>If a ruler claims to hear the voice of God urging the army in which
>I'm in to slaughter women and children after a battle, how should I
>respond?<
>In most instances the leader would be put on trial and possibly
>hanged, except within Biblical stories, wherein the leader is
>considered a righteous hand of God.<
Actually, warfare was generally regarded as under divine direction in
the ancient Near East, and massacres in the name(s) of god(s) remain
common today (note that the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament
often claim that success in battle is a reflection of divine favor),
e.g. the Hindu and Muslim mobs in India recently. The Old Testament
accounts are not unique in that regard; rather, tolerance of
religious plurality seems the rarity. Furthermore, the command of
annihilation was confined to specific groups and was not a general
license (which also prevents modern-day imitators from being
legitimate). Also, the OT-sanctioned version of holy war was as far
as I know unique in that it explicitly did not imply any merit on the
part of those waging it. Rather, destruction was also the penalty
for any Israelite following in the ways of the nations to be
destroyed, whereas converts from the banned nations were to be
protected. The Caananites had the opportunity to convert, !
but failed to take it. The Transjordan tribes wiped out by Israel
(the people of Arad, Sihon and Og) attacked first and were destroyed
as a result. Some of the Caananites also attacked the Israelites,
but this could be argued to be a defensive response to the invasion
of Caanan. However, the examples of Rahab and the Gibeonites (and
possibly additional places, not specifically mentioned in Joshua but
which seem to have converted Caananites in later Israelite history)
show that the option of surrender was open to them as well.
>Personally, it scares the crap out of me to think that there are
>people who believe that any acts are acceptable and just which they
>feel are directed by God.<
I am not quite certain what this means-is it those who think that
anything that they believe to be directed by God is OK, or are those
who believe that anything is acceptable, without reference to God,
also included in the highly frightening category?
I believe that any action directed by God is not merely acceptable
but mandatory. However, I do not accept claims that God told someone
to do something when it is contrary to Scripture.
>So, to reconcile genocide and the wholesale slaughter of
>non-combatants with divine directives and the ideal of a "good" and
>"loving" God, we are left with the following:
>a) Assume that some words don't necessarily have objective meanings.
>b) Assume that a good and loving God did not authorize the
>destruction and that the interpretation/recording of events was in
>error.
>c) Assume that there were "hidden variables" that we do not know
>which justify the slaughter.<
a) can be distinguished from c) if we can find some of the hidden
variables. For example, is it better to allow the Caananites to live
and thereby lead others astray while continuing to get worse
themselves, or is it better to stop them? Bodily death is not the
worst thing that can happen. The women and children were no less
pagan than the men of fighting age, and thus were not exactly
non-combattants in a religious war.
>Personally, and like Burgy, I would to choose option "b" if I wanted
>to simultaneously maintain the ideas that my God was loving & good
>and that "loving" and "good" had objective meanings. But YMMV. If
>however, you choose option "c", don't try to justify that position
>on an objective moral basis -- That "proof" isn't one we can access
>and all the "objective" data we can access suggests otherwise.<
YMMV?
However, b) is problematic with regard to a). How do you determine
objective standards for loving, good, etc. if you only accept those
things as good that fit your own understanding of it? This does not
provide an objective basis for choosing between e.g., your position
versus that of a psychopath who declares that the good and loving god
authorizes all destruction (e.g., gassing the Tokyo subway) and the
interpretation/recording of events that seem to point otherwise is in
error.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 22:05:36 EDT