responding to common objections to bible part 4

[HoreTore]

You are using legal and/or scientific terms to make your case. Thus, you are bound by the legal and/or scientific definition of those terms. That's why I suggested you use another term, like "massacre" for example. The term genocide is a term defined by the UN, and their definition is the one we go by, no matter how any gods feel about it. The same goes for the term self defense. These are not terms for you(or your god) to define as you(he/she/it) pleases, they are defined by others.

As for dismantling the German state being a genocide: no. That's the form of conquest which isn't a genocide(though it's sometimes followed by one). Also, the destruction of political groups and movements are (on purpose) left out of the convention on genocide.

If you honestly can't see the difference between the two forms of conquest, I really have no other thing to say than "educate yourself". You clearly are too daft to grasp even basic concepts, and does not seem to make any effort to understand what you do not understand.


My sole interest in this thread is your mangling of and failure to understand international law and UN conventions, not discussing the morality of supposed events 3000 years ago. You have presented events that are unquestionably a case of genocide. Beyond asserting that, I have little desire to comment beyond pointing out what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are....




EDIT: Also, I would advice staying clear of the term "crime against humanity" in any future posts.... That term is a lot wider then the definition for genocide, and the Bible is chock-full of events classed as crimes against humanity.

EDIT2: A nice summary of your failure to understand the term discussed, in just one short sentence(my bolding):

Canaanites destruction was not genocide or racism but because of moral behavior.

This is a clear contradiction of terms. If the Canaanites were destroyed, it was genocide. If it wasn't genocide, they weren't destroyed. Easy-peasy.

[total relism]

.

You are using legal and/or scientific terms to make your case. Thus, you are bound by the legal and/or scientific definition of those terms. That's why I suggested you use another term, like "massacre" for example. The term genocide is a term defined by the UN, and their definition is the one we go by, no matter how any gods feel about it. The same goes for the term self defense. These are not terms for you(or your god) to define as you(he/she/it) pleases, they are defined by others.

As for dismantling the German state being a genocide: no. That's the form of conquest which isn't a genocide(though it's sometimes followed by one). Also, the destruction of political groups and movements are (on purpose) left out of the convention on genocide.

If you honestly can't see the difference between the two forms of conquest, I really have no other thing to say than "educate yourself". You clearly are too daft to grasp even basic concepts, and does not seem to make any effort to understand what you do not understand.


My sole interest in this thread is your mangling of and failure to understand international law and UN conventions, not discussing the morality of supposed events 3000 years ago. You have presented events that are unquestionably a case of genocide. Beyond asserting that, I have little desire to comment beyond pointing out what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are....

ok i can agree with using the un term, you are correct on that. But even given un definition, isreal is not guilty of genocide.

Self defense
Self-defense or private defense (see spelling differences) is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm.[1] The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.


so as i pointed out, isreal was acting in self defense.



german
you say un is not guilty, but un says this

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [nazi party]

how was the un not guilty of these after ww2?.



the rest is personal attack be cause you cant deal with the information showing isreal is not guilty in any way of your definition, in fact had you read my op in whole, this could have been avoided fully.


you cant defend the un that gives your definition of genocide, because they themselves would be guilty, you cant show bibically that isreal is guilty, without ignoring multiple facts you must constantly ignore. Had you read in full op,post 36 or 38 this would be clear. You cant show your argument "what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are" applies to anything but your straw-man bible conquest, you cant show it does not apply to un, you cant show any base or logical constant argument from your worldview that this would be bad, or that it was wrong in anyway for god to command as he did during the conquest of Canaan.

[HoreTore]

As already stated, the convention on genocide does not cover political groups. The Nazi party was not a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, and so the convention on genocide does not apply to them.

Had the repression of the Nuremberg trials(which was carried out under the London Charter, not the UN) been extended to germans as a people, it would have been genocide. The allies did not, so no genocide. Though several historians argue that events like the bombing of Dresden should be seen as genocide, and they have good arguments. To relate this to the Canaanites, if the Israelites had, after defeating the army, limited themselves to chopping off the heads of a few kings and generals and left the rest of the population to do as they wanted to, there would have been no genocide. Any and all action taken against the civilian population is a crime against humanity, and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide.

