|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 20:56:34 GMT
That's OK; you can see the UN definition above. OED still has "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group" which is good enough for me. en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/genocide And you still have the principal question to answer. Was the Flood, and the genocide that it supposedly entailed, a good thing after all? Or, if not, are we to imagine your deity deliberately doing a bad thing? Is there a problem? This is the UN definition which is different to the one you provided www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdfWhy are you asking that question? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 21:12:09 GMT
OK then, here is the UN's definition from your link: "Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole.. There really is no difference between this and those I already gave, as one can see. Because previously you asserted that "[genocide portrayed as a good thing] is a misreading of the text", which made the query obvious. Why aren't you answering whether or not your god deliberately did a bad thing or whether the Flood, and the mass killing entailed, was really a good act? You have to jump one way or another. It would be unfortunate if delay came across as an evasion. Here's a clue as to what I think, as a secular humanist. Genocide, or mass killing is a bad thing. Period. I hope that helps. I am only sorry that your religion apparently leaves you unable to reach a clear moral verdict here. Unfortunately, the point then is this: that if the faithful cannot easily make a clear moral distinction between good or bad when an alleged mass killing is concerned, then how can we trust them when it comes to small, day-to-day issues which are more complex? |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 21:20:18 GMT
OK then, here is the UN's definition from your link: "Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole.. There really is no difference between this and those I already gave, as one can see. You're shifting the goalposts now. You said the flood caused a genocide but the popular definition of the word does not apply to it. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 21:31:19 GMT
OK then, here is the UN's definition from your link: "Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole.. There really is no difference between this and those I already gave, as one can see. You're shifting the goalposts now. You said the flood caused a genocide but the popular definition of the word does not apply to it. But, er, you have already directed me to your UN definition which you say "is better" and which I accepted and quoted. Now, apparently, there is an alternative 'popular definition' to be taken into consideration? What is that you said about moving goalposts? It is hard to think of any definition of 'genocide' which does not include at its heart the notion of deliberate mass slaughter of whole societies and groups. Was not the Flood 'intended to destroy ... a national ethnic or religious group" in a "deliberate killing" after all, then? That delay in answering the prime question is getting more and more telling... |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 21:48:34 GMT
You're shifting the goalposts now. You said the flood caused a genocide but the popular definition of the word does not apply to it. But, er, you have already directed me to your UN definition which you say "is better" and which I accepted and quoted. Now, apparently, there is an alternative 'popular definition' to be taken into consideration? What is that you said about moving goalposts? It is hard to think of any definition of 'genocide' which does not include at its heart the notion of deliberate mass slaughter of whole societies and groups. Was not the Flood 'intended to destroy ... a national ethnic or religious group" in a "deliberate killing" after all, then? That delay in answering the prime question is getting more and more telling... What ethnic or religious group was that? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 21:59:09 GMT
But, er, you have already directed me to your UN definition which you say "is better" and which I accepted and quoted. Now, apparently, there is an alternative 'popular definition' to be taken into consideration? What is that you said about moving goalposts? It is hard to think of any definition of 'genocide' which does not include at its heart the notion of deliberate mass slaughter of whole societies and groups. Was not the Flood 'intended to destroy ... a national ethnic or religious group" in a "deliberate killing" after all, then? That delay in answering the prime question is getting more and more telling... What ethnic or religious group was that? Are you saying that the entireity of mankind would not ever include in part, national, ethnic, racial or religious groups? There is nothing in any definition of genocide which excludes multiples, both Jews and gypsies say, as part of the overall victimhood, as in WW2. That is, it is no defence to argue that killing was made without prejudice since the crime would be the same for everyone targetted, not less because of it. (Not to mention the fact that one can argue that mankind can be referred to as the 'race of men' etc) Your moral and all-good God aimed at an extermination of very nearly all, across the board. And that recognition, oddly enough, does not make the mass killing less of a genocide. But, good try. Keep going.. You appear to be reaching now, btw. How is the answer to that pressing question coming on? You know I will keep asking. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 22:00:33 GMT
Is it moral to own another human being as property?  when did the bible ever condone such a thing? 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 22:30:12 GMT
