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: 14
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.


I did the fundamentalist thing (it's what I started in) but it just didn't work for me. I'm glad that it does for you, though. Connecting to Christ and living by his teachings is what's important, and the avenue that gets you there is less of a point of contention (for me, anyway.)




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
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.


I gave the example of all of them being unjustified, even Sodom and Gomorrah. And no it's not okay if someone else kills them off either.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
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 believe it takes away any argument at all. The god of the "old testament" is the same an in the "new" and his actions are pertinent even if somehow the appearance of Jesus magically renders the "old testament" useless. And you really should examine the death list: they're not all military victories interpreted by jewish writers as being the work of YHWH.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Sorry. But if a whole city is committed to the act of rape pillage and general dochebaggery and you don't think they deserve death, then you really have no right to call God a murderer when you would rather such animals live.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.


I'm sorry, sir. The KJV bible (all versions of the bible actually) are full of errors and contradictions and if you can claim otherwise with a straight face you are either seriously deluded or haven't actually read the bible.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Sorry. But if a whole city is committed to the act of rape pillage and general dochebaggery and you don't think they deserve death, then you really have no right to call God a murderer when you would rather such animals live.


I have every right to call god a murderer since that is what he did. You seem to issue a pass on this fact by means of finding a justification for it.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.


I did the fundamentalist thing (it's what I started in) but it just didn't work for me. I'm glad that it does for you, though. Connecting to Christ and living by his teachings is what's important, and the avenue that gets you there is less of a point of contention (for me, anyway.)


I agree there, it's all about Christ and His righteousness. I just wanted to point out that TD and atheists in general are actually correct when they make the claims that the Bible is full of contradictions.

All modern versions are. I'm sure that's why satan had them perverted, I mean how many souls have been lost for that fact alone since 1611?? However, with that said, there are zero in the KJV, the inspired Word of the living God.

Just one example from satan's bible, the NIV:

Who killed Goliath?

2 Samuel 21:19 NIV:

"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."



Wow, amazing, I never knew, all these years I thought David killed Goliath. Well, just to be sure, let me check the Word of God...

2 Samuel 21:19 KJV:

"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."

Ahhh, wheeeeew, so Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath? Makes so much sense now. Moral of this story? If you think the Bible is full of contradictions,..

Get a King James Version.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
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 believe it takes away any argument at all. The god of the "old testament" is the same an in the "new" and his actions are pertinent even if somehow the appearance of Jesus magically renders the "old testament" useless. And you really should examine the death list: they're not all military victories interpreted by jewish writers as being the work of YHWH.


Please tell me that you're not as thick as that. You believe that an honest argument can be made from portrayals that can't be discerned as being based on fact, fantasy or perception, and which are contrary to the teachings of Christ? You honestly believe that a non-fundamentalist is going to take two pieces of contradictory evidence, Christ's teachings and something in a text that is judged to not be inerrant, and eschew Christ?

That's about as likely as expecting that you'll cast aside your atheistic beliefs because I read you some fantasy lines out of "Left Behind."

My comment about "a military victory" was an example, not a holistic explanation. The destruction of a city by earthquake or other natural event may similarly be viewed by a Jewish writer as being the wrath of God. Sheesh. Maybe you do need to have things spelled out for you.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Please tell me that you're not as thick as that. You believe that an honest argument can be made from portrayals that can't be discerned as being based on fact, fantasy or perception, and which are contrary to the teachings of Christ?


Well, here's just another excuse then. You're simply taking the buffet bar approach. Take the stuff from the bible you like as true, eliminate the stuff you don't like by deeming it non-factual, contradictory or attributable to author error. That's fine, as all modern christians and jews are forced to treat the bible as a buffet bar. But you should at least acknowledge that this particular approach to the conundrum presented in the OP does not somehow deem this an unworthy topic across the board.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Please tell me that you're not as thick as that. You believe that an honest argument can be made from portrayals that can't be discerned as being based on fact, fantasy or perception, and which are contrary to the teachings of Christ?


Well, here's just another excuse then. You're simply taking the buffet bar approach. Take the stuff from the bible you like as true, eliminate the stuff you don't like by deeming it non-factual, contradictory or attributable to author error. That's fine, as all modern christians and jews are forced to treat the bible as a buffet bar. But you should at least acknowledge that this particular approach to the conundrum presented in the OP does not somehow deem this an unworthy topic across the board.


And here you are, misrepresenting what I said, yet again. Is this an intentional dishonesty, or are you incapable of remembering what I said an hour ago?

Here is what I said: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where in there do I say that Christians are held to anything in the Old Testament? Where do I say that Christians believe that the Bible in inerrant? Where do I say anything beyond "Christians come to God through Christ, not the Bible"?

There is no "buffet bar" approach -- unlike you, I do not cherry pick the OT to find things that support what I believe. If I wandered around, spouting bits of Leviticus that I liked and refuting everything that didn't (which seems to be the atheistic approach) that would be picking and choosing, but I do none of that.

You seem to demand that I become a fundamentalist and accept their perspective, in order that you may make your point. Is that the root of the problem? You have nothing to say to someone who does not hold a fundamentalist's view?

[edit on 17-8-2010 by adjensen]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Where do I say anything beyond "Christians come to God through Christ, not the Bible"?


And what book tells you this?

