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

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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.

No, you identify with your view of his actions. If you saw Travis Bickle shoot a man, you would condemn him (I assume.) If, after Travis Bickle stepped aside, you saw that the man he shot was wielding a gun, you would vindicate him for killing in self defence (I assume.) If you later learned that the man Travis Bickle was an undercover police officer, attempting to arrest him, you'd go back to condemnation, because, with your "no killing except in self defense", it's all based on motivation, not action.

You don't know what God's motivations might be, so you just apply yours.

That, in a nutshell, is what I would argue, were I a fundamentalist. That you are judging with a lack of information, incomplete evidence, and you are applying your personal view of what "God ought to do", irrespective of whether your view is even slightly in line with his. That might make you feel all well and good, but it's intellectually dishonest because, at its root, it's completely arbitrary and based only on you and your assumed morals.

Originally posted by adjensen
No, you identify with your view of his actions.

My judgment is based on my view of his actions after I identify them, not because I identify with him.

You don't know what God's motivations might be, so you just apply yours.

Incorrect. In many case of the biblical god killing his motivations are quite clear.

That might make you feel all well and good, but it's intellectually dishonest because, at its root, it's completely arbitrary and based only on you and your assumed morals.

While they're arbitrary in the sense that my judgments are based on my morality it's not intellectually dishonest at all. In fact it's completely honest in that I'm not squiring for excuses that allow a pass on what rational people would view as immoral behavior if it originated from any other character or god from any other story or mythology.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
You don't know what God's motivations might be, so you just apply yours.

Incorrect. In many case of the biblical god killing his motivations are quite clear.

Please cite said cases, that we may examine them for their motivation, as you and I explore our shared fundamentalist conversion.

That might make you feel all well and good, but it's intellectually dishonest because, at its root, it's completely arbitrary and based only on you and your assumed morals.

While they're arbitrary in the sense that my judgments are based on my morality it's not intellectually dishonest at all. In fact it's completely honest in that I'm not squiring for excuses

So it's dishonest to be "squiring for excuses" (whatever that means) but not dishonest to pick and choose from scripture to find basis for your preconceived notion?

If you find a basis for claiming a higher moral ground than God, I guess that you can try him by your own standards, but I think that's rather difficult argument to make.

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.

Putting aside that God did deal personally with David, through Gad, God's problem was with the nation of Israel as a whole, according to the black letter text.

2 Samuel 24: 1

The Lord's anger against Israel flared again, and he incited David against the Israelites by prompting him to number Israel and Judah.

We do not know why God was angry with Israel, nor, as may possibly be relevant, what the cause of his anger with them before that was.

As of course you know, 2 Samuel is an episodic anthology, whose stories are not collated in chronological order. Obviously, chapter 24 is itself a fragment of some longer story. Some people think Chapter 21: 1-14 belonged with the story, but the two pieces don't in my view combine in a coherent narrative, and certainly not a complete one. The rest of the chapter 24 story could simply be lost.

At best, we have a hint about why God is angry, in that this "census" is a preparation for war, not an enumeration of the people. The only figure reported is men fit for military service (at verse 9), with Judah separately stated from Israel. So perhaps God has forbidden Israel or Judah, or both, to make war preparations at that time.

Since we don't what God is trying to achieve, any conclusion as to the necessity of the deaths is speculative. Plague would, of course, plausibly prevent military operations, as would both of the other options presented to David. The census itself meets opposition from the military, so it, too, may have served to delay a military adventure, as well to provide David time to think.

The repetition of this story fragment some centuries later, in the apparently post-exilic 1 Chronicles 21 does not help us locate the rest of the story. The transitional opening sentence now reads that it was a satan, rather than God's anger again, that rose, but the object of what rises is still the enitrety of Israel. The census remains exclusively a war preparation.

In many case of the biblical god killing his motivations are quite clear.

This wouldn't be one of those cases. Maybe if we had the whole story, or knew where this piece of the puzzle fit.

Originally posted by adjensen
Please cite said cases, that we may examine them for their motivation, as you and I explore our shared fundamentalist conversion.

There's a list in the OP with some of the motivations listed. Again, this has nothing to do with fundamentalism: it's simply a review of certain actions from a certain character from a certain book.

So it's dishonest to be "squiring for excuses" (whatever that means) but not dishonest to pick and choose from scripture to find basis for your preconceived notion?