As for defining self defense, you are once again making your own definitions and doing as you please with them. The world doesn't work that way. Self defense under international law is defined as my post above explains, illustrated with the Iraq-Iran example. It is also extremely important to note that the convention on genocide still applies as normal(along with a host of other laws of war) even when we are talking of self defense. It is perfectly possible to commit genocide(or any other crime) even though the larger military operation is legal under the provision for self defense, and this has happened on several occasions.

Again: get yourself an education. I attribute your inclusion of "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" to the Nuremberg trials to a lack of education resulting in a failure to understand what C means.

[total relism]

As already stated, the convention on genocide does not cover political groups. The Nazi party was not a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, and so the convention on genocide does not apply to them.

Had the repression(which was carried out under the London Charter, not the UN) been extended to germans as a people, it would have been genocide. The allies did not, so no genocide. Though several historians argue that events like the bombing of Dresden should be seen as genocide, and they have good arguments. To relate this to the Canaanites, if the Israelites had, after defeating the army, limited themselves to chopping off the heads of a few kings and generals and left the rest of the population to do as they wanted to, there would have been no genocide. Any and all action taken against the civilian population is a crime against humanity, and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide.

As for defining self defense, you are once again making your own definitions and doing as you please with them. The world doesn't work that way. Self defense under international law is defined as my post above explains, illustrated with the Iraq-Iran example. It is also extremely important to note that the convention on genocide still applies as normal(along with a host of other laws of war) even when we are talking of self defense. It is perfectly possible to commit genocide(or any other crime) even though the larger military operation is legal under the provision for self defense, and this has happened on several occasions.

Again: get yourself an education.

than you must admit that isreal is not guilty, they never attacked with intent to kill off cannanite population. You must say isreal is not guilty if un is not. If your willing to read any of my post in full or op, you would see this was not the case with isreal. But i think you have read and are just unable to respond, because you know it does not apply to isreal in this case.



self defense
i did not make my own got it from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense. You however have over and over made your own strawman against isreal, and did as you please with it. As i showed in my response you had to ignore on post 38, with your Iraq-Iran example. Isreal is not guilty of the situation you falsely put them in.


you said " and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide."

how does this apply to isreal? it does not, you still have yet to read my op.



so instead of worrying about my education, please try reading my op and my posts on 36 and 38, stop relying on your strawman conquest of cannan, and read my op and posts. If it makes you feel any better, i would agree with you if isreal was guilty of genocide in the strawman conquest you assume they are.. But as i showed over and over [from op on] you cant defend biblical your strawman, that is why you consistent ignore my post.. So unless you can show biblically isreal was guilty of Un genocide definition,your argument fails. Since we have seen you cant work with evidence showing it false [op 36 38], your argument fails.

[HoreTore]

than you must admit that isreal is not guilty, they never attacked with intent to kill off cannanite population. You must say isreal is not guilty if un is not. If your willing to read any of my post in full or op, you would see this was not the case with isreal. But i think you have read and are just unable to respond, because you know it does not apply to isreal in this case.



self defense
i did not make my own got it from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense. You however have over and over made your own strawman against isreal, and did as you please with it. As i showed in my response you had to ignore on post 38, with your Iraq-Iran example. Isreal is not guilty of the situation you falsely put them in.


you said " and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide."

how does this apply to isreal? it does not, you still have yet to read my op.



so instead of worrying about my education, please try reading my op and my posts on 36 and 38, stop relying on your strawman conquest of cannan, and read my op and posts. If it makes you feel any better, i would agree with you if isreal was guilty of genocide in the strawman conquest you assume they are.. But as i showed over and over [from op on] you cant defend biblical your strawman, that is why you consistent ignore my post.. So unless you can show biblically isreal was guilty of Un genocide definition,your argument fails. Since we have seen you cant work with evidence showing it false [op 36 38], your argument fails.

Any claims of god-given land are disregarded completely, as it is complete nonsense. It carries no weight whatsoever. You cannot claim a land inhabited by others because God said it belonged to you originally. Other people live there now, and that makes it their land. That was why I completely ignored this point: it's complete nonsense, and irrelevant to the discussion.