What ethnic or religious group was that? Are you saying that the entireity of mankind would not ever include in part, national, ethnic, racial or religious groups? There is nothing in any definition of genocide which excludes multiples, both Jews and gypsies say, as part of the overall victimhood, as in WW2. That is, it is no defence to argue that killing was made without prejudice since the crime would be the same for everyone targetted, not less because of it. (Not to mention the fact that one can argue that mankind can be referred to the 'race of men' etc) Your moral and all-good God aimed at an extermination of very nearly all, across the board. And that recognition, oddly enough, does not make the mass killing less of a genocide. But, good try. Keep going.. You appear to be reaching now, btw. How is the answer to that pressing question coming on? You know I will keep asking. They have to be targeted due to their religion or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 22:35:49 GMT
when did the bible ever condone such a thing? 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. That's the old testament. In the new testament Jesus contradicts this. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 22:56:51 GMT
Are you saying that the entireity of mankind would not ever include in part, national, ethnic, racial or religious groups? There is nothing in any definition of genocide which excludes multiples, both Jews and gypsies say, as part of the overall victimhood, as in WW2. That is, it is no defence to argue that killing was made without prejudice since the crime would be the same for everyone targetted, not less because of it. (Not to mention the fact that one can argue that mankind can be referred to the 'race of men' etc) Your moral and all-good God aimed at an extermination of very nearly all, across the board. And that recognition, oddly enough, does not make the mass killing less of a genocide. But, good try. Keep going.. You appear to be reaching now, btw. How is the answer to that pressing question coming on? You know I will keep asking. They have to be targeted due to their religion or whatever. Actually genocide, as your "better" UN definition says, is defined by the range of killing just as much as it is by the specific nature of the crime. A systematic extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group(s), no matter how disingenuously explained away by disagreeing over why and which people were targeted, is still ... genocide. As already patiently explained, the crime is not made less by a lack of consistent prejudice within populations if the effect is the same. Unless you have another term for the same act of widespread annihilation across whole populations intended to end most of an entire race? Any answer to the main question yet? It's getting late, and I fear you can't wriggle much more. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 23:09:24 GMT
Leviticus 2544 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. That's the old testament. In the new testament Jesus contradicts this. You are moving the goalposts, something you already objected to elsewhere on this thread, since your question referred to 'when did the Bible' not 'where in the NT'. And as I have already observed recently when we see Paul in the NT giving that infamous advice on the best way to run slaves ("Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." etc), if such advice had been offered instead, say, on the most recommended, or acceptable, way to work a murder, could that ever be taken as an overall 'condemnation of homicide'? Even though, yes, I agree that Paul is more negative about slave traders elsewhere. The impression is that neither JC nor Paul were, existing in the culture that they did, very exercised about the issue of slavery per se, at least not enough to condemn it with the same clear emphasis found in scripture when discussing divorce, for instance. Otherwise this discussion would not be happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 23:16:38 GMT
That's the old testament. In the new testament Jesus contradicts this. You are moving the goalposts, something you already objected to elsewhere on this thread, since your question referred to 'when did the Bible' not 'where in the NT'. And as I have already observed, we see Paul in the NT giving infamous advice on the best way to run slaves ("Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." etc). If advice had been offered instead, say. on the most recommended, or acceptable, way to work a murder, could that ever be taken as a 'condemnation of homicide' - even though, yes. Paul is more negative about slave traders elsewhere? The impression is that neither JC nor Paul were, existing in the culture that they did, very exercised about the issue of slavery per se, at least not enough to condemn it - with the same clear emphasis that is found when discussing divorce for instance. If the new testament (the new teaching) contradicts the old teaching (the old testament) then the teaching of god is what is in the new testament. The Bible documents gods changing. If I say "I used to be a x but now I am y", does that mean I am condoning x? Of course not. Same goes for the bible. Regarding Paul telling slaves to obey their masters is not the same as condoning it. If I say "obey the law" I am not condoning the law. Also Paul expresses disapproval of slavery in Philemon This pretty much debunks you " I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced. 15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me." From this we see very clearly that the message of the bible is "Slaves must obey their masters however slavery is not good and should not be encouraged" |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 13, 2019 23:25:10 GMT