>>>



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Where do I say anything beyond "Christians come to God through Christ, not the Bible"?


And what book tells you this?

>>>


Christ's teachings, as written in... wait for it... the New Testament! Argh, I whither in the argument!

Yeah, not so much. I would assume that you see the idiocy of it, but you've shown in the past that you don't quite get it, so I suppose I should elaborate. The New Testament is the recording of Christ's teachings. Without said teachings, there is nothing to couch one's faith in. But the Gospel of the New Testament demonstrates that we come to God through Christ, and by following his two commandments.

I believe in Christ because I have faith. I live my life according to his teachings of the two commandments. The rest of the Bible is fine, apart from where it runs afoul of those teachings, at which point I defer to Christ.

If you want to say that living by the New Testament and saying that the Old Testament is not super relevant is cherry picking, so be it. But there is nothing in Christ's teachings that is contradictory to his commandments (as you and I have discussed before) and, as this is the position of non-fundamentalist Christians and has been accepted theology since the beginnings of the church, I'd say your argument is baseless.

But you go on tilting at those windmills, I'm sure you'll eventually find someone who will fall for it and you'll savour that sweet success of conversion!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

If you want to say that living by the New Testament and saying that the Old Testament is not super relevant is cherry picking, so be it.


Excellent because I will. The god alleged to be Jesus' father committed mass and serial murders in the chapters prior to the appearance of Jesus. You choose to throw out those books and focus on a single character in the book. That is cherry picking. Others here don't share such limited scope and are capable of addressing the points. As I said, don't tell me I have an invalid point of discussion based on your personal methods of interpretation.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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]



See, this is my issue with it all. Fundamentalists don't simply trust in Jesus, they trust a translation and believe it to be free of errors. Its one thing to have faith, its another to place you're faith in men.

The KJV is ridden with error (" for ever and ever" is actually "aion" or "ages") and hell is supposed to be rendered as one of FOUR different words with different meanings (like grave, unseen or an actual place like gehenna). Insane doctrines of men come about when faith is place IN men and the bible.

I have "faith" that God will reveal himself to me and not through the utterances and writings of fallible men.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

If you want to say that living by the New Testament and saying that the Old Testament is not super relevant is cherry picking, so be it.


You choose to throw out those books and focus on a single character in the book. That is cherry picking.


No, it is not, it is the Christian faith. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent the faith, so you are lying to make your point. You can't just make up facts about Christianity so that it fits what you want to believe and gives your argument relevance. For someone who claims to hold to truth and science, you're pretty quick to duck into dishonesty and bias when it suits you, this being a primary example.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Well, TD, if you are uninterested in discussing any particular homicide, then maybe you could spell out what moral principle, binding upon God, you feel that God violated, if he existed and did what you said.

For example, are you claiming he killed somebody he had promised not to kill? Are you claiming that any of the killings violated his covenant with Israel? Are you claiming that he had covenants with other peoples which conflicted with his convenant with Israel?

Are you claiming that God owes anybody anything, apart from covenants he may have made? Are you possibly making a utilitarian dominance argument, that God could have accomplished the same things, but with fewer deaths?

I get the part where God kills a lot of people, or orders people to kill a lot of people. I get the part where, as a human being, I'd rather not be killed in some other species' public works project. I have some sympathy for those who were.

But what specific moral principle is at stake here?

You keep talking about people trying to justify this. So far, you haven't said what violation God committed that requires justification, except that you don't like it when entities whom you don't believe to exist are said to have killed people.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by eight bits]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Hmmm, the Word of God declares itself to be without error. And the Lord says He will preserve his "WORDS". I have never met a person who worshiped the Bible, that's pretty stupid if you ask me, it's just a big collection of fancy paper and black and red ink. With that said, I DO IN FACT trust Jesus Christ when He said:

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

I DO trust Jesus, especially when He made this proclamation to satan. Do you live by EVERY word that has proceeded out of the mouth of God?

I hope you do, if not you make Jesus Christ a liar, and that's not healthy for you.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Every thing that lives is a murderer in some sense of the word. The thing that makes you different is how who you murder. If given the choice, a town of rapists is preferable over not.

God is a murderer. And so are you. Every time you buy something, there's a good chance someone somewhere died a little making it in Asia or something.

So don't promote some holier than though BS when in fact there is not one human being on this planet that has not murdered or some how aided in the murder of his fellow man. Every single American has blood on their hands for not doing anything to stop bloody wars. Every single European has blood on their hands for their grandfather's colonization of Africa and the raping of that continent, then leaving and expecting people to just go on like they were before. Every single African has blood on their hands for the hatred they contribute to one side or another in the many conflicts. Every single person on this Earth has in some way shape or form committed murder through what they've done or not done. If God killed a town of rapists so that those who come later on can live a little bit better, I would hardly call them as evil as the people of the modern era who enjoy life at the life of another.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
You can't just make up facts about Christianity so that it fits what you want to believe and gives your argument relevance.


Ummm, I'm not making things up. I'm trying to discuss a topic which you won't address because you disregard huge chunks of your holy book to focus on one character. To each his own.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
But what specific moral principle is at stake here?


Just all the ones that arise from the act of murder. He seems to do it in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons and even includes several instances of full blown genocide. I don't see that any of the killings were done in the process of self-defense which is what I would argue to likely be the only justifiable circumstance.




top topics



 
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join