Originally posted by robbie carrobie😴
I am comparing my circumstances to Jesus, how you could have failed to notice I cannot say. Was he also not unlettered and ordinary, an ex carpenter and yet also a minster of God? Were not the Galileans also from the North and had a noticeable accent? Did it have any relevance to his or his followers acceptance as being ministers of God? No then per ...[text shortened]... iends objections as to why my accent, me former employment my nationality has any bearing on it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you self-identify as a "Minister of God" and compare your circumstances to Jesus, oughtn't you to be seeking to earn people's respect?
I am comparing my circumstances to Jesus, how you could have failed to notice I cannot say. Was he also not unlettered and ordinary, an ex carpenter and yet also a minster of God? Were not the Galileans also from the North and had a noticeable accent? Did it have any relevance to his or his followers acceptance as being ministers of God? No then per ...[text shortened]... iends objections as to why my accent, me former employment my nationality has any bearing on it.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobSo you cannot explain why it would have any bearing, thats fine perhaps someone else might save your ignorant friend from looking quite so .....ignorant in future. He certainly needs all the help he can get. Oh wait, here comes his wet nurse FMF to the rescue, perhaps he can save him?
😴
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see. So in your eyes, exterminating one religious group is genocide but exterminating multiple religious groups is not genocide. Your idiocy knows no bounds. 🙄
yes but none of them fit the description that you mention, they are probably all from different religious and ethical backgrounds. You fail fatboy.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI didn't even bother reading your post after the first sentence, it bored me that much.
So you cannot explain why it would have any bearing, thats fine perhaps someone else might save your ignorant friend from looking quite so .....ignorant in future. He certainly needs all the help he can get.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt cannot be genocide by your definition you fool, can it? It might be considered mass murder, but not genocide.
I see. So in your eyes, exterminating one religious group is genocide but exterminating multiple religious groups is not genocide. Your idiocy knows no bounds. 🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt is termed a genocide because it was perpetrated predominately against a single particular religion/ethnicity. That Jehovah's Witnesses, Romani and political dissenters also perished has no bearing on it, the real defining factor here was that it was perpetrated against a particular religion/ethnicity.
Of course it can. Can you read?
According to your deluded logic the actions of Nazi Germany wouldn't be called Genocide because the Jews were exterminated along with Jehovah's Witnesses and Romani people.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo your view point is that because God is going to kill lots of religious groups, in fact all of them except for one (now of course the specifics on this will depend on the individuals particular brand of Christianity), you won't term the mass extermination 'genocide'. That's some pretty spectacular cognitive dissonance you have going on there Robert.
It is termed a genocide because it was perpetrated predominately against a single particular religion/ethnicity. That Jehovah's Witnesses, Romani and political dissenters also perished has no bearing on it, the real defining factor here was that it was perpetrated against a particular religion/ethnicity.
If genocide isn't the term, what would you call the mass extermination of a few billion people?
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou provided a definition, your claims of genocide cannot be sustained by that definition. That is not my fault or has anything to do with my thought process.
So your view point is that because God is going to kill lots of religious groups, in fact all of them except for one (now of course the specifics on this will depend on the individuals particular brand of Christianity), you won't term the mass extermination 'genocide'. That's some pretty spectacular cognitive dissonance you have going on there Robert.
If genocide isn't the term, what would you call the mass extermination of a few billion people?
As to your question, it depends on what they were killed for because as you are aware people who are judicially killed by the state by way of example are not considered to have been murdered if they are guilty of some crime. So if the state kills a thousand people because they have committed what is considered a capital offence in what sense can it be said that they have been murdered by the state?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnyone with a reading age in the teenage years, and not blinded by cognitive dissonance brought on by religious indoctrination, can see that the definition I provided fits perfectly. That you choose not to see it is of course hardly surprising.
You provided a definition, your claims of genocide cannot be sustained by that definition. That is not my fault or has anything to do with my thought process.
As to your question, it depends on what they were killed for because as you are aware people who are judicially killed by the state by way of example are not considered to have been murder ...[text shortened]... idered a capital offence in what sense can it be said that they have been murdered by the state?
I'm asking what you would call the extermination of a few billion people if genocide is not the correct terminology.