To give a contemporary example of this: the US used to belong to the native americans. It was their land. However, if the native americans were to deport americans of european descent, it would be a case of genocide. This applies even though the native americans themselves have been subject to genocide from americans of european descent.

I know your definition was copy-paste, as I am well aware that your intellectual shortcomings keep you from constructing things on your own and instead relying on the good ol' "copy c, copy v". Since you make a point about not referencing properly I didn't know the source, but I suspected wiki(since that's where morons go to get confused).

Suffice to say, Wikipedia has listed a general description(not that I am using a different term than "definition" now) of the term as it is applied in various settings. This is irrelevant, because we are now talking about a specific use, namely its use in international relations. That definition and its use in international law is discussed in a post above(Iraq/Iran).

Now, back to the question of genocide. You wrote:

than you must admit that isreal is not guilty, they never attacked with intent to kill off cannanite population

That the intent was to "kill off" is irrelevant to the definition of genocide. Genocide often, but in no way has to, include murder. The relevant act in Canaan, as with any other forceful removals and ethnic cleansing, is C. This act includes things like assimilation and relocation, two things which happened with the Canaanites. Thus, genocide. The assimilation and relocation were intended to partly destroy a religious and ethnic group in the land of Israel. Again, genocide.

I am working off the following statement to determine the intent behind the actions of the Israelites:

The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them..

This intent makes it a clear case of genocide. I am not certain of the validity of that statement, however, given that you are notoriously unreliable and my own limited biblical knowledge. Thus, I have to stress that I make no claims on the events of the bible, my comments are solely directed at your version of the account.

[total relism]

Any claims of god-given land are disregarded completely, as it is complete nonsense. It carries no weight whatsoever. You cannot claim a land inhabited by others because God said it belonged to you originally. Other people live there now, and that makes it their land. That was why I completely ignored this point: it's complete nonsense, and irrelevant to the discussion.

To give a contemporary example of this: the US used to belong to the native americans. It was their land. However, if the native americans were to deport americans of european descent, it would be a case of genocide. This applies even though the native americans themselves have been subject to genocide from americans of european descent.

I know your definition was copy-paste, as I am well aware that your intellectual shortcomings keep you from constructing things on your own and instead relying on the good ol' "copy c, copy v". Since you make a point about not referencing properly I didn't know the source, but I suspected wiki(since that's where morons go to get confused).

Suffice to say, Wikipedia has listed a general description(not that I am using a different term than "definition" now) of the term as it is applied in various settings. This is irrelevant, because we are now talking about a specific use, namely its use in international relations. That definition and its use in international law is discussed in a post above(Iraq/Iran).

Now, back to the question of genocide. You wrote:



That the intent was to "kill off" is irrelevant to the definition of genocide. Genocide often, but in no way has to, include murder. The relevant act in Canaan, as with any other forceful removals and ethnic cleansing, is C. This act includes things like assimilation and relocation, two things which happened with the Canaanites. Thus, genocide. The assimilation and relocation were intended to partly destroy a religious and ethnic group in the land of Israel. Again, genocide.

I am working off the following statement to determine the intent behind the actions of the Israelites:



This intent makes it a clear case of genocide. I am not certain of the validity of that statement, however, given that you are notoriously unreliable and my own limited biblical knowledge. Thus, I have to stress that I make no claims on the events of the bible, my comments are solely directed at your version of the account.

it was Abraham and Israels land originally, this is like saying germany had rights to France, as they owned it during ww2 when america came and took it [genocide]from them. Besides were does it say in un, that the retaking of land [isreal was ordered not to take land rightfully and not taken from them by Canaanites] is genocide?. Isreal was never told to go and take land or spread its borders, had you read op you would know that.

here we go with yet another modern analogy that does not follow the biblical narrative.



kill off
i was simply responding to just one of your claims. The other that you make was dealt with on post 36 38 and more important my op. You keep tacking small sections such as "The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them" than ignoring the narrative as a whole as i have tried many times to show you.



