God never commited genocide

[shinbits]

I posted this before:


Genocide is an unfair word, since it has a racist/prejudice connotation. Let me ask you, did the U.S. commit genocide when scores of Japanese were killed in WWII? In the very technical definition of the word, yes. But was it for the reason that the word implies, like the Nazi's did with the Jews? No.

The Bible says that the nations God ordered to be wiped out weren't killed merely because of how they were born or what they believe. Leviticus 18 says they were killed because they were doing things like commiting adultery, incest, beastiality, and sacrificing thier children.

God never ordered the destruction of nations for the racist or bigoted reasons that the word "genocide" implies. In fact, God would spare any one from those nations that turned from doing such destable acts; Rahab is one good example. If God was trully genocidal, He wouldn't spare anyone of whatever nation He wanted wiped out, for any reason. God punishes for wickedness, not because of how one was born or believes.

Peace.

 

[shinbits]

One more thing: a certain poster alleged that the God commanded people to "grab babies by their feet and smash their heads". He then proceeded to "prove" this by posting a scripture in which God commanded no such thing; The Bible simply simply said a group of people would deserve such an action happening to them, because THEY DID IT TO OTHERS. But God NEVER once commanded this to happen; niether does the Bible mention that God actually gave a reward for this, because it was simply a hyperbolic way of speaking.

Now that that's settled, have a good day.

 

[shinbits]

No, the U.S. didn’t commit genocide against the Japanese. If you want a legal definition of genocide, read Article 2 of the CPPCG. The Biblical genocides were genocides.

according to article 2 from that link, what the U.S. did was considered genocide. Despite meeting the technical definition of the word, we both know that wasn't the case. Same with the Bible.

It doesn’t matter why they were wiped out. The Bible genocides were genocides.

Of course it matters. In your OP, you said genocide "is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group." In the Bible, God has destroyed people who sin, regardless of race, politics or culture. So by your definition, God never committed genocide, since He didn't deliberately target any racial, political or cultural group; God target those who commit sins. Remember, not even God's own people, the Jews, were spared when they sinned. He's wiped out thousands of Jews at once for sin.

You mean like these examples:

DEUT 2:32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
DEUT 2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
DEUT 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

DEUT 3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Numerous examples in Joshua, for example:

JOSH 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

1SAM 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
1SAM 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Read the rest of Samuel 15 to see how displeased Samuel was that Saul didn’t obey the LORD’s command to kill all the animals.

Had those people repented, God wouldn't have killed them. Even Jonah knew this, which is why He was angry at God for being so merciful to give such a wicked nation a chance to repent.

You haven't answered the question. Do you think genocide is acceptable, justifiable or excusable in some circumstances?

The "deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group," is wrong. That's why God's never deliberatly targeted any of these, but has always targeted sin, regardless of the aforementioned criteria.

Peace.

 

[nolongerhome]

So, it is all in the intentions?

If the US killed as many people dropping nuclear weapons on Japan as the Germans killed in concentration camps, it still wouldn't have been genocide?

Is "not repenting" a legitimate reason to kill an entire race of people? It looks like God deliberately and systematically destroyed racial/cultural groups. He may have done it because of sin attributed to the whole group., but it is still genocide.

Your semantic game is a massive FAIL. Mass murder is mass murder. By your own definition in the first post God committed "technical genocide". That kind of apologetic is frankly disgusting - your ability to justify the killing of thousands of people is truly frightening.

 

[shinbits]

So, it is all in the intentions?

If the US killed as many people dropping nuclear weapons on Japan as the Germans killed in concentration camps, it still wouldn't have been genocide?

Yes, it's all in the intention:

Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

Is "not repenting" a legitimate reason to kill an entire race of people? It looks like God deliberately and systematically destroyed racial/cultural groups. He may have done it because of sin attributed to the whole group., but it is still genocide.

Wrong. See above posts. It's all in the intention.

Your semantic game is a massive FAIL. Mass murder is mass murder. By your own definition in the first post God committed "technical genocide". That kind of apologetic is frankly disgusting - your ability to justify the killing of thousands of people is truly frightening.

