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

Originally posted by adjensen
She misses the completely obvious argument of many Christians that Christ's essence spent those three days in hell

It's not really clear that this was what happened.

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.

Why do so many believe that atheists are "evangelists"? Do you assume that all bald people try to get everyone to shave their heads?

The "evil bible" site aside (and I don't view that as a particularly good source anyway), why not take the time to address the issue in the OP rather than chalking it up to bad atheist evangelism or something that can be rectified by the "wisdom" that comes from being devout? Isn't that simply avoiding the issue?

[edit on 17-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Any specifics. I really don't feel like spending a day looking through the whole site.

I'd be more than happy to look at such things.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Any specifics. I really don't feel like spending a day looking through the whole site.

I'd be more than happy to look at such things.

The killings committed by god and satan in the bible.

If I recall you seem to have the opinion that they were all justified.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
She misses the completely obvious argument of many Christians that Christ's essence spent those three days in hell

It's not really clear that this was what happened.

Of course not, and if I believed she had a thought in her head, I'd credit her for not using that as an argument. However, because her point is even more off base than that, I'm guessing she's not aware of it.

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.

Why do so many believe that atheists are "evangelists"? Do you assume that all bald people try to get everyone to shave their heads?

The "evil bible" site aside (and I don't view that as a particularly good source anyway), why not take the time to address the issue in the OP rather than chalking it up to bad atheist evangelism or something that can be rectified by the "wisdom" that comes from being devout? Isn't that simply avoiding the issue?

As I have said, I am neither a fundamentalist or a Conservative Jew, so I do not hold the Old Testament to have been written by God. Neither do you. So there is nothing in your original post to discuss, barring the illogic of passing judgement on a non-existant entity, with the sole evidence being "cherry-picked" passages in a book you believe is fictional, and the criteria being your own personal morality.

There are two kinds of atheists that I've met up with, TD. The first kind says "I don't believe", they don't believe, and that's the end of it. If you asked them about things, or you made some statement about atheism that was incorrect, they might respond, but otherwise, they're living their lives and content to let others live theirs. I have lots of respect for these atheists.

The other kind says "I don't believe", and then sets out to make darn sure that they don't believe, and feel the need to try and take others with them as well, I suppose because it helps to vindicate their own beliefs. The more, the merrier, eh? As a result, they tend to be intolerant, negative, and a bit unrealistic as far as their expectations go. As I've noted before, it seems like a lot of these evangelical types really do have a bit of faith (or doubt) tucked away someplace, they just don't like it very much.

Christians are much the same way. There are those, like me, who say "I believe" and that's largely the end of it. I live a life that reflects Christ, I defend my faith, I enjoy debating and discussing issues that are relevant to my beliefs, but I don't run about proselytizing, because I really don't care about your salvation. It would be nice if you came around, but you've encountered the word, rejected it, and I'm completely tolerant of your choice.

The other side or Christianity is the evangelist, who does feel the need to intrude on others' lives, castigate them for one thing or another, and threaten them with hell. Though their intentions are more noble than an atheist evangelist, being (generally, but not always) rooted in love and concern, rather than self vindication, I similarly don't have a very favourable view of them.

You're an evangelist, TD, you and your "EvilBible" cronies -- live and let live isn't a part of your dogma. You're just not a very good one, because you fail to make a case for the positive aspects of your belief system, relying instead on the negativity of finding nits to pick. Whether that's because there are no positive aspects (which I do not believe,) or the positive aspects are things that don't seem very noble (as in the case of the guy who claimed his time savings from not praying) or it's just more fun to pick on the Christians, I have no idea, but it's telling just in its consistency among the rest of the evangelists.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You have to give me an example of the ones that are not justified in your opinion.

Many deaths occurred because man added his own parts to an order. Those, like I said earlier, were not justified and God dealt with the people who did it.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

You have to give me an example of the ones that are not justified in your opinion.

I would say that none of them were justified. Some more than others were particularly egregious and unnecessary.

Originally posted by adjensen

You're an evangelist, TD, you and your "EvilBible" cronies -- live and let live isn't a part of your dogma. You're just not a very good one, because you fail to make a case for the positive aspects of your belief system, relying instead on the negativity of finding nits to pick.

Here's where you're wrong. If I were "evangelizing" you could be certain I'd do a better job for this. I simply enjoy religious-type threads because there's lots of action in them. There are other threads for making the case for positive atheism but expecting a thread such as this to be one is errant.

