The Wicked Bible
From lewrockwell.com comes (this piece) by Laurence M. Vance.
As I read his piece, at I was set upon pointing towards it without comment. However midway through he lost me. In conclusion, he states:
To which my reply is, when our enemies understand it, we too can live by it.
As I read his piece, at I was set upon pointing towards it without comment. However midway through he lost me. In conclusion, he states:
What part of "Thou shalt not kill" is so hard to understand?
To which my reply is, when our enemies understand it, we too can live by it.
posted by Little David at 3/13/2006 03:43:00 PM
3 Comments:
I think that you have missed the point entirely.
What Vance was trying to bring across is the use of the Bible as moral authority, while simultaneously, being grossly insincere with the core of its teachings. "Thou shalt not kill"... except when it is inconvenient?
In essence, moral hypocrisy.
Regards.
If Mr Vance had stuck to condemning preachers, particularly those who preach the Bible is the unerring "Word of God" I think I would be much more in agreement. I then would have also myself added: And don't forget that Jesus, in the New Testament, gave us a new commandment, which is to "Love one another as I have loved you."
But he included military recruiters in his condemnation. I think he went too far.
We, as a society, have societal norms about what is and is not acceptable. In times of war, someone has to man the gates.
If we face an enemy that is willing to kill, we are forced to either wave the flag of surrender or defend ourselves, and that includes killing.
We can argue about whether or not a war is just. However to argue like Mr Vance would be to argue that no war is ever just. I disagree with that.
I'm not entirely sure that he is arguing that there is no such thing as "just" war.
I think that he is using it as an example of "opportunism" in morality.
Regards.
Post a Comment
<< Home