please first show were a retaking of land that you went to return to and were first attacked and tried for peace they would not accept. Is genocide in the un document. If you can do so i will consider removing the word genocide from op. But i dont see it in un article anywere nor webster

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide


wiki provides many definitions from 1945 on, i cant see any that fit what your saying or the biblical narrative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions



not that i ever held your argument up as you deny biblical narrative, but me thinks your shit out of luck.I cant belive your still trying, right know your definition of genocide is not found in un document, nor anywhere i can find. It involves retaking land that was originally yours,and defending yourself from attacks in your land, this counts as genocide to you, it this not embarrassing buy know, to keep trying desperate to defend this?


than i will just copy paste off post 28 you ignored that deals with this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Canaanites initiated the attacks on isreal first
The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when Israel was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22


so already we have self defense.



No were in ot does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.

upon entering the land Israel simply asked for safe passage and were than attacked first by Canaanites numbers 21.1 21 21-24 21.33 20 14-17

isreal was than after attacked, asked for peace.


when Canaanites rejected [those that did some did make peace and kept land and no war] and continued attacks, isreal gave the 4 options

The nations in cannan were given 4 options
1] leave- some left
2] war
3] join isreal
4]make peace treaty



isreal was than ordered to drive them out of the land not kill them, for reasons given on op.
Drive out not kill
Isreal was to drive out Canaanites not annihilate num 21.32 33.52 dt 9.1 11.23 18.14 19.1 ex 23.28 lev 10.24 num 33.52 etc just as adam and eve were “driven out” of the garden of Eden gen 4.14



land originally Israel's and gods the promise land
they were not to just go fight anyone to take land,The land belongs to god and Israel,so they were taking there land back


5#Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.
Deuteronomy 2.5 also 2.9 and 2.19 also Deuteronomy 2:2-23

Deuteronomy 20.16 limits “holy war” to the promise land. Only people who did not have right or title to land would be dispossessed,Unlike edom dut 2.4 23.7 and moab/ammon dut 2.9,19 gen 12-12 promises isreal the land gen 13 14-17.


Canaanite lived with and among isreal and next to isreal with peace treaties from beginning and for thousands of years after.


none of the OT wars were fought with the purpose of forcibly converting the pagans to the religion of Israel. God commanded these wars for the specific purpose of punishment and judgment

Canaanites destruction was not genocide or racism but because of moral behavior.



a group that practiced today what Canaanites did, even in liberal west would not be tolerated in society.


thir is much more in op you are ignoring.

[HoreTore]

Who attacked who first is utterly irrelevant. I cannot stress this enough, but you can't seem to grasp it. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether it was genocide or not.

You do not seem to see the difference between evicting a population and toppling its leadership either. I do not know how to explain this simple enough for you, sorry. When the US attacked German-occupied France(which wasn't annexed(owned) so even less relevant), there was no removal of civilian populations. A change in statehood is a change in statehood, and has little to do with genocide. Now, a piece of Germany(Alsace-Lorraine) was annexed by France after the war. If Germany today was to claim it as its own and annex it, this would be a breach of international law. If they forced the french living there away, it would be a genocide.

I have no problems in accepting arguments that the removal of German civilians from Prussia by the Soviet Union after the war constituted a genocide.

Israel was Abrahams land? Irrelevant. The Canaanites lived there now, it was their land. The Canaanite population cannot be forced to leave without it being a genocide. You could subjugate them, and it would merely be unlawful under other conventions, but not remove them. That will always be termed genocide.

There are absolutely no provisions under international law to retake previously owned land. Doing so is under all circumstances an illegal act.

[The Stranger]

.





ok i can agree with using the un term, you are correct on that. But even given un definition, isreal is not guilty of genocide.

Self defense
Self-defense or private defense (see spelling differences) is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm.[1] The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.


so as i pointed out, isreal was acting in self defense.



german
you say un is not guilty, but un says this

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [nazi party]

how was the un not guilty of these after ww2?.



the rest is personal attack be cause you cant deal with the information showing isreal is not guilty in any way of your definition, in fact had you read my op in whole, this could have been avoided fully.


you cant defend the un that gives your definition of genocide, because they themselves would be guilty, you cant show bibically that isreal is guilty, without ignoring multiple facts you must constantly ignore. Had you read in full op,post 36 or 38 this would be clear. You cant show your argument "what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are" applies to anything but your straw-man bible conquest, you cant show it does not apply to un, you cant show any base or logical constant argument from your worldview that this would be bad, or that it was wrong in anyway for god to command as he did during the conquest of Canaan.