Again, you've shifted from discussing the actual topic to discussing your interpretation of my motives as well as some other site which I've already put down. You've provided a convenient excuse that you are simply capable of ignoring the entire "old testament". I find that extremely unusual but to your credit at least you're not trying to justify mass murders.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

You're an evangelist, TD, you and your "EvilBible" cronies -- live and let live isn't a part of your dogma. You're just not a very good one, because you fail to make a case for the positive aspects of your belief system, relying instead on the negativity of finding nits to pick.

Here's where you're wrong. If I were "evangelizing" you could be certain I'd do a better job for this. I simply enjoy religious-type threads because there's lots of action in them. There are other threads for making the case for positive atheism but expecting a thread such as this to be one is errant.

So, is it the discord that you generate that you enjoy, or is the rah-rahs from those who hold the same beliefs as you and get a charge out of riling up the Christians? Because those two things seem to be the overwhelming response to threads like this one. I don't believe that you could do a better job, because I've seen this over and over and over and it's always the same thing, and utterly unconvincing.

If you like creating religious-type threads, why not create one along the lines of "I'm an atheist, but here are a few things I really like in the Bible"? That wouldn't sow so much negativity, I think, and it would be interesting to see positive things that you've found in your studies of the scripture.

You've provided a convenient excuse that you are simply capable of ignoring the entire "old testament". I find that extremely unusual but to your credit at least you're not trying to justify mass murders.

If you truly find that "extremely unusual", you're far less informed about Christianity than you appear to be.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I would say you should give me a specific example.

Again, where man adds his own rules to things, there is wrong. But where barbarians are killed because they are acting like animals, I have no pity for them. They lost their humanity and became like ravens and dogs, picking on the weak. Death is quite right for them.

Lucifer was the first angel God created. He had one comand protect and serve only God. God gave the angels the order to protect us. Lucifer was not able to follow that comand because it broke the only command he was created to obey. I believe that is why he became the ruler of the underworld so to speak. punish the wicked keep them out of heaven.

Azazel was the angel who taught mankind everything we needed in order to commit every sin. God did not destroy him, but threw him in the desert and plopped a mountain on top of him until the end of days.

The fallen angels did not want to protect us.

Another thing to point out is that too many people assume that when the bible says Lord it means God. That is not the case. God is not Lord.

A lot of places it speaks of superstition rather than God. The lord was pleased because he had a bumpin crop .... that is not God either.

Lord was leader. Someone supreme but not god. Perhaps the fallen were the lords. The story states that we were allowed access to heaven after Jesus assended. After that you dont hear those stories anymore. Perhaps those Lords were just trying to kill us off. Us being allowed the chance to live in heaven forced them to stop and change their tactic.

Originally posted by adjensen
So, is it the discord that you generate that you enjoy, or is the rah-rahs from those who hold the same beliefs as you and get a charge out of riling up the Christians? Because those two things seem to be the overwhelming response to threads like this one. I don't believe that you could do a better job, because I've seen this over and over and over and it's always the same thing, and utterly unconvincing.

I enjoy some of the discord only because that's the engine that drives conversation. Again, you seem to think these kinds of threads are evangelism which is likely why you find it unconvincing evangelism.

If you like creating religious-type threads, why not create one along the lines of "I'm an atheist, but here are a few things I really like in the Bible"? That wouldn't sow so much negativity, I think, and it would be interesting to see positive things that you've found in your studies of the scripture.

Fair enough. Perhaps one day I will.

If you truly find that "extremely unusual", you're far less informed about Christianity than you appear to be.

Well yes, I do find it unusual and I don't believe for a second that you disregard the "old testament". It appears you're throwing out, among other things, the unpleasant parts such as the biblical god murdering millions probably to avoid the uncomfortable position the OP puts you in, but I'm certain you wouldn't throw out, say, the ten commandments. You've done your best to avoid the topic, mostly resorting to shifting the focus to me, even implying that this was a sort of hate thread. I think you're showing your hand...

reply to post by mrsdudara


Interesting but there's a lot wrong. Firstly, LORD is capitalized because it is God. Lord is also not capitalized for not meaning God. There is a Distinction.

Also, The reason why there is nothing added to the bible after Jesus, nor anything spectacular to write about in terms of miracles or anything, is simply. God acted in the old testament to create a precedents. Everything from Adam to the tower of Babel all the way up to Jesus is done to show humanity what it should not be. The Tower of Babel is a perfect example. God very much so implies that he did what he did so that when mankind left the world, they would not be imperialists nor cocky.\

"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.

IE, people have to be different so that mankind learns to accept differences and therefore when they find something completely different, say something not even of this world, they do not act better and accept that something different is still of value and intelligence.

