lol religion. =(
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Orion, you should send this guy 10% of all you make, a tithe in other words. Sounds like he is YOUR Rev. Wright.[/quote]
Why would I, I am not even religious.
As for his speech, he makes some simple observations that are glaringly obvious to non-Americans and true Christians.
You cannot serve the Prince of Peace and serve the warfare state.
It is either the Lord or the golden calf you made.
I do not care either way, but once you equate Americas actions that result in the deaths of millions with the way of Jesus of Nazareth you have completely lost your way.
In this hour when the young recruit is sick at heart and haunted by uncertainty, the YMCA’s religious agent can reassure him by telling him of his vision of Jesus "sighting down a gun barrel and running a bayonet through an enemy’s body. At first I shrank from associating Jesus with the bayonet and essayed to place in his hands the sword the use of which He himself sanctioned.
Then it was that I saw Heaven open and beheld One faithful and true. … I discerned in His hands a bayonet sword attached to a rifle… He stood in the center of the line and the very front in the thickest of the fight." In this vision Jesus was disemboweling Hun soldiers in a war about whose meaning and morals we are still stumped.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Whatever.
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html
[/quote]
Why bother, just read it yourself and be the judge of his arguments.
Personally I like the part where a soldier does not really take up a sword but is only commissioned to take up a sword.
So I take it that you are more of a Thomasian, not an actual Christian.
As opposed to a Rothbardian/Rockwellian?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
As opposed to a Rothbardian/Rockwellian?[/quote]
Perhaps as opposed to a think for yourself-ian. Rockwell specifically addressed the ‘Just War’ hypothesis. Quoting St. Thomas of Aquina’s defense of St. Augustine shows that the Just War hypothesis has a long history and distinguished adherents, but it is still reasonable to ask if it is right.
How has the War in Iraq met the criteria of the Just War theory?
If you do accept Just War theory, can you honestly say that the Second Gulf War meets the criteria? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so this was in no way a defensive war.
Rockwell quoted others who have noted that everyone who started a war has claimed that they were justified. When can you name a war that was prevented by the Just War Theory? If the Just War Theory is only used by governments to ‘justify’ war, isn’t the theory nothing more than a fig leaf for belligerent leaders?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As opposed to a Rothbardian/Rockwellian?
Perhaps as opposed to a think for yourself-ian. Rockwell specifically addressed the ‘Just War’ hypothesis. Quoting St. Thomas of Aquina’s defense of St. Augustine shows that the Just War hypothesis has a long history and distinguished adherents, but it is still reasonable to ask if it is right.
How has the War in Iraq met the criteria of the Just War theory?
A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly
If you do accept Just War theory, can you honestly say that the Second Gulf War meets the criteria? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so this was in no way a defensive war.
Rockwell quoted others who have noted that everyone who started a war has claimed that they were justified. When can you name a war that was prevented by the Just War Theory? If the Just War Theory is only used by governments to ‘justify’ war, isn’t the theory nothing more than a fig leaf for belligerent leaders?[/quote]
How do I name wars that were prevented? Wars that never happened? Ok, how about WW3?
Edit: Do you mean Vance, or Rockwell specifically?
By the way, while I respect the idea of a Just War theory to try and define when Christians are justified in using force, I don’t necessarily subscribe to it.
My issue with Vance, Rockwell, and Rothbard is their alomst utopian view of the world. I do believe the state and the institution of the military must exist. I don’t pretend oceans are an adequate defense against some organized and powerful military in the present or future.
Furthermore, they seem willing to grant Christians license to defend themselves. Actually, I believe they would agree that anyone should be able to defend themselves against coercive domination.
But, only on an individual basis? May I use violence to protect a neighbor from harm or death? Does that license end with my neighborhood, my zipcode, my state, my country? Where does it end? I can ally with a neighbor, but not a foreigner? I thought anti-statist wouldn’t discriminate based on borders?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Edit: Do you mean Vance, or Rockwell specifically?[/quote]
In this case, Vance’s speech on Rockwell’s website.
Can we find examples of an executive asking a legislative body for the right to go to war, only to have the request rejected because the legislature felt the war to be unjust?
Vance raised a particular objection: that the Just War theory is meaningless because its requirements are subjective and any leader can frame the request for war in a way that it will formally meet the criteria. But, when we look back at history, we see that many of the claims that justified the war were complete BS fabricated by the leaders.
If we want to discuss Christianity and War, then we need to first decide if the Just War theory is truly Christian. Vance takes the fairly common view among evangelicals that we need to look at the early church, rather than the more ‘evolved’ views that followed.
So, Vance looks to the words of Christ and the teaching of the early Church (e.g. St. Paul). In this context, he finds no support for the theory of Just War.
He then criticized the theory by pointing out that it can and has been used to rally support for every war in US history.
He makes a strong, impassioned argument based upon a coherent view of early Christianity. If you don’t like his conclusion, where are his logical errors?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit: Do you mean Vance, or Rockwell specifically?
In this case, Vance’s speech on Rockwell’s website.
