genuineoriginal said:
while laughter might be the best medicine, this is hardly a demonstration of an understanding of my position, nor is it a refutation.
i took some time last night to read the Art of War by Sun Tzu (not the entire thing, i skipped the chapter on manuevers), Military Methods by Sun Pin and Mastering the Art of War which is an expansive commentary on the work of Sun Tzu.
for the past 2300 years or so the work of Sun Tzu has been hailed as the definitive work on military strategy. one of the main themes of Sun Tzu's work is to defeat the enemy without fighting, or with the least amount of bloodshed possible. the goal is victory over the enemy, not annhilation of the enemy. to quote his own words, "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
Chapter 2 "Waging War", point 19 states, "Treat the captives well, and care for them."
instructions in this chapter for treatment of enemy cities never extends beyond capturing their wealth and stores.
the very first point of chapter 3 "Offensive Strategy" is this: "Generally in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this."
the example of Joshua's divinely commanded genocide in Jericho can be argued to be the exception granted by Sun Tzu in his use of the word "generally" until you discover the 7th point of the third chapter, that is that attacking cities is the last resort of not only strategic alternatives, but also ethical and moral ones. also, the tenth point which is to take a city without assaulting it. also point 15 of chapter 4, "Dispositions". this point teaches the student of war to, "cultivate the Tao", the Tao being the Right Way, the way of humanity and justice which would serve to validate the taking of states intact and not ruining them, also taking cities without assaulting them. and once again, using Sun Tzu as a means to refute the primitive and barbaric tactics of Joshua and his divine mandate, in chapter 11 Sun Tzu tells us that a good general prohibits superstitions.
i asked earlier in this thread if it were beyond the capabilities of your god to have found a non-violent and beneficial resolution to encounters such as the example of the Jericho genocide, the destruction of Og, Sihon and Arad.
the answer was a resounding "yes". it was beyond the competence of your god to have come to some sort of non-violent resolution.
what was beyond the grasp of your god and his ancient generals was well within the grasp of Sun Tzu as one will be able to find in chapter 8, "the Nine Variables." in this chapter, point 14 Sun Tzu says that "He who intimidates his neighbors does so by inflicting injury upon them." Chia Lin expounds on this by saying, "Plans and projects for harming the enemy are not confined to any one method. Sometimes entice his wise and virtuous men away so that he has no counsellors. Or send treacherous people to his country to wreck his administration. Sometimes use cunning deceptions to alienate his ministers from the sovereign. Or send skilled craftsmen to encourage his people to exhaust their wealth. Or present him with licentious musicians and dancers to change his customs. Or give him beautiful women to bewilder him."
here the Art of War lays out in no uncertain terms non-violent means of making an enemy weary, thus making the tactically and morally right alternative of victory over annhilation easier to grasp. not only is your all knowing god and his generals strategically inept compared Sun Tzu's standards, they also exhibit an unequivocal ignorance of non-violent solutions to combat... to go further, one could definitely say that they do not seek non-violent resolution, they seek the complete opposite, which for the past two millenia Sun Tzu has demonstrated to be incompetent, and morally bankrupt strategy.
Sun Tzu, his great grandson Sun Pin and the expansion on his work Mastering the Art of War are unmistakable in their position that war is immoral. it is a means to an end for survival of the state. to destroy the defenseless enemy civilians is not only beyond the scope of survival, but it is the antithesis of sound strategy and presents an even greater moral cunundrum that could have been avoided in exchange for winning the hearts of the enemy's people.
what i found in my study last night was a 2300 year old confirmation of my position that has been embraced worldwide by military leaders and rulers of various nations and armies.
i found nothing to support your belief that the deliberate destruction of defenseless civilians is a necessary and morally acceptable means of gaining victory. i found the complete opposite. i also found that superstitions and beliefs in divinity should never be involved in military decisions, the result of doing so is the genocide we find in the Joshua account of the conquest of Jericho.
survival is not a moral dilemma, it is an issue of practicality. we kill the enemy on the battlefield so he does not kill us. we do not kill his women and children because they pose no threat to us and therefore survival is not threatened.
you have yet to counter this assertion or even acknowledge that you understand it.
now you have not only myself to disagree with, but you have Sun Tzu as well.
good luck.
you're going to need it.
atrol: