It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biblical Deaths: How Many Did God Kill? How Many Did Satan Kill?

page: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I am fully within reason to judge the morality and actions of such a being.


Who are you judging? God doesn't exist in your world, so you're judging nothing. Well, judging the Jewish authors of the Old Testament, I guess.

Statements like this lend credence to the argument that angry atheists who have no positive arguments for atheism, but plenty of negative arguments for faith, actually do have a belief in God tucked away someplace, they just don't like it.

Not saying that's you, of course, but trying to argue that you can judge something that you say doesn't exist doesn't make a whole lot of sense.




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You mean Numbers 31?

Where God simply tells them to avenge dead children and merge with the people? Where the Israelites killed and raped on their own accord, not by God's?

Yea. A perfect example of man taking one thing God says and assuming other things and doing wrong.

FYI, God punished Israel for doing that. And then he made them to rituals for continuing to do that.

The whole of the Old Testament proves mankind sucks and can't do anything right. Solution? Provide a variable to the constant. Jesus. He won't screw up. And yes, Jesus did feel anger. But he did not kill people for it. Jesus is the perfect human form and God in human form. An Ideal. Something for which to show how, where, and when did the Old Testament people go wrong.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Who are you judging? God doesn't exist in your world, so you're judging nothing. Well, judging the Jewish authors of the Old Testament, I guess.


Bingo. I can make assessments of a character in a book. I can make judgments about a character in a movie, even if he/she isn't real. Etc. etc. Even if I don't regard the biblical god as real doesn't mean I can't be critical of his depicted actions.


Statements like this lend credence to the argument that angry atheists who have no positive arguments for atheism, but plenty of negative arguments for faith, actually do have a belief in God tucked away someplace, they just don't like it.


Not every thread that may be critical of aspects of the bible are intended as "pro-atheist". Blanket assessments such as above can be dangerous. What if I were to suggest that the christians who take offense to this thread are just simply mislead zealots who understand nothing of the true nature their god? How about instead of profiling people we try to discuss the facts of the OP?

[edit on 15-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

I most certainly make moral judgments about the actions of "spirit beings" and don't need to excuse their alleged actions on their differences from humans.

I don't doubt that for a moment.

But the question is whether there is something about human morality that binds, or "ought to" bind, other entities to pay attention to human beings, their lives, well-being, etc.

My view, obviously, is that "human morality" is a redundant expression. Even if morality is God-given, as some theists believe, then what it governs is human behavior. IMO, of course.


In the case of the bible the killings were done by a god making very human-like emotional decisions: killing out of jealousy, rage, offense, etc.

Yeh, but TD, you and the fundiest-fundies are about the only people who think that God wrote the Bible.

Everybody else thinks human beings wrote the Bible. The Christians among us typically think that God inspired those human authors, but that God didn't write, nor copyedit their stuff. Heathens like me put the full stop after "Human beings wrote the Bible."

So, no doubt, the human writer, when contemplating God, will attribute human emotions to God. But does God have human emotions?

Last I heard, God doesn't have a body. So, no nervous system, no endocrine system... whatever God has, it isn't emotions like we have. It can't be. You need the hardware.

Emotions, then, are metaphors.

Metaphors are not peculiar to religion, TD. When Shakespeare says "My love is like a fever" (Sonnet 147), you do understand that he isn't thinking about taking some aspirin and sleeping it off? He actually loves her (or him, whatever-whoever, right?). Bill is going for a compliment, not a medical check-up.


It's god directly authorizing humans to kill and presumably rape other humans.

Is "presumably" TD-speak for "God didn't tell anybody to rape anybody?"


I am fully within reason to judge the morality and actions of such a being.

You can be as judgmental as you like. But, there's nothing in your dislike of God that rises to an argument why somebody else who believed in God shouldn't think him peachy.

It suffices to realize that the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible God isn't a human being. The possibility of impersonally valid moral analysis ends there.