They have to be targeted due to their religion or whatever. Actually genocide, as your "better" UN definition says, is defined by the range of killing just as much as it is by the specific nature of the crime. A systematic extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group(s), no matter how disingenuously explained away by disagreeing over why and which people were targeted, is still ... genocide. As already patiently explained, the crime is not made less by a lack of consistent prejudice within populations if the effect is the same. Unless you have another term for the same act of widespread annihilation across whole populations intended to end most of an entire race? Any answer to the main question yet? It's getting late, and I fear you can't wriggle much more. Again it has to be targeted. Killing people who just so happen to be a certain race or whatever is not genocide. What question? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 23:33:20 GMT
If the new testament (the new teaching) contradicts the old teaching (the old testament) then the teaching of god is what is in the new testament. The Bible documents gods changing. "For I, the LORD, do not change" Mal 3:6. LOL And this does not alter the point I made about your original query. But, go on... See my point above. Echoing that here's a more specific, different example. If I was to write, say, "Tell rape victims to be submissive to their rapists and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to prosecute, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior" ... does that indicate in anyway that I condemn rape? You can see how a misleading impression might, somehow, be gained by such language by the sceptical asked to accept my good moral intentions. It might also be noted that in Paul's infamous Epistle to Philemon which, as I am sure you know, was reputedly written to be delivered by the hand of Onesimus, a fugitive slave, whom Paul is sending back to his master Philemon, Paul entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ. But even Cardinal Dulles, a respected religious commentator, feels obliged to point out that, "while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had." It appears that something that is 'very clearly shown' to you is not something so apparent to others less concerned to special plead with optimistic exegesis of vague passages -otherwise the confusion over what the Bible actually condemns, rather than just tolerates ,or even encourages by lack of specific criticism would not continue down through the years. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2019 23:45:42 GMT
Again it (Genocide) has to be targeted. Killing people who just so happen to be a certain race or whatever is not genocide. And again, your all-good deity was targeting - the entire race of mankind except for one small group. One can target most everything just as much as some fewer things, and if thought about it would know this. I have already patiently explained why a lack of prejudice in cruelty doesn't make the crime less - in fact, quite the opposite. You haven't given me another name for that scope of killing either yet, which is significant. And, remember what I said about any special pleading being flagged? (As in "the mass killing of populations is not genocide since when it is not aimed at specific groups!") I do. Are you now suggesting that God aimed his killing at those who 'just happened' to be human btw lol? Oh come on now! Stop stalling. It was whether or not your god deliberately did a bad thing - or whether the Flood, and the mass killing entailed, was really a good act? I reckon this about the fifth time of asking. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 14, 2019 0:36:38 GMT
Leviticus 2544 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. That's the old testament. In the new testament Jesus contradicts this. Your original question was: " when did the bible ever condone such a thing?". I'm glad to see you acknowledge after I just showed you that the bible does in fact condone slavery! Now, you are moving the goalposts and trying to say that this blatant error in God's morality was somehow corrected in the New Testament. Except that it wasn't! Jesus NEVER reverses God's law allowing slavery, and guess what...neither to do any of the apostles! In fact, the only time the New Testament talks about slavery as a social institution, is when furthering it's permissibly. Neither Jesus, Peter nor Paul or any of the apostles ever condemn slavery. On the contrary, Peter and Paul both tell slaves to obey their masters. So clearly you haven't read EITHER testament if you don't know this. 1 Peter 2:18-19 18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.Ephesians 6:5-65 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.I ask you, is this a moral commandment? To tell slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones, but NOT to tell the masters to not have slaves? And by the way, even IF Jesus or one of the apostles HAD reversed this law...the question remains WHY did God allow it in the first place? And this is the question that you Christians can never seem to answer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 13:48:14 GMT
The bible is a TERRIBLE moral basis, and anyone who believes it is a source of morals has no moral basis at all. That's why people like Cody embraces it; he's an inherently immoral person. A lot of Christians simply pretend that it is more, no matter what horrible things it endorses (like slavery). ok why's it so bad? The central message of christianity is an abrogation of personal responsibility. The bible endorses slavery. The god depicted in the bible murders people frequently. Often his victims are children. The god depicted in the bible orders his followers to murder people frequently. The god of the bible is a self aggrandising jerk. The god of the bible is unjust. Take your pick, really. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2019 15:19:17 GMT
