"There is No God Higher than the Truth" -- Gandhi

[Shaul]

I believe Jesus mentioned mercy as being important but evidently the theologians of the day thought their own idea of justice was more important. I would not say that their concept of justice was correct.

We don't follow "their concept" of Justice. Judaism teaches to pursue Justice itself which is found by following the precepts and principles of the TaNaKh.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

"There is no god higher than the truth" -- Gandhi

Well? Did he have a point or not? Answer or die!






BONUS QUESTION: Guess the total number of marbles RF has caused me to lose since I joined the Forum over 15 years ago.

Hint: Over the past 15 years, I have been forced to take out no less than twenty-six bank loans to buy more marbles. I mainly blame @Saint Frankenstein . The man is a miscreant, I tell you! A miscreant!

Never listen to a man who makes his granddaughter sleep naked with him.

 

[freelight]

No. G-d is Just. He has never commanded genocide.

There is at least one or MORE commands from Yahweh (or 'Lord God' or whoever) to committ genocide, unless you admit that was just men claiming that (human invention, assumption, mythology), which puts the Bible in question as to how much it can be trusted, much less if its actually the 'word' of 'God' - but thats another thread - welcome to the world of 'literature' where anything goes.


------o

 

[Shaul]

There is at least one or MORE commands from Yahweh (or 'Lord God' or whoever) to committ genocide, unless you admit that was just men claiming that (human invention, assumption, mythology), which puts the Bible in question as to how much it can be trusted, much less if its actually the 'word' of 'God' - but thats another thread - welcome to the world of 'literature' where anything goes.


------o

Wrong. Onn short version of why that is wrong is as follows. Only humans are liable for committing genocide, not non-humans. G-d is not a man. Ergo He can not be guilty of genocide.

 

[ppp]

Only humans are liable for committing genocide, not non-humans

That is a false statement.

 

[sun rise]

God Is Truth.

I believe the Judaism formulation is something like Hashem is the source of all truth and wisdom

 

[Shaul]

That is a false statement.

I am willing to hear you explain why you think so. Despite your denial I reiterate that only humans can commit genocide.

 

[ppp]

I am willing to hear you explain why you think so. Despite your denial I reiterate that only humans can commit genocide.

Your willingness is commendable, but why do I need to provide more evidence for my position than you provided for yours? Why should I have to prove you wrong when you made no effort to prove yourself right?

 

[Muffled]

Unfortunately Ghandi rejected the truth: Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

We don't follow "their concept" of Justice. Judaism teaches to pursue Justice itself which is found by following the precepts and principles of the TaNaKh.

Can a man be justified calling Himself God?

 

[Shaul]

Can a man be justified calling Himself God?

I don't understand your point. Who do you think is calling himself the Almighty?

 

[Shaul]

Your willingness is commendable, but why do I need to provide more evidence for my position than you provided for yours? Why should I have to prove you wrong when you made no effort to prove yourself right?

It would be nice if you had provided at least the same amount that I had. I outlined the rational basis for my position but did omit supporting facts out of an attempt at brevity. You only provide a single statement. Perhaps this will help. Here is the definition I am using for genocide: genocide is the intentional murder of a people group that potentially causes their extinction. If you want me to break this down I can do so and thereby show how only humans can commit genocide.

 

[ppp]

. Onn short version of why that is wrong is as follows. Only humans are liable for committing genocide, not non-humans. G-d is not a man. Ergo He can not be guilty of genocide.

It would be nice if you had provided at least the same amount that I had. I outlined the rational basis for my position but did omit supporting facts out of an attempt at brevity. You only provide a single statement.

I understand that you see things differently, but I do not see an outline for a rational basis. None of the other sentences in that paragraph can be rationally regarded as a basis. "Only humans are liable for committing genocide, not non-humans." is your basis.

Perhaps this will help. Here is the definition I am using for genocide: genocide is the intentional murder of a people group that potentially causes their extinction.

I would adjust that definition as such:
Genocide is the killing or attempted killing of a people group that potentially causes their extinction.

