Can genocide ever be morally right?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yep, the thread's dead. People are bringing their personal pissing contests in...

People have justified about everything in history, including genocide.

Even todat the slaughter continues, look at Bbarr's reasonings to justify the further slaughter of the unwanted.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
People have justified about everything in history, including genocide.

Even todat the slaughter continues, look at Bbarr's reasonings to justify the further slaughter of the unwanted.

Look at the Definitions of genocide:

noun: systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

Originally posted by frogstomp
Look at the Definitions of genocide:

noun: systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

So as long as a group of people do not belong to a cultural group or of a particular race do you think that this changes anything in terms of its morality?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The biblical literalist is stuck defending the rash actions of the OT God, who on several occasions ordered his chosen people to commit genocide, and on other occasions directly carried it out by his own hand. This begs the question: Is it consistent for a "just, loving and merciful" God to order thousands of people, some of whom are innocent children, t ...[text shortened]... fe, especially if the population of other civilizations is far greater than that of the Xites.

The biblical literalist is stuck defending...

This is, of course, the crux of the whole thing. Biblical literalism/historicism and inerrantism are very late notions in Christianity. Not that the early church folks did not view some events as historical—but they also used allegorical and typological exegesis from the beginning, as well as symbolical and metaphorical readings. Early Christian exegesis often quite closely resembled traditional Jewish midrash (St. Gregory of Nyssa’s The Life of Moses is a classic example)—with the addition of Hellenistic philosophical sensitivities. This applied to the NT texts as well as the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jaroslav Pelikan, in his The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, notes the following:

“There was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.” (p. 81)

“Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for ‘in the ante-Nicene Church...there was no notion of sola Scriptura, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola’.” (p.115)

There was no notion of sola scriptura until Luther in the 16th century. Biblical inerrancy developed after that, partly in response to critical forms of exegesis developing especially in the 19th century (historical criticism, form criticism, literary criticism, etc.).

Outside various evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant churches, all of these various exegetical tools are used today—both those of the early church and more modern historical-critical approaches—for example, in the Orthodox churches, Catholicism and the more traditional Protestant churches.

Not that the early church interpreters of Biblical texts were monolithic in their approaches. Pelikan notes that, even among those whose views came to be considered orthodox, the early church was characterized by a kind of “pluralistic orthodoxy.” One does not have to spend much time reading “the Church fathers” to see this. Just one example—

Origen (185-254 C.E.), “the most powerful mind of early Christianity,” is still highly regarded today for his views on exegesis. “He himself is an inspired interpreter of Scripture, and if his thought had to be corrected on other points, it remains fully and directly nourishing in this field.”* (Quotes from Olivier Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism.

“He was constantly fascinated by etymology and figures of speech, often using the identification of metaphor or hyperbole as a reason for pointing out that the words of Scripture could not be taken literally—for that just produced impossibilities...” (Frances Young, “The Interpretation of Scripture,” in The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, edited by G.R. Evans.)

“For the modern reader, one of the paradoxes of Origen is that he both holds to a robust doctrine of biblical inspiration and completely refuses to understand this as guaranteeing the historical accuracy of the text...” (Rowan Williams, “Origen,” in The First Christian Theologians.)

A quote from Origen—

“If you try to reduce the divine meaning to the purely external signification of the words, the Word [Logos] will have no reason to come down to you. It will return to its secret dwelling, which is contemplation that is worthy of it. For it has wings, this divine meaning, given by it to the Holy Spirit who is its guide... But to be unwilling ever to rise above the letter, never to give up feeding on the literal sense, is the mark of a life of falsehood.” (Commentary on Proverbs)

Origen spoke of a three-tired reading of the Biblical texts, using the metaphor of an almond—

“The first aspect, that of the letter, is bitter enough. It prescribes circumcision of the flesh, regulates sacrifices and all that is meant by the ‘letter that kills.’ Reject all that as bitter rind of the almond. In the second stage you will reach the defenses of the shell, the moral teaching, the obligation of self-control. These things are needed to protect what is kept inside. But they have to be broken [through], and assuredly there will be found enclosed and hidden beneath these wrappings the mysteries of God’s wisdom and knowledge that restore and nourish the souls of the saints. This three-fold mystery is to be seen throughout all Scripture.” (Homilies on Numbers)

* A number of Origen’s theological views were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, at least as they were articulated by certain of his followers.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The biblical literalist is stuck defending...

This is, of course, the crux of the whole thing. Biblical literalism/historicism and inerrantism are very late notions in Christianity. Not that the early church folks did not view some events as historical—but they also used allegorical and typological exegesis from the beginning, as well as s ...[text shortened]... Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, at least as they were articulated by certain of his followers.[/b]

Although inerrantism has not been around long, it seems highly fashionable among Christians these days [or perhaps they just shout a lot louder than the others], which is why I and others spend so much time debating it.

From the quotes you gave, it seems the early Christians were wiser than today's model.

I've also read some of your past posts on Rabbis and their interpretation of the Torah [Abraham failed the test by offering Isaac as a sacrifice, and Abraham's argument with God over Sodom and Gomorrah]. That approach [struggling with the text and daring to draw your own conclusions] makes so much more sense than what I have seen again and again in American churches, where the name of the game seems to be building consensus - there is one 'correct' interpretation, and if you haven't arrived at it, then you're making some kind of mistake.

I create threads like this because I can't understand why the literalist is not more disturbed about the entailments of his viewpoint. I think a lot of them have simply turned off their critical thinking [the critical part, anyway] and decided, "Well, that's just how God is, and we have to live with it."

Originally posted by whodey
So as long as a group of people do not belong to a cultural group or of a particular race do you think that this changes anything in terms of its morality?

