IBDaMann
Well-known member
Your argument about your preferred definition of "genocide" is a waste of bandwidth and doesn't provide any information.
If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
okay
IBDaMann
Well-known member
"Neighbors" is not a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
ZenMode
Well-known member
What if they were all Jewish?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That, itself, doesn't matter. What matters is your intent. Are you killing them because they are bad neighbors who just happen to coincidentally be Jewish, or are you killing them because they are Jews ... who just coincidentally happen to be neighbors. Your intent is the determining factor.
" ... genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, ... "
Ergo, if you were hypothetically brought up on charges of genocide, the prosecution would have to show intent to destroy one of the protected categories. Anything you say, post on social media, publish, etc. ... can be used against you.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Right. So, we agree that there's no genocide in Gaza because Israel obviously has no intention of wiping out any groups of people.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Good. Agreed. There is no genocide and the idiots claiming there is are antisemites.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I wouldn't go that far. I think some people see the lifeless bodies of children being pulled from rubble and think "This is horrible. This has to be genocide and this 'genocide' has to stop."
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Sure they do...because they are idiots with no perspective....and no idea WTF "genocide" means.
"From the River to the Sea" is an expression for Genocide. Fuck them. Surrender or die.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Exactly, we agree that RACIST Israel is Hell-bent on wiping Arabs off the face of the planet, and that Gaza is the current "Ground Zero".
ZenMode
Well-known member
And your claim about Israel being "hell-bent" on wiping Arabs off the face of the planet is based on what?
I don’t give a shit about the Jews. It’s the Israelis committing war crimes and genocide.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Thanks for posting your beliefs.
Plenty of international organizations have investigated the Gaza situation cited the violations of the UN Genocide Convention. Contact them with your opinions.Thanks for posting your beliefs.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I look forward to your references.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You are spot on regarding the IDF's perpetration of genocide and other atrocities, although your wording could be vastly improved.
The two conventions of relelvance are:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (defines genocide, itemizes violations, talks about punishments)
IV GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN PERSONS IN TIME OF WAR OF - 12 AUGUST 1949 (explains war crimes)
The IDF violates both, hundreds of times daily. From the moment the IDF entered Gaza, they became morally and legally obligated to actively protect all civilian noncombatants, but the IDF began indiscriminantly mowing down civilians, with no military enemies anywhere to be found. The sniping of Arab children waiting in food lines is enough to establish the intent to eliminate Arabs per the official definition to which Israel and the US are both signatories, fully qualifying the IDF's actions as a genocide.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Based on the IDF being the world's most active terrorist organization, eradicating Arabs for decades. Based on the power Israelis give to the Likud party for their RACIST rhetoric and Hitleresque rants about the need to eliminate Arabs.
ZenMode
Well-known member
The population of gaza has grown at 3x the world average since the early 2000's.
Right, so what has Israel done, especially since the terrorist attack in 10/7, that reflects their intent to commit genocide in Gaza?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Irrelevant. The Arabs were exterminated by the IDF. Tens of thousands of Arab children had to be fished out of rubble, or remain buried, because of pure HATRED by Israelis intent on perpetrating the 2nd Nakba.
Stupid question. Israeli snipers targeting Arab children waiting in line for food by itself demonstrates beyond any doubt that Israel intends to exterminate Arabs.
The IDF's genocide of Arabs in Gaza meets the official definition of "genocide" as ratified by Israel and the US, among others.
Thomas of Aquina settled the issue a long time ago, via formal logic.
In treating of God there will be a threefold division, for we shall consider: (1) Whatever concerns the Divine Essence; (2) Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons; (3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.
Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider: (1) Whether God exists? (2) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is NOT the manner of His existence; (3) Whatever concerns His operations---namely, His knowledge, will, power.
Concerning the first, there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is self-evident?
(2) Whether it is demonstrable?
(3) Whether God exists?
Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.
Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.
Objection 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.
On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.
I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q[3], A[4]). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature---namely, by effects.
Reply to Objection 1: To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.
Reply to Objection 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.
Reply to Objection 3: The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.[/b]
Summa Theologica: Treatise on The One God (QQ[2-26]): Que... | Sacred Texts Archive
Christianity: Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the beginning o...
sacred-texts.com
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (THREE ARTICLES)
Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the beginning of things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures, as is clear from what has been already said, therefore, in our endeavor to expound this science, we shall treat: (1) Of God; (2) Of the rational creature's advance towards God; (3) Of Christ, Who as man, is our way to God.In treating of God there will be a threefold division, for we shall consider: (1) Whatever concerns the Divine Essence; (2) Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons; (3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.
Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider: (1) Whether God exists? (2) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is NOT the manner of His existence; (3) Whatever concerns His operations---namely, His knowledge, will, power.
Concerning the first, there are three points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the proposition "God exists" is self-evident?
(2) Whether it is demonstrable?
(3) Whether God exists?
Whether the existence of God is self-evident?
Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.
Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident.
Objection 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.
On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.
I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q[3], A[4]). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature---namely, by effects.
Reply to Objection 1: To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.
Reply to Objection 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.
Reply to Objection 3: The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.[/b]