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

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


No. That was over it all, that's why he stopped the angel from destroying Jerusalem.

the LORD was grieved because of the calamity

The calamity had already occurred. The destruction of Jerusalem had not.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

You are saying they are innocent because it is not stated they were not. So you are in doing so calling God guilty of killing innocents until proven guilty. This is nothing short of flawed logic.

There is no flawed logic whatsoever. For the sixth time perhaps, the 70K people killed were not guilty of David's "crime".

The flawed logic comes from you in making things up about the guilt of these people in order for a prior bible claim to remain true. That is nothing more than a widely stretched assumption.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


And probably for the 7th time I'm going to say it, if a person is punished for their crime during the punishment of another, you hit two birds with one stone. What is wrong with that?

reply to post by Gorman91


But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousness are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.

Isaiah 64:6

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

And probably for the 7th time I'm going to say it, if a person is punished for their crime during the punishment of another, you hit two birds with one stone. What is wrong with that?

Then you have assumed the guilt of clearly innocent people without any valid reason or basis for doing so. You shouldn't just make stuff up about the bible.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I am not. No statement of bad or good people is given, They are just stated as people. Nothing more. So you have to go to another part to see the type of people God kills.

If you claim I am making stuff up, by all means say how. I am not assuming anything. I am using the whole bible in context, not out of context snippets as you have been doing.

Not a very good allegory -- how about "I give you two boxes. One has 20 gold coins that you know are gold. The other has 10 gold coins that you know are good, 10 that might be good, and 20 that you know are not good, and it's up to you to sort them all out." Which box would you prefer?

Not analogous to the problem. I have one box of assayed gold pieces, and I am offered a second box for free, but with no guarantee that there's any real gold piece inside the second box. I'll have to work to assay the second box, if I accept it.

Meh. I'll take the second box, and work on it for a while.

(Actually, that closely parallels my experience of the Nag Hammadi cache. I had already read Thomas, so I thought I should check out the rest. Oh well. At least now I can say I have read these things.)

If you put the passage in Luke back in its context,...

That has a ring to it

the verses that follow your cite clarify that Jesus is referring to himself, he is among you.

Really? I read it as Jesus dividing the question. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom, he is not speaking of his return. That would be consistent with a role that Luke clearly aspires to, IMO, setting the earlier record straight (yes, we differ about the relative dating of Mark).

As late as the opening verses of Acts, disciples are still asking, like kids in the back seat on a long drive, "Are we there yet?" Jesus' answer is impatient (well, he actually is about to embark on a long trip, and how many times has he heard this question already?). God will see to Israel in his own good time, meanwhile, you have work to do.

Which, BTW, is what I think John the Baptist preached, and what Jesus was saying in Luke 17. Everybody in Israel gets right with God, starting here and now, and God will do right by Israel, in due course.

In any case, there is nothing in the verses in Luke 17 that follow what I quoted that say "You know, when I was talking to the Pharisees a little while ago, I meant me."

spread out upon the Earth, which a person cannot be.

No more than a person can be a kingdom. (Metaphorical escape hatch for one is escape for the other... don't touch that dial.)

Similar statement, significantly different meaning.

Words are like that. All the more reason to see the difference slightly different wordings make... you know, what with scribal error, history being written by the victors, Peter not being tippity top with verbal subtlety, while Jesus revels in it... that sort of thing.

I just believe that the core of what is canonical is sufficient,...

Sufficient for your salvation. Fine, I understand that. But there are other questions. If I 'm going to roast while you coast, then damned if I'm not interested in why.

Originally posted by Gorman91
I am using the whole bible in context

No, you are assuming the guilt of 70K people killed in order to stand by a statement made elsewhere, in a different context, in the bible. I'm sorry, but you've clearly been shown several times that your assertions about the people in the census incident are incorrect. Good day, sir!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


No, the other part was in regards to destruction of sinful people. You can say good day sir, but you've twisted and demented this unbelievably. Try reading the whole thing to see the whole thing, rather than pieces to judge by pieces. What you are doing is equatable to judging someones whole character and whole life based on, perhaps, a false accusation of rape. Try knowing the person and what their whole life is about, much the same is with the bible.

But alas, I suppose you'd rather stand by your archaic beliefs and dare not question them.

You are assuming the people were innocent and in doing, you are telling God he is guilty until proven innocent.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Is it the large number that makes them innocent? Is it impossible that a large number of people are all bad people? Take a look at history. It is very much so likely.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Gorman91]

TD, I just came across this while looking for something else, and thought it was a slightly different way to look at what I explained yesterday. Don't dismiss it from the first couple of paragraphs (I almost did :-) because that's not where he's going.

www.voiceofjesus.org...

