responding to common objections to bible part 4

[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.