I have never, I believe, had a crossed word with you before but come on my man!! You cant be serious.
Well, Tao . . . you have a bad memory!
We did have a "crossed word" before over the killing and eating of animals. You accused me of demeaning and belittling animals other than humans. I personally think it was a misunderstanding. To settle that score, I'll say that whatever conscience we have cannot ever be perfectly objective because it is based on our own emotional reaction to our own treatment of animals. Formulating objective moral standards on that isn't possible. The best you can do is go by how you feel.
It's a very anthropocentric view, but that's the thing, it's all based on our personal experience of our own actions. There are no moral absolutes except that which is derived from our own personal response to something we do. This discussion, from my POV is a similar issue.
My view on moral standards is that if you're going to set moral standards, you have to consider how you'd realistically apply them to the social, mental, cultural and emotional issues of the individual and group involved. The world and society has moral standards that I imagine, a lot of us don't question. I don't adopt any morals until I know can realistically absorb them into my frame of mind and mental framework. I speak my mind about these things and I try to be as honest about them as I can. We had a conflict before for this reason.
I had a disagreement/misunderstanding with greymare once about domestic violence. It was for the same reason.
I think I'm having another one of those episodes . . . maybe it's just a phase.
OMG Salty!! What you been smoking dude!! Using star trek and inspector gadget to justify genocide!! ........ murder is murder and any book that calls for it is an outrage that should only be held up as an example of how not to behave.
I don't know if you misunderstood me there in my last post, but for me the question here is what you and I think this OT God is all about.
To explain what I meant with Star Trek and Inspector Gadget, I would say this. Very often when an individual or group is conducting war and engaging in conflicts there are two things that can guide one's conduct. One is ideology. The other is a code of honour that takes into consideration the personal dignity of everyone involved, and whether what one is doing is noble. An entity's code of honour serves as a restraint, as well as a way of deciding whether one's cause is right, despite cultural differences. A code of honour leads an individual or enemy to respect one's enemy or opponent. With a code of honour, there is a time and place for humility. You are never too proud to respect an opponent. You give him credit for doing business with you. There was a way of playing fair.
Conflicts between families, tribes and whole countries have been fought like this for centuries. It was about "playing fair." Japanese warlords in the Warring States period fought each other like that. The English nobles in the Wars of the Roses fought each other like that. Chinese families in Imperial China fighting family feuds probably fought like that too. True, they fought and killed each other, but they didn't lose their humanity. The people who fought in these conflicts were very sentimental and emotional people. The movie Braveheart I think is a good example of what I am saying. It was a very sentimental story with really sentimental people and I believe it is a good illustration of war back in those days.
Yes, to us it's all barbaric, but I have come to think that people didn't completely lose their humanity. It probably wasn't really as bloody as we think. People were not less human back then than we are now. I think when we really lost our humanity was in World War II with the mechanised warfare and systematic bombing of targets.
What I would say isn't noble and honourable is pursuing the cause of an ideology without a code of honour. Under such a mentality, a group or individual pursues the goal of an ideology as a means to an end. There is no respect for an opponent or enemy. The ideology is all that matters. You don't care about the people you're fighting. You only care about the goal. The relentless pursuit of one's ideology without a code of honour dehumanises your relationship with the enemy.
This was how people thought back then, with their sentimental thinking with war, before 19th century Western European civilisation brought a new way of thinking to the world, with the way it organised society, as well as war. Unlike the "lesser civilisations," the Western Europeans fought war with brutal, systematic efficiency. There was no room for sentimentality. It was all about cold, emotionless, calculative and objective rationality. It was all for the sake of promoting Western European civilisation, less for respect of the civilisations on which they imposed their values. According to the old way of thinking, I'm pretty sure it'd be thought of as war without honour.
The OT calls the God of the Israelites their "Lord," and it seems He even thought of Himself as a
tribal God. He seemed to have little intention of actually changing the Middle-Eastern tribal ethics at the time and was merely content with immersing Himself in their way of fighting war. It seemed also like a feudal lord. It was a matter of loyalty.
In today's world we'd call it being barbaric, but that was the way the world worked back then. What happened back then with the Israelites was pretty normal. It didn't go beyond what any Middle-Eastern race would have done.
The important thing to me here is whether or not the OT God had a code of honour because that was the measure of the dignity of a human being, as well as a god/God back then. You may argue that He was no better than the people and civilisations that existed back then. No problem.
Relentless pursuit of ideology without a code of honour, without respect for the enemy, like that pursued by the Nazis, Soviets and Chinese Communist Party, or of imperialism and nationhood, like that of Western European imperialism, is something of which I wouldn't approve above all else.
I don't think the OT God back then was like that. From my understanding of what I have read, He just mingled with the people. He was a personal, sentimental God.
Now, having said that, back to what I was discussing:
I suppose it is only an extension of the biblical orders from god to commit genocide. Such a nice psychopath this abrahamic god.
The idea that it's "an extension of biblical orders from God" is the idea that the OT God relentlessly pursues ideology without a code of honour. In other words, what he would want today, is the same as what he'd want 2,000-3,000 years ago. Whatever He did all those centuries ago, He continues to do now despite the fact that the world today is so different from 2,000 years ago with the old Israel.
But that just isn't my concept of the OT God. If you want to talk about it being genocide, I'm saying I'm not arguing about the genocide. You are not getting an argument from me about the genocide part. It's not my interest here. If you do, you've got the wrong idea. I'm not talking about the righteousness or wrongness of the acts committed. I'm not interested in justifying anything. That is where I think you might misunderstand me. I'm talking about something else here. My interest here is this. What's the logic behind the OT God and what He does? There's always a story. How does Israel today compare with the old Israel?
Tribal Gods are limited in time and place. If they make war, they don't do it for long. Ideological Gods have a more persistent agenda. People who follow a tribal God forgive and forget. People who follow an ideological God will pick a fight and resume a conflict after centuries of peace all because, by definition and in principle, they have always been enemies. The enmity is timeless and impersonal. If the OT God was a tribal God and Israel is conducting an ideological war, then what it's doing isn't compatible with the tribal God of the OT.
The Book of Judges described a period in Israel's history where there was no king or political system. All you had were a bunch of judges, elders and local spiritual leaders. I suppose it's much like the Druids in Britain. The Book of Judges, is what I'd say OT religion was supposed to be like before Israel became an established kingdom with its own king. Wars were short-term, not long-term affairs. People didn't fight a war eternally. Once it was over, you went back home. It would have been nothing like the aggressive and belligerent Israel it is today.
