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: 20
55
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
Yer, this subject has been done to death on here. The end story being; God makes the Devil look like a veritable saint in comparison. Saint Satan, perhaps?



Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Sorry, I had no idea I was duplicating over done topics: my apologies. And yes, it does draw a comparison between the two. However, even leaving satan out of the equation it appears the loving, merciful god is anything but; apparently a pissed off, serial killing maniac.

Sounds like some people are just looking for a reason to justify their disbelief. If you follow the bible in sequential order, not how it was organized, you will learn a very complex and 'incomplete' story. Between the time God said, "Let there be light" (the Big Bang) and the fall of Adam and Eve (the first evolved humans to experience full awareness), the story between Lucifer, God, and Angels expands for centuries. Lucifer was admired by his brothers and sisters. Eventually he took in the admiration and became prideful. While under the control of his own pride, Lucifer felt he had built enough influence to challenge God. Similar to a coup d'état. So, he gathered a group of Angels (the future fallen) he was able to persuade, and started a massive war in heaven. While feeling empowered by the slaughtering, he had done, Lucifer attempted to take on the mantle of God directly. While Lucifer was caught up in his manipulations, Michael attacked with the full furry of heaven. Brothers and sisters collided with brothers and sisters. Eventually Michael defeated Lucifer, and he exiled his fallen brother to Earth.

While hiding on Earth with diminished power, Lucifer watched as countless of species evolved and died throughout the centuries. Even though his ability to manipulate others had diminished, Lucifer still plotted his next course of action. Until one species had evolved to such a point, which it had left them vulnerable and open to the world around them. So, he struck at the heart and mind of humanity...

(If you want to know more, I can complete the story. Events that followed the fall of man explains why God left the gate open in the Garden of Eden and the fallen angels of Lucifer.)

What you are missing is how many Angels did Lucifer kill, and how many people did Lucifer manipulate (or had taken over) to kill.

Lucifer is no saint. Lucifer is no longer an Angel. He is now a beast.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Section31]




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
Until one species had evolved to such a point, which it had left them vulnerable and open to the world around them. So, he struck at the heart and mind of humanity...


Okay, the above quoted sentences seem to indicate to me you're getting the story from someplace more than simply the rearranging of biblical stories into sequential order. Where is this coming from and also, what exactly does this have to do with the OP? Are you shifting blame over to lucifer? That's been tried here a few times already.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Okay, the above quoted sentences seem to indicate to me you're getting the story from someplace more than simply the rearranging of biblical stories into sequential order. Where is this coming from and also, what exactly does this have to do with the OP?

You were making God look like a viscous murderer, and then you agreed when someone called Lucifer a saint. See the quotes in my original post.

Where I obtained my information is directly from the bible, and how I translate such information is hidden in plain sight. Read my post again. Can you figure out how I translated the bible? God's word is hidden in all things.

If you want to play within the big leagues, you have to understand that 'not every Christian' is a religious fundamentalist.

I thought you knew the whole story?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



No worries. While, as I said, the fundamentalist viewpoint is what I was brought up in and held for quite a while, I eventually realized that it wasn't for me, but I'm glad that it works for others.


So you're trying to convince me there is no absolute truth? Do you understand that relativism is a self-refuting logical fallacy?

"Most relativists believe that relativism is absolutely true and that everyone should be a relativist. Therein lies the self-destructive nature of relativism. The relativist stands on the pinnacle of an absolute truth and wants to relativize everything else." ~ Norman L. Geisler

I argue there is absolute truth, that truth is God, and the Word of God. Without absolute truth, if relativism were in fact true, then the world would be full of contradictory conditions and therefore would not exist.

Secondly, I never said "TD is a bad person", that thinking is based in religion: that some people are "bad" and some people are "good". None of us are good people, we are all bad people who do good things sometimes. The only "good" person was the Lord Jesus Christ. God doesn't look down from heaven and see "good" people and "bad" people running around, he sees repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. God hates religion, as do I. God loves REDEMPTION. It's not that I think TD is "bad" and I'm "good", that's a disgusting view of men and a self-righteous attitude, the same attitude the Pharisees had who murdered Jesus Christ. I say we are ALL bad people, and need the righteousness and works of the Lord, not our own.

