[quote]orion wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
Well, I finally watched the first video.
I might be able to defend individual statements Vance has made, but on the whole, he’s all over the map and mostly setting up straw men and knocking them over. Christianity in the US is not a monolith. There are Roman Catholics and evangelicals as well as mainline Protestants, and, lastly, confessionally Reformed Protestants. I don’t recall the Pope supporting the Iraq war, so I think that rules out one subset of “christians” in Vance’ talk. Some evangelicals may be supporting the Iraq war or Republicans from the pulpit. I don’t know how many are, but I’m sure there are some. The biggest evangelical churches in the US didn’t issue any official statements on who to vote for in the last election, as far as I know. I don’t seem to recall Rick Warren coming out in support of the Iraq war either:
http://www.google.com/search?q=“rick+warren”+%2Biraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I did search through sermonaudio to see if there was much evidence for evangelical bellicosity:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=iraq&entiresite=true
Feel free to listen through some of those sermons and see if you can find much evidence for Vance’ thesis.
Finally, Vance, like you said of Ron Paul earlier, is a moonbat. The negative reviews of his “critique” of Calvinism tell you about all you need to know about him:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0962889873/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=0
His entire game is set up around knocking over straw men.
I think you need to read through chapter 20 of the Insitutes to see where the grounds for Vance’ argument differs (enormously) from historical Protestant orthodoxy:
http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book4/bk4ch20.html
I’ve linked this before, and I’m not sure if you’ve actually read it yet. But Calvin does address just war theory, and it’s worth a read:
[quote]As it is sometimes necessary for kings and states to take up arms in order to execute public vengeance, the reason assigned furnishes us with the means of estimating how far the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful. For if power has been given them to maintain the tranquillity of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent, assist those who are violently oppressed, and animadvert on crimes, can they rise it more opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and the common tranquillity of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent oppression and gross wrongs? If it becomes them to be the guardians and maintainers of the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been inflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with impunity? Since it makes no difference whether it is by a king or by the lowest of the people that a hostile and devastating inroad is made into a district over which they have no authority, all alike are to be regarded and punished as robbers. Natural equity and duty, therefore, demand that princes be armed not only to repress private crimes by judicial inflictions, but to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostilely assailed. Such even the Holy Spirit, in many passages of Scripture, declares to be lawful.
- Restraint and humanity in war
But if it is objected that in the New Testament there is no passage or example teaching that war is lawful for Christians, I answer, first, that the reason for carrying on war, which anciently existed, still exists in the present day, and that, on the other hand, there is no ground for debarring, magistrates from the defence of those under them; And, secondly, that in the Apostolical writings we are not to look for a distinct exposition of those matters, their object being not to form a civil polity but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ; lastly, that there also it is indicated, in passing, that our Saviour, by his advent, made no change in this respect. For (to use the words of Augustine) “if Christian discipline condemned all wars, when the soldiers asked counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to cast away their arms, and withdraw altogether from military service. Whereas it was said, (Luke 3: 14,) Concuss no one, do injury to no one, be contented with your pay. Those who he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve,” (August. Ep. 5 ad Marcell.)
But all magistrates must here be particularly cautious not to give way, in the slightest degree, to their passions. Or rather, whether punishments are to be inflicted, they must not be borne headlong by anger, nor hurried away by hatred, nor burn with implacable severity; they must, as Augustine says, (De Civil. Dei, Lib. 5 cap. 24,) “even pity a common nature in him in whom they punish an individual fault;” or whether they have to take up arms against an enemy, that is, an armed robber, they must not readily catch at the opportunity, nay, they must not take it when offered, unless compelled by the strongest necessity. For if we are to do far more than that heathen demanded who wished war to appear as desired peace, assuredly all other means must be tried before having recourse to arms. In fine, in both cases, they must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others.
On this right of war depends the right of garrisons, leagues, and other civil munitions. By garrisons, I mean those which are stationed in states for defence of the frontiers; by leagues, the alliances which are made by neighbouring princess on the ground that if any disturbance arise within their territories, they will mutually assist each other, and combine their forces to repel the common enemies of the human race; under civil munitions I include every thing pertaining to the military art.[/quote]
Emphasis mine. We could argue all day about whether or not Saddam actually was a threat. Suffice it to say, Vance’ “imperialism” thesis holds no water because, prior to the Iraq war, a) a just war case was made and b) restraint was used. In fact, the only ethnic cleansing that has taken place in Iraq has been Muslim on Muslim or Muslim on Christian(the Christians have almost been run out of Iraq). It hasn’t been us doing it.
From my perspective, Vance’ association with the late heretic Zane Hodges told me about all I needed to know about Vance’ theology. If you want to interact with Christianity on some sort of an intellectual level, pick better representatives. Pick someone on a higher level, not those associated with RonPaulian moonbattery.
