dk

dk:
-First: I think we should clean up SingleDad’s hypothetical because it’s unreasonable and conflicted. If we impose upon the creator a conflicted hypothetical then god becomes a human creation to make the hypothetical plausible.
-Second: from a theistic perspective a person’s can only choose freely i.e. if they succeed or fail by the consequences of their own choices (free will), then the choice is between God’s Will or to oppose God’s will, not punishment and reward. Free will is implausible if a person’s choices are random or undirected.
-Third: Society represents an aspect of creation. To follow the will of the creation in defiance of god demotes god to an inferior position, a course of action that is conflicted.
dk: - The “Command” to kill all Venezuelans or Brazilians is conflicted because it’s impossible to identify all “Venezuelans”. From a theistic perspective the uncaused cause is omnipotent and eternal, hence the command violates a theistic god’s nature. I suppose one could suppose god is The Great Trickster, but then the creation must reflect the creation’s nature. The empirical evidence clearly indicates the Universe is well order, so it follows that creator possesses an orderly nature. The second hypothetical is even more conflicted, because if the strategic plan is to occupy Brazil’s land, then killing all Brazilians is an obstacle to the occupation.

Hey, I see a much more realistic analogy between the Allies WW II’ pursuit of unconditional surrender and the harem warfare in the OT. Secular historians postulate WW II was fought to make the world safe for democracy and communism. An absurd bit of lunacy because the modern world is neither safe, democratic or communist; and never has been. If secular historians are correct then to this ends they completely fail to justify the carpet bombing of civilians, atomic bombs lobbed into Japan and weapon systems that cost $trillions. I don’t see how a reasonable person could possibly swallow such a large pill full of crap. Sectarian historians like the Jews, Catholics and Moslems see WW II under the Theory of Just War proposed by Aquinas in the 13th Century, and absolute surrender (very much like OT harem warfare). Theists justify pursuit of unconditional surrender as a necessary precondition to restore good order (morality) and peace to the world, which suits the OT and God just fine. I'd like to ask some compelling questions?

Let’s compare WW II pursuit of unconditional surrender to OT harem warfare.

Clearly Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt willing pursued terms of Absolute Surrender against Germany and Japan at the cost of millions of civilian lives and 100s of $trillions in material resources.

• Are terms of Absolute Surrender the equivalent of OT harem warfare (to utterly destroy the enemy, livestock, infrastructure and civilians) under Napoleon’s doctrine of Total Warfare.
  <ol type="A">
• If YES then was this a reasonable solution of men to eliminate an eminent threat, or was it inspired by the OT in the Bible, or could it have been both?
• ELSE If NO then how can we justify the carnage in national terms.

[/list=a]

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

bd-from-kg

dk:

First, if you’re going to start a thread based on a previous thread it is customary to provide a link to the other thread. If you don’t, at the very least you should be courteous enough to quote the entire post that you want to respond to.

Second, what do you mean by “harem warfare”?

Now I’d like to get to the point. Unfortunately, I really don’t see what it is. SD’s intent was to describe a modern-day parallel to the situation depicted in the OT in which God commanded the Israelites to massacre entire populations because they happened to be in the way. Your response is to ask whether various measures used in WWII (which no one thought had been commanded or directly sanctioned by God) were morally justified. You might as well ask whether capital punishment is justified; it’s just as relevant.

I would certainly agree that SD’s hypothetical is just as unreasonable as God’s supposed command to annihilate the Amelekites because they had been among the first to oppose the Israelites’ war of conquest in Canaan several hundred years earlier. Why should we “clean it up”? So that it won’t illustrate quite so clearly the cruelty, injustice, and barbaric savagery of the imagined God of the Israelites?

Let’s get serious, shall we? It would be simple to clarify this hypothetical command to make it clear exactly who was to be killed. And the Israelites would have had the same problem if they had tried to be scrupulous about killing only “true” Amelekites. Of course, they “solved” this problem by running their swords through everyone in sight.

The Israelites certainly didn’t find the killing of all of the Canaanites occupying the “promised land” to be an obstacle to occupying it. For that matter, neither did the American settlers see any advantage to keeping the American Indians alive to help us occupy the land ourselves. Nor did the Australian settlers see any advantage to keeping the Aborigines alive. In each case a few survived, but not because the settlers thought it was in their own interests to spare them. But what has this to do with anything anyway? If you were commanded to do something by God, would you question His strategy?

This is pointless. Why don’t you tell us what you would actually do under these conditions? Why are you so intent on changing the subject?