Thirdly, what "casting pearls before swine" means is there comes a time when a person needs to stop trying to argue with a rock, we are finite creatures. And, is it wise to continue to debate someone who is not open to learn from me, or to learn truth and is just debating for the sake of arguing? My time would be better spent discussing with folks who are in search of truth and have questions, but are at least open to your position.

When you realize as an apologist that the person you're debating has no desire for truth, but only to disprove every and anything you say it's time to stop "casting pearls before them."

I follow the Lord Jesus Christ, that's what He said to do, therefore I do it.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Where I obtained my information is directly from the bible, and how I translate such information is hidden in plain sight. Read my post again. Can you figure out how I translated the bible? God's word is hidden in all things.


If you have an esoteric method it's certainly not clear. Show me the part where lucifer had to wait for a species to evolve.


If you want to play within the big leagues, you have to understand that 'not every Christian' is a religious fundamentalist.


So far you're 20,000 leagues under the sea. I've already been through the "I'm not a fundamentalist" viewpoint quite a bit.


Your eyes need to be readjusted to look at the bigger picture.


Go ahead and make your case instead of assuming what my eyes need.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I argue there is absolute truth, that truth is God, and the Word of God. Without absolute truth, if relativism were in fact true, then the world would be full of contradictory conditions and therefore would not exist.


The world is full of contradictory conditions and the universe is full of paradoxes. Explain how contradictory conditions would cause non-existence and while you're at it please prove that there is a god, then how him and his word is absolute truth.



Thirdly, what "casting pearls before swine" means is there comes a time when a person needs to stop trying to argue with a rock, we are finite creatures. And, is it wise to continue to debate someone who is not open to learn from me


This is both condescending arrogance and a complete cop out. If you have some knowledge you'd like to discuss be prepared to back it up and defend it.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you have an esoteric method it's certainly not clear. Show me the part where lucifer had to wait for a species to evolve.

Show me where is doesn't. Did you happen to notice the snake in the Garden of Eden? How long did it take for God to create the entire heavens (universe)? How much time passed before mankind evolved into Adam and Eve?

Remember, I keep telling you that 'I am not a fundamentalist'.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
 



No worries. While, as I said, the fundamentalist viewpoint is what I was brought up in and held for quite a while, I eventually realized that it wasn't for me, but I'm glad that it works for others.


So you're trying to convince me there is no absolute truth?


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. As I said, I'm glad that fundamentalism works for you. It just doesn't work for me. If you'd like to argue that, this isn't the thread for it (though I suspect TD wouldn't step in with his "stay on topic please" :-)


When you realize as an apologist that the person you're debating has no desire for truth, but only to disprove every and anything you say it's time to stop "casting pearls before them."


That's all well and good, and, as I said, I'm not expecting that TD is going to "come around" and don't really care all that much if he does or he doesn't, but Christ charges us to "get the word out there" and shake the dust off of our feet if we're rejected. I have done the second part, but I think that, given that these threads are long lived (for who knows how long) and people who find them are generally looking for something, it is a failing of the "get the word out" bit to just ignore them.

It is our responsibility as Christians to defend our faith the best that we can. If TD and I had met up in a coffee shop and had our conversation, I'd be content to say "okay, good luck with it" and let him go, once I realized that there was no reasoning with him. But in this public forum, pretty much anyone in the world can wander in and come away with a view of Christianity that is flat out wrong, if no one steps up to the plate to refute the untruths.