What kind of argument is this? By your logic, any nation that has ever entered a war with high casualities as a result, are simply mass-murderers. That logic fails. Was the U.S. simply a mass-murding warmonger when they attacked Japan, a nation that attacked them first with no signs of surrending?

 

[nolongerhome]

Yes, it's all in the intention:

Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

Dropping nuclear bombs was a deliberate destruction of Japanese citizens. The were a means to an end - forcing a surrender, demonstrating the US's new power, sending a message to the USSR.

I don't understand why that intention really makes much difference at all. Really, it treats human lives as even less than those that had the intention to wipe out the lives to wipe out the race - in one case the genocide is the end in itself, to use genocide as a means is just as shocking a disregard for humanity.

Wrong. See above posts. It's all in the intention.

But your definition above doesn't mention intentions. This is your semantic game to get around the fact that you want to excuse some genocide and deplore other genocide.

Basically, what you are saying is that some genocide is justified (because it ends a war, because the people were all sinners), while some is not. A great Christian attitude there!

What kind of argument is this? By your logic, any nation that has ever entered a war with high casualities as a result, are simply mass-murderers. That logic fails. Was the U.S. simply a mass-murding warmonger when they attacked Japan, a nation that attacked them first with no signs of surrending?

There is a difference between soldiers on both sides in a war killing each other and the mass killing of defenceless non-combatants. 95% of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians.

The fact that Japan "started it" is no defence for killing a quarter of a million civilians. Your knowledge of history is terrible if you think they showed no signs of surrendering - the Japanese wanted to negotiate a surrender, but the US would only accept an unconditional surrender. A negotiated surrender could have ended the war without all of that destruction of life.

You are an apologist for mass murder because your religion forces you to be so. I'm very sorry for you. Your defence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is inexplicable, though. No matter what the final intention is, be it simply to destory the population, or if it is to use the destruction of a population for other ends, there is no reason why we should attempt to sugarcoat mass murder, there is no way we should try to avoid naming it for what it is, genocide, because all attempts to do so seek to undermine the truth, and in doing so show an incredible lack of value in the life of fellow human beings.

 

[Gishin]

Mmmmm, delicious rationalization.

 

[shinbits]

I don't understand why that intention really makes much difference at all.

"Genocide" has racist implications. You say mass killing is mass killing; however, "genocide" has an even more insidious implication behind it. It's the difference between how people felt about the U.S. dropping bombs on Japan, and how people felt about Hitler killing the Jews. One can actually be rationalized in some way, while the other, is purely evil, no matter how you look at it.

God did kill of nations; however, the reasons weren't "genocidal", because race, nationality or beliefs weren't factors. God treated all sinners the same, regardless of those things.

I'm not rationalizing mass killing; this thread is to do away with the idea that God is "racist", as the word "genocide" implies.

 

[shinbits]

Mmmmm, delicious rationalization.

see last sentence of the post above yours.

 

[nolongerhome]

"Genocide" has racist implications. You say mass killing is mass killing; however, "genocide" has an even more insidious implication behind it. It's the difference between how people felt about the U.S. dropping bombs on Japan, and how people felt about Hitler killing the Jews. One can actually be rationalized in some way, while the other, is purely evil, no matter how you look at it.

God did kill of nations; however, the reasons weren't "genocidal", because race, nationality or beliefs weren't factors. God treated all sinners the same, regardless of those things.

I'm not rationalizing mass killing; this thread is to do away with the idea that God is "racist", as the word "genocide" implies.

I've bolded two sentences.

They contradict each other.

You have rationalised God's mass killings in the OT in this thread as well, adding further contradiction to you claim that you are not rationalising mass killing.

I see no difference in the crime of genocide for racist reasons and what you describe as "technical genocide". By trying to convince people not to use the word genocide, because you claim it has racist implications (and it doesn't necessarily have such implications, as the definitions that you yourself have posted in this thread define genocide with no mention of racism), you are trying to minimise the justifiable revulsion one should have to the killing of an entire people, or a significant part of a people, for whatever reason. The end result is the same in both cases, our revulsion should be the same.

