Lykil

I was wondering: if by some crazy hypothetical situation, you it would be possible to overthrow the regime of YHWH, as described in the OT in the Bible, how far would you go, to achieve this? I've taken the following question from George Orwell's novel, 1984, because of the many similarities in the Ingsoc and the OT society:

"You are prepared to give your lives?"
"You are prepared to commit murder?"
"To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?"
"To betray your country to foreign powers?"
"You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases - to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party (the God)?"
"If, for example, it would somehow serve our interest to throw sulphuric acid in a child's face - are you prepared to do that?"

And this is me: would you smash the skulls of baby children against the rock?

Regards and in anticipation
Mandark

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Lykil ]</p>

Wizardry

It would be illogical and irresponsible to attempt to end a violent, destructive entity by the use of violent, destructive means on the same people you are trying to liberate. It would be much like gassing the Jews before Hitler could get to him in an effort to defeat him. That's the problem with revolutions like this, as soon as you are willing to violate your own principles in order to protect them, they become worthless. Just look at the Soviet Union or any other corrupt communist regime. The party leadership is as much as an aristocracy as you'll find anywhere.

I refuse to compromise my principles. That's how bad shit gets started.

Peace out.

NialScorva

Who was it that said:
"Beware the man who can only act on principle."

I know it was Samuel Clemens who wrote:
"Principles only have weight on a full stomach"

Or something very similar.


As to the question, I can't imagine myself ever doing it. I would definately try everything possible to avoid it. However, there are *extreme* scenarios (scenarios as absurd as the question you put forward) where I would do so. In all the ones I can imagine, a greater threat of torture is being leveled at my loved ones and me.

Wizardry

I don't act only on principle. In fact I don't even have that many principles, so in most cases, my actions are independant of any of my principles. I really only have a few such principles that I refuse to violate. Delibrately harming innocent people is one of them. I absolutely refuse to cross that line. I fear that it is a folly of men to violate principles in an attempt to conserve them.

If I have crossed the line where you have determined that certain ends warrant the violation of certain fundamental ideas, what prevents me from rationalizing further violations in the future. I risk becoming the very thing that I abhor. On what basis could I then claim the moral high ground. I would rather not go down that road.

Plus, I believe that I am creative enough to find a more creative solution that doesn't necessitate doing things I'd later regret. Of course, that's probably just the result of my massive ego.

Peace out.

tronvillain

Lykil, perhaps you should elaborate on "the regime of YHWH, as described in the OT in the Bible", because I'm not entirely clear what you're talking about. There are situations in which I would be capable of doing any of those things, but I have no idea if that would be one of them.

Lykil

I'm not entirely sure that I'm talking of anything in specific. I'm just talking about what a whole lot of atheist are always complaining about: that YHWH (supposedly) in the OT slaughtered enemy nations of Israel, and ordered death penalty for the gathering of wood on the sabbath, and all the rest of the atrocities frequently listed by angry bible critics.

In any case, some atheists that I know, recommend fighting this god of the bible, should one find out that he exists. So just imagine that the picture that you get of YHWH in the OT, manifested Himself to all the world, and enforced laws and practices similar to those in the OT

Regards
Mandark

NialScorva

Like I said, in a suffiently absurd scenario, anything is possible. A tyrranical extremely powerful but defeatable god (Judges 1:19) who shows no attempt to adhere to moral standards deserves to be fought against with the same lack of mercy. Mercy and honor are a luxury, only useful between parties that agree to common grounds or when one side dramatically overpowers the other. Given a close fight for something so horrid, I'm not going to handicap myself for the benefit of an immoral opponent.

Of course, if this "god" is omnipotent, then that's an entirely different story. Of course, that wouldn't be yahweh either.

Jerry Smith

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, If Judges 1:19 is to be our guide we need not resort to vile acts of terror against children and innocents - we need only to equip ourselves with iron chariots.

If by handicapping one's self, you mean forswearing the tactics described in the first poster's Orwell quotes, then my position on this is different. Certainly, if the oponent were YHWH-come-to life, one would pull out all the stops, and fight the best fight one knew how to. On the other hand, there are lines we must draw even in warfare that cannot be crossed. These lines include targeting or torturing innocents. Cross them, and we lose the right to accuse our opponent of immorality. Cross them, and some other just group has the right to come for us, brining hard justice.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

NialScorva

LOL. True, true. Though I was trying to make the point that if YHWH was fighting with the technology of his followers, then he can be defeated.

I'm an olympic style fencer. Honor and respect are big things in this sport, where one can be thrown out of a competition for not saluting, or by throwing equipment in a temper tantrum that wouldn't be out of place in many other sports. One is never violent, and control and carefule precision are required. Similarly, I've been in several brawls, ranging from mock to rather serious. I've always considered some tactics in those fights to be immoral, a line that I won't cross. Things like kicking to the groin, or injuring eyes and ears. Why? Because I can afford to, and I know that whether I win or lose, I'll be around after the fight or bout to suffer the consequences. I can gaurantee you that if at any point I think that I may not be around after the fight to suffer any moral consequences, I'm going to dump honor for survival.

If you'll look at my post, you'll notice that I say "in a sufficiently absurd situation". I don't think such a situation will every come up. I have a hard time imagining that it ever will. Hell, I have a hard time imagining such a situation. You say "Cross them, and we lose the right to accuse our opponent of immorality." Accusations are weapons. They are subtle weapons, but they are a way of fighting the war none the less. The only absurd scenarios I can think of are situations where the enemy is so dangerous, merciless, and immoral that accusations of immorality are a completely ineffectual weapon. Would it do any good to have the moral high ground on Hitler if it means that he won? Besides, if Hitler won, he'd *automatically* have moral high ground because *he* could define what the moral high ground was.

bgponder

Hey Y'all,

When the situation is War, morality is relative to survival. Call me chickenshit if you will, but I refuse to conceive of the situation where I would even be party to the torture of children. I like to think I would not kill a child, but I am reminded of a story my older brother told of Vietnam.

He was in the AF, an instrument technician, but he did serve "front line" in that he on several occasions had to defend the base perimeter, in a sandbagged foxhole, by returning fire across a cleared area several hundred yards wide. Most of the time, he was just shooting into the jungle where the fire seemed to be coming from, when he could see the bushes move; he rarely saw the enemy fully.

Sometimes, though, the VC would send small children as young as about ten, IIRC, across that clearing, with rough cloth sacks full of grenades slung about them, and the children would be throwing them as well as they could, if they got close enough. Sometimes, they were simply wrapped up in C4 plastic explosive. They were heavily drugged, and hard to stop; numb, apparently. My brother said, sometimes you had to shoot them many times. Of course the C4 usually exploded, as that was the idea.

I believe, in regard to the OP, that I would, if possible by any means, take my family and run, go into hiding in some places I know down in Louisiana.

Goddammit, now I am thoroughly depressed.

PEACE, Cornbread, JOY for the Season and 2002!! Barry