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

Originally posted by adjensen
End of story, you've no argument with me, or any other Christian who is not a fundamentalist.

I am kind of curious about your stance on this. Only because the "new testament" always comes attached with the "old testament". Despite the difference in tones from "old" to "new" the god remains the same for both books. At some point even the most liberal christian would have to at very least acknowledge some of the "old testament" since the christ is alleged to have fulfilled some of its prophecies. There has to be some degree of acceptance of god's actions, doesn't there?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
End of story, you've no argument with me, or any other Christian who is not a fundamentalist.

I am kind of curious about your stance on this. Only because the "new testament" always comes attached with the "old testament". Despite the difference in tones from "old" to "new" the god remains the same for both books. At some point even the most liberal christian would have to at very least acknowledge some of the "old testament" since the christ is alleged to have fulfilled some of its prophecies. There has to be some degree of acceptance of god's actions, doesn't there?

The Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible because Christianity is derived from Judaism, so it's important to have an understanding of the old Covenant in order to grasp the new one. Broken into pieces, the OT is mythology, law, history, wisdom, prophecy and, well, entertainment I guess. The important bit for Christianity is the prophecy part, though it all has some value.

My personal stance, as I've said before, is this: I start with my faith, and the basic tenet that Christ's two commandments are all inclusive. Love God, love everyone else. If I ignore everything else, save that, Christ tells me that it will lead me to God and everlasting life. For this reason, and the fact that it feels right, this is my core belief.

Now, since I take this as a truism, everything else needs to be weighted against it. Practically, if you came to me and said "Hey Dale, God's telling me to go blow up the abortion clinic," I'd resolve the conflict of that statement by going back to the truism, realize that "Love everyone" doesn't work if I'm blowing people up, and reply "No, TD, I don't think that God told you to do that."

I do my best to apply this universally -- I do not, for example, take a negative view of homosexuality. What God's opinion of homosexuals might be is not my concern, but how I treat them, whether I love them like myself, is my concern.

That's where my doubt about things depicted in the Old Testament comes from. Like you, I find wanton destruction, rape, murder and so on to be reprehensible. I find it in conflict with my core faith. So I am left with three options of resolution:

1) God changed between the OT and NT. Nope, impossible.
2) Christ's message of love is wrong. As a Christian, nope, impossible.
3) The portrayal of God in these human produced, translated and interpreted books is inaccurate.

The last option is the only one that is acceptable. Does it invalidate the whole thing? No, it just speaks to the fact that, in a non-fundamentalist point of view, the OT is not necessarily inerrant, and where it comes in conflict with the teachings of Christ, it is okay to raise the flag of "ok, problem here."

Errancy is not limited to these passages, and there's nothing to say that one cannot pick through them, like the fundamentalist or Conservative Jew, and find a justification, but it affords one the ability to not worry too much about something that doesn't really matter, apart from a basis for argument.

reply to post by adjensen


Thank you. Interesting answer.

Do you suppose it possible that the "new testament" could also be errant in places? Also, any thoughts on the Apocrypha, specifically the other stories of Jesus not included in the modern bible?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Do you suppose it possible that the "new testament" could also be errant in places?

Oh, I think that's rather likely. Remember, the reason that inerrancy is applied to the Bible is that those people believe that God himself wrote it (either directly, not sure how that works, or by personal direction of the person who actually put pen to paper) and it is clear that most of the New Testament is the testimony of the Gospels, and the interpretation of Paul and others. Even beyond that origination part, it seems likely that errors in wording or interpretation are likely to creep in.

However, and this is the big "however", taken as a whole, Christ's message of Love God, Love everyone else, and I am the path between you and God remains consistent and constant through it, so minor differences (contrast the statements of James and Paul regarding salvation and works, for example) are not overly concerning.

If one summarily dismisses either Christ's claim of divinity, or his definition of God's expectation of us, then one moves outside of Christianity and the whole of the Bible is irrelevant. So, to that extent, parts of the Bible are necessary and absolute truths if one is to claim Christianity as their faith.

Also, any thoughts on the Apocrypha, specifically the other stories of Jesus not included in the modern bible?

Taken as a whole, I think that the books that Origen regarded as a good representation of the faith are reasonable. Beyond them, I apply, once again, my filter of faith and don't see a lot of reason to include what is not included, though I have read a number of non-canonical works.

As an example, the Gnostic books begin with a premise that is contrary to Judaism, and again cater to "God is an elitist" thinking that is contrary to Christ, so I find that direction uninteresting. Ditto any sort of "Dan Brownism" that claims Jesus was married, had kids, etc, etc. Not helpful, contrary to the rest of the text, so a distraction and little more.

Originally posted by adjensen
Taken as a whole, I think that the books that Origen regarded as a good representation of the faith are reasonable. Beyond them, I apply, once again, my filter of faith and don't see a lot of reason to include what is not included, though I have read a number of non-canonical works.