If your real interest is in discussing the morality of things like the firebombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima, this is a very odd way of leading into it.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

dk

Ok, I didn’t want to divert attention away from the existing thread.
The genocide and extermination allowed in Deuteronomy.
Analogy and hypothetical are useful to examine different perspectives, not to confuse infidelity with the marital act. It was Israel’s infidelity to God that led to Saul becoming King.

• OT covenant with Abraham verses Allies promise “to make the world safe for democracy and communism”
• God’s authority verses the command structure of the Ally Powers.
• Devil’s authority verses the command structure of the Axis Powers.
• pursuit of unconditional surrender verses pursuit of harem warfare.

Seems to me the analogy holds true at a number of levels, so it might be interesting to examine.
Really, seems to me, the infidelity of the Amorites, Moabites, Canaanites,,, etc.,,, and Israel made God’s wrath a blessing. Analogously it was the infidelity of the Peace signed in Versailles to end WW I that made WW II a blessing to European Jews.
[quote]dk: The “Command” to kill all Venezuelans or Brazilians is conflicted because it’s impossible to identify all “Venezuelans”.That’s true, analogously the carpet bombing and atomic bombs solved a lot of problems for Israel and the Allies by indiscriminately killing millions. The primary problem of European Jews in 1930-40s was slavery, exile, and genocide. The same problems Israel faced in Exodus and Numbers. Let’s be serious, either Israel crossed the Jordan to establish a nation, or they died. From the perspective of Salvation History God preserved Israel, despite their infidelities, as a blessing to the world. That’s the Biblical Story Line from “He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heal” to “Father forgive them they know not what they do”.
Pointless? I was hoping the discussion could be turned to examine secular verses sectarian authority in relationship to justice. [list][*] Analogies that transcend sectarian and secular values and principles are equivocal but suited to a hierarchical command structure. This analogy compares the command structure and purposes of the OT with the command structure and purposes of WW II, using Israel as a bridge to connect the ancient (sectarian) and modern (secular) worlds.[*]From both a secular and sectarian perspective people affirm success (or failure) with the goodness (or evil) of their doctrine. Had the Axis Powers won WW II then the genocide of Jews affirms NAZI doctrine, but since NAZI Germany was completely pulverized genocide became evil. One might even postulate that’s it’s the evil NAZISM that transcends secular and sectarian beliefs with singular purpose.[*] Power wielded without purpose affirms infidelity. 1dad’s hypothetical deprived God of purpose, salvation history, hence impugned God’s fidelity. [/lilst]
I don’t understand the defensive comment. I’m interested in the topic to explore the just use of power. I suspect the world, especially the U.S., laments over Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the nuclear bomb confronts us with the power to destroy humanity. Even though Dresden was a vindictive action devoid of strategic military value it’s unlikely an in-cinerary, or conventional bomb could totally destroy humanity. Unconditional surrender was about bringing the Axis Powers to their knees by destroying the national institutions that appealed to fascists. Looking past the glory and nationalism I think its obvious fascism was attractive to many institutions in the U.S., Britain and the USSR. WW I had been fought as the War to End all Wars, but when Britain and France collected the spoils of war they sowed the seeds for WW II. After WW II the Allies didn’t bother to collect the spoils because Germany and Japan had been leveled; so instead they restored their vanquished enemies by rebuilding their institutions on principles of life, liberty and property. The USSR rebuilt the WARSAW Pact Nations on command style socialist principles. But the real point is that it was the corruption within the Allies houses that made the pursuit of unconditional surrender just, and had nothing to do with the defeated fascists. I believe God commanded the destruction of Israel’s enemies for the same reasons, or more specifically the Golden Calf and the Sin of Baal Peor.

dk

Salvation History as recorded in the OT denotes Israel as a blessing to all nations, with prophetic overtures to a messiah that would fulfill the Covenants (prophecies). God's fidelity rested on the Covenants not Israel or the Canaanites. Analagously the fidelity of the Allies rested on rebuilding Western Germany and Japan as Allies; and the fidelity of the USSR rested on rebuilding the WARSAW Pact Nations.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

bd-from-kg

dk:

Really, seems to me, drinking too deeply of the OT poison can make a man mad. Be careful. The notion that a record of the delusions of a bunch of primitive, savage desert barbarians is the “Word of God” has been known to cause people to do some pretty strange things, like flying planes full of innocent people into tall buildings.

As you can see, we’re operating from such totally different perspectives that any discussion is bound to be fruitless. I was curious about a couple of things, though:

First, why do you refer to the massacres in the OT as “harem warfare” ? To me, “harem warfare” conjures up an image of a catfight between two of the emir’s wives.

