The Bible and our tribal tendencies.

Post by **_Lucretia MacEvil** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:46 am

SatanWasSetUp wrote:
ajax18 wrote:I still think the counsel to kill everyone was inspired of God.

And this takes us full circle to the OP's main point. This the problem many people, including myself, have with the Bible and Bible believers.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE
words and music by Pete Seeger
performed by Pete Seeger and Tao Rodriguez-Seeger

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Girls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone?
Taken husbands every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

©1961 (Renewed) Fall River Music Inc
All Rights Reserved.

Post by **_ajax18** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:22 pm

harmony wrote:
ajax18 wrote: These young men were just drafted and weren't just men who wound up in the military for financial reasons as most men today.

Wait just a second. Do you have anything to back this up, besides your own conclusions? Because I have a son in the military, and financial reasons were second on his list.

Then he has my utmost respect. Why did he join?

Post by **_harmony** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:31 pm

ajax18 wrote:Then he has my utmost respect. Why did he join?

Because he strongly felt it was his patriotic duty.

Post by **_ajax18** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:10 pm

harmony wrote:Because he strongly felt it was his patriotic duty.

Well that's really cool. I think I'd like him. But what percentage of the people who enlist do you think do it for this reason? I didn't think it was very controversial to say that most people who end up in the military do so for financial reasons. In other words I think we lost a little of what we had during civil and revolutionary war times when young men from all socioeconmic status levels went to fight.

Post by **_harmony** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:47 am

ajax18 wrote:Well that's really cool. I think I'd like him. But what percentage of the people who enlist do you think do it for this reason? I didn't think it was very controversial to say that most people who end up in the military do so for financial reasons. In other words I think we lost a little of what we had during civil and revolutionary war times when young men from all socioeconmic status levels went to fight.

1. You didn't say "most". You implied "all".

2. All socioeconomic status levels haven't been represented in the military during war time in the last 100 years. Why would they be now?

Post by **_ajax18** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:08 am

harmony wrote:
ajax18 wrote:Well that's really cool. I think I'd like him. But what percentage of the people who enlist do you think do it for this reason? I didn't think it was very controversial to say that most people who end up in the military do so for financial reasons. In other words I think we lost a little of what we had during civil and revolutionary war times when young men from all socioeconmic status levels went to fight.

1. You didn't say "most". You implied "all".

These young men were just drafted and weren't just men who wound up in the military for financial reasons as most men today

Are you sure about that? I'm not that uneducated that I wouldn't know to rarely say always.

2. All socioeconomic status levels haven't been represented in the military during war time in the last 100 years. Why would they be now

It wouldn't and you're right it hasn't happened for a while, but I still think that's a shame. It seems that we've lost some of the struggle that can bond us together as a tribe. Unfortunately we'll never be that closenit tribe that America was in the days of the Great George Washington. We're still a state, but sadly I doubt we'll ever again be a nation.

Post by **_harmony** » Wed May 23, 2007 2:08 am

ajax18 wrote:
harmony wrote:
ajax18 wrote:Well that's really cool. I think I'd like him. But what percentage of the people who enlist do you think do it for this reason? I didn't think it was very controversial to say that most people who end up in the military do so for financial reasons. In other words I think we lost a little of what we had during civil and revolutionary war times when young men from all socioeconmic status levels went to fight.

1. You didn't say "most". You implied "all".

These young men were just drafted and weren't just men who wound up in the military for financial reasons as most men today

Are you sure about that? I'm not that uneducated that I wouldn't know to rarely say always.

I read it differently. My apologies.

2. All socioeconomic status levels haven't been represented in the military during war time in the last 100 years. Why would they be now

It wouldn't and you're right it hasn't happened for a while, but I still think that's a shame. It seems that we've lost some of the struggle that can bond us together as a tribe. Unfortunately we'll never be that closenit tribe that America was in the days of the Great George Washington. We're still a state, but sadly I doubt we'll ever again be a nation.

What do you think makes a state into a nation?

Post by **_huckelberry** » Wed May 23, 2007 4:49 am

Alex18, I was a bit blinded by your going nuclear in a phrase or two but in fact I see you have made at least two important poiints. I guess that would be points that I see as well.

First you have pointing out that tribal is a part of our being human which contains some of the best of what we are. It is the context where people care for each other cooperate most extensively and where humans are most likely to be able to sacrifice for the good of our neighbors. All of the most important parts of humans capable of peace are nutured in our tribal dimension.

You have also pointed out that the negative elements in tribal habits, desire for revenge, mistrust of strangers, a greater willingness to cheat strangers arise from our natural behaviour and need no encouragement from religion. In fact it is religion which has offered encouragement to look beyond those negatives toward a better ideal.

To give Cooper some credit I can also think of times when religion has allowed people to devalue strangers and outsiders and be violent without cause. However I remain convinced that those things are so pervasive and natural to he human condition that I do not believe they are a result of religion but are simple the basic enviroment religion has to start from.

Post by **_ajax18** » Mon May 28, 2007 4:10 pm

I agree and good point.

I know the nuclear thing sounds drastic but to me it's very clear. Why should we not value our soldiers more than those who we are at war with? A better question would be what you think as you're being shot and drug through the filthy dirt streets hooked to a chain attached to a pickup truck about people at home who seem capapble of talking about nothing more than how the Arabs are misunderstood? It's as if they're completely oblivious to your sacrifice, hardship, and even death. To me, a country that does not value its troops more than this, is not worth fighting for. What's the problem with that?

Why are you so outraged that I would use nuclear weapons at that price?