Basically all you are doing is making a distinction between "genocide for reasons that I don't think can be rationalised" and "genocide for reasons which I think can be rationalised"

I don't think the people using the word genocide in connection with God are trying to suggest that he is racist, and I think this is largely a straw man that you have created to distract from the main issue - is it moral for God, the supremely moral being, to kill entire populations of people? I think that, and not any issue of racism, is what would be of concern to most, if not all, people that link God's actions in the OT to genocide. I for one don't really see any real difference to killing an entire population for racist reasons and killing an entire population for non-racist reasons. It certainly doesn't make me feel any better about it to know it wasn't a "racist" action.

Out of interest, are you someone that believes that we should have hate crimes in our law books?

 

[shinbits]

I've bolded two sentences.

They contradict each other.

You have rationalised God's mass killings in the OT in this thread as well, adding further contradiction to you claim that you are not rationalising mass killing.

1)There's no contradiction I didn't say that I am rationalizing the U.S. bombings; I'm saying there are those who would rationalize it (self defence, end war, etc.), while no one would rationanalize the Hollacaust.

I see no difference in the crime of genocide for racist reasons and what you describe as "technical genocide".

The difference is intent. While this may not make it better or worse in your mind, there's still a difference. Genocide is mass-killing with an even more evil implication behind it.

By trying to convince people not to use the word genocide, because you claim it has racist implications (and it doesn't necessarily have such implications, as the definitions that you yourself have posted in this thread define genocide with no mention of racism), you are trying to minimise the justifiable revulsion one should have to the killing of an entire people, or a significant part of a people, for whatever reason. The end result is the same in both cases, our revulsion should be the same.

Think about when you'd hear the word genocide used; When Saddam killed 100,000 Suni's; the Holocaust; this is when the word is used. The word is never used to simply describe mass deaths. That would be intelectual dishonesty. Any reporter that would make "genocide" interchangable with high death tolls, would lose thier job immediately.

I think you know this, which is why you can't let it go. If you can admit that the U.S. bombing of Japan is not the same as Hitler's killing of the Jews, it would do the same with saying that God didn't commit genocide. You being anti-God wouldn't want to budge an inch, even for the sake of logical honesty.

 

[shinbits]

Out of interest, are you someone that believes that we should have hate crimes in our law books?

No. Out of interest, was the U.S. bombing of Japan a "hate crime"?

 

[shinbits]

You are an apologist for mass murder because your religion forces you to be so.

I do not agree that God should've wiped out those nations, nor do I defend this action.

So there goes that.

 

[lordbt]

There is a difference between soldiers on both sides in a war killing each other and the mass killing of defenceless non-combatants. 95% of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians.

So what? The American government has a responsibility to secure the lives of its citizens and its soldiers, not the citizens of the nation who attacked it. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved lives by bringing an immediate and unconditional surrender by the Japanese and ending the war. An allied invasion of the island of Japan could have left 1,000,000 dead.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I posted this before:


Genocide is an unfair word, since it has a racist/prejudice connotation. Let me ask you, did the U.S. commit genocide when scores of Japanese were killed in WWII? In the very technical definition of the word, yes. But was it for the reason that the word implies, like the Nazi's did with the Jews? No.

The Bible says that the nations God ordered to be wiped out weren't killed merely because of how they were born or what they believe. Leviticus 18 says they were killed because they were doing things like commiting adultery, incest, beastiality, and sacrificing thier children.

God never ordered the destruction of nations for the racist or bigoted reasons that the word "genocide" implies. In fact, God would spare any one from those nations that turned from doing such destable acts; Rahab is one good example. If God was trully genocidal, He wouldn't spare anyone of whatever nation He wanted wiped out, for any reason. God punishes for wickedness, not because of how one was born or believes.

Peace.

One problem, we never purposely killed the children, God did (or ordered it to be done).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I consider the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be genocide, just as I consider Nazi Germany's systematic extermination of the Jews and other 'undesireables' to be genocide.

Moreover, I consider various acts directly committed, or indirectly commanded, by God, in the Old Testament, to be genocide. Deuteronomy 20 commands nothing short of the complete eradication of the enemy. Genesis 18 and 19 detail how God annihilated Sodom, Gomorrah, Zeboim, and Admah. How are these not acts of genocide?

