responding to common objections to bible part 4

[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.