It is genocide irrespective of intent. It is not dependent on the killing being declared unlawful.

 

[Shaul]

I would adjust that definition as such:
Genocide is the killing or attempted killing of a people group that potentially causes their extinction.

It is genocide irrespective of intent. It is not dependent on the killing being declared unlawful.

I see where we disagree. Here is why I disagree with your definition. Intent is a distinguishing characteristic of genocide. Without that component the definition would include all mass killings of people. That would include accidental mass deaths such as those from natural causes. Natural causes such as floods, fire, pestilence, plagues or volcanic eruptions. That is why I advisedly used the word murder. Etymology and Law support the use of murder or "deliberate killing" over using killing. Until we find commonality on the definition of the word genocide I do not think we can discuss the matter further.

 

[ppp]

I see where we disagree. Here is why I disagree with your definition. Intent is a distinguishing characteristic of genocide. Without that component the definition would include all mass killings of people. That would include accidental mass deaths such as those from natural causes. Natural causes such as floods, fire, pestilence, plagues or volcanic eruptions. That is why I advisedly used the word murder.

Interesting. I actually don't think we are disagreeing on the matter of intent, but merely talking about two different sets of intentions. I agree that there has to be a specific cultural/ethnic/class group that one is targeting. Which is the intention that you are referencing. The intention that I was referring to is one of goal. That the mass killing does not have to be intentional to be genocide. If I were to intentional expose everyone in Iceland to Compound X, and that resulted in a near extinction, I would be guilty of genocide. Even if my intent were to save everyone from Dread Disease Y. The judgement of others might be mitigated by my intent, but it would still be genocide.

Etymology and Law support the use of murder or "deliberate killing" over using killing.

I don't know what country you are in, but here in the US, murder is necessarily unlawful and malicious. Though not necessarily planned. If someone in a dark jumper and stocking mask broke into my home shooting at me, and I deliberately killed them, I would not be considered guilty of murder. Not unless they were a cop, or I was black or trans.

I would also point out all the places in the world both now and throughout history where someone of a "high" class can kill someone of a "low" class with impunity.


Which is why I say that, Genocide is the killing or attempted killing of a people group that potentially causes their extinction.

BTW, I would not limit it to people groups. People groups are just what we are primarily concerned with. Being people ourselves

 

[Shaul]

Interesting. I actually don't think we are disagreeing on the matter of intent, but merely talking about two different sets of intentions. I agree that there has to be a specific cultural/ethnic/class group that one is targeting. Which is the intention that you are referencing. The intention that I was referring to is one of goal. That the mass killing does not have to be intentional to be genocide. If I were to intentional expose everyone in Iceland to Compound X, and that resulted in a near extinction, I would be guilty of genocide. Even if my intent were to save everyone from Dread Disease Y. The judgement of others might be mitigated by my intent, but it would still be genocide.

I don't know what country you are in, but here in the US, murder is necessarily unlawful and malicious. Though not necessarily planned. If someone in a dark jumper and stocking mask broke into my home shooting at me, and I deliberately killed them, I would not be considered guilty of murder. Not unless they were a cop, or I was black or trans.

I would also point out all the places in the world both now and throughout history where someone of a "high" class can kill someone of a "low" class with impunity.


Which is why I say that, Genocide is the killing or attempted killing of a people group that potentially causes their extinction.

BTW, I would not limit it to people groups. People groups are just what we are primarily concerned with. Being people ourselves

I have no time before Shabbot to properly answer this. I will do so after Shabbot.

 

[ppp]

I have no time before Shabbot to properly answer this. I will do so after Shabbot.

Enjoy!

 

[Shaul]

Interesting. I actually don't think we are disagreeing on the matter of intent, but merely talking about two different sets of intentions. I agree that there has to be a specific cultural/ethnic/class group that one is targeting. Which is the intention that you are referencing. The intention that I was referring to is one of goal. That the mass killing does not have to be intentional to be genocide. If I were to intentional expose everyone in Iceland to Compound X, and that resulted in a near extinction, I would be guilty of genocide. Even if my intent were to save everyone from Dread Disease Y. The judgement of others might be mitigated by my intent, but it would still be genocide.

