. me if you have problems.

Sym

[AAFitz]

I don't think that debating the translation of one of the ten ... commandments says much about anything.

You just posted this, and now this?

The commandment thing though- I'd suggest that you have a look at the way that the commandments are divided. Most agree that there are ten, but few agree on what those ten are out of the list. The first three being the big issue traditionally. "Thou shalt not kill" vs "murder" is a bit more recent.

There are commandments in the Bible, but it's important where you draw the lines and how you translate them.

Its in the same post even.

In any case, we were only using one commandment, which many believe is meant to mean murder....not kill

I think some of your replies turned up in my post. Anyway- I'm not sure what you want to say. Perhaps it would be better for me to leave the topic and let it get back on track. P.M. me if you have problems.

Sym

No problems, I just found it funny you were saying a debate about the translation commandments didnt say much about anything, in one post and then started a debate about the translation of the commandments in nearly the next.

[lgoasklucyl]

Topics been off topic since page one.

The topic is really on some gigantic asshole who places more concern on their child's sexual preference than their life.

[Woodruff]

I don't recall there being a lot of exceptions listed in the Ten Commandments. Did you get a different version of them than I did?

While there are no “exceptions” in the Ten Commandments (Side note, just writing that makes me angry; there are the “ten words” written on the stone tablets; what those words are we have no idea because they are only on those stone tablets (the second set by the way, the first one apparently was left for scrap after Moses broke them) in the Arc of the Covenant. There are two descriptive texts of those ten words in the Torah and both Jewish, Protestants and Catholics parse those texts differently) there is a significant problem of word translation. A better translation of the Hebrew is “murder” not “kill.”

Irrelevant, since if someone considers all wars to be unlawful, then it follows logically that all killing done by soldiers in that war is murder.

[Snorri1234]

I grew up in a country, that started 2 World Wars & committed genocide, its military playing a key-role in both events. The people leading the country in these years believed, their cause was just & they were doing the right thing. So did many, who carried out the orders & did the actual killing.

People, who disagreed, were labeled traitorous cowards & enemies of the fatherland. Most of them were carried off to camps & killed.

Enjoy your patriotism, guys. Seeing what it caused in the history of my home country, I never could.

Some of the things you are saying sound eerily similar to a modern country

Perhaps, luckilly though we live in the US and we are free to disagree vocally. Unless of course you are suggesting they are carried off to camps and killed now.

I agree that patriotism for the sake of it is a very dangerous thing, and I am not at all suggesting that we back our military no matter what they decide to do. My point is not to agree or disagree with war, only that calling the servicemen and women as sinners is uncalled for.

No doubt some are, but most are good men and women who give their lives and are forced to kill others to protect us, as do many law enforcement officers. Calling them sinners, or essentially murderers because they occasionally have to do this is just wrong.

Even in the case of Germany, there were no doubt many, many soldiers that went way too far and did things that can only be describe as sins against humanity, but at the same time, many were simply fighting to protect their country. To suggest an 18 year old kid who gets dressed up in a uniform and is marched out to the front line and is then forced to shoot at the enemy, or be killed himself as a murderer is simply wrong, especially by those who profit, and enjoy the benefits provided from that sacrifice.

I think the problem here is that you're trying to make religion make sense. Sure, it would be unreasonable if an 18 year old kid who got forced into the military and forced to kill is called a sinner but take that up with the religious group.

[Skittles!]

I would definitely rather be dead. f*ck homosexuality!

[AAFitz]

I grew up in a country, that started 2 World Wars & committed genocide, its military playing a key-role in both events. The people leading the country in these years believed, their cause was just & they were doing the right thing. So did many, who carried out the orders & did the actual killing.

People, who disagreed, were labeled traitorous cowards & enemies of the fatherland. Most of them were carried off to camps & killed.

Enjoy your patriotism, guys. Seeing what it caused in the history of my home country, I never could.

Some of the things you are saying sound eerily similar to a modern country

Perhaps, luckilly though we live in the US and we are free to disagree vocally. Unless of course you are suggesting they are carried off to camps and killed now.

