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: 17
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty

As God told Job (the short version) I am God who are you to question what i do?


Anybody has any right to question the actions of something insisting on your worship. Especially one that employs a "might makes right" approach. This make the biblical god little more than a cosmic tyrant...




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
God does not kill innocents.


I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here. There are many accounts of innocent people being murdered by the biblical god. You are welcome to attempt to rationalize some sort of guilt in everyone that the biblical god kills but it's not true and your above blanket statement doesn't hold.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Actually, easily fixed. I'll just refer to TDmurder from here on out. That way, there won't be any confusion between the common English word and your personal homonym.

I did not say that their belief was a fact. No more than I said that your opinion about morality was moral.


Nice try but apparently reading comprehension and coherent concepts are not your strong point. Let's bring it back on topic and not explore your typical nitpicking please.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmosGraber
Although if I had to lay money on the score of who is responsible for all the killings in history(in or out of the Bible) I would lay my life savings on this: God: 0 Devil: 0 Humanity: Billions, possible Trillions!


I agree with that assessment, however, that implies that the biblical accounts of the deaths attributed to its god are purely fiction. I think it is fiction but that has to present a conundrum to the true believer.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Nice try but apparently reading comprehension and coherent concepts are not your strong point. Let's bring it back on topic and not explore your typical nitpicking please.

Pithy comeback.

Speaking of on-topic, the questions you've been sidestepping for the last page and a half are:

Why are these killings, in fact, capricious and unnecessary?

Or, why should someone who believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe that these killings are capricious or unnecessary?


I think it is fiction but that has to present a conundrum to the true believer.

That's implausible unless the "true believer" agreed with you that the killings were capricious and unnecessary.

But obviously, there is no "conundrum." The true believer simply disagrees with both of your fact-claims (the Bible is fiction, the killings are unnecessay and capricious).

Not hard to imagine, since you have offered nothing to back up either one.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by eight bits]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Why are these killings, in fact, capricious and unnecessary?


I've already answered this. Read again.


Or, why should someone who believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe that these killings are capricious or unnecessary?


They tend not to. They make justifications for them.


That's implausible unless the "true believer" agreed with you that the killings were capricious and unnecessary.


No, that's if the biblical accounts were fictional.

Reading comprehension. Work on it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I think it is fiction but that has to present a conundrum to the true believer.


What's the conundrum? Taking the fundamentalist's point of view for a moment, he would view those actions as being justifiable by God for whatever reason, which would vary from case to case. Doesn't matter what the fundamentalist thinks about it, because they're not his actions, so the justification need not come from him.

The point that you (sensibly) refused to answer of Eight Bits' argument is that you have no basis for applying your own personal "rights and wrongs" on God, since he is indifferent to your opinion of morality. Get all the righteous indignation that you want, but the fundamentalist will say that God doesn't answer to you, if for no other reason than you might be hating on the Christians one day, hating on the gays the next, and how is the All Mighty supposed to deal with that? If there's an absolute truth, a non-changing definition of "good" and "evil", it would have to come from God, not from you.

The reason I say you sensibly declined to answer is question is that I think you recognize that answering it would either mean the end of your argument, or admitting to the fact that you're doing exactly what you deride so many people of faith for doing -- making God in your own image.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


It's funny you keep claiming this by have repeatedly failed to show specific examples.

...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

The point that you (sensibly) refused to answer of Eight Bits' argument is that you have no basis for applying your own personal "rights and wrongs" on God, since he is indifferent to your opinion of morality.


Just because this deity is indifferent to my opinion of morality does not mean I have no basis for making my own moral determination about his actions.


If there's an absolute truth, a non-changing definition of "good" and "evil", it would have to come from God, not from you.


There doesn't appear to be any moral absolutes and in fact morality does seem to originate from human beings.


The reason I say you sensibly declined to answer is question is that I think you recognize that answering it would either mean the end of your argument, or admitting to the fact that you're doing exactly what you deride so many people of faith for doing -- making God in your own image.


Huh? How is judging the actions of a deity "making god in my own image"?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


It's funny you keep claiming this by have repeatedly failed to show specific examples.

...


I could list many but ultimately you'll always end up referring to something like Psalm 51, where it says we are all born to sin, rebel and commit wrongdoing.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


That happens regardless of God. I want to see specific examples. On eby one from your favorites down if it needs to be.

Otherwise what you are basically arguing is "I know I'm right and nothing you say can change my mind". Which is pretty lame honestly. You should always consider your beliefs a second away from being wrong.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


That happens regardless of God. I want to see specific examples. On eby one from your favorites down if it needs to be.

Otherwise what you are basically arguing is "I know I'm right and nothing you say can change my mind". Which is pretty lame honestly. You should always consider your beliefs a second away from being wrong.


I've already been over this with you and eight bit both. But since you can't live without an example, let's take all the people killed as a result of the story of David and the census. There's people who had nothing to do with the issue between David and god; i.e., innocent.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

The point that you (sensibly) refused to answer of Eight Bits' argument is that you have no basis for applying your own personal "rights and wrongs" on God, since he is indifferent to your opinion of morality.


Just because this deity is indifferent to my opinion of morality does not mean I have no basis for making my own moral determination about his actions.