Everybody's still entitled to an opinion, but why would someone who disagrees with you about the existence of God ever agree with you about the character of God?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Folks, ya just gotta LOVE how believers who have fallen for the scam of the biblical fairy tales are able to DEFEND and JUSTIFYING A MASS MURDERING PSYCHOPATH who seems hell bent on destruction, death and suffering even INNOCENT women and children.

To defend such a MONSTER as the biblical God just shows how ignorant and backwards some human beings can be. And that's SCARY!!!!!!!!!!

Such folks are really SICK IN THE HEAD.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Yeh, but TD, you and the fundiest-fundies are about the only people who think that God wrote the Bible.


I don't think any such thing


Last I heard, God doesn't have a body. So, no nervous system, no endocrine system... whatever God has, it isn't emotions like we have. It can't be. You need the hardware.


Yet in the bible god acts as if he does have emotions and has a tangible physical effect of being able to murder humans.


When Shakespeare says "My love is like a fever" (Sonnet 147), you do understand that he isn't thinking about taking some aspirin and sleeping it off?


So if the accounts in the bible are strictly metaphor and the authors are fully human attributing human qualities to what they believe to be a god, I suppose I'm right to view the character of god as entirely fictional.


Is "presumably" TD-speak for "God didn't tell anybody to rape anybody?"


When god instructs to keep the women and virgins for yourselves it seems to have certain implications which rely on presumptions.


You can be as judgmental as you like. But, there's nothing in your dislike of God that rises to an argument why somebody else who believed in God shouldn't think him peachy.


I didn't start this thread to eliminate someone's peachy feelings about god.


It suffices to realize that the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible God isn't a human being. The possibility of impersonally valid moral analysis ends there.


According to the story he has some attributes similar to that of humans and directly affects the lives of humans and can cause their death. Moral analysis is easily justifiable given these conditions.


Everybody's still entitled to an opinion, but why would someone who disagrees with you about the existence of God ever agree with you about the character of God?


Obviously they don't as we can see from this thread. I see a lot of excuse for mass murder and blame shifting.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I'm not a religious person but have been raised with religion as though it was the norm. I was wondering about this topic and want to know when did God stop killing people? Obviously I haven't read the bible, just curious...And why doesn't the bible keep having stories added to it about the all mighty? What makes the past different to the present? I really have no idea!



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Yet in the bible god acts as if he does have emotions and has a tangible physical effect of being able to murder humans.

No. Human writers describe God's behavior in the terms they understand. They have no alternative. "Terms human beings understand" is all that human language offers, on any subject.

If you read that God is angry, then that's on the author. If you actually think God is angry, or that the author meant his word literally, then you're projecting, as surely as if you took literally a written description of a wind storm as angry.

The wind storm doesn't have the hardware to be angry. God doesn't have the hardware to be angry. Angry's a metaphor in both cases.


So if the accounts in the bible are strictly metaphor and the authors are fully human attributing human qualities to what they believe to be a god, I suppose I'm right to view the character of god as entirely fictional.

Say what? Shakespeare almost certainly loved somebody. His using a metaphor to describe that person did not make his loved one cease to exist.

Only magical thinkers believe that the human ability to describe something has anything to do with whether or not that something exists.


When god instructs to keep the women and virgins for yourselves it seems to have certain implications which rely on presumptions.

So, that would be a yes. God told nobody to rape anybody.

Note to God: please NEVER tell TD to spare my life!


According to the story he has some attributes similar to that of humans and directly affects the lives of humans and can cause their death. Moral analysis is easily justifiable given these conditions.

Nobody denies that you can discuss whatever you like, or hold whatever opinion you like.

The wonder is why you think anybody who didn't already agree with you would suddenly agree with you now about this. Somebody whom you don't believe exists, and certainly had no body, felt, or should have felt, emotions or moral compunction when he culled a different species.

I'd ask whether you cry, or experience conscience pangs, when you weed your garden, but I'm afraid. You might say you do, which is a picture I don't need in my head.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
No. Human writers describe God's behavior in the terms they understand. They have no alternative. "Terms human beings understand" is all that human language offers, on any subject.

