The Definition and Theology of Genocide

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Now the theological problem is that there were times that God commanded Israel to completely eradicate viciously evil people groups, such as the Amalekites. "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (1 Sam. 15:3, NKJV).

God commanded this "genocide" because of the absolute evil of the people of Amalek. We could even go back to Noah's flood. Did God somehow sin by killing everyone on earth except Noah and His family? Absolutely not. Everything God does is righteous and just. So, my point is that accusations that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza are not well thought out. Not only are they factually mistaken, they are emotional accusations, not based on morality or the Bible.

 

[xlsdraw]

The issue is placing themselves in the place of God. I have no doubt that they condemn, not only what God has already done, but also what God is yet prophesied to do.

 

[Silverhair]

The issue is placing themselves in the place of God. I have no doubt that they condemn, not only what God has already done, but also what God is yet prophesied to do.

@xlsdraw who are the "themselves" that condemn what God has or will do?

 

[xlsdraw]

@xlsdraw who are the "themselves" that condemn what God has or will do?

God knows.

 

[Silverhair]

God knows.

That is not an answer. You made the comment so who were you referring to?

 

[percho]

Then there is the great, "genocide," of all!

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

 

[Salty]

bump

 

[John of Japan]

In Post #45 of asterisktom's thread, "Zionism Hinders our Gospel," I posted links to articles about two Democrat congress people who decided to stop using the term "genocide" in reference to Israeli actions in Gaza because they found out what it actually means, and they had not been using the term correctly. No one on the thread who used the term in that way responded to that; asterisktom simply said, "I'm not a Democrat," thinking that was a response but missing the entire point that those two backed off from using the term after learning its true definition, realizing how offensive it is to Jews!

Here is the post in that thread I mentioned:
'Interestingly, here is a Democrat who had to take back her statement using the word, since she had used it wrongly (like asterisktom): Troy Jackson apologizes for "genocide" remarks—Where other Democrats stand. Here is another case of that, this time by the House #2 Democrat: Katherine Clark, No. 2 House Democrat, takes back Gaza ‘genocide’ comment"

In the second link, it said, "Katherine Clark, the No. 2 House Democrat and House Minority Whip, has retracted a recent statement in which she described Israel’s actions in Gaza as 'genocide.' Clark said she used the term during a response at an event but clarified that she is not accusing Israel of genocide.'" What do you know, a big time and honest politician who actually tries to understand terminology and use it correctly!

Now I challenge anyone who uses the term in that way to be honest and stop using it in reference to Israel in Gaza, or simply be understood to be dishonest; the two definitions I give at the beginning of this thread are totally in error, and the users should be honest and admit that.

 

[Van]

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.

Excellent observation, Genocide must include the intent to kill all of a kind, such as Jews or Muslims. To have the goal of neutralizing Islamic terrorists, does not constitute Genocide. If you narrow down "kind" far enough, you can shout "genocide" for any action to defend oneself from those trying to kill them. It is propaganda, blame your opponent for what you are doing.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Well, John, this is a grand example of deflection (I suppose this might prompt a new thread from you: "The definition and theology of deflection".)

But, seriously, you are deflecting from the intent of my article. That article could have been rewritten without the word "genocide" and still deliver the point. The point is that modern Zionism leads to a callousness toward the violence done toward our Palestinians "neighbors". Whether the IDF's actions is genocide is a separate issue.Yet that is where you plant your flag and involve me in your rabbit trail.

Not interested in that discussion. But to try redirect the focus, this is my concern (modified from my previous OP):

My plea to fellow Christians: What good is our faith, having a correct understanding on any or all Bible doctrines, if we at the same time ignore the current plight of many of our neighbors in Gaza – including many fellow saints?

The greatest command is to love God supremely and our neighbor as our ourselves.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, John, this is a grand example of deflection (I suppose this might prompt a new thread from you: "The definition and theology of deflection".)

Nope, not deflection at all. I am a linguist, so I am chasing down a linguistic problem, a severe mischaracterization that you made.

But, seriously, you are deflecting from the intent of my article. That article could have been rewritten without the word "genocide" and still deliver the point. The point is that modern Zionism leads to a callousness toward the violence done toward our Palestinians "neighbors".

This is a separate thread, not your original essay and not your thread, so it is not deflecting. Contribute if you want to or not if you don't.

Whether the IDF's actions is genocide is a separate issue.Yet that is where you plant your flag and involve me in your rabbit trail.

Making a serious charge like genocide is not a rabbit trail. It addresses the very heart of the vicious accusations being made against Jews and Israel. I do not consider either genocide or antisemitism to be separate issues from the current nastiness against Israel.

Not interested in that discussion. But to try redirect the focus, this is my concern (modified from my previous OP):

My plea to fellow Christians: What good is our faith, having a correct understanding on any or all Bible doctrines, if we at the same time ignore the current plight of many of our neighbors in Gaza – including many fellow saints?

You have never once said anything criticizing the actions of the Satanic terrorist group Hamas, though at my urging you did agree that Hamas was Satan-inspired. The Bible not only commands us to love all, but it also over and over commands us to hate evil.

The greatest command is to love God supremely and our neighbor as our ourselves.

Well yes, but the people of Gaza are far away and I've never met any of them. Let me ask, have you given anything to help the people in Gaza? If not, you are guilty of exactly what your accusations amount to. I await your answer.