One of the better articles Ive read from Alter.net. Im firmly of the mindset that those critical of the alleged war atrocities of the Bibles Old Testament are often uncritically anachronistic in their opinions. While this article is not pro-religion per se, it does allow ample room for discussion about how God did, and does, work within human history to accomplish his purpose. An honest comparison between the Mosaic Law and contemporary Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) Laws (e.g. Hammurabi) lends strong support towards this argument. ----- So necessary to the rise of states and ultimately empires is military force that historians regard militarism as a mark of civilization. With- out disciplined, obedient, and law-abiding armies, human society, it is claimed, would probably have remained at a primitive level or have degenerated into ceaselessly warring hordes. But like our inner conflict between violent and compassionate impulses, the incoherence between peaceful ends and violent means would remain unresolved. Ashoka’s dilemma is the dilemma of civilization itself. And into this tug-of-war religion would enter too. Since all premodern state ideology was inseparable from religion, warfare inevitably acquired a sacral element. Indeed, every major faith tradition has tracked that political entity in which it arose; none has become a “world religion” without the patronage of a militarily powerful empire, and, therefore, each would have to develop an imperial ideology. But to what degree did religion contribute to the violence of the states with which it was inextricably linked? How much blame for the history of human violence can we ascribe to religion itself? The answer is not as simple as much of our popular discourse would suggest.
Posted on: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:32:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015