Not analogous to the problem. I have one box of assayed gold pieces, and I am offered a second box for free, but with no guarantee that there's any real gold piece inside the second box. I'll have to work to assay the second box, if I accept it.

Meh. I'll take the second box, and work on it for a while.

Okay, and I'll take that as well.

In any case, there is nothing in the verses in Luke 17 that follow what I quoted that say "You know, when I was talking to the Pharisees a little while ago, I meant me."

The similarities in the wording of Lk 17:20-21 and 17:22-24 leads me to the conclusion that he is talking about himself in the first bit. It seems unlikely that he's talking about the Kingdom of God in the new age, as the statement that it is among them now is contradictory to that, which is where the line in Thomas takes me as well.

Sufficient for your salvation. Fine, I understand that. But there are other questions. If I 'm going to roast while you coast, then damned if I'm not interested in why.

lol, would never deny you that, and I sincerely hope that neither you nor TD, nor anyone else, "roasts" for simple lack of belief. But the topics of the doctrine of hell and purgatory is well beyond the scope here :-)

Originally posted by Gorman91
You are assuming the people were innocent and in doing, you are telling God he is guilty until proven innocent.

I have demonstrated that they were innocent. You have assumed that they were guilty. And yes, god is guilty of killing 70K people, no question. (And that just in this one incident). Sorry, but I'm not interested in entertaining your assumptions any further.

Originally posted by adjensen
TD, I just came across this while looking for something else, and thought it was a slightly different way to look at what I explained yesterday. Don't dismiss it from the first couple of paragraphs (I almost did :-) because that's not where he's going.

www.voiceofjesus.org...

Interesting, actually. Ultimately, it concludes in imploring that one should put it all aside and simply listen to the words and promises of Jesus. Which is a bit odd considering it uses a fair amount of reason throughout the article to dismiss many aspects of the bible as being literal or being directly from god - yet when it comes to Jesus there is no importance on employing the same reasoning. And sure, listening to Jesus' humanitarian opinions are interesting (and groundbreaking for the time), yet how are we to discern the truth of his metaphysical claims and promises?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Well there you go twisting again. I am not assuming they were guilty and I am not denying their deaths. Stop twisting these things. Dear God, how can anybody debate with you when you change what is being debated to your favor and ignore the possibility of being wrong?

I didn't read through all 29 pages of this thread, so forgive me if this was already posted, but this thread reminds me of this exchange from the movie "Manhunter."

Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: Did you really feel depressed after you shot Mr. Garrett Jacob Hobbes to death? l think you probably did. But it wasn't the act that got to you. Didn't you feel so bad, because killing him felt so good? And why shouldn't it feel good? lt must feel good to God. He does it all the time. God's terrific! He dropped a church roof on 34 of his worshippers in Texas last Wednesday night, just as they were groveling through a hymn to his majesty. Don't you think that felt good?

Will Graham: Why does it feel good, Dr. Lecktor?

Doctor Hannibal Lecktor: lt feels good because God has power. lf one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is. God's a champ. He always stays ahead. He got 140 Phillipinos in one plane crash last year. Remember that earthquake in ltaly last spring?

Here's the clip of the scene from the film:



[edit on 8/25/2010 by LifeInDeath]

reply to post by Gorman91


You are assuming, because you certainly haven't demonstrated their guilt, only asserted it. Nor have you refuted my demonstration of their innocence.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You're demonstration of their innocence is what? Exactly what was your proof? It wasn't their crime? I told you two birds with one stone. You ignored this. So unless you have a counter to that, you're twisting and drawing straws. Because according to that same bible God does not kill innocent people. So if it is not stated, it is guilty.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
TD, I just came across this while looking for something else, and thought it was a slightly different way to look at what I explained yesterday. Don't dismiss it from the first couple of paragraphs (I almost did :-) because that's not where he's going.

www.voiceofjesus.org...

Interesting, actually. Ultimately, it concludes in imploring that one should put it all aside and simply listen to the words and promises of Jesus. Which is a bit odd considering it uses a fair amount of reason throughout the article to dismiss many aspects of the bible as being literal or being directly from god - yet when it comes to Jesus there is no importance on employing the same reasoning. And sure, listening to Jesus' humanitarian opinions are interesting (and groundbreaking for the time), yet how are we to discern the truth of his metaphysical claims and promises?

I guess that his point vis-a-vis Jesus is that, assuming that one gets beyond the whole "supernatural" aspect of there being a God (rather a critical point for considering it at all) then he's fairly consistent with his description of the natural world, though occasionally putting it in terms that are either appropriate to the age that he was in, or were interpreted by those in that age (the whole disease as demons business