If you read that God is angry, then that's on the author. If you actually think God is angry, or that the author meant his word literally, then you're projecting, as surely as if you took literally a written description of a wind storm as angry.

The wind storm doesn't have the hardware to be angry. God doesn't have the hardware to be angry. Angry's a metaphor in both cases.


I see. Author error in a sense. Millions of human deaths attributed to a god, all metaphor. Hell, no author since then has been so ejaculatory in their metaphor and allegory.


Only magical thinkers believe that the human ability to describe something has anything to do with whether or not that something exists.


Millions of people believe the jewish god literally exists because of the bible.


So, that would be a yes. God told nobody to rape anybody.


It seems that others disagree with your assessment.


Nobody denies that you can discuss whatever you like, or hold whatever opinion you like.

The wonder is why you think anybody who didn't already agree with you would suddenly agree with you now about this. Somebody whom you don't believe exists, and certainly had no body, felt, or should have felt, emotions or moral compunction when he culled a different species.


Agree with me about what? Are you making more assumptions about my motives for this post?


I'd ask whether you cry, or experience conscience pangs, when you weed your garden, but I'm afraid. You might say you do, which is a picture I don't need in my head.


You have such sensitive thoughts for a man.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Like I stated before, you are claiming that because somebody added their own terms to an order, the one who gave the order is at fault.

Do tell. If a mailman is ordered to deliver a package, and he decides to rape the person, is the post office responsible for the rape? They are responsible for getting the person punished. As seen in the aforementioned, God punished the rapists.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Trad, edmc^2 here, I don't mean to offend you but as soon as I saw your thread it reminded me of something that happened to the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm sure you know the story, right after his baptism, he had to go on a very extensive meditation and a serious talk with his Father in heaven. The scope and seriousness of his upcoming ministry is apparent from the numbers of days it took to accomplished the job at hand: 40 days and 40 nights without nourishment. So after 40 days – he was very weak and of course famish. But any idea who was watching this very important event also? It's no other that the great resister, the original man slayer, a once faithful angel who became arrogant and jealous and came to [be] known as satan the devil.

And guess what the first thing he did? Tempt and challenged Jesus' loyalty. How? Use the scriptures (against him). Yes, satan knew the Bible and apparently read them too, for he starts quoting them. Remember what he said? “It is written”. And if you read each one of what he said, you will noticed that he was using Bible verses to suite his own purpose and twisted them to portray God, Jesus' loving Father as the bad one.

Very, very similar to yours – God (YHVH – Jehovah/Yahweh) the bad one, satan the innocent one, but coerced by God as you say on a 'bet'.

Interesting huh?

(But as a loving reminder if you care, you might need to rethink about this because it's a very serious thing you are doing).

Now, I'm sure you are familiar with court proceedings. How evidence are gathered, examined, analyzed, argued upon, the counter argued, find the motive, the reason whether justified, self defense or not, then deliberated and then the verdict?.

But you seem to skip the middle parts – you went from, here's the ('it is written') evidence , now here's the verdict: Guilty – God 'a veritable killing machine'.

In comparison, imho, your way of judging will not pass mustard even in the court of law. For if we follow your process, all human judges can also be considered as 'veritable killing machine'. Even the ones who put to death 'people who committed genocide during the World Wars. Don't you agree?

But as a Christian servant of the True God (YHWH – Jehovah / Yahweh). I would like to (if you don't mind) examine your evidence and question you if you really want to stand by your verdict.

My first questions: If God is truly responsible for the death of the person/s/people you quoted, what was the reason/s for their death and why are they not justified? Please explain, the jury want's to know.

2nd question: If as you say God is a “loving and merciful god of the bible” why do you say at the same time that he is 'a veritable killing machine'?

Side Q: Can a fountain both give out sweet and bitter water and can you mixed light with darkness (James 3:11, 1 John 1:5)?

Ty,
edmc2

edit: mod Q, added missing words in []:



[edit on 16-8-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Like I stated before, you are claiming that because somebody added their own terms to an order, the one who gave the order is at fault.