If the new testament (the new teaching) contradicts the old teaching (the old testament) then the teaching of god is what is in the new testament. The Bible documents gods changing. "For I, the LORD, do not change" Mal 3:6. LOL And this does not alter the point I made about your original query. But, go on... See my point above. Echoing that here's a more specific, different example. If I was to write, say, "Tell rape victims to be submissive to their rapists and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to prosecute, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior" ... does that indicate in anyway that I condemn rape? You can see how a misleading impression might, somehow, be gained by such language by the sceptical asked to accept my good moral intentions. It might also be noted that in Paul's infamous Epistle to Philemon which, as I am sure you know, was reputedly written to be delivered by the hand of Onesimus, a fugitive slave, whom Paul is sending back to his master Philemon, Paul entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ. But even Cardinal Dulles, a respected religious commentator, feels obliged to point out that, "while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had." It appears that something that is 'very clearly shown' to you is not something so apparent to others less concerned to special plead with optimistic exegesis of vague passages -otherwise the confusion over what the Bible actually condemns, rather than just tolerates ,or even encourages by lack of specific criticism would not continue down through the years. Regarding Mal 3:6 that wasnt meant to be taken literally. People speak in universalisations like that all the time when they dont literally mean it. Example = "You lie all the time". Again rearing your son to obey the law and follow the rules is not an endorsement of the rules. Saying Trump should be allowed to be president because he won the election is not an endorsement of Trump. Regarding Epistle to Philemon its very clear from the quote I provided that Paul believes the slave should be freed. Paul says "in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced". The "good deed" here is freeing the slave. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2019 15:23:00 GMT
Again it (Genocide) has to be targeted. Killing people who just so happen to be a certain race or whatever is not genocide. And again, your all-good deity was targeting - the entire race of mankind except for one small group. One can target most everything just as much as some fewer things, and if thought about it would know this. I have already patiently explained why a lack of prejudice in cruelty doesn't make the crime less - in fact, quite the opposite. You haven't given me another name for that scope of killing either yet, which is significant. And, remember what I said about any special pleading being flagged? (As in "the mass killing of populations is not genocide since when it is not aimed at specific groups!") I do. Are you now suggesting that God aimed his killing at those who 'just happened' to be human btw lol? Oh come on now! Stop stalling. It was whether or not your god deliberately did a bad thing - or whether the Flood, and the mass killing entailed, was really a good act? I reckon this about the fifth time of asking. Exactly, "the entire race of mankind except for one small group", in order words he was not targeting the race of mankind. The basis upon which the flood was ordered was the poor behavior of certain humans, this was intended to correct that. I never said god was all-good. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2019 17:26:47 GMT
"the entire race of mankind except for one small group", in order [sic] words he was not targeting the race of mankind. Here by way of reply it is very easy to point to the UN definition - the one which you preferred as 'better' - of genocide being "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Perhaps that unquoted 'popular definition' you mentioned lately might serve you better? LOL One might note too, that the OED definition says that genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group". Note that the OED does not say " entirely those of a ... group". So: QED. What you are suggesting here the equivalent of arguing that there was really no genocide committed by Hitler since, while he targeted certain groups with extreme prejudice, never less some were spared or survived since they served a useful purpose or their heritage was concealed by the Nazi hierarchy. And your disingenuousness in general is only underlined by the fact that you are apparently unable to offer an alternative term to describe the deliberate mass slaughter of generations and whole populations. Which evasion still does not answer the question I keep posing you: whether or not your god deliberately did a bad thing - or whether the Flood, and the mass killing entailed, was really a good act. You can run but you cannot hide, my friend. This now asked for the sixth time. And I never claimed you did (and in fact the principal, unanswered question between us will help settle what you do say) I simply took my lead from other Christians and from where we are told "God is good" by scripture. Or maybe, as per your reading of biblical statements elsewhere, this ought not to be taken literally either? However if you do not say your deity is all-good, then this must mean you consider it is sometimes bad, or evil. An interesting thought, and not one I have seen expressed in scripture. But after reading the Bible one can why this impression can be gained. |
|
