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

Originally posted by Gorman91
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]

It's your twist that David had authority over the angel. Clearly in the passage you cited it was "LORD" who had the authority over the angel.

You must be talking about how finally Gad tells David to buy some land and kill some animals for god so he'll stop killing people.

Or maybe you mean it was David's fault for ticking god off in the first place. Who knows?

Either way, "LORD" killed thousands of people to teach David not to take a census and you're still blaming it on David.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Read Job and maybe you will understand. And its not "might makes right" its he made you and everything so how can you question him?

Do you think you know 0.0000000001% of what he knows? Do you think your mind can handle what he knows? Read Job it breaks it down for you.

And like i said he "killed" he did not "murder" and he made ALL.


Sorry forgot to add this. Who do you call God? Do you believe in a God? If not why start this post? Because you need attention? Are you trying to help anyone or recruit ?

Just asking because i see so many trolls just trying to start something on ATS in the last few months. So are you trolling?

Hope i don't seem rude it is not my intent.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by GunzCoty]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Not at all. The same happened with Satan. Satan was told humans had authority over him, he did not like that. This angel listened. It's as clear as day. God asked David would you rather your people that you claim to own die, or would you rather your soldiers die for your crimes. The Lord sent an angel and a plague by David's order. And Corinthians backs it up:

So the LORD sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead. 15 And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem

God gave David a choice. David chose to let the innocent die. God let David feel the consequences. He learned.

It was God reminding David that he is not God. He does not have the right to slay innocents for his actions. Only God has control of death. By letting a dictator feel the consequences the dictator learned that he does not hold the lives of his people under his control. Only God does.


Basically David was acting like he owned Israel, when in fact God owned Israel. So those dead were under David's hands, not God's. God did as David ordered to feel the consequences.


It's just like the story of the monkey's paw. You get what you want with consequences. You can chose the consequences that effect yourself, or you can chose innocents and be a cowards.

reply to post by adjensen


Excuse me, what is this?

You can be a morally repugnant fundamentalist

Info to note:

WE ARE ALL MORALLY REPUGNANT! Our "righteousness" is called literally "dirty tampons" in the Hebrew. (filthy rags)

We need Jesus's righteousness, we need Jesus's morality, HE IS THE REASON we are saved, not of our own works! Our salvation is unmerited grace from God, a free gift we all most certainly do not deserve whatsoever.

It's God who saves through His Son Jesus Christ. We love Him in response to Him loving us from the foundation of the world.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Read Job and maybe you will understand. And its not "might makes right" its he made you and everything so how can you question him?

My parents made me and nothing else in the universe requires a supernatural creator. And the biblical god's approach is entirely "might makes right".

Do you think you know 0.0000000001% of what he knows? Do you think your mind can handle what he knows? Read Job it breaks it down for you.

And like i said he "killed" he did not "murder" and he made ALL.

Ahhh yes. Job. The guy that god and satan torture to the breaking point -even murdering his children - and god gives his "who the hell are you, I am completely awesome" smug speech in the middle of it all.

And okay, it's not murder but just killing so it's all right.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Sorry forgot to add this. Who do you call God? Do you believe in a God? If not why start this post? Because you need attention? Are you trying to help anyone or recruit ?

Just asking because i see so many trolls just trying to start something on ATS in the last few months. So are you trolling?

Hope i don't seem rude it is not my intent.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by GunzCoty]

Sure, there's no way that could be construed as being rude. I started this thread for information purposes. A lot of people, many christians, tend not to ever read the "old testament" and don't know about all the killing.

Originally posted by Gorman91
[God asked David would you rather your people that you claim to own die, or would you rather your soldiers die for your crimes. The Lord sent an angel and a plague by David's order. And Corinthians backs it up:

According to 2 Samuel, David couldn't decide and god picked the punishment for him.

So those dead were under David's hands, not God's.

Wrong. David was simply the object of god's anger and instead of dealing directly with David, he gave three options which would only mean certain death for others.

And this was after David apologized. (2 Sam 24:10)

David was not the killer here, it was "LORD"

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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?