Don't be fooled by the denials -- arguments such as this represent an effort to turn people toward atheism, or to bolster the atheist's own disbelief. In the vacuum of few discernible and defendable positive aspects of disbelief, attacking those who believe, vehemently in some cases, is one of the few potentially effective tactics of the evangelical atheist. By ignoring them, you grant tacit approval to their claims, and who knows what the results of that would be.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


Well I guess that tears his argument to shreds. I don't know how he will be able to stand up against such perfect logic. Perhaps, as a final crushing blow, you could say something nasty about this mother.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Don't be fooled by the denials -- arguments such as this represent an effort to turn people toward atheism, or to bolster the atheist's own disbelief. In the vacuum of few discernible and defendable positive aspects of disbelief, attacking those who believe, vehemently in some cases, is one of the few potentially effective tactics of the evangelical atheist. By ignoring them, you grant tacit approval to their claims, and who knows what the results of that would be.


There's a particular irony in pinning me for a lack of reason, then reverting to this position that my thread is evangelical atheism even though we've discussed this to death. You seem to insist I am at fault for not starting a thread for the positive aspects of disbelief, even though I did start one of those threads and you participated in it. This thread is about biblical events, not disbelief ,and inf fact to understand the reasons for belief in a deity that kills an awful lot. I'm hoping that eventually this will become more clear to you and you'll stop setting up this tired straw man argument. Cheers.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Hey, I can respect that difference, and you're correct, because of the written nature of forums I can see the wisdom is preserving the discourse for future eyes. Thanks you for enlightening me to that.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
The world is full of contradictory conditions and the universe is full of paradoxes. Explain how contradictory conditions would cause non-existence and while you're at it please prove that there is a god, then how him and his word is absolute truth.

So, why did you open a thread about something you don't believe in? Curiosity? Do you fear something in which you do not understand?

I am not dumb enough to try and prove something in which there is no physical evidence. However, you are trying to disprove something in which there is no physical evidence to disprove.

Conundrum indeed.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Don't be fooled by the denials -- arguments such as this represent an effort to turn people toward atheism, or to bolster the atheist's own disbelief. In the vacuum of few discernible and defendable positive aspects of disbelief, attacking those who believe, vehemently in some cases, is one of the few potentially effective tactics of the evangelical atheist. By ignoring them, you grant tacit approval to their claims, and who knows what the results of that would be.


There's a particular irony in pinning me for a lack of reason, then reverting to this position that my thread is evangelical atheism even though we've discussed this to death. You seem to insist I am at fault for not starting a thread for the positive aspects of disbelief, even though I did start one of those threads and you participated in it. This thread is about biblical events, not disbelief ,and inf fact to understand the reasons for belief in a deity that kills an awful lot. I'm hoping that eventually this will become more clear to you and you'll stop setting up this tired straw man argument. Cheers.


As I said before, if you were interested in merely a discussion of Biblical events, my declaration that, as a non-fundamentalist, your list wasn't relevant should have resulted in a friendly "okay, that's fine, let's hear from those who think it is", rather than the attack on my belief you replied with instead.

Your other thread, which I still appreciate, was not a "thread on the positive aspects of atheism", it was a calling for questions about atheism. One of which, from me, was a request for some of the positive aspects of your disbelief, what one might look forward to if they discarded the faith that they find so comforting. Unless I was napping, and apologies if I was, you did not respond to that. Don't really fault you for it, as I have asked it a number of times, and, barring my "time savings" guy, there have been, to date, no replies.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
As I said before, if you were interested in merely a discussion of Biblical events, my declaration that, as a non-fundamentalist, your list wasn't relevant should have resulted in a friendly "okay, that's fine, let's hear from those who think it is", rather than the attack on my belief you replied with instead.


Okay, fair enough. If I was insulting then I was out of line. I apologize. Sometimes in a thread where I'm getting a lot of heat I tend to let my defenses rise too far above the surface. I should have exercised a more reasonable approach and again, I sincerely apologize.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
So, why did you open a thread about something you don't believe in? Curiosity? Do you fear something in which you do not understand?


Because this is a book that lots of people take very seriously and therefore it has an effect on my life whether I believe or not.


I am not dumb enough to try and prove something in which there is no physical evidence. However, you are trying to disprove something in which there is no physical evidence to disprove.