Just admit that it was genocide, and then dismiss it as irrelevant, because as HoreTore said, it is an UN definition, and applying moral obligations in retrospect is hardly fair and even less productive. Then proceed to say that the UN's Universal Civil Rights Codex is the result of a humanist ideology which gained alot of popularity after the Revolutions, but popularity is hardly a proper argument to prefer one ideology over the other. Then ask HoreTore if he can give an arguments as to why his ideology is principally better then yours, and if he cannot (and he can't), shake his hand... Only to return when he is sleeping to bash his skull in.

[HoreTore]

Just admit that it was genocide, and then dismiss it as irrelevant, because as HoreTore said, it is an UN definition, and applying moral obligations in retrospect is hardly fair and even less productive. Then proceed to say that the UN's Universal Civil Rights Codex is the result of a humanist ideology which gained alot of popularity after the Revolutions, but popularity is hardly a proper argument to prefer one ideology over the other.

That line of argument would at least be legitimate, and it also requires very little education or knowledge to make.

My main concern here is the unintelligent misuse of terms. If TR simply decides to argue that what happened wasn't "a massacre"(or whatever) instead of arguing that it wasn't a genocide, he'd have at least half a leg to stand on.

In that event I wouldn't have any interest in commenting in the thread either, as I have very little interest in debating morals with someone obsessed with punishment and believes debt-slavery to be morally acceptable....

[The Stranger]

That line of argument would at least be legitimate, and it also requires very little education or knowledge to make.

damn and i thought i was being smart :S

[HoreTore]

damn and i thought i was being smart :S

Well.... What I meant was that you don't have to have knowledge of different conventions and so on to make such an argument.

[The Stranger]

Well.... What I meant was that you don't have to have knowledge of different conventions and so on to make such an argument.

dont worry about it :P im kidding a bit here. I'm actually surprised u guys are still trying.

[total relism]

That line of argument would at least be legitimate, and it also requires very little education or knowledge to make.

My main concern here is the unintelligent misuse of terms. If TR simply decides to argue that what happened wasn't "a massacre"(or whatever) instead of arguing that it wasn't a genocide, he'd have at least half a leg to stand on.

In that event I wouldn't have any interest in commenting in the thread either, as I have very little interest in debating morals with someone obsessed with punishment and believes debt-slavery to be morally acceptable....

were ht sees a " misuse of terms" anyone looking into will find it comes down to him ignoring/not reading my post and the biblical narrative. As for debt-slavery, that is responded to on this thread [link found on op HT runs from]
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...tions-to-bible

[total relism]

I just want to be clear, given what Ht assumes [or pretends] happened in the conquest, he is right that isreal would be guilty of genocide yet not necessarily wrong as he says. But as i have shown and bible clearly teaches, isreal was not guilty of genocide. That is why he ignores my post and op on the subject and cant argue against. he just keeps repeating that they did hoping if he says it long enough some might think it true [i guess not sure why].

[total relism]

Just admit that it was genocide, and then dismiss it as irrelevant, because as HoreTore said, it is an UN definition, and applying moral obligations in retrospect is hardly fair and even less productive. Then proceed to say that the UN's Universal Civil Rights Codex is the result of a humanist ideology which gained alot of popularity after the Revolutions, but popularity is hardly a proper argument to prefer one ideology over the other. Then ask HoreTore if he can give an arguments as to why his ideology is principally better then yours, and if he cannot (and he can't), shake his hand... Only to return when he is sleeping to bash his skull in.

I love most all that post sir, but if you read my op and especially post 36 and 38 [easier smaller but not all info] you will find isreal was not guilty of even un definition. HT knows this, that is why he does not respond to these post, but i do agree i think he knows the morality of the conquest is what matters and that is what he chooses not to disuse for whatever reason. Not a un definition of genocide.