Originally posted by vistesd
The morality question on that has been debated to death here (pardon the pun), and focused not on conquest, but on that “you shall save alive nothing” part. I don’t recall if anyone ever raised on here the historical question of whether such a large-scale conquest-by-war ever really took place.
But with regard to howardgee’s issue here—
I would think ...[text shortened]... ems, religious as well as secular.
Comparative “body counts” prove nothing, absolve no one.
I would think that any institutionalized system ...
Is it only institutionalised systems that would be prone? Think about culture and social mores. Although these are not enshrined in visible institutions they might still be considered True by adherents.
... that (1) claims for itself the only valid expression of a totality of Truth ...
One of the most fundamental assumptions of human thought is the principle of
non-contradiction - contradictory propositions cannot simultaneously be true. Either YHWV exists, or he does not. Either Jesus was the Only-Begotten Son of God, or he was not. Either the human being is reincarnated as another living being, or he is not. So, anyone who asserts that a statement is true is automatically going to be irreconcilably opposed to those who hold the opposite. One or the other will need to change their stance based on additional data, logical incoherence of one of the positions or some fundamental aspect of the position that is emotionally unacceptable.
Second, human beings are also fundamentally oriented towards
certainty in truth. We're not satisfied if a doctor's diagnosis is "It
could be malaria". We canot be satisfied with unclear or uncertain answers to big questions like "Is there a God? What is he like? What happens to my soul after I die?" Human beings instinctively understand that these questions are important questions - probably more important than any other they will ask in their lifetime.
One could argue here that this is an attempt to make the ineffable effable. But there must be some
aspects of the ineffable that are effable - or human beings wouldn't bother trying to look for it at all. Those effable aspects must adhere to the principle of non-contradiction.
Third, in terms of religions, no religion I know claims to express the "totality of Truth". What they do claim is the truth of the propositions they assert (and consequently the falsehood of contradictories); propositions they do not assert may or may not be true.
... and (2) regards alternative views as dangerous or perverse, ...
If A says X is true and B says not-X is true, then we know that both cannot be simultaneously right. If the person asserting the falsehood has his way, then we know that the result would be ignorance - which we almost always consider to be dangerous.