When soldiers asked John the Baptist (the prophet of the day) what they should do now that they were baptized as followers of God, he didn't tell them to lay down their weapons, he didn't condemn them claiming they were morally apathetic, he didn't rebuke them for taking "a pay cheque to give up moral responsibility," all he told them to do was to not abuse their power. If simply being a soldier is as morally corrupt as you define them as being, wouldn't God's very own prophet tell them as much?Originally Posted by Luke 3:14
Second of all:God commanded His people to act as soldiers. Not every soldier fits your definition of being morally irresponsible, and not every command given to those soldiers is morally wrong. Yes, God will one day make every person give an account for their life, and yes, people who have killed will one day find out if they were justified or not in killing such-and-such person/people... but if God Himself commanded His own people to kill their enemies in order to help protect themselves from moral evil, then you should reconsider your definition of what it means to be a soldier.Originally Posted by 1 Samuel 15:1-3
Obviously there are going to be soldiers who do fit your definition, but you can't just blanket every soldier who ever existed or will exist as being morally corrupt or in it just for the money.