I don't know what country you are in, but here in the US, murder is necessarily unlawful and malicious. Though not necessarily planned. If someone in a dark jumper and stocking mask broke into my home shooting at me, and I deliberately killed them, I would not be considered guilty of murder. Not unless they were a cop, or I was black or trans.

I would also point out all the places in the world both now and throughout history where someone of a "high" class can kill someone of a "low" class with impunity.


Which is why I say that, Genocide is the killing or attempted killing of a people group that potentially causes their extinction.

BTW, I would not limit it to people groups. People groups are just what we are primarily concerned with. Being people ourselves

I still think we are not on the same page with respect to intention. As I see it the element of intent is one of necessary elements for the crime of genocide. Without this necessary element then the event is something else such as an accidental mass killing or a mass manslaughter of a genus or specific population. Whether an action that was the proximate causation was by intent (volition) or not is insufficient. It is also necessary that the intent of the action was to be the proximate causation. If someone "pushes a button" intentionally, that is one thing. But it makes a world of difference if the person doing so knows (or reasonably should have known) the expected results. A person that intentionally pushes a button labeled "lights" only to learn to his horror that it did something else entirely was not intending that something else. I still maintain the intent is a necessary element of genocide. As I understand what you have written you still do not. Until this is resolved it will not be possible to move forward as we have a fundamental disagreement on what the meaning of genocide is.

 

[ppp]

I still think we are not on the same page with respect to intention. As I see it the element of intent is one of necessary elements for the crime of genocide. Without this necessary element then the event is something else such as an accidental mass killing or a mass manslaughter of a genus or specific population.

Are you under the impression that manslaughter is not homicide?

Whether an action that was the proximate causation was by intent (volition) or not is insufficient. It is also necessary that the intent of the action was to be the proximate causation. If someone "pushes a button" intentionally, that is one thing. But it makes a world of difference if the person doing so knows (or reasonably should have known) the expected results. A person that intentionally pushes a button labeled "lights" only to learn to his horror that it did something else entirely was not intending that something else. I still maintain the intent is a necessary element of genocide. As I understand what you have written you still do not. Until this is resolved it will not be possible to move forward as we have a fundamental disagreement on what the meaning of genocide is.

Nah. This is irrelevant. Your god is incapable of acting without intent. Any action that any mainstream version of the Abrahamic god might take would necessarily be both premeditated and fully intentional. Not only in proximate effects, but in subsequent results in perpetuity. No matter how Rube Goldberg the method.

Under the hypothetical of an existent Abrahamic god, he

• personally ordered genocide.
• personally performed genocide.
• stood idly by watching while genocide was performed.

If you want to quibble about the definition of genocide, then substitute

"...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

For that, is what the Abrahamic god is claimed to have done.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Unfortunately Ghandi rejected the truth: Jesus.

And if anyone is wondering why...

One Sunday morning Gandhi decided that he would visit one of the Christian churches in Calcutta. Upon seeking entrance to the church sanctuary, he was stopped at the door by the ushers.​

​

He was told he was not welcome, nor would he be permitted to attend this particular church as it was for high-caste Indians and whites only. He was neither high caste, nor was he white. Because of the rejection, the Mahatma turned his back on Christianity.​

​

With this act, Gandhi rejected the Christian faith, never again to consider the claims of Christ. He was turned off by the sin of segregation that was practiced by the church. It was due to this experience that Gandhi later declared, “I’d be a Christian if it were not for the Christians."​

​

Why did Gandhi say, ‘If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian?’

Chuck Stanford, lama emeritus, Rime Buddhist Center: To fully understand this quote, it is important to know the backstory from where it came. While Gandhi was a practicing Hindu, Christianity intr…

www.vvdailypress.com

​

And Gandhi rejected Christianity, not Jesus, because of Christians.

Also, Jesus isn't everyone's "truth."