responding to common objections to bible part 4

[Ronin]

Technical error, TR.

You ask whether or not the genocide occurred. The answer is yes. Your attempt to justify this genocide does not alter the genocide taking place, and has nothing to do with it.

Learn to correlate your answers to your opening question. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education...

beat me to it.
a yes/no question just got turned into a justification speech because the answer is yes.

[HoreTore]

beat me to it.
a yes/no question just got turned into a justification speech because the answer is yes.

....and we all know what wonderful people those who justify genocide are, right?

[total relism]

Technical error, TR.

You ask whether or not the genocide occurred. The answer is yes. Your attempt to justify this genocide does not alter the genocide taking place, and has nothing to do with it.

Learn to correlate your answers to your opening question. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education...

beat me to it.
a yes/no question just got turned into a justification speech because the answer is yes.

....and we all know what wonderful people those who justify genocide are, right?

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.


so to you HT
Learn to read before criticizing and responding to my opening post. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education. Imagine your teacher gives you book to read, than you read cover and falsely assume what book is about. Than write a report on your false assumption, that should get a f.

[Ronin]

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

[HoreTore]

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

And it gets extremely hilarious when the definition attempting to prove "not a genocide", ie. removing a religious group from a limited area, is in fact the textbook definition of genocide.

[total relism]

entire large sections of my op deal specifically with your guys claims, please read my op past the very first section sins of Canaanites.

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

I can only take that as showing you cannot respond to the op. Unsupported claims as you have made above, is a sure sign of a weak [in this case non existent] argument.

Hold your sanctimonious tone, please. Here's what Sigurd wrote(my bolding):



To which you replied:



You back this up by apparently going off on a tangent(in your OP) about how evil the Caanites were, which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the claim you objected to. If you feel Sigurd misrepresented your intent with the way he phrased his statement, you would point that out instead of objecting to it. By objecting to just its conclusion, you assert that the way it is phrased is correct.

I, like almost everyone else on this board, already have my degree(some are still in the process of getting theirs). Unlike you. I'm no longer being graded - in fact I now grade the work of other students.

A side note on that - The last paper I graded before the summer break was "written" in the same style as your posts - it was the easiest 0 I have ever given in my life(but then again a 0 isn't a common thing). The assessment comment was also my quickest yet - a simple comment of "Breach of academic honesty policy".

You should not be grading papers imo, if you only read beginning of every paper, as you did my op [sins of Canaanites] you would come to a false conclusion apretley, if you falsely apply my post to be about that all alone. If you keep readingmy whole op on subject, you will find that your post that picked up on what Sigurd wrote, and the false assumptions that followed. Are giving you the wrong conclusions on my post and argument. Is it to much to ask to have people read my entire op on a subject before responding?.


so when i posted this
"9-according to bible and archaeology..no, i have to disagree."

to back up is not naming the sins of the Canaanites [that is important for op] but the whole op post i made, i encourage you and all others to read my op before responding and making false assumptions. Than we dont have to make post after post of talking on things no one said or posted.

And it gets extremely hilarious when the definition attempting to prove "not a genocide", ie. removing a religious group from a limited area, is in fact the textbook definition of genocide.

if i needed any more proof, this shows again they have not read past first section of my post on sins of Canaanites, nor read my second reference [if they did not want to read all that] a debate on subject.

[HoreTore]

Failing a paper due to a breach of academic honesty policy is done after glancing through a paper in under a minute. It's extremely quick to do.

Now, let's have a look at your OP, shall we? Let's start here:

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

Two of these, 2 and 3, are always genocidal, while whether 1 and 4 are genocidal depends on other factors. In this context, 1 is a definite genocide, while 4 would depend on the terms of said treaty.

This statement:

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

....is a textbook definition of a genocide. It simply does not get any closer to genocide than this.


Do I have to teach you how the Convention on Genocide works as well, or what?

[HoreTore]

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.


so to you HT
Learn to read before criticizing and responding to my opening post. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education. Imagine your teacher gives you book to read, than you read cover and falsely assume what book is about. Than write a report on your false assumption, that should get a f.

Hold your sanctimonious tone, please. Here's what Sigurd wrote(my bolding):

To.9. God ordered genocide on the Canaanites? According to the Bible ... Yes.

To which you replied:

9-according to bible and archaeology..no, i have to disagree.

You back this up by apparently going off on a tangent(in your OP) about how evil the Caanites were, which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the claim you objected to. If you feel Sigurd misrepresented your intent with the way he phrased his statement, you would point that out instead of objecting to it. By objecting to just its conclusion, you assert that the way it is phrased is correct.

I, like almost everyone else on this board, already have my degree(some are still in the process of getting theirs). Unlike you. I'm no longer being graded - in fact I now grade the work of other students.

A side note on that - The last paper I graded before the summer break was "written" in the same style as your posts - it was the easiest 0 I have ever given in my life(but then again a 0 isn't a common thing). The assessment comment was also my quickest yet - a simple comment of "Breach of academic honesty policy".