Yes, it's dishonest to provide excuses for mass and serial killings that one would otherwise not provide excuses for. And though I may have preconceived bias what could be dishonest about providing at least some evidence in support of it?

If you find a basis for claiming a higher moral ground than God, I guess that you can try him by your own standards, but I think that's rather difficult argument to make.

Why? We would try any other mass or serial killer by a given set of standards whether or not the killer had a different set of standards. We're forced to accept his standards simply because he wields more power? That's tyranny.

reply to post by eight bits


True, there are many "we don't know"s. However, we can make some reasonable assessments of what we do know. Based on what we know, calling the killings unnecessary and capricious is not without support.

Well, just for fun, let's take a few of your claims.

"Lot's wife for looking back- Gen.19:26"

Nowhere in that bit does it say "God saw Lot's wife look back and smote her." It just says that she looked back, after being warned not to, and she died. Could be that whatever God used to clean house on the Sodomites got into her. Who knows? No motivation there.

I take it that you would like God to save us from ourselves then?

"Er who was 'wicked in the sight of the Lord'- Gen.38:7, 1 Chr.2:3"

No motivation here, aside from some sort of infraction on Er's part, for which the punishment was death.

I take it that you would like God to be unjust?

"Onan for spilling his seed- Gen.38:10"

Again, appears to be breaking some sort of rule. Pretty harsh punishment, to be sure, but since we're not God, just have to accept it, I guess. Lucky for me, I have no brothers.

"Pharaoh and 600 chariot captains (plus his entire army)- Ex.14:8"

It's called war, Ace. Do you criticize everyone who participates in a war as being mindlessly evil, with no motivation? God seems to fight pretty well, I'm guessing he'd be a good one to have on the team, eh?

But I take it that you would like God to be a coward?

"For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf- Ex.32:27-28, 35"

Blah, blah, blah. Somebody sets rules for you and you break 'em, there's going to be consequences. I guess the cost of being God's chosen people in those days was a pretty strict punishment for screwing up. Lucky for me, I'm not a Jew in those days.

... and on it goes. I don't believe any of that stuff, neither do you, but for someone who does, they can find reason for it, every bit as much as you find disdain for it. And of the two, I'd tend to side with the literalist, because they at least have a solid faith, while you're pretty much just "flavour of the day." Whatever your morals are this morning, that's how you'll judge things.

Again, this has nothing to do with fundamentalism

Oh, it has everything to do with fundamentalism, and that's what bugs you so much. Without a literal view of the Old Testament, your arguments and your righteous indignation mean bupkiss, and since you're unable to come up with positive reasons for the promotion of atheism, you've pretty much nothing to hang your hat on, beyond some vague posturing about how you personally find no evidence for God, as if that should mean something to anyone else.

An evangelical without a message to spread is a pretty sad evangelical, I'd guess.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by adjensen]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


So I saw you did not answer my question.

Your argument is basically that because a man given authority chose to kill innocent people that God is responsible.

Like I said. Physics didn't kill Hiroshima's victims. The Americans who used physics did.

True, there are many "we don't know"s. However, we can make some reasonable assessments of what we do know. Based on what we know, calling the killings unnecessary and capricious is not without support.

Fair enough, but the issue did come up earlier about some Christians being placed in a "conundrum" by these killings.

While "not without support" is an adequate reason for you to raise the issues of caprice or non-necessity, that isn't much to sustain a prolonged or profound cognitive crisis. It's easy enough to give the benefit of the doubt to somebody you think would die for you, never mind somebody you think did die for you.

If you throw in the merely serious believers (as opposed to the "true believers" you thought were conundrum-prone), then those folks aren't even on the hook for God having done the natural-cause deaths, the military deaths, or the plain universal folktale-motifs, like Lot's wife (or indeed, as adj pointed out, that may not even have been a killing, taking the text at face value).

We are running out of people to be upset about these killings except those who believe there is no God.

There has to be some irony in that. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by adjensen
Somebody sets rules for you and you break 'em, there's going to be consequences.

Looks like there's a one way street when it comes to god though, huh? I suppose having some moral turpitude is useless because hey, it's the god people want to worship so best to look the other way about his abhorrent practices.

while you're pretty much just "flavour of the day." Whatever your morals are this morning, that's how you'll judge things.

Sorry but I have fairly consistent morals, especially about killing.