As an example, the Gnostic books begin with a premise that is contrary to Judaism, and again cater to "God is an elitist" thinking that is contrary to Christ, so I find that direction uninteresting. Ditto any sort of "Dan Brownism" that claims Jesus was married, had kids, etc, etc. Not helpful, contrary to the rest of the text, so a distraction and little more.

Things such as Dan Brown novels are bunk really.

I only mention this because there are some texts in the Apocrypha about Jesus that are quite interesting indeed. The one including Jesus as a young boy stands out as quite an interesting one. It's nothing that I think would hinder you faith nor do I believe they are meant to do such a thing, but they are an interesting read just from the standpoint that they list accounts of Jesus that were written roughly in the same time period as the other biblical texts, and so it qualifies as the same word on the street about Jesus as the "official" texts. Definitely some interesting stuff. Check it out sometime if you're so inclined: I think you may like it.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


If you can toss me a link, I'll check it out. Looking around, I'm only coming up with "Jesus in India", which seems to be a rather late (turn of the 20th Century) speculation. There are plenty of works that are considered non-canonical, but there's nothing wrong with, they just didn't make the cut (like the writings of Clement or the Shepherd of Hermas.)

I remember the first time that my wife took me to "Stations of the Cross" (a Catholic devotion done weekly during Lent.) On the way home, I said "where did all that extra stuff come from?" and she said that she assumed it was in the Bible, part of Christ's Passion. Well, it was new to me, so when I got home, I looked it up and the "extras" came from non-canonical sources (I want to say it was someone's vision in the Middle Ages, but I can't remember any longer.) It's not a part of Christ's Passion as written in the Gospels, but nothing conflicting with them either, so no worries.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

If you can toss me a link, I'll check it out. Looking around, I'm only coming up with "Jesus in India", which seems to be a rather late (turn of the 20th Century) speculation. There are plenty of works that are considered non-canonical, but there's nothing wrong with, they just didn't make the cut (like the writings of Clement or the Shepherd of Hermas.)

That's definitely not anything like it, nor is the Apocrypha modern. It's written material sourced to roughly the same time as the other biblical texts.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282674712&sr=1-1

The above link is but one of many published books that include the "new testament" apocrypha. Wikipedia also has a fairly decent explanation of it. But to the christian enthusiast - especially the non-fundamentalist variety - I'd say the Apocrypha is a must-read whether you ultimately reject the texts or not. Check it out some time.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

If you can toss me a link, I'll check it out. Looking around, I'm only coming up with "Jesus in India", which seems to be a rather late (turn of the 20th Century) speculation. There are plenty of works that are considered non-canonical, but there's nothing wrong with, they just didn't make the cut (like the writings of Clement or the Shepherd of Hermas.)

That's definitely not anything like it, nor is the Apocrypha modern. It's written material sourced to roughly the same time as the other biblical texts.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282674712&sr=1-1

The above link is but one of many published books that include the "new testament" apocrypha. Wikipedia also has a fairly decent explanation of it. But to the christian enthusiast - especially the non-fundamentalist variety - I'd say the Apocrypha is a must-read whether you ultimately reject the texts or not. Check it out some time.

Well, that appears to be Old Testament Apocrypha, not the NT, but I'll sort it out. The Catholics, btw, include a number of books in the Old Testament that the Protestant Bible does not, adding to the confusion (though I've gone through them, and I don't know that their inclusion or exclusion is particularly substantive, aside from the Catholic belief of purgatory coming out of one of them.)

Originally posted by adjensen

Well, that appears to be Old Testament Apocrypha, not the NT, but I'll sort it out.

Ooops. That was the first link that Amazon popped up. There are many more - just enter 'Apocrypha' into Amazon and find the appropriate one. Keep in mind that this isn't simply the extra books of the catholic bible. There's some quite interesting stuff in there, and some of it about Jesus that I think you may find quite interesting.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent....

I think you are looking for the "Infancy Gospels," especially of Thomas and of James:

www.earlychristianwritings.com...
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Easily the most interesting apocryphal gospel for a devout person is the Gospel of Thomas (not the "Infancy Gospel of ..."). Unfortunately, the only nearly-complete text, from Nag Hammadi, is a Coptic translation with likely interpolations.

A nice edition is this one, color-coded by our friends at the Jesus Seminar:

www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

The Seminar is not everybody's favorite resource, but their voting system does provide a useful filter in this case, I think, for the interpolations. Parts of Thomas may be contemporary with the canonicals. The Seminar folk like to call Thomas "The Fifth Gospel."

If you're into that.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


And what crimes did they do? You don't know. If 1000 rapists were killed because of one man's murder and then the murderer feels guilt, then really justice is served.

Perhaps you can't overlap


And again, you are blaming the gun for killing people, not the person. Why can't God let people learn the hard way? is he above that or something?

The simple fact is that Israel did not want to listen to God and they got the price for virtually wanting a dictatorship and war. Not much different than modern day, honestly. They got their price for this.

You are saying you are right because you are right. Why? Why are you right? Get some meat on them there answers.


And once again you ignored the very hole in your opinion's logic. I will repeat.

