The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

Motivation has absolutely not one iota of an impact on whether something is genocide or not. The definition does not in any way shape or form contain the word "because" or any synonym thereof. This is an objective fact.

It was not a systematic killing due to those things defined. It was a action of self defense/survival from a group of people the group or ethnic attributes had nothing to do with it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No. They killed part of a group based on self-defense.

I think I get your confusion. You think "based on" means "because". That isn't so either. It means that you identify members of the group based on their race, political affiliations, or culture.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To conquer probably. But not through fear, through attempting to be actually superior in strength. Why does that matter? You still aren't answering to the fact that our actions fall under the definition of terrorism.

This is a clarifying statement by the government:

The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".
Japan was not a non-combatant target.

 

[Moral Orel]

It was a action of self defense/survival from a group of people the group or ethnic attributes had nothing to do with it.

The "group or ethnicities" is how they identified who to kill. Not the reason for it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Japan was not a non-combatant target.

What?!? Then ISIS aren't terrorists because the USA is not a non-combatant target!

 

[anonymous person]

God does not need our approval before He takes life.

 

[Moral Orel]

God does not need our approval before He takes life.

Then God isn't good. He isn't bad either. He's neither, as all actions are permissible for him.

 

[bhsmte]

Then God isn't good. He isn't bad either. He's neither, as all actions are permissible for him.

It is black and white thinking, to make things simple and to allow justification.

Anything god commands is good, no matter what it is.

 

[anonymous person]

Then God isn't good. He isn't bad either. He's neither, as all actions are permissible for him.

Wrong.

All that God does is good because God is good.

 

[anonymous person]

Anything God commands is good, no matter what finite, fallen, sinful men who deny His very existence may say.

 

[Moral Orel]

All that God does is good because God is good.

Then if I do anything that God has done, I am good.

 

[quatona]

That is the meaning I got.

I have repeatedly told you that you got it wrong, but you insisted on adding stuff that I neither said nor implied, nor that followed from what I said.

How does being in the majority make you fortunate?

Is that a serious question?
These views are shared by the vast majority of humans. That´s a fortunate position to have - as compared to your views being held by a fringe group. This results in cultural paradigms, it finds its way into the legislation. Genocide and the killing of children and toddlers is not only against the law - it is also not accepted by the vast majority of people. How´s that not convenient and fortunate? I don´t have to fight for these positions - everybody shares them.
I can be sure that once you (or anyone else) steps up and justifies those things publicly, they aren´t even taken seriously.

I may have misunderstood but I don't think misrepresenting is accurate.

The way you insisted and repeated those claims even after I had repeatedly told you that these weren´t my claims or positions makes that hard a little hard to believe.

 

[anonymous person]

Then if I do anything that God has done, I am good.

Non-sequitur.

You have not created life. Therefore you cannot take it of your own accord.

Would you be free? Then surrender to God, be cleansed, and conform to His will for your life.

 

[quatona]

God does not need our approval before He takes life.

Neither do we need his approval - obviously. Or else people wouldn´t be murdered.

 

[Moral Orel]

Non-sequitur.

You have not created life. Therefore you cannot take it of your own accord.

Would you be free? Then surrender to God, be cleansed, and conform to His will for your life.

Then we need a new word for God's morality. Nothing I can morally do applies to God, and nothing God can morally do applies to me, then "good" cannot be used in both situations.

 

[quatona]

Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

If men take it upon themselves to do this, it is wrong. If God takes life, He has done nothing wrong because He is the Author of life. He gives and takes as He will.

God could cause us all to die right now without our permission and without doing anything wrong.

Our life is a gift. Every beat of our heart is a gift, every breath also.

Saying it´s a gift and at the same time saying that God can take it as he sees fit reveals an odd understanding of "gift".

But if naturalism is true, then the killing of a bunch of people is really no different than destroying an ant hill.

As you have described above, it isn´t any different from destroying an ant hill in your view. It just depends on who does the killing. Life, particularly from the divine perspective, is meaningless.

On another note, do not have faith that nobody notices your false dichotomy "either my God or naturalism".

 

[bhsmte]

Then if I do anything that God has done, I am good.

All you have to do, is claim god commanded you, just like the ISIS dudes.

 

[anonymous person]

Saying it´s a gift and at the same time saying that God can take it as he sees fit reveals an odd understanding of "gift".

Fact is stranger than fiction they say.

As you have described above, it isn´t any different from destroying an ant hill in your view.

Naturalism is not my view.

It just depends on who does the killing. Life, particularly from the divine perspective, is meaningless.

So meaningless that Jesus laid down His life so that all those who trust in Him might live through Him.

On another note, do not have faith that nobody notices your false dichotomy "either my God or naturalism".

That's about it.

 

[anonymous person]

All you have to do, is claim god commanded you, just like the ISIS dudes.

And all we have to do is check that with the Bible.

"Blow people up people that don't believe what you do" does not quite have that "love your neighbor as yourself" ring to it now does it?

 

[Moral Orel]

...premeditated...

Check! It took planning.

...politically-motivated...

Check! What is war without politics?

...violence...

Check! Nukes are mighty violent.

...perpetrated...

Check! It happened, we didn't just think about it.

...against non-combatant targets...

Check! Don't tell me all the women, children, babies, pregnant women (can't forget abortion!), elderly, sick, mentally disabled, physically disabled, and other non-soldiers that we specifically targeted were not non-combatants.

...by sub-national groups or clandestine agents...

Uh oh! The one part that says it wasn't terrorism! Of course the government would write the definition of terrorism to not include themselves as ever being the possible perpetrator though.

...usually intended to influence an audience

Check! We influenced the bajeebers outta them!

If it looks like a duck, and it blows up like a duck...