Oh, it has everything to do with fundamentalism, and that's what bugs you so much. Without a literal view of the Old Testament, your arguments and your righteous indignation mean bupkiss, and since you're unable to come up with positive reasons for the promotion of atheism, you've pretty much nothing to hang your hat on, beyond some vague posturing about how you personally find no evidence for God, as if that should mean something to anyone else.

So here you go trying to make this post about me again even though we've discussed this ad nauseum. But go ahead and attack the messenger. Not much else you can do especially if you choose to largely ignore the message.

Though you did at least address some of it this time. Looks like you provided similar excuses and a rather passe viewpoint about the deaths of others for often trivial excuses. Thanks. I think we've established a view of your moral standing.

The better question is why do so many people still believe in this fairy tale called the bible?

Originally posted by eight bits
Fair enough, but the issue did come up earlier about some Christians being placed in a "conundrum" by these killings.

No, the conundrum would come from the stories of the killings being fictional, not the killings themselves.

We are running out of people to be upset about these killings except those who believe there is no God.

There has to be some irony in that. Just sayin'.

I'm not looking to change minds here. Those who have a problem with the biblical killings are likely already atheists and those that don't are likely devout. The responses to the information in the OP is what makes the thread interesting.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

So I saw you did not answer my question.

Your argument is basically that because a man given authority chose to kill innocent people that God is responsible.

Like I said. Physics didn't kill Hiroshima's victims. The Americans who used physics did.

I did answer your question. Then you posted your interpretation of the example I provided you.

You subsequently provided a bizarre twist and blamed god's direct, deadly punishment of others on David, much like before you shifted blame to satan and Eve and all of mankind.

That's fine. You will always seek excuse for the fatal actions of this deity. I simply disagree with your spin on who is to blame.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Somebody sets rules for you and you break 'em, there's going to be consequences.

Looks like there's a one way street when it comes to god though, huh? I suppose having some moral turpitude is useless because hey, it's the god people want to worship so best to look the other way about his abhorrent practices.

A one way street? As opposed to what? You dictating to God, the creator of everything, one who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal, that he behave in accordance to your standards? My, we do think a lot of ourselves, don't we?

while you're pretty much just "flavour of the day." Whatever your morals are this morning, that's how you'll judge things.

Sorry but I have fairly consistent morals, especially about killing.

There's nothing that says that they won't change, and there's nothing to say that yours are the same as another person's, and certainly nothing to say that, in that case, yours are the ones that should be the yardstick by which all things, mortal and immortal, are judged.

I think it's wrong to kill in the instance of self defense, therefore, by my standards, you're an evil killing machine, who only holds back his terrible violence until he can justify it. Well, not really, but you get the point.

Though you did at least address some of it this time. Looks like you provided similar excuses and a rather passe viewpoint about the deaths of others for often trivial excuses. Thanks. I think we've established a view of your moral standing.

No, we've established that you demanded I pretend to be a fundamentalist and answer your questions from that perspective. Which I have done, I even said that's what I was doing. My moral standing is what it was before, and it is outside of this nonsense. No trivial excuses are required, though I would venture to say that the "excuses" are trivial only to you and everyone else who wants to grind this axe.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Actually now you are confusing me for another person, as I said nothing on Adam and Eve. Also, fyi, everyone was to blame there.

The fact remains that you are assuming your interpretation is right. If King George interprets the constitution as toilet paper, that does not make it toilet paper. That makes King George, much like yourself, uneducated on what it means.

What it comes down to is the fact that you are ignoring obviously where it says David did it and taking your own incorrect ideas on it as truth. How could anybody expect you to possibly learn if your hug onto your erroneous beliefs and refuse to hear reason.

It's like talking to a young Earther. You and they share one thing. No reason skills. You are right and God forbid your views be wrong and you have to change your views. Preservationist. It's useless for everything except ruins and forests.

Originally posted by adjensen
A one way street? As opposed to what? You dictating to God, the creator of everything, one who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal, that he behave in accordance to your standards? My, we do think a lot of ourselves, don't we?

I have dictated nothing to god, rather simply found the wanton killing of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being to be morally repugnant.

There's nothing that says that they won't change, and there's nothing to say that yours are the same as another person's, and certainly nothing to say that, in that case, yours are the ones that should be the yardstick by which all things, mortal and immortal, are judged.

Right, and there's nothing to indicate they have changed either, therefore, your "flavor of the day" comment is way off base.

I think it's wrong to kill in the instance of self defense, therefore, by my standards, you're an evil killing machine, who only holds back his terrible violence until he can justify it. Well, not really, but you get the point.

