I'm including this in the theology forum because there was genocide mandated by God Himself in the OT. Such genocide could not be sinful or immoral because God commanded it. More about that later.
Here is the problem with the whole argument nowadays: the word is not being defined properly, but is being used as an emotional attack. It is impossible to rationally discuss an issue unless both sides are agreed on the definitions.
Note the following definitions on the previous thread:
asterisktom: From something called the "Genocide Convention" which he accessed in Wikipedia:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(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;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
There are some huge problems with this definition. For example, it includes "intent." This gives the accuser a weapon involving the thought process of the person or group it accuses of genocide. So, I suppose the UN needs to start up a "thought police" unit? It also mentions "emotional harm." Really? So, if the Palestinians say, "You Jews hurt my feelings," then it constitutes genocide? And again, "forcibly transferring children...to another group." Really? You don't kill anyone, but just take their kids, and that is genocide?
Conan: "An extermination of a people for their land. To bomb unarmed men women and children. To starve a population trying to drive them from their land." The problem here is that this definition is specific to the current Israel vs. Gaza situation. Past genocides did not necessarily include bombing or starving people, etc. The Armenian Genocide in Turkey included mass murder and forced Islamification. The Turkish rulers did not have to drive the Armenians from their land. They simply killed them and then the land was theirs for the taking!
I much prefer this linguistically responsible and authoritative definition: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide). The problem is that this does not fit the emotional narrative being pushed by the antisemites. However, it does fit historical genocide movements, such as the Armenian Genocide in Turkey or the Holocaust of the Nazis.
Here is the problem with the whole argument nowadays: the word is not being defined properly, but is being used as an emotional attack. It is impossible to rationally discuss an issue unless both sides are agreed on the definitions.
Note the following definitions on the previous thread:
asterisktom: From something called the "Genocide Convention" which he accessed in Wikipedia:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(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;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
There are some huge problems with this definition. For example, it includes "intent." This gives the accuser a weapon involving the thought process of the person or group it accuses of genocide. So, I suppose the UN needs to start up a "thought police" unit? It also mentions "emotional harm." Really? So, if the Palestinians say, "You Jews hurt my feelings," then it constitutes genocide? And again, "forcibly transferring children...to another group." Really? You don't kill anyone, but just take their kids, and that is genocide?
Conan: "An extermination of a people for their land. To bomb unarmed men women and children. To starve a population trying to drive them from their land." The problem here is that this definition is specific to the current Israel vs. Gaza situation. Past genocides did not necessarily include bombing or starving people, etc. The Armenian Genocide in Turkey included mass murder and forced Islamification. The Turkish rulers did not have to drive the Armenians from their land. They simply killed them and then the land was theirs for the taking!
I much prefer this linguistically responsible and authoritative definition: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide). The problem is that this does not fit the emotional narrative being pushed by the antisemites. However, it does fit historical genocide movements, such as the Armenian Genocide in Turkey or the Holocaust of the Nazis.
Last edited:
