Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow you know what the 'crime' is. What would you call the mass extermination of billions of humans by the Biblical God if genocide isn't the term?
rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ will result ultimately in death. Either naturally or at the hands of gods divine army.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's the politician in you Robert, spinning the terminology for the mass extermination of billions of people into something more palatable. Much like the term 'collateral damage', which really means - innocent people being blown to pieces.
judicial execution.
Was the Israelites destruction of the Amalekites as told in 1 Samuel an act of genocide? If not, what would you call it?
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobjudicial execution and its not spin. There are many persons who are judicially executed each year and they are not considered to have been murdered.
There's the politician in you Robert, spinning the terminology for the mass extermination of billions of people into something more palatable. Much like the term 'collateral damage', which really means - innocent people being blown to pieces.
Was the Israelites destruction of the Amalekites as told in 1 Samuel an act of genocide? If not, what would you call it?
The Amalekites were “the first one of the nations” to launch an unprovoked attack on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim near Mount Sinai. As a consequence, Jehovah decreed ultimate extinction for the Amalekites. (Nu 24:20; Ex 17:8-16; De 25:17-19)
Can you tell us what you call it when someone launches and unprovoked attack on you and you receive retribution for that attack?
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000216?q=Amalekites&p=par
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif the 'retribution' includes the killing of all civilians, then it is genocide.
judicial execution and its not spin. There are many persons who are judicially executed each year and they are not considered to have been murdered.
The Amalekites were “the first one of the nations” to launch an unprovoked attack on the Israelites after the Exodus, at Rephidim near Mount Sinai. As a consequence, Jehovah decreed ultimate extincti ...[text shortened]... retribution for that attack?
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000216?q=Amalekites&p=par
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieHere is what you were actually asked.
if the 'retribution' includes the killing of all civilians, then it is genocide.
Can you tell us what you call it when someone launches an unprovoked attack on you and you receive retribution for that attack? You were NOT asked whether it involved civilians or anything else.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso children were judged by god, found evil, then sentenced to die by drowning. is that what you are saying?
judicial execution.
i must say, i find it's difficult to argue that god can be good while allowing children to die, by diseases, by natural disasters. i try to argue based on how god perceives time and how this life is a test, that we have the power to improve our lives. That life is a struggle so we grow and learn. Yet these no comfort to the ones who lost a child and i agree they are weak and can't stand too well in a debate.
You on the other hand waltz through DELIBERATE killing of children by God. Noah's Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, Canaan. Children were deliberately murdered by God or on god's orders and you and others like you consider it justified.
This is sickening. You and others like you who believe this are sickening.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am uninterested in your use of children as some kind of emotional argument. It might work with some people but I remain totally detached and will argue solely on the basis of cold hard logic, not on the basis of your Daily Mail arguments. Judicial execution is what it is, execution by God who as the originator of life and the universal sovereign has the right to take life as he seems fit and no amount of emotional flim flam from you can change that fact. Who God deems worthy for life or who he deems worthy of judicial execution and on what basis is entirely up to him.
so children were judged by god, found evil, then sentenced to die by drowning. is that what you are saying?
i must say, i find it's difficult to argue that god can be good while allowing children to die, by diseases, by natural disasters. i try to argue based on how god perceives time and how this life is a test, that we have the power to improve our liv ...[text shortened]... der it justified.
This is sickening. You and others like you who believe this are sickening.
No what is sickening is your use of children to make some kind of floundering emotional argument. If you cannot argue on the basis of logic, reason and evidence then this is not the place for you.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"No what is sickening is your use of children to make some kind of floundering emotional argument."
I am uninterested in your use of children as some kind of emotional argument. It might work with some people but I remain totally detached and will argue solely on the basis of cold hard logic, not on the basis of your Daily Mail arguments. Judicial execution is what it is, execution by God who as the originator of life and the universal sovereign ...[text shortened]... you cannot argue on the basis of logic, reason and evidence then this is not the place for you.
i shouldn't use children when discussing how god murdered children? the reason i use children is that it is the easiest argument to make. in your sick world, it is ok to murder an entire nation because someone declared that they are all evil and deserve the same punishment. rather than arguing through that idiotic notion i went for the sufficient condition that your god is evil: children are not evil, murdering them for whatever reason is evil.