Good for you. You exercise judgment of others' behavior using your own moral compass as a barometer as you should.

No, we've established that you demanded I pretend to be a fundamentalist and answer your questions from that perspective. Which I have done, I even said that's what I was doing. My moral standing is what it was before, and it is outside of this nonsense. No trivial excuses are required, though I would venture to say that the "excuses" are trivial only to you and everyone else who wants to grind this axe.

I simply requested opinions on some events in a book. It's you who insists on "pretending to be a fundamentalist" in order to do so. In fact, I've referred to you exactly the opposite, as you have represented yourself, i.e., cherry picking and focusing mostly on a single character in the bible.

I haven't challenged that your moral standing has changed, only stated that now it is out publicly. You, like other, provide a pass on the killings attributed to the biblical god. Fine, now we know. If confronted about this you can always pretend I forced you to be a fundamentalist so it doesn't really count.

Originally posted by Gorman91

What it comes down to is the fact that you are ignoring obviously where it says David did it and taking your own incorrect ideas on it as truth.

If David did it it's not so obvious as you claim

2 Sam. 24:15 (link includes translations from multiple bibles)

Here's the KJV:

So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

Note "LORD" in all caps.

Show me "obviously where it says David did it"

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
There's nothing that says that they won't change, and there's nothing to say that yours are the same as another person's, and certainly nothing to say that, in that case, yours are the ones that should be the yardstick by which all things, mortal and immortal, are judged.

Right, and there's nothing to indicate they have changed either, therefore, your "flavor of the day" comment is way off base.

You were born with the morals that you have now? And you have been unable or unwilling to ever change them? And you will never change them? Okie-dokie.

No, we've established that you demanded I pretend to be a fundamentalist and answer your questions from that perspective. Which I have done, I even said that's what I was doing. My moral standing is what it was before, and it is outside of this nonsense. No trivial excuses are required, though I would venture to say that the "excuses" are trivial only to you and everyone else who wants to grind this axe.

I simply requested opinions on some events in a book. It's you who insists on "pretending to be a fundamentalist" in order to do so. In fact, I've referred to you exactly the opposite, as you have represented yourself, i.e., cherry picking and focusing mostly on a single character in the bible.

Yes, indeed. TD's three options of reality:

1) You can be an atheist
2) You can be a morally repugnant fundamentalist
3) You can be a mainstream Christian who opts out of the OT because of shame

And therein lies the whole of his evangelical argument for atheism. Never mind that #2 requires that you accept his personal reading of the Bible, as well as his personal morals, and that #3 is either an abject lie or total ignorance of a subject he claims to know something of.

Only a dishonest atheist, TD, is going to claim that the standard Christian view of the Old Testament as not being inerrant is due to "cherry picking." If you persist in this lie, what have we learned about your morals here?

Originally posted by adjensen
You were born with the morals that you have now? And you have been unable or unwilling to ever change them? And you will never change them? Okie-dokie.

Um. I agreed with you that they could change but that nothing so far has indicated that they have so far. Therefore, your accusation is off base. Are you hittin' the nip tonight?

Yes, indeed. TD's three options of reality:

1) You can be an atheist
2) You can be a morally repugnant fundamentalist
3) You can be a mainstream Christian who opts out of the OT because of shame

Well there's some narrow assumptions. About as on-par as those fantasy dialogues you presented a while back.

And therein lies the whole of his evangelical argument for atheism. Never mind that #2 requires that you accept his personal reading of the Bible, as well as his personal morals, and that #3 is either an abject lie or total ignorance of a subject he claims to know something of.

Are you actually this confused that even after we've discussed it to death you seem to find critical discussion of biblical writings only to be "evangelical atheism"?

Only a dishonest atheist, TD, is going to claim that the standard Christian view of the Old Testament as not being inerrant is due to "cherry picking." If you persist in this lie, what have we learned about your morals here?

There is no standard for christian viewpoints which is why there are a thousand different sects of christianity. I have made no claims about any standard christian viewpoints on the "old testament". Your viewpoint is to disregard certain parts of the bible and that is cherry picking on your part. It would probably be best for you to calm down and approach a discussion rationally rather than peppering your case with bizarre assumptions and accusations.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Let's take a look at the whole passage, mmkay?

15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

David was given an angel and the angel was told to listen to David. David choose to be a coward. David had authority over the angel.

Do try to read the whole story and not twist it next time, mmkay.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Gorman91]