Second, explain what you mean by:

Third, please expand on the following:

Sorry if I’ve disappointed you by refusing to discuss the supposed parallels you mentioned. I just don’t see any significant points of contact between a long drawn out campaign of extermination of innocent populations by a gang of murderous thugs and a defensive action against an unprovoked aggression by an evil maniac. Nor do I see any comparison between “unconditional surrender”, which simply means dissolving the governments that carried out the aggression, and the policy of total annihilation practiced by the Israelites. And no one in his right mind thinks that the Allies actions were sanctioned by God. WWII was not a struggle between Good and Evil, but a conflict between some really bad guys and some not-quite-so-bad guys. Some of the things the not-quite-so-bad guys did are hard to justify. But at least they didn’t go through town after town running their swords through all the helpless women and children.

dk

dk: - I think the OT clearly demonstrates that the Law is insufficient. The Middle East was the catalyst that spawned several civilizations, most dead today, because of their unique geography and natural recourses. I think if history teaches us anything, it is that people forget history. You’ve made the point quite eloquently.
dk: - I agree any discussion determined to be fruitless is fruitless. More likely the perspective presented makes you feel uncomfortable. I quite frankly don’t see the difference between killings for God or some humanistic ideal, the covenants given by God’s stated the strategic goals; just as modern nations state their peace and war objectives. At least the God of the OT accurately stated his objectives and lived up to his end of the bargain. Modern secular democratic nations tend to be less than open about their methods and strategic objectives.

I think many Moslem people have come to understand that post modernists secular nations, especially the U.S., poses a deadly and eminent threat to their civilization. They believe post modernist secular nations are destroying Western Civilization and desire to destroy them as well. Today Moslems are the most prolific people on the planet, while the population of Western Civilization has fallen below replacement level. The Balkans, Middle East and Turkey are to Europe, what Mexico, Central America and South America are to the U.S.; a source of cheap labor, white slavery and drugs. In 1950 Western Civilization composed 30% of world’s population, and today its 15%. It doesn’t take a brain trust to figure the trend.
dk: - The OT Canaanites, Moabites etc… kings kept harems. Harem warfare refers to the practice killing whole families, especially anyone that might challenge ascendancy in the future. Savage? In peacetime the number of people killed by their own governments dwarfs any conceivable carnage in the entire OT. Why do you call ancient people savages, and modern people innocents?
dk: - WW I was fought because for nationalism and imperialist aims, yet the war was promoted as the “War to End all Wars”. At Versailles England and France sliced up Europe and Africa like a fatted calf. Germany took full responsibility for the war and agreed to pay reparations. England and France had no interest a just peace, but upon gorging themselves. To destroy the industrial complex of Central Alliance would have deprived England and France of tribute they so richly desired.
dk: - You should check out the economics and savagery of Total Warfare invented by Napoleon under the flag (covenant) of democracy’s “Social Contract”. Before Napoleon wars had evolved into expensive propositions waged by professional solders on isolated battlefields that left civilians and infrastructure alone. To train, equipped and pay professional soldiers put a considerable strain on the King’s treasury. Napoleon under the Social Contract conscripted however many solders he needed, when he needed them, from any suitable demographic. With conscripted and commandeered industry soldiers and materials got cheap, so soldiers were provided a minimum of training, and military tactics were modified to understand infantrymen were a renewable resource. Napoleon’s brainchild was irresistible to the rest of Europe, and industrialists from Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Prussia were quick to seize upon the opportunity democracy offered. Since then War between nations has become totally savage, literally making every man and woman a strategic target. We in the U.S. wonder why democracy has trouble taking roots in third world nations, well maybe because ruthless leaders make poor statesmen.

Vorkosigan

dk, what is it you are arguing for here?

Vorkosigan

dk

I'm arguing about perspective. The perspective of the OT verses the perspective in a post modernists world. I generally submit deconstructing historical perspective, to reconstruct it with modern norms and determinations misses the mark entirely. Lets take another perspective. Carter goes to Cuba and announces that the U.S. Embargo has failed, so the U.S. should end the embargo. From Carter's and Castro's perspective that's true, but from a Cold War perspective the embargo is an unequivocal success. Bush wants to lift the embargo, but needs some concessions to demonstrate U.S fidelity. The Cold War is over so what has begun is a negotiation to transition Cuba to a capitalist perspective. Cuba is negotiating for some degree of autonomy from U.S. economic hegemony, and Bush for economic influence over the Cuba economy. Bush wins by lifting the embargo because NATO won the Cold War, Castro wins if the embargo is lifted because it failed. Perspective is very important to the past, present and future.

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>