Sounds a little like a politically correct answer.
Ok.. if your answer is that He doesn't have to stop a person, then, yes, I believe He knew what He was going to do.
That leaves us with the peculiar pictures that God will agree to give you victory over your enemy in return for a human sacrifice. That's no doubt how things worked in the Bronze Age, but I find the idea, as I said, morally vile, living as I do in 2020. So either God's changed [his] mind on the matter (as [he] did in the memorable dickering scene with Abraham (Genesis 18:23-33) and as [he] gradually did, at least in the First World, starting back in the late 18th cent. about slavery ─ or [he] hasn't.
I'm aware that some believers give God the adjective 'unchanging', but the bible offers little support for that eg as we watch Yahweh start out as a tribal god among tribal gods, then emerge from the Babylonian captivity as a monogod; then we branch to Christianity where Paul throws the covenant out along with the Chosen People title, to the fourth century when the Trinity doctrine is invented, to the diversity of views in the present, not overlooking the Mormons or the Rastas.
Of course, this thread is about Bronze Age values being (a) those of God and (b) thus unchanging, a view held by some but not all Christians.
Truth, as I view it (besides Jesus being The Truth, The Way and The Life), is that which cannot be changed.
Hmm. But it's true that the bus is scheduled to leave at 5.45 and it's also true they may change the schedule.
To start a war just to grab land, I wouldn't approve.
I agree. But the British in particular and the Spanish and French in general shaped our present world by doing just that. (I'm vastly more sensitive to the problems of indigenous cultures than I was when younger. The present US riots are a problem that intersects with that.)
I'm sure Japan thought we were invasive during WWII but America wouldn't. Your view?
The Japanese were actively creating an empire in Asia, which they called the East Asian Co-Prosperity Zone. They were able to claim locally that they were freeing countries from European colonial rule (British, French, Dutch), but their aggression was based on a militaristic ethic that had grown steadily more rabid since WW1 and it's very hard to consider them liberators rather than exploitative conquerors. We touched on the Rape of Nanking earlier. The strategic thinking behind the Pearl Harbor strike was to destroy the US fleet, knowing that it would be replaced, but gambling that success would buy them a year or more to secure holdings, not least in what's now Indonesia for its oil, but also sources of iron ore, minerals, coal, wood, food and more. and peace negotiations could perhaps follow. It didn't work. They lost at Midway, the Coral Sea was a tactical draw but a strategic loss, and after that US sea air and land power was such that it was all down hill from there. By mid-1943 they could no longer expect to win. However, their ethos in defeat was to die, not surrender, One lesson US ground forces learnt early in the pivotal Guadalcanal campaign was when US medics after an engagement who went to assist Japanese wounded were killed when the wounded man set of a grenade, killing them both. This outlook ─ I'd call it fanaticism ─ of dying for the Emperor, became even more rigid as the Japanese military situation grew worse.
Wikipedia says:
The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Four veteran divisions were withdrawn from the Kwantung Army in Manchuria in March 1945 to strengthen the forces in Japan, and 45 new divisions were activated between February and May 1945. Most were immobile formations for coastal defense, but 16 were high quality mobile divisions. In all, there were 2.3 million Japanese Army troops prepared to defend the home islands, backed by a civilian militia of 28 million men and women. Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high. The Vice Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy General Staff, Vice Admiral Takijirō Ōnishi, predicted up to 20 million Japanese deaths.
The US initially estimated their own losses in such an invasion as 130,000 to 220,000 casualties, with 25,000 to 46,000 deaths.However, when their intelligence learnt of the Japanese preparations, the figures were revised in at least one major report to between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with 400,000 to 800,000 dead, Japanese fatalities were estimated at 5 to 10 million.
The two atomic bombs directly killed 150,000 to 220,000 people between them. The number of subsequent deaths from radiation effects is apparently unknown. It brought about the Japanese surrender in very short order.
Truman was faced with a real-life Trolley problem ─ do nothing and kill millions, or act and kill only a quarter of a million. He chose to act. A great many more people were subsequently still alive after the war than might otherwise have been the case.
Human sacrifice - that depends. I don't believe in the essence of "human sacrifice" yet hold on to being able to sacrifice my life for another. Your view?
This is the case based on ritual sacrifice of a human or animal to God or the gods. As I think I mentioned, it was a common practice in that era. I can't distinguish it from wilful murder.
Women as property. My wife is my wife and you better not mess with her. Is that what you mean?
I promise not to mess with your wife. However I dare say her reasons for preferring to live in the First World in the 21st century than in some Bronze Age country include the improved status of women ─ compared even to, say, the 1950s.
Slavery. Modern day slavery definition - no. However, many are still slaves to the people they owe. 21% interest on credit cards is extortion and a modern day slave market. OT - slavery isn't the same definition.
You may be implying that slavery wasn't so bad back in biblical days, or you may not; but if you are, it covered a wide range where if you were of the gentry you could declare bankruptcy and do a term as a (useful, generally well housed and fed) slave; or you could be down the scale and end up in the galleys or the salt mines, quite literally. From memory, in the bible slavery rules you can beat your slaves, and you're only responsible if death results within 24 hours, and otherwise you're not.
As for level playing fields, equal opportunity, optimized public education, abolition of debt traps, an end to plutocracy, I'm all for it, all round the world.
Religious intolerance - if human sacrifice is required... I am intolerant. Your view?[/QUOTE] I don't like fundamentalism. Otherwise, unlike say Dawkins, I don't believe belonging to a religion is of itself a bad thing. If you act with decency and respect and inclusion to your fellow humans it doesn't matter whether you're religious or not.
(None of that dilutes the pleasures of the RF debate boards, of course.)