You don't like my criticism, so you accuse me of drinking? What next, gonna say my Mom wears combat boots?

You claimed that your morals do not fluctuate, and that calling you the "flavour of the day" was incorrect. Unless you were born with the morals that you currently have, and you will always hold them, they do fluctuate, you are the "flavour of the day" (as we all are) and you cannot be the basis of judgmental arbiter with an absolute morality, which is what passing an effective judgement on God requires.

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.

Oh, I'm sorry. Are there other options? After I correct my mistake in #1 (which should read "You cannot be a Christian", sorry) you have demonstrated that there are not -- thus far, anyone who accepts those events as real is shouted down by you with your "this is morally repugnant" and anyone who is not a fundamentalist or literalist is shouted down with "you're cherry picking the Bible!"

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"?

I'd suggest that your case for this being a "critical discussion" rather than being you proselytizing (badly) might be furthered by discontinuing your usual policy of ignoring questions that you don't like your answer for, your responding in a less than pithy manner to criticism of your methods, and the discontinuation of your dishonestly in making claims such as is summarized in the three options above. The motivation of a Christian who does not have a fundamentalist view of the Bible is not something that you can assume, and your intolerance of that view demonstrates that this is about you promoting your opinion, not soliciting feedback.

So, let's see. You're preachy, you're intolerant, you're obstinate when it comes to things that question your beliefs, and you're judgmental against anyone who doesn't hold your specific views and laudatory of anyone who wanders in here, makes a superfluous statement and pats you on the back. Seems just like every other evangelist I've ever know.

Why are you so upset by that? I'm not calling you a Christian Evangelist, for pete's sakes. Maybe after you guys take over the world, someone will compile your writings and you'll be considered the "Paul" of the atheists, apostle to the Christians. Yeah, maybe not.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by adjensen]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Excuse me, what is this?

You can be a morally repugnant fundamentalist

If you put it back into the context that I said it, I am pointing out that TD views any defense of God's OT behaviour (as a fundamentalist would do) to be morally repugnant. Being a fundamentalist is not morally repugnant in any way (and I suspect that TD would agree with that -- it's your defense of God that makes you so, not your basic belief.)

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Sorry you are twisting the facts again.

Let's review, shall we. Back to Sunday school.

First There was a calling of a census.

This indicated David was acting like he owned the population.

Next David did not count some of the Israelites, basically disowning them. Again treating the Israelites like his property.

Next David realized this and asked for the guilt to be removed. He did not ask for forgiveness. he did not ask for anything other than to solve his whining self. Prideful and stupid.

next God gives him three options. He can take up the responsibility of a failed leader and be defeated. This does not mean death certainly, but it means destruction to his pride. This option means that nobody will necessarily die, or he can chose to slay the innocent.

God Does NOT Chose for him. David says he does not want his army to loose, but he does not want to chose. This means he told God kill innocents.

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.

Again, pride. He could just as easily have asked for defeat without loss. But instead he wanted his pride.

God did as David ordered him, in a kind of switching of the roles. He gave David what he wanted. To be like God with authority. And God took the role of David, following God's orders.

In the end, people died by David's will.

Now I am truly asking you, do get your facts straight before you distort them.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by adjensen


Are you done with the strawman arguments or do have a few more you want to throw out? If you just want to tell me how badly you think I suck just get it over with. "Eight bits" did it in another thread. Now him and I can have a somewhat civil and topical conversation. Anything other than strawman would be nice and it would be particularly great if we got back on topic.

Originally posted by Gorman91

God Does NOT Chose for him. David says he does not want his army to loose, but he does not want to chose. This means he told God kill innocents.

You just contradicted yourself. God did choose the punishment because David would not.

Either way, this is nitpicking over a single example. The point is that god killed innocent people by pestilence to punish David, who god saw as guilty.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


David said do not defeat my army. That leaves God to follow 2 orders from David: kill innocents, or kill innocents.

Please do not distort. David ordered God to kill innocent people. And David was at fault for trying to act like God. He got his just desserts

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


There is killing in the NT as well anyone who picks up a Bible can see that but can they see why?

