Yes. Like canaanites or amalekites.
No.
Yes.
There is no context in which the indiscriminate killing of a bunch of babies or toddlers can be classified as "self-defense". Do you agree?
I do, however this is not a case of indiscriminate killing. This is about God's knowledge of each and every one of the children involved and what each child would do in it. Even Hitler was a baby at one time. Even Stalin was a baby at one time. If Stalin was killed as a baby 49 million people would not have been killed, if Hitler was killed as a baby six million would not have been killed. We now have knowledge of how evil even one person can be and how much harm that person can cause to millions of people. This is why when discussing the acts commanded by God, we understand that God has necessary information to decide an action and that action will be in the best possible good in accordance with the whole of mankind. The Jews had first hand experience of God's power by way of the plagues in Egypt, do you think they were debating whether or not God had a good and moral reason for commanding them to do what He commanded them to do? They knew that He had their best interests at heart and they were following Him because they knew they could trust Him to take care of them and they knowing of His existence knew He had reason for doing what He told them to do.
That would entirely depend on who of the group is killed, and what you understand by "group".
For example, take Nazi Germany.
They attacked us and we defeated them by killing a bunch of soldiers and (virtually) beheading the Nazi leadership. This was not genocide, but rather winning a war.
Now... if we would have moved into Germany and killed every single German there, then it would have been genocide.
Foremost, this was an action taken by man and man alone. No one has the right to take innocent life and we live by that objective moral standard. To take "innocent" life is a objective moral standard that mankind holds. You hold it, I hold it and universally that is the standard. Some twist this and judge some as not innocent or justify their killing in some other way. Man is not God and has no right to take life other than self defense or in the act of saving another from great harm. Yes, the Jews were acting in self defense against an evil people and those evil people were spreading across the nations killing toddlers and babies and pregnant women and the old of others and even killing their own children by sacrifice. They did this to the Jews. Now if the Jews were not commanded by God to kill the young, and they did that would have been wrong and wrong in God's eyes as well. God is the arbitrator of life and death. But lets say that God didn't command them to kill the toddlers and babies...was it genocide? I don't think so even then. They would be acting in self defense and then adding an immoral component to the mix but genocide is the systematic killing of a specific group meaning the type of group is the only one that is killed and killed for that purpose but that was not the case. The Jews would have attacked and killed any group that attacked and killed their toddlers, babies, old, weak and young despite their ethnicity. Do you see that? It just happened to be the Canaanites and Amalekites that attacked them which in turn were attacked in retaliation and self defense.
It would be, if we killed (or tried to kill) every single one of those of that ethnicity, including those that haven't committed any crimes.
Like their toddlers and babies, for example.
I hope I've explained this now.
I certainly think it was a vile and perhaps unecessary act.
Since the mission was not to kill every single Japanese person, no.
I agree, but I don't think it was genocide because we were attacking back to someone that attacked us, I don't know if it was unnecessary though because it did stop the war which might have even saved the world as we know it who knows? And who knows is the issue. God knew and that is what makes this action different than any man determined action.
That is what they claimed.
And there is evidence that it happened even today.
I said "well being and prosperity FOR ALL".
Not for a single group.
And no. The holocaust was driven by hatred and racism.
They were "all" according to them.
Exactly. For "themselves". Not "for all".
They felt all included everyone other than the Jews.
[QuoteAs I expected, you wish to argue against these simple premises.
This is the result of moral bankrupcy.[/Quote]What is moral bankruptcy exactly? Are you claiming that if one doesn't agree with your standard of morality and those of your preferred group that the others are morally bankrupt?
It's not hard.
Well being and prosperity is charactarized by:
- health
- security
- freedom
- access to enough food
- access to enough water
- a place to sleep
- hapiness
- ...
Those who wish to deny certain people to have access to any of these things, are those people that I would call immoral.
Freedom of what? What if someone doesn't have enough food, or a place to sleep to come into your home and take your food and sleep in your bed?
Wouldn't you?
Again, as I said, if you wish to argue against this, then I don't know what you mean by the world "moral" and "good" and "right".
I cannot have a proper discussion with you on morality without this common ground.
But as in the example I just posted, is it moral for someone that doesn't have enough food or a place to sleep to come into your home and take your food and sleep in your bed?
[/Quote]ISIS would disagree.[/Quote]That doesn't mean your point is correct.
No, they were instructed by a dude that claimed to have been instructed first hand.
Just like mohammed claimed to have been instructed first hand.
That is false. They witnessed the plagues first hand.
Knowledge is demonstrable.
You can call your "beliefs" to be "knowledge" till you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that they are merely your beliefs.
You can deny it until you are blue in the face and that doesn't mean it isn't true.
You never cease to amaze me.
You have some truelly shocking and disturbing beliefs.....
Epigenetics is shocking and disturbing belief? Interesting.
Because we are talking about a group of people that went on to massacre entire tribes claiming to do it on behalf of a god.
We aren't talking about a women having her pergnancy terminated.
Now you want to bring God in? You first claim it is just people and now you want to shift the goalpost to accommodate your argument. Morality is being discussed you just don't like to have to defend your own. I see how you change wording too, it isn't a baby, it is a "pregnancy" and it isn't killed it is "terminated". This seems very hypocritical.
This particular sub-discussion is.
You have no problem using something in regard to morality if it isn't you having to defend your own morality but when asked that has a direct relationship to your own you won't allow it. ...
Except when a perceived authority orders it, apparantly.
It wasn't murder, it wasn't unjustified when God knows the necessary information to make a judgement.
Ok. I'm not forcing you.
Clearly you are to blinded to see just how awfull and despicable these views you are giving here really are.
So these views are despicable and awful, you are making this moral judgement on what standard?
