As in what happens today in the "Holy Land" ?
Ok, maybe not so good then. We've still got some problems to solve . . .
I suppose it is only an extension of the biblical orders from god to commit genocide. Such a nice psychopath this abrahamic god.
Concerning the ethics of what the Israelites did in the land of Canaan, I would say that the Old Testament God was acting very much like a tribal God, just like many of the cultures in the area at the time. He didn't seek to change the existing tribal ethics, but instead worked with them.
I personally don't blame a God for doing that. We live in a world of many different cultures, with their many habits, characteristics, pecularities and idiosyncrasies. If we were to impose our values on another culture, that would be seen as arrogant. Consider the case of British, American and Australian forces working in Afghanistan.
Let's say an American, British or Australian soldier, thinking he/she knows better, concerning a strategic or tactical situation, wants to lecture an Afghan on how to reason properly, based on his/her higher level of reasoning compared to that of the lowly life of an Afghan. The American, British or Australian soldier would be accused of being arrogant.
Consider the case of humans on board the Starship Enterprise exploring the galaxy, encountering so-called "primitive civilisations" with their "primitive thinking." Their societies are plagued by multitudes of social and political problems. What are they going to do? Are they going to try and change the social and political framework?
Well, yes, if they are interested in raising the level of civilisation. They would change the social and political framework. By changing the framework, they increase the level of civilisation.
Of course, you'd wonder, wouldn't God be interested in civilisation? My personal view on this is that He isn't really that interested in that. The God of the Old Testament seems to have been more interested in a relationship with humans. He understands civilisation, He knows what it means to have a social and political framework, but He is likely to not be interested because He'd rather leave that to us. He expects us to do it on our own.
Whatever the Israelites did in Canaan, I reckon they would have done anyway if they knew about it (without the OT God telling them about the land), based on whatever Middle-Eastern tribal ethics existed at the time. What I believe God was doing in all this was saying, "hey, I'm going to watch over you in this journey of your's. I will support you in your endeavours as long as you behave yourselves and do as I say." So the God of the Old Testament was probably more like a steward watching over "His people" as they went on their journey to the Promised Land, offering support.
Also, don't forget they were slaves in Egypt and needed some place to live. The support they received would have been important for that reason.
As for what Israel does today, If I am right about what God in the Old Testament meant when he complained about injustice in the Holy Land (back then and now), I would actually have been thinking of the opposite -- that God wouldn't approve of what is happening now. It goes against "today's ethics."
When I say "today's ethics," I am speaking of God as an outsider of this world, as much like a guest of this world that has to work with the ethics and morality of this world, much as He worked with the Middle-Eastern tribal ethics of the past. If I think of God as an individual that values relationships, then the ethics of today determines Israel's relationship with the world in a moral/ethical context and in that context, Israel cannot be seen favourably. Israel harming the collective human psyche, being divisive and creating regional tensions in this way is something of which God would not approve.
Even worse is when Israel loses support of the Jewish communities around the world for its actions (bit like Americans and Sept-11, war on Iraq, etc.). Israel then, I would say, is like a madman that has lost its mind. It has lost touch with reality.
One of the Ten Commandments is not to use God's name for "evil" purposes. It's often interpreted as the command against blasphemy, but actually, when I read the Pentateuch a while back it seemed He was saying He wouldn't tolerate people using His name for "evil" purposes (ie. misusing His name). It didn't sound like blasphemy at all.
So it's like, Inspector Gadget or Maxwell Smart trying to catch a thug and saying, "Stop! In the name of the Law," meanwhile breaking the law.
I suppose the reason why it'd be interpreted as "blasphemy" is because generically, it's about desecrating His name. But there'd be two ways of desecrating His name. One is to slander Him or to use it as a swear-word. The other is to go around incarcerating people, killing and torturing them and claiming that you're doing it for God.
I see the latter as the more valid interpretation, especially considering the wording (somewhere in the Pentateuch). The former doesn't seem so relevant these days. In the case of the acts of genocide in the Holy Land (and elsewhere in the name of Islam and Christianity), I'd think it'd be the latter.
Yeah, people do use it as a swear-word sometimes, but that doesn't concern me. It's not really that big of a deal. What is a big deal is people using religion (and thus God) as a tool of domination.