Do tell. If a mailman is ordered to deliver a package, and he decides to rape the person, is the post office responsible for the rape? They are responsible for getting the person punished. As seen in the aforementioned, God punished the rapists.


You're looking for excuses about one particular instance and I'm not sure you've made a convincing case about it anyway. The link in my last post before this has many more rape accounts, some with specific instructions coming from the biblical god.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
My first questions: If God is truly responsible for the death of the person/s/people you quoted, what was the reason/s for their death and why are they not justified? Please explain, the jury want's to know.


There is no jury, it's what you want to know. Anyway, I've listed those deaths in the OP. You may find excuses to list the death penalty as justified in some cases (though that reveals your moral set), but in the several instances of mass genocide I would have to say without doubt that no, destroying huge tribes of people including women and children is not justified. I'll even say that none of them were justified. An allegedly omnipotent being could not be harmed by mere humans and therefore his prescription of the ultimate penalty is an egregious miscarriage of justice.


2nd question: If as you say God is a “loving and merciful god of the bible” why do you say at the same time that he is 'a veritable killing machine'?


To illuminate the fallacy involved in referring to a mass murderer as loving and merciful.


Side Q: Can a fountain both give out sweet and bitter water and can you mixed light with darkness (James 3:11, 1 John 1:5)?


Sure. Christians do it constantly and live with the cognitive dissonance. That's why many such as yourself provide free passes and excuses on the murder of millions. You yourself contemplated in your above post whether all of these murders were justified. I ask you: what moral person would justify the murder of millions of others?




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

The link in my last post before this has many more rape accounts, some with specific instructions coming from the biblical god.

There was no link in your penultimate post.

Jerry Teps posted his rape fantasies on page 8, citing

www.evilbible.com...

You brought up incitement to rape again yesterday in a reply to me, maybe picking up on something German91 said about vengeance for Hebrew women being raped. You wrote:


in at least one particular case god had instructed people to kill all the males and keep the women and virgins for themselves.

You offered no link, and no Biblical citation.

German91 asked whether you meant Numbers 31. You didn't answer.

I continued with the example anway, pointing out that God didn't tell anybody to rape anybody. You didn't produce any link or citation in rebuttal.

So, I guess we have to go with Jerry Teps' link. That concerns rape in the Bible, not rapes ordered by God. The instances are:

Judges 21:10-24: no orders from God to rape anybody

Numbers 31: 7-18: already discussed as to no orders from God to rape; one might add that God gave no instructions at all about the women, just the men. Everything about the women is from a human being, and still no order to rape them.

Deuternomy 22:28-29: penalties for rape within the Hebrew community; no orders from God to rape anybody

Deuteornomy 22:23-24 establishes standards for forced versus consensual prohibited sex; no orders from God to rape anybody

2 Samuel 12:11-14 : David's wives aren't raped, no orders from God to rape anybody

Deuteronomy 21: 10-14: law on women as war prizes. You can marry them after they have been removed from captive status and had a month to mourn their dead; she has rights if you later decide to divorce her; still no orders from God to rape anybody

Exodus 21: 7-11 permits prostitution under indentured servitude; still no orders from God to rape anybody.

Zechariah 14: 1-2 Um, this is a prophecy that Hebrew women will be raped, still no orders from God to rape anybody.

There is nothing to discuss, until and unless you provide a book, chapter and verse, TD. Maybe there's something evil bible dot com missed.

Or, maybe we can turn the thread into a discussion of Bronze Age marriage, employment, and warfare law. Yum, yum.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Or, maybe we can turn the thread into a discussion of Bronze Age marriage, employment, and warfare law. Yum, yum.


I was kinda havin' fun with you saying that god is to humans like humans are to plants, but how I'm projecting. Anyway, always a barrel of laughs.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I'll assume that TD is still off researching eight bits' refutation of the whole "rape" business, rather than dismissing it with a pithy statement, but I spent a bit of time reading through the "Evil Bible" site, and there is a lot of stuff there that really represents the worst that these arguments can bring out in people.

