Good to hear from you David. Thanks for the response.
I wrote:
>>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.<
David:
>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.
With regard to the Hindu/Muslim conflict in the Indian subcontinent,
that is more of a sovereignty issue than a religious "jihad". The
religious aspect of the fight is primarily a veneer; a cover for
an ethnic and cultural territorial conflict. Massacres do remain
generally opposed by much of the modern world.
David:
> 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.
I agree that the ancient world and unfortunately, too much of the
modern world have practiced the annihilation of opposing groups
for religious or, more often, political reasons. Commonality
does not make it just.
Me:
>>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.<
David:
>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 was referring to the former but agree that both types are to be
watched with skepticism.
David:
>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.
...when it is contrary to *one's interpretation of* scripture. I mean
no disrespect, I just want to point out that everyone is ultimately
responsible for interpretation.
Is it contrary to scriptures to kill women and children noncombatants
or is the general opposition to this practice a more recent cultural
development? This is the essence of Burgy's questioning: Is the story of
the slaughter of the Canaanites contrary to much of the rest of the Bible?
Burgy suspects this. And based on my admittedly subjective and
individually developed sense of what constitutes "good" and "loving"
(formed, as it was, within the context of a western culture), I do
not find the slaughter of the Canaanites fit my criteria.
Now I don't think that story is contrary to scripture per se, given that
I tend to believe the Old Testament represents the historical and cultural
development of a tribal people. That's just the sort of stuff tribes did
back then when defending themselves or annexing land. I don't think it's
right, but it was a historical practice.
Me:
>>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.<
David:
>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.
Perhaps, but bodily death certainly removes the option for future
religious conversion.
David:
>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.
It is OK to kill those that lead others astray? That is a post-hoc
justification of slaughter, IMO, and an excuse for killing that we
(within western civilization) do not accept today. When Jehovah's
Witnesses and Mormons knock on our door, we do not strangle them.
When the Hari Krishnas used to annoy people in airports, we did not
stone them. Yet these groups and others lead thousands astray from
traditional Christian (and Jewish) denominations. From a modern
perspective, we do not find such religious killings justifiable.
And I don't think they were justifiable in the past. Assuming that
the slaughter was divinely sanctioned, that also suggests that this
was the about the best option available -- I just don't buy it.
Me:
>>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.<
David:
>YMMV?
Clearly, it does. You choose "c". Others choose "b".
David:
>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.
I agree that it is difficult, if not impossible to reach consensus over
standards ("objective" or otherwise) for "goodness" or "loving", especially
when modifying variables are not accessible to evaluate (This is
another problem with Robert Rogland's appeal to "words having objective
meaning" that I barely touched in my last posting). Claiming revelatory
knowledge from deities does not address the question of objectivity.
Yet regardless of whether we *claim* our particular standards of
"goodness" and "fairness" are objective, the fact is we do individually
*choose* to accept those things that fit our understanding of it. This may
be part of a "package" of other complicating influences such as the dogma
of a particular set of religious beliefs, but it is nonetheless an
individual decision and subject to individual evaluation.
Yet despite the somewhat subjective foundations of ethical systems,
(clarification: The decision to choose foundational axioms may be
subjective) I think that you and I, and most others on this list do
hold that the slaughter of women, children & other noncombatants is
generally a "bad thing" and something to be avoided if possible. This
may be a "modern" innovation or at least modern in the sense of
its now general acceptance in the Western world, but it's something
on which I think we agree.
You believe that "hidden" and some not-so-hidden variables such
as the potential to lead others astray justify the killings. I'm
doubtful about this but accept it as a hypothetical possibility.
Given the "option of surrender" you mention that was sometimes
available for convertees, I find it particularly hard to justify the
slaughter of children and babies who really haven't had a lot of
experience to formulate an informed choice in the matter. This is
particularly problematic when we consider that ones religious
affiliation tends to strongly correlate with ones immediate geographical
and social environment. Thus children and babies are particularly "easy
to convert" because they soak up the culture and beliefs of the group
in which they are raised. And so I do not agree that the "potential to
lead someone astray" justification is applicable here. Other hidden
variable justifications I've heard include the need to "clear the land"
for the future of the Israelites. That is a post hoc appeal to future
necessity which must also remain a "hidden" justification.
David, as always, I certainly appreciate discussions with you. Viewed
within the context of the whole of Christian dogma, I do understand how
one may view the slaughter of the Canaanite as potentially "righteous".
If one chooses to believe that the slaughter was truly sanctioned by God
then one will, by necessity, find ways to support this. There is no
other way: it must be accepted as a matter of faith. Personally, I do not
believe that the massacre was blessed by what I would characterize as
a good and loving deity. So for me, either the deity or the story is the
problem. If we give the deity the benefit of the doubt, that leaves the
story. And I suspect that is about as far as we can take the discussion.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 06 2002 - 11:06:43 EDT