Conundrum indeed.


This thread is not about disproving anything. Nor about proving anything, but since that poster made a rather sweeping claim I called on him to back his statements. There is no conundrum for anyone save the poster who made sweeping claims.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you have an esoteric method it's certainly not clear. Show me the part where lucifer had to wait for a species to evolve.

Show me where is doesn't. Did you happen to notice the snake in the Garden of Eden? How long did it take for God to create the entire heavens (universe)? How much time passed before mankind evolved into Adam and Eve?

Remember, I keep telling you that 'I am not a fundamentalist'.


"Show me where it doesn't" is not an answer. That's calling on me to prove a negative and not my burden. It's your burden to support your viewpoint which I've politely asked for twice. Make your case with some supporting evidence otherwise your personal interpretation of things that may or may not be in the bible is irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
...your personal interpretation of things that may or may not be in the bible is irrelevant.

Is not all translations of the bible based upon personal interpretation? How did you formulate 'your own interpretation'?

Calling God a viscous murderer is a wild claim of ignorance, which is based upon your limited interpretation of biblical scripture.

Your evidence is taken out of context, and you have no knowledge on the significance of those cases. You most likely copied and pasted your list from another website; thus, you didn't even do any real investigation into the argument you are making.

You claim to know so much about what those death signify that you had no problem calling God a 'viscous' killer?!?!? Talk about a failure to understand.

Was God a killer or was he exercising his right as a creator? Do you understand why those people were 'punished' for their crimes?

If my personal interpretation is irrelevant, your personal interpretation is also irrelevant. You have confessed that this thread eats itself.

You are using the topic to bait people into an argument.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
Is not all translations of the bible based upon personal interpretation? How did you formulate 'your own interpretation'?


Support your case once and for all otherwise I can only assume that you're making stuff up.


Calling God a viscous murderer is a wild claim of ignorance.


No, it's based on observation and observation is anything but ignorance.


Your evidence is taken out of context, and you have no knowledge on the significance of those cases. You most likely copied and pasted your list from another website; thus, you didn't even do any real investigation into the argument you are making.


Been through this too. I guess you should browse the thread a bit and see where I've actually provided original arguments on specific accounts of biblical killing.


You claim to know so much about what those death signify that you had no problem calling God a 'viscous' killer?!?!? Talk about a failure to understand.

Was God a killer or was he exercising his right as a creator? Do you understand why those people were 'punished' for their crimes?


There is no right as a creator to kill others. In many cases thousands of people were killed who committed no crimes whatsoever.


If my personal interpretation is irrelevant, your personal interpretation is also irrelevant.


So be it then, but at least I'm bringing stuff to the table as support. As far as I can tell you're making stuff up and refuse to support your interpretations.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Support your case once and for all otherwise I can only assume that you're making stuff up.

If you read through my first post, I have been very clear on where I got my information. It is not my fault that you cannot see through the trees.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
There is no right as a creator to kill others.

God has a right as a creator to destroy that in which he creates. If God wants to destroy the Earth tomorrow, he has a right to do so without asking 'us' for our permission.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
In many cases thousands of people were killed who committed no crimes whatsoever.

Again, complete lack of understanding of scripture. He has never punished anyone unjustly. Never.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
If you read through my first post, I have been very clear on where I got my information. It is not my fault that you cannot see through the trees.


No, it is your fault for planting a forest in front of your statements. Back on topic though, show me exactly in the bible where it states that lucifer had to wait for a certain species to evolve.


God has a right as a creator to destroy that in which he creates. If God wants to destroy the Earth tomorrow, he has a right to do so without asking 'us' for our permission.


No, he doesn't have that right. If he acts as he does though he shouldn't be surprised when people find a problem with it.


Again, complete lack of understanding of scripture. He has never punished anyone unjustly. Never.


Sorry, but the scriptures make it clear that thousands of innocent people were killed directly by god. You should review the bible again.



new topics




 
55
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join