So do explain. If you call them demented fools for listening to a God you don't believe in, how could they be innocent to begin with in your eyes? You have two choices. God exists and does not kill innocent people, or God does no exist and nobody was innocent, thereby contradicting your whole argument that God is evil.

Answer that. otherwise you are running away from the clear whole in your theory.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

And what crimes did they do? You don't know. If 1000 rapists were killed because of one man's murder and then the murderer feels guilt, then really justice is served.

There is nothing establishing the guilt of the 70,000 people who were killed because of god's dispute with David. Your insistence that they were somehow guilty cannot overcome this fact.

So do explain. If you call them demented fools for listening to a God you don't believe in, how could they be innocent to begin with in your eyes? You have two choices. God exists and does not kill innocent people, or God does no exist and nobody was innocent, thereby contradicting your whole argument that God is evil.

Answer that. otherwise you are running away from the clear whole in your theory.

Belief in a god that I fail to believe in is not a crime. Your two choices are not the only two choices available either. Keep in mind I didn't call anyone "demented fools" or specifically argue that "god is evil".

The big problem for you to overcome is that it's been demonstrated that the biblical god did kill innocent people contrary to your claim otherwise. This is what happens when you make stuff up. If you're going to make stuff up you should have a more solid argument.

reply to post by eight bits


You've got to be kidding me.

There are more Gospels?

(specifically begins around the 10:00 minute mark)

What if I was to tell you that God and Satan never killed anyone. The real question is...How many did (we) kill for God and Satan or just plain old...we got mad and something didn't go our way so we pitched a fit.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by superluminal11]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


So in other words you are tanking a young earther position. No evidence, it must be true? Because that's all I see right now. Guilty until proven innocent?

Originally posted by Gorman91

So in other words you are tanking a young earther position.

Huh?

No evidence, it must be true? Because that's all I see right now. Guilty until proven innocent?

No. I demonstrated that your claim was incorrect.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


No you said my claim is incorrect, not said how. How do you know they are innocent? This was a time period where likely most of them were violent hateful barbarians. In fact that's the whole point God was saying. You are trying to be like those around you when I do not want you to be barbarians.

It's a perfect connection to today.

Let me ask you something. If the people who voted for war in Israel numbered 70,000 and all of them wanted genocide and extermination of the Palestinians and believed that Iran should be bombed and nuked for what they are doing, would they be considered innocent? Would they be fully innocent at all? You are assuming where there is no proof. What is the difference between what you say and a young Earther saying there is no evidence against God so there must be a God?

I think you are looking for the "Infancy Gospels," especially of Thomas and of James:

www.earlychristianwritings.com...
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Easily the most interesting apocryphal gospel for a devout person is the Gospel of Thomas (not the "Infancy Gospel of ..."). Unfortunately, the only nearly-complete text, from Nag Hammadi, is a Coptic translation with likely interpolations.

Ah, okay. Yeah, I've already seen those. The Gospel of Thomas has a bit of value, but the "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke" line in the introduction points towards Gnosticism and that "elitist" God that I think is highly unlikely to be valid.

You've got to be kidding me.

There are more Gospels?

(specifically begins around the 10:00 minute mark)

Nice video, though I thought at the beginning you'd sent along a Trace Adkins clip, lol.

But your pastor there speaks to exactly what I said -- if something refutes your basic belief, it is probably not necessary to your faith. However, merely dismissing something outright because it isn't in the Bible would necessitate rejecting this guy, along with every other religious text in existence.

adj

Ah, okay. Yeah, I've already seen those. The Gospel of Thomas has a bit of value, but the "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke" line in the introduction points towards Gnosticism and that "elitist" God that I think is highly unlikely to be valid.

Depends on the translation.

Some render the money adjective secret, which means "spoken face-to-face in private." Secretary preserves that sense of the word in modern English.

Hidden is good, too. It means "placed with the intention of being recovered." See Mark 4: 22 for an attested instance of the cognate of "hidden" in Greek having that sense, and also for a proper implication of the Greek cognate of "secret."

Both words have taken on esoteric (your elitist?) connotations, but it is hard to blame the translator for that. Even less so, a First or Second Century author.

BTW, there is canonical warrant for distinguishing between public and face-to-face sayings of Jesus, in Mark 4, from verse 10 until the already cited verse 22.

In any case, Thomas is hardly more Gnostic than John, and with the Jesus Seminar filter I suggested and cited, about as Gnostic as Mark.

Adj, the PTB were trying to kill the guy. Any excuse would do. Jesus needed to go with parables in public, and save the plain text for private consumption, until he had completed the mission. Then the Apostles would earn their tuition.

Good grief, you're the Christian, and I'm telling you that Jesus had a plan?

NOTurTypical

You've got to be kidding me.

There are more Gospels?

Umm, I gave links to the texts of three "other" gospels, and gave the searchable term for the mother lode (Nag Hammadi), and the particular category of apocrypha that adj and TD were discussing (Infancy Gospels)..

So do you object to anything I've posted? Have I offended you? Ought I slay something to make amends?

God or satan didnt kill a single soul. We did it ourselves.