For example:

11) Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Corinthian 15:14-17). Yet Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights. Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only one and a half days, so he could not have been the messiah by his own and Paul’s admission.


is one of a plethora of statements found on this page: www.evilbible.com...

I find this statement (of the author, not the Bible) to be an amazing display of either vacuous stupidity or intellectual dishonesty, with my opinion tending to the first, rather than the second, because there's nothing on that site that strikes me as being particularly intellectually manipulative.

Does this woman truly believe that Christians and Jews are unable to add, or to recognize that Friday afternoon to Sunday morning would be considered by us to be something other than a day and a half? Does she believe that faith is a set of blinders, and as we read the Gospel, we simply skip over these sorts of things?

The root of her stupidity is that, yes, that does appear to be her belief, or she'd have not written that. Why? Because the truth of the matter is that Jews, in the time of Jesus, did, in fact, count that to be three days, as they viewed any part of a day to be one day.

It is patently obvious that Jesus is either wrong in his proclamation, or we are wrong in our interpretation. If one is intellectually honest, sets aside their bias and goes to find the answer to this seeming contradiction, the truth is discovered -- Jesus was not wrong, we just count days differently than he does.

Not to say that anyone around here takes such a biased and eisegesic view of scripture, of course :-)



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I'll assume that TD is still off researching eight bits' refutation of the whole "rape" business


I really don't care to explore an offshoot of the thread. I'm more interested in the biblical god murdering millions of people.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


LOL!!!

When I clicked that website I was thinking to myself.."Wow, if I address these claims one by one my reply will be 3 pages long." Reminds me of a few verses:

"Professing THEMSELVES to be wise, they became fools," ~ Romans 1:22


"Knowledge" comes from universities, "wisdom" only comes from the Lord. And, especially what Peter says:

"As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." ~ 2 Peter 3:16

It takes logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy to reject the Word of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. But hey, man since the beginning of time has loved Satan's first lie to mankind: "Yea, hath God really said?", and they love to "suppress the truth in (their) unrighteousness."



[edit on 17-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

"Knowledge" comes from universities, "wisdom" only comes from the Lord.


No, wisdom comes from experience.


It takes logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy to reject the Word of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.


No, it just takes a bit of actual logic to realize how incredibly incorrect and pernicious the bible actually is.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
 


LOL!!!

When I clicked that website I was thinking to myself.."Wow, if I address these claims one by one my reply will be 3 pages long." Reminds me of a few verses:

"Professing THEMSELVES to be wise, they became fools," ~ Romans 1:22

"Knowledge" comes from universities, "wisdom" only comes from the Lord.


Well, the real disconnect is that a lot of what they profess there can be resolved with knowledge, but they prefer to profess ignorance, because it furthers their cause.

Another example:


In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." This obviously has to be false, for Jesus was supposed to lay dead in the tomb for three days following his crucifixion.


Obvious fallacies here -- Jesus lay dead, as did the thief. That is to say, their bodies lay dead, but this is not who we are. Kinda the whole point of things, eh? She misses the completely obvious argument of many Christians that Christ's essence spent those three days in hell, preaching the Gospel to those already dead, but it doesn't matter, because she considers that Christ's statement is completely inclusive. If Christ had taken the thief to paradise (whatever that works out to be) and said "okies, here you go. Back in a couple of months!" then they were clearly "together in paradise" that day.

So, no, it doesn't "obviously have to be false." Barring disbelief in Christ, there is, in fact, nothing in that quote that forces it to be false, or even implies that it could be.

I came across very few statements in her articles that didn't have holes in them, like these, that a first year seminary student couldn't refute. If this, and irrelevant repostings of Old Testament quotes like the OP has done, represent the best that they can come up with, it's no surprise that atheists are such lousy evangelists. One attracts people to their cause with positive reasons for following, which no one seems able to do (the best I've seen so far was a guy claiming that he'd save all sorts of time by not praying and going to church :-) not by making negative claims that have nothing to do with Christianity, or are outright lies (or, giving the benefit of a doubt, statements made in utter ignorance,) as in this woman's "work."



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join