Can we find examples of an executive asking a legislative body for the right to go to war, only to have the request rejected because the legislature felt the war to be unjust?
Vance raised a particular objection: that the Just War theory is meaningless because its requirements are subjective and any leader can frame the request for war in a way that it will formally meet the criteria. But, when we look back at history, we see that many of the claims that justified the war were complete BS fabricated by the leaders.
If we want to discuss Christianity and War, then we need to first decide if the Just War theory is truly Christian. Vance takes the fairly common view among evangelicals that we need to look at the early church, rather than the more ‘evolved’ views that followed.
So, Vance looks to the words of Christ and the teaching of the early Church (e.g. St. Paul). In this context, he finds no support for the theory of Just War.
He then criticized the theory by pointing out that it can and has been used to rally support for every war in US history.
He makes a strong, impassioned argument based upon a coherent view of early Christianity. If you don’t like his conclusion, where are his logical errors?
[/quote]
His error is believing that Christians are called to stand by and allow themselves and other victims to be systematically slaughtered in a deliberate manner. And again, he comes off as utopian anarchist with his outright rejection of the soldier and a military.
I’ll follow up briefly by saying that we believe war is here to stay until the second coming. The question is when and how a Christian is to enter into war.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
His error is believing that Christians are called to stand by and allow themselves and other victims to be systematically slaughtered in a deliberate manner. And again, he comes off as utopian anarchist with his outright rejection of the soldier and a military.[/quote]
That is, he expects Christians to be Christ-like. Was not Jesus willingly slaughtered in a deliberate manner? I can understand why someone may reject this position as Utopian, but how can you then claim to follow Christ?
Did Jesus not admonish Peter for taking up the sword? Is this not a rejection of the military? There are examples of successful non-violent protest, so should not a person of faith put there faith in God rather than their own strength?
There are examples of this working. Martin Luther King Jr. was distinctly more successful than the Black Panthers in combating the evil of Racism, even if it did cost him his life. Isn’t Rev. King the exemplar of the Christian response to evil?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
His error is believing that Christians are called to stand by and allow themselves and other victims to be systematically slaughtered in a deliberate manner. And again, he comes off as utopian anarchist with his outright rejection of the soldier and a military.
That is, he expects Christians to be Christ-like. Was not Jesus willingly slaughtered in a deliberate manner? I can understand why someone may reject this position as Utopian, but how can you then claim to follow Christ?
Did Jesus not admonish Peter for taking up the sword? Is this not a rejection of the military? There are examples of successful non-violent protest, so should not a person of faith put there faith in God rather than their own strength?
There are examples of this working. Martin Luther King Jr. was distinctly more successful than the Black Panthers in combating the evil of Racism, even if it did cost him his life. Isn’t Rev. King the exemplar of the Christian response to evil?
[/quote]
Christ had a specific mission. And he accomplished that mission at the appointed hour. But until that time:
[i]Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’[a] For the things concerning Me have an end.?
38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”[/i]
Luke 22:36-38 (New King James Version)
King reasonably surmised that his goals could be accomplished through peaceful measures. King was fortunate to reside in a nation whose representatives could be shamed.
Other nations, in similar circumstances, would’ve lined King up against a wall and blew his brains out the first or second time he tried to organize a march. That, or he would’ve rotted in a cell for the rest of his days as a political prisoner.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
King reasonably surmised that his goals could be accomplished through peaceful measures. King was fortunate to reside in a nation whose representatives could be shamed.
Other nations, in similar circumstances, would’ve lined King up against a wall and blew his brains out the first or second time he tried to organize a march. That, or he would’ve rotted in a cell for the rest of his days as a political prisoner.[/quote]
But isn’t that exactly what St. Paul did? Did he not willingly go into a cell because of his speeches that were unpopular with the state? Did he trust in God or his own strength for his release? And did not God use Paul’s imprisonment as an opportunity to reach Rome?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
King reasonably surmised that his goals could be accomplished through peaceful measures. King was fortunate to reside in a nation whose representatives could be shamed.
Other nations, in similar circumstances, would’ve lined King up against a wall and blew his brains out the first or second time he tried to organize a march. That, or he would’ve rotted in a cell for the rest of his days as a political prisoner.
But isn’t that exactly what St. Paul did? Did he not willingly go into a cell because of his speeches that were unpopular with the state? Did he trust in God or his own strength for his release? And did not God use Paul’s imprisonment as an opportunity to reach Rome?
[/quote]
War wasn’t even an option for the defense of the earliest Chistians. Paul didn’t have many options.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[i]Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’[a] For the things concerning Me have an end.?
38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”[/i]
Luke 22:36-38 (New King James Version)
[/quote]
This strikes me as a rather odd interpretation of Luke 22. If we look at the verse in a little more context…
35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
The point isn’t that the disciples needed a sword, but that they needed to trust in God for their material needs. Dare I say, even for their own defense?
Just a few verses later …
49When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
Christ specifically told his followers that they must not take up the sword, even in defense of Jesus.
Speaking of Paul.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God?s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God?s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5
Romans 13