Sure, but it doesn't mean that your determination has any merit, in the same way that a dog that growls at you indicates his dislike and distrust, but this has no effect on whether you're likable or trustworthy. Ask any cannibal, and he'll tell you that you're wrong for not eating "that other white meat", but that has no bearing on you, does it?



The reason I say you sensibly declined to answer is question is that I think you recognize that answering it would either mean the end of your argument, or admitting to the fact that you're doing exactly what you deride so many people of faith for doing -- making God in your own image.


Huh? How is judging the actions of a deity "making god in my own image"?


Because you're judging him by your standards, not his, and saying that he needs to conform to the moral justifications that you see as being fit. If God squashes you like a bug, or elevates you to sit at his right hand, the justification for him is his, not yours. By claiming to be offended by "TDMurders", you're saying that God needs to conform to your view of right and wrong, which is obviously wrong, so you are inventing a new god, who has been built on your personal biases, in order that you might judge him.

You don't believe that God exists, so your golem version is simply a bigger and meaner version of yourself.

That seems a pretty open and shut case of "making God in your own image" there.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
You don't believe that God exists, so your golem version is simply a bigger and meaner version of yourself.

That seems a pretty open and shut case of "making God in your own image" there.


Um, no, that still makes no sense. I view the biblical god as fictional, true, yet my judgment about the actions he takes in the book is not in any way me making god in my own image. If I watch Taxi Driver and make moral judgments about the actions of Travis Bickle, who I know is fictional, is that me making Travis Bickle in my own image? Of course not. You seem to have gotten lost at some point.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Sure, but it doesn't mean that your determination has any merit, in the same way that a dog that growls at you indicates his dislike and distrust, but this has no effect on whether you're likable or trustworthy. Ask any cannibal, and he'll tell you that you're wrong for not eating "that other white meat", but that has no bearing on you, does it?


Again, the merit of my judgment has no lesser value simply because the object of my judgment is indifferent to it.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Again, God gave man authority to decide their future. And a coward chose to slay his own people over himself, his honor, and his men.


"I am in deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men.

he was a coward. Rather then let his men who were responsible for sin suffer for their sin, he chose innocent people. This is just another example of the irresponsibility of man to own up to their wrongs, and instead let innocent people do the work. God sent and angel to do What David ordered. God had no part into it other then telling the angel when to stop.

And as to those killed, you have no way of knowing if they were innocent. But if they were, God did not kill them, David did. In as much physics did not kill the innocent Japanese at Hiroshima. The ones who ordered it were responsible.

If man uses a tool given to him from God to kill, the one who orders the killing is to blame. Just as physics is not responsible for murdering people, but the one who uses physics to destroy human life.

The core of your argument is that the thing that kills is to blame, not the one who used it.

To borrow a phrase. Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
On page 15, you first made the claim:

Basically, yes. Capricious, unnecessary mass and serial murder is immoral and unjustified.

That was it, no back up that the thread's killings were capricious or unnecessary.

You did not address the matter again, until I raised it in my post on page 16.

Then you sidestepped the question with your "fact versus opinion" song and dance. When that didn't work, you switched to this "reading comprehension" bull.

You are being untruthful. Perhaps you have lost track of your writing. You've done that before. Whatever.

I ask again, because you have not answered,

Why are these killings, in fact, capricious and unnecessary?

Or, why should someone who believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe that these killings are capricious or unnecessary?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
You don't believe that God exists, so your golem version is simply a bigger and meaner version of yourself.

That seems a pretty open and shut case of "making God in your own image" there.


Um, no, that still makes no sense. I view the biblical god as fictional, true, yet my judgment about the actions he takes in the book is not in any way me making god in my own image. If I watch Taxi Driver and make moral judgments about the actions of Travis Bickle, who I know is fictional, is that me making Travis Bickle in my own image? Of course not. You seem to have gotten lost at some point.


No, you're missing a key point, which Eight Bits pointed out to you long ago and you ignored. You judge Travis Bickle, because you can identify with Travis Bickle. You don't need to place any assumptions on him, fiction or not. If a dog growls at you, do you declare it evil? Whether you do or you don't, you're applying your morality to the dog, casting the judgement in light of what you personally believe the proper behaviour of a dog is, because you're not a dog, and you don't have the ability to identify with the dog the same way you do with your fictional movie character.

Take that and extend it away from a dog, that we do have some commonality with, and place it on God, whom even a disbeliever would say we have little, potentially nothing, in common with. You know nothing of God's motivations, rationales or justifications, so you just apply your own and hold him to it. Taking some part of you and applying it to God without reason seems like a good definition of making God in your own image.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Why are these killings, in fact, capricious and unnecessary?


Indeed, why? I think what you actually meant is how. Let's take the above example of the census killings to reference "unnecessary" and "capricious". God and David have a problem. Instead of directly dealing with David, god decides to kill 70,000 people through pestilence. This was unnecessary since he could have dealt directly with David, and capricious since god arbitrarily presented three punishment options, each of which insuring the deaths of others, and chose one of them with no explanation.


Or, why should someone who believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe that these killings are capricious or unnecessary?


I answered this above.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

No, you're missing a key point, which Eight Bits pointed out to you long ago and you ignored. You judge Travis Bickle, because you can identify with Travis Bickle.


No, you are missing the key point. I can judge Travis Bickle not because I can identify with him, but because I can identify his actions.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join