But mainly, Jesus is basically the last act of God that is big and recorded on the world. It is the ideal set after the precedents of the imperfect. It basically shows that mankind cannot ever lead, so do not have kings nor leaders. God shall lead and his law is given to Jesus which is simple. It sets the mark that humanity is imperfect and shall have no kings, for they are imperfect. Only God is perfect. So make him your king.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

I would say you should give me a specific example.

Again, where man adds his own rules to things, there is wrong. But where barbarians are killed because they are acting like animals, I have no pity for them. They lost their humanity and became like ravens and dogs, picking on the weak. Death is quite right for them.

I'm not up to watching you try to justify murders. If you find some justified perhaps you should give the example.

I'm not interested in "where man adds his rules to things" whatever that means. I'm trying to stick to the biblical god committing murder.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Sure. Sodom and Gomorrah. No, it was not homosexuality. People agree that they were basically D-bags to everyone around them. They showed no hospitality to people who visited, they consumed resources without care, they raped and pillaged, and acted in nothing short of then animals. Homosexuality was not their crime. Though obviously they did commit homosexual rape. Which is one of their crimes. Rape, pillage, murder, and general douchbaggery. For that God, killed them all. Better to wipe them clean off the map then bother with animals.

What's wrong with that? A people who will not listen and commit crimes. What, it's ok if somebody else kills them off for this, but bad if God does it for them?

I've given you an example. Now where is yours.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Num 16:45 Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. And they fell upon their faces.


WOW, The old testament God seems to be an alien that consumes people.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Yep. And yet Christians will continue to defend the Bible despite the fact it makes their God look like a horrible genocidal tyrant.

Wow really, this is amazing how 1 can minipulate their belief system against their own creator, smh..

Also you are not even calculating the past events that SATAN has done to you. Every civilization before you was destroyed by NATAS as will this current 1. This is a far reach into the wrong side, but use your wills as you may.


[edit on 8/17/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


How about you read the whole part. You know. The part before where the people grow angry and want a witch hunt. God stopped an angry mob. Seems reasonable. The plague did not kill them all also.

People stop being reasonable, became an angry mob and wanted to consume them. God acted in the same manner of the mob. What is given is what is returned.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Well yes, I do find it unusual and I don't believe for a second that you disregard the "old testament". It appears you're throwing out, among other things, the unpleasant parts such as the biblical god murdering millions probably to avoid the uncomfortable position the OP puts you in, but I'm certain you wouldn't throw out, say, the ten commandments. You've done your best to avoid the topic, mostly resorting to shifting the focus to me, even implying that this was a sort of hate thread. I think you're showing your hand...

Unlike Jews, who are reconciled to God through the Law in the Torah and Talmud, or Muslims, who are reconciled through the Quran, Christians are reconciled to God through Christ. The Bible is evidence of Christ's teachings, the ancient prophesies that declare his divinity, and the roots of theology and history of the early Christian church, but the Bible is not part of Christian salvation.

Christ said "Love God, love everyone else, and I'm the way to God". If you threw everything else out, you'd still have Christianity. Torah law? Not applicable. Ten commandments? Not necessary, because if you hold to the two of Christ, you can't break any of the ten. Jewish history, folk lore, dietary and ceremonial laws? Irrelevant. A non-fundamentalist doesn't believe that God wrote the Bible, so if a Jewish writer saw a military victory as God killing a bunch of people, what difference does that make? I wasn't there, you weren't there, and unless you're a fundamentalist or Conservative Jew, whether the event was real or perceived cannot be ascertained, so it's utterly pointless to argue it, let alone argue what kind of justification there might be.

This is a fairly consistent message of non-fundamentalist Christians, so your finding it unusual indicates either denial or a lack of understanding. You may not like it, because it takes away a common argument, but unless you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, which neither you nor I do, honesty dictates that you drop it as a sticking point against mainstream Christian theology.

I don't run from my beliefs, TD, you should know that. I'm even content to admit when I'm in error when I am, rather than just ignore it. But I'm not wrong here.

reply to post by adjensen


Well never forget what else Christ said. Those who taker mosaic law as the word of God when Moses said it, not God. It's hypocritical.

reply to post by adjensen


HEY!!! Don't knock us "Fundies". I myself consider what Jesus said about man not living on bread alone! Praise the Lord.

Don't capitulate to the heathen pseudo-arguments. The Word of God in the Textus Receptus Mss, (1611 KJV), is without error or a single contradiction.

Now, I will agree with TD as regards to the modern perversions of the Word, they have numerous errors and contradictions. But then again, that's the reason many of us call them PERversions. Or the NIV the "Non Inspired Version."

Heck, you can't even figure out who killed Goliath in the NIV/Satan's version of the Bible.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]