I agree that patriotism for the sake of it is a very dangerous thing, and I am not at all suggesting that we back our military no matter what they decide to do. My point is not to agree or disagree with war, only that calling the servicemen and women as sinners is uncalled for.

No doubt some are, but most are good men and women who give their lives and are forced to kill others to protect us, as do many law enforcement officers. Calling them sinners, or essentially murderers because they occasionally have to do this is just wrong.

Even in the case of Germany, there were no doubt many, many soldiers that went way too far and did things that can only be describe as sins against humanity, but at the same time, many were simply fighting to protect their country. To suggest an 18 year old kid who gets dressed up in a uniform and is marched out to the front line and is then forced to shoot at the enemy, or be killed himself as a murderer is simply wrong, especially by those who profit, and enjoy the benefits provided from that sacrifice.

I think the problem here is that you're trying to make religion make sense. Sure, it would be unreasonable if an 18 year old kid who got forced into the military and forced to kill is called a sinner but take that up with the religious group.

No, Im taking it up with the ones that called them sinners including yourself and lucy, and simply pointing out the cowardice of that:

Wait...since when is killing not a sin according to teh commandments?

Are you saying that people who are asked to kill in the military are sinning and going against the word of their God when doing so?

Uh....yes. Why are they not?

You did later point out that the commandment is better translated thou shalt not murder also, so for killing in the military to be a sin under that commandment, it would have to be murder.

Are you saying its murder as well?

[Snorri1234]

I grew up in a country, that started 2 World Wars & committed genocide, its military playing a key-role in both events. The people leading the country in these years believed, their cause was just & they were doing the right thing. So did many, who carried out the orders & did the actual killing.

People, who disagreed, were labeled traitorous cowards & enemies of the fatherland. Most of them were carried off to camps & killed.

Enjoy your patriotism, guys. Seeing what it caused in the history of my home country, I never could.

Some of the things you are saying sound eerily similar to a modern country

Perhaps, luckilly though we live in the US and we are free to disagree vocally. Unless of course you are suggesting they are carried off to camps and killed now.

I agree that patriotism for the sake of it is a very dangerous thing, and I am not at all suggesting that we back our military no matter what they decide to do. My point is not to agree or disagree with war, only that calling the servicemen and women as sinners is uncalled for.

No doubt some are, but most are good men and women who give their lives and are forced to kill others to protect us, as do many law enforcement officers. Calling them sinners, or essentially murderers because they occasionally have to do this is just wrong.

Even in the case of Germany, there were no doubt many, many soldiers that went way too far and did things that can only be describe as sins against humanity, but at the same time, many were simply fighting to protect their country. To suggest an 18 year old kid who gets dressed up in a uniform and is marched out to the front line and is then forced to shoot at the enemy, or be killed himself as a murderer is simply wrong, especially by those who profit, and enjoy the benefits provided from that sacrifice.

I think the problem here is that you're trying to make religion make sense. Sure, it would be unreasonable if an 18 year old kid who got forced into the military and forced to kill is called a sinner but take that up with the religious group.

No, Im taking it up with the ones that called them sinners including yourself and lucy, and simply pointing out the cowardice of that:

Wait...since when is killing not a sin according to teh commandments?

Are you saying that people who are asked to kill in the military are sinning and going against the word of their God when doing so?

Uh....yes. Why are they not?

You did later point out that the commandment is better translated thou shalt not murder also, so for killing in the military to be a sin under that commandment, it would have to be murder.

Are you saying its murder as well?

The translation, but I'm not talking about the translation.

Unless it's a just war, killing in war is a sin. The catholic church even agrees with that. And according to the standards they gave Vietnam and Iraq are not considered just wars.

But you're confusing description with blame. The fact that killing in an unjust war is a sin doesn't mean soldiers are to blame for it. Common christian belief is that you can't go a single day without sinning, unless you're locked up in a dark room and even then you're sinning for laziness. Christianity is not about common sense. The Catholic Church says 5 billion people are living in sin simply for not believing in their particular skydaddy, acting suprised that they might considers soldiers also sinning is just silly.