But hey if you are trying to get information to "A lot of people, many christians" then have at it.
I must of misunderstood the "conspiracy" in your post or the point.

So my apologies i thought you were just trolling.

Night Have Fun.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Excuse me, what is this?

You can be a morally repugnant fundamentalist

If you put it back into the context that I said it, I am pointing out that TD views any defense of God's OT behaviour (as a fundamentalist would do) to be morally repugnant. Being a fundamentalist is not morally repugnant in any way (and I suspect that TD would agree with that -- it's your defense of God that makes you so, not your basic belief.)

Forgive me then. I assumed you were also taking another swing at fundamental Christianity. (Christ crucified to atone for sinners)

In regards to his views/posts, I cannot read the absurd tripe of certain folks, once I've determined that it's a waste of time to continue casting pearls into their pigpens of self-righteousness and doctrines of demons I place them on the "ignore" list and move alone to others who are really wanting another fellow beggar to show them where to find bread.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by NOTurTypical]

Im glad "the devil" tempted adam and eve. If we didnt eat the forbidden fruit wed be stupid and ignorant slaves who are so dumb we dont even know what bein naked is. And ive got to say, thats pretty dumb. Ignorance IS NOT bliss. Also I am not a sinner, I am a human being who makes mistakes and learn from them in order to grow and become better. The belief of there being a complete and utter perfect being is a lie, especially since there are so many perspectives on what perfect is.

[edit on 10/5/09 by OutlanderHuman24]

Really? Satan is the puppet master. How about religion or the Roman Church, I'd believe that is the true puppet master.

reply to post by crazydaisy

"I will stay with my belief of a creator and know that my heart tells me what is good and what is evil. I am not sure that we are suppose to know anything beyond that - perhaps after we die. "

I agree Daisy. I have been researching this very topic as part of my larger curiosity with the illuminati, NWO, gnostics,kabbalah, Moses and his horns and murderous conquests in Caanan, the tree of life, Satan & God for the better part of a year. So many contradictions and confusion. I have learned so much yet have even more questions now. I believe in Jesus and what he taught- non violence, love and just plain common sense for a good and humble life. I am left with only one certainty, that goodness is the path I feel it in my being and in my blind faith- it makes sense. I stumbled on this video of the dying statements of well known agnostics and atheists. Makes you wonder......
www.youtube.com...

Anton LeVay (Satanist) dying statement

www.youtube.com...

Alister Crowley

“Crowley finished his life as a sick, wasted heroin addict given to black rages and doubts about the value of his life’s work. His last words as he passed into a coma on December 1, 1947, were, “I am perplexed…” (Steve Turner, Hungry for Heaven, pp. 92,97,98).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Forgive me then. I assumed you were also taking another swing at fundamental Christianity. (Christ crucified to atone for sinners)

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.

In regards to his views/posts, I cannot read the absurd tripe of certain folks, once I've determined that it's a waste of time to continue casting pearls into their pigpens of self-righteousness and doctrines of demons I place them on the "ignore" list and move alone to others who are really wanting another fellow beggar to show them where to find bread.

I don't believe that TD is a bad person, just a bit misguided and misinformed at times (and a lot at others, lol). My responses to him are less an effort to right his wrongs than they are to demonstrate to others who get here by whatever means (I originally stumbled across ATS by googling something and finding an old thread here) that there are other perspectives, ones which are defendable and reasonable.

If we allow misrepresentations of Christianity to go unanswered, we add our tacit support to them, and let victory in the argument go to the arguer, merely by default.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

David said do not defeat my army. That leaves God to follow 2 orders from David: kill innocents, or kill innocents.

Please do not distort. David ordered God to kill innocent people. And David was at fault for trying to act like God. He got his just desserts

As I said, we're nitpicking. Whether or not David gave the order is irrelevant: "LORD" sent the pestilence. And most importantly, no matter who sent the death the fact is that innocent people paid the ultimate price for someone else's actions. You claimed earlier that all the biblical deaths involved guilty people.