 

[shinbits]

One problem, we never purposely killed the children, God did (or ordered it to be done).

Hey, I'm not defending that. Still, God can't rightly be refered to as racist.

 

[shinbits]

I consider the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be genocide, just as I consider Nazi Germany's systematic extermination of the Jews and other 'undesireables' to be genocide.

Check the definition of genocide, posted in the OP. The U.S. didn't intend to wipe out the Japanese, just cause them to surrender. In fact, the U.S. sent warnings prior to sending the first bomb. Had the Japanese surrended, there wouldn't have been any bombing. And as soon as the Japanese surrendered, the killing stopped. On top of this, the U.S. only attacked, because they were defending themselves.

You can hardly compare that to Nazis, who's goal was complete erradiction, on a group of people who weren't a threat to them in any way.

Moreover, I consider various acts directly committed, or indirectly commanded, by God, in the Old Testament, to be genocide. Deuteronomy 20 commands nothing short of the complete eradication of the enemy. Genesis 18 and 19 detail how God annihilated Sodom, Gomorrah, Zeboim, and Admah. How are these not acts of genocide?

Look up Rahab. If God was trully genocidal, he wouldn't have spared her. Those who turn to God's side are spared. Look up the people of Ninevah, who caused Jonah to be angry at God, for giving them a chance to repent, rather than just erradicating them on the spot.

 

[nolongerhome]

1)There's no contradiction I didn't say that I am rationalizing the U.S. bombings; I'm saying there are those who would rationalize it (self defence, end war, etc.), while no one would rationanalize the Hollacaust.

See, the problem here is that there ARE actually people that rationalise the holocaust. Right now your definition of what is genocide, and what isn't genocide, rests on what you consider to be a legitimate or rationalisable reason for the killing and what you consider ot be illegitimate or unrationalisable. The actual definition of genocide which you provided mentions nothing about the rationality or the legitimacy of the mass killing, only that it was deliberate and systematic.

The difference is intent. While this may not make it better or worse in your mind, there's still a difference. Genocide is mass-killing with an even more evil implication behind it.

I find it strange that you say this and then in your next post say that you are against hate crime. How do you reconcile those positions, which are completely contradictory?

Think about when you'd hear the word genocide used; When Saddam killed 100,000 Suni's; the Holocaust; this is when the word is used. The word is never used to simply describe mass deaths. That would be intelectual dishonesty. Any reporter that would make "genocide" interchangable with high death tolls, would lose thier job immediately.

I just have to refer you back to the definition that you yourself provided at the start of this thread, because the racist implication is certainly not necessary in that definition. More on that after the next comment...

I think you know this, which is why you can't let it go. If you can admit that the U.S. bombing of Japan is not the same as Hitler's killing of the Jews, it would do the same with saying that God didn't commit genocide. You being anti-God wouldn't want to budge an inch, even for the sake of logical honesty.

I do admit that there is a difference in intent between the Holocaust and the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and again there is a difference between those attacks and God's action in the OT.

Differences of intent in all cases, however all were still genocides according to the definition that you provided: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group".

 

[nolongerhome]

So what? The American government has a responsibility to secure the lives of its citizens and its soldiers, not the citizens of the nation who attacked it. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved lives by bringing an immediate and unconditional surrender by the Japanese and ending the war. An allied invasion of the island of Japan could have left 1,000,000 dead.

1. The American government is responsible for the decisions it makes. It made a decision to kill a quarter of a million civilians.
2. The Japanese were willing to negotiate a surrender, and had already made contact to do so. If the US hadn't been unwilling to negotiate, it would not have been necessary to invade or drop the bombs.

Get to know your history. A negotiated surrender would have ended the war without the need for civilians to be killed in such a way. Anyone that justifies the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is justifying an unnecessary mass-murder of innocent civilians.

I guess one shouldn't expect a follower of Ayn Rand to have even a shred of sympathy for hundreds of thousands of human beings killed through no fault of their own, you (plural you) aren't exactly famous for your humanitarian spirit.