Maybe not, but it makes it inapplicable to this thread....

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Although inerrantism has not been around long, it seems highly fashionable among Christians these days [or perhaps they just shout a lot louder than the others], which is why I and others spend so much time debating it.

From the quotes you gave, it seems the early Christians were wiser than today's model.

I've also read some of your past posts on R ...[text shortened]... rt, anyway] and decided, "Well, that's just how God is, and we have to live with it."

I agree. Unfortunately, from my point of view, it has become so “normative” that even nontheists sometimes resist any other kind of reading (e.g., mythological) of the texts as an escapist maneuver. I tend to give the authors of these ancient texts more credit than that. Just from a literary point of view, the authors of, say, Job, or the Yahwist stream of the Torah (the so-called “Book of J” ), or the Gospel of John were people of genius. Religious, yes; crassly superstitious—I don’t think so. To tag them with “literalism” is, I think, to misread them (which is not to say that they did not recognize some events as historical that we might not today). They understood symbol, metaphor, allegory, “midrash,” etc.—and knew what they were up to. They knew the power of story to express their understanding of truth; it is the means they had at their disposal (not having the scientific methodology and language of the modern world).

I have recently reading quite a bit in the Eastern Orthodox tradition (which has its reactionaries as well as its progressives). I found this quote, which goes to your original post—

“Those who emphasize the literal authority of Scripture, often conservative and fundamentalists Protestants, debate the concept of inerrancy. They advocate essentially a Bible without error and are thus compelled to provide artificial defensive justifications. Many seem to bypass the historical complexities and to attribute to Scripture an absolute character that properly belongs only to God, thus seemingly lapsing into a kind of bibliolatry.” (Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective)

________________________________

You might like my LOTR riff here:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=68541&page=2

Originally posted by frogstomp
Look at the Definitions of genocide:

noun: systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

.... it all depends on the definitions, doesn't it ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
.... it all depends on the definitions, doesn't it ?

Yes, that is his interpretation. I, however, have "other" interpretations as to the definition of "genocide". It just wonder why he has turned off his critical thinking abilities and simply blindly accepted that as long as they are not part of a cultural group or a particular race of people that it should not be considered "genocide". I suppose his interpretation is infallible, no?

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, that is his interpretation. I, however, have "other" interpretations as to the definition of "genocide". It just wonder why he has turned off his critical thinking abilities and simply blindly accepted that as long as they are not part of a cultural group or a particular race of people that it should not be considered "genocide". I suppose his interpretation is infallible, no?

Ask him.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes, that is his interpretation. I, however, have "other" interpretations as to the definition of "genocide". It just wonder why he has turned off his critical thinking abilities and simply blindly accepted that as long as they are not part of a cultural group or a particular race of people that it should not be considered "genocide". I suppose his interpretation is infallible, no?

Too bad they don't 'euthanize' them with the edge of the sword, in the name of God. That's all they have to do to make it morally acceptable in your eyes.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Although inerrantism has not been around long, it seems highly fashionable among Christians these days [or perhaps they just shout a lot louder than the others], which is why I and others spend so much time debating it.

From the quotes you gave, it seems the early Christians were wiser than today's model.

I've also read some of your past posts on R rt, anyway] and decided, "Well, that's just how God is, and we have to live with it."

Yet you give yourself a pass when you turn off your critical thinking 🙂
Are you really any different? You just have a different axe to grind.

You continue to ignore the following from earlier posts:
Imagine if you will:
Man was created with two natures: one to desire good, one to desire sin. This is inborn. These two natures are in competition. If one of the natures is completely overcome in an individual, there is no way to recover it. It is a very rare occurance. Only the remaining nature is passed on to any progeny. Man is unable to ascertain this condition. God is capable of doing so with absolute certainty. An isolated group is found with only the nature to desire sin and if left unchecked can go on to infect all of humanity. The elimination of that group is required to protect the rest of humanity.

The point is that additional knowledge can change whether or not justification is possible. Ultimate justification can only be made with ultimate knowledge.

You don't have ultimate knowledge and thus are incapable of determining whether or not an action is ultimately justified. Presumably God would.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yet you give yourself a pass when you turn off your critical thinking 🙂
Are you really any different? You just have a different axe to grind.

You continue to ignore the following from earlier posts:
[b]Imagine if you will:
Man was created with two natures: one to desire good, one to desire sin. This is inborn. These two natures are in competition. ...[text shortened]... able of determining whether or not an action is ultimately justified. Presumably God would.[/b]

I did respond to your hypothetical long ago. I'm not sure why you're claiming I ignored it. The generous interpretation is that you forgot, or did not fully read, my responses. The non-generous interpretation is that you're lying to score cheap points.

In any case, I suggest you revise your claim before any further discussion takes place.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I did respond to your hypothetical long ago. I'm not sure why you're claiming I ignored it. The generous interpretation is that you forgot, or did not fully read, my responses. The non-generous interpretation is that you're lying to score cheap points.

In any case, I suggest you revise your claim before any further discussion takes place.

I fully read your reponses. I simply saw your reponses as showing the same lack of critical thinking that you deride. Your last response was to posit that this hypothetical somehow 'change[s] morality itself'. I explained the fallacy of that argument and you chose to ignore it.

Perhaps YOU need to refresh your memory.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I fully read your reponses. I simply saw your reponses as showing the same lack of critical thinking that you deride. Your last response was to posit that this hypothetical somehow 'change[s] morality itself'. I explained the fallacy of that argument and you chose to ignore it.

Perhaps YOU need to refresh your memory.

Rather, I chose not to repeat the reasons I had already given.

You have trouble being truthful, so I can't be bothered to discuss anything further with you. Sorry!