hahaha Bush says he doesn't believe in the Bible, does believe in evolution

i.e., the Americans didn't abide by them.

Abu Ghraib

Gitmo

We have high standards, and when they aren't met, there is a (small) price to be paid. You can't at once praise the US for setting high standards, and at the same time condemn it for being intolerant of failure to meet those standards.

barfo

 

Great points. My personal, relatively uninformed response is that I have subjected myself to the laws of the United States. If tomorrow, 51% of people voted to outlaw beef, I would have an obligation not to eat beef ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"). I would vote against that legislation, because I do not feel it's right. If the law in CA would have passed, I wouldn't be bombing judges who performed the ceremonies (and I would condemn, obviously, anyone who did). Let's look at abortion. I'm opposed to that as well, but it's the law of the land. Would I vote to abolish abortion if it came up? Yes, based on my religious beliefs. The Christians in Rome were persecuted for their beliefs, and were thrown in jail for doing what God commanded. If the US voted to outlaw Bible-reading, I would probably either move somewhere else where it wasn't outlawed or accept the consequences of doing what God said to do.

 

I'm not saying we should have the same standards of those regimes...quite the opposite. My point in the post above was the the concepts of "rules of warfare" are a relatively recent development, and generally only followed by those who most would claim have the moral superiority in the conflict. So, to me it's kind of amazing that, if you showed the account of he conquest of Canaan to almost any person in history, only those who were raised in Western Europe/US in the last 100 or so years would have any problem with it. It's just the way it always was.

 

Ok, so I think your statement that "God has his reasons for everything" is not correct? Because you are saying that you don't know if he does or doesn't have reasons.

barfo

 

And I would submit that, in all of those cases (aside from Gitmo, which I think is a different issue altogether, but that;s for another thread) those who committed the crimes (which they were) were punished for them. What I'm trying to state above is that the Japanese, Russians, Vietnamese, terrorists etc. had no qualms about doing what criminals at My Lai or Abu Gharib did ALL THE TIME.

You'll never hear me say that those people who committed crimes should not be punished. My point was just that, from much of the talk/opinions of the most vocal part of our society right now, you would think that we're the country that doesn't abide by rules of war and conventions, not our enemies (or past enemies).

 

We're starting to get into a philosophical realm that I admit I'm not that good at explaining, but I think the point of the legal system is to be a set of agreed-upon laws (by the majority of the populace) that provides for the common welfare. (Generalization alert!) I think that those who think that humans are, by nature, good generally think that there should be looser laws and more personal freedoms to follow their right to happiness. I think those that think humans are by nature sinful (like I do) feel that regulation of things that are told to us in our theology are "bad for the common welfare" or "against the teachings of whichever Imaginary Friend" is more appropriate, while still allowing each to "pursue happiness".

You won't find me ever condoning those who act in hate against people, whatever their religion, behavior, etc.

I wasn't trying to draw the parallel of abortion to marriage, but of a law that I personally don't agree with but abide by.

 

I don't think that's true. I think most rational people accept that the enemy is going to do whatever the enemy is going to do, and protesting against that is completely futile, because we don't, by definition, control them. On the other hand, we can change what we ourselves do, and we can be better.

barfo

 

I don't understand why God chose military genocide to give Canaan to His chosen, instead of a plague or earthquake or whatever.

But I do think that what Jesus taught was so far away from the worldview of the time that it would meet the 2nd question you had. In addition, much of the OT (after Kings) talks about how prophets of God wanted the Kings to follow a different way, to not lean on their own understandings. To stop at Joshua, and base the suspicion on that, seems to pick and choose.

 

In your opinion, do you think we're better than we were 25, 50, 100, 200 years ago? I'm not saying we're perfect, because we draw our military from all manners of society and there will be someone that falls through the cracks. They are, by and large, punished when that happens. Is our military one that you are more or less proud of than, say 10, 20 or 50 years ago?

 

I don't think I'm really qualified to answer that question in a useful way. I'm old, but I'm not so old that I really have a broad view of how the military has changed over so many years - and I'm neither a historian nor do I have any special insight into military matters. My uninformed sense is that the current military is, at least, no less professional than it has been at other points in my lifetime.

barfo

 

You have good points. I'd like to continue discussing them, but I'm falling asleep at the computer and don't want to type something stupid. Thanks for the discussion.

 

Prove 90% doesn't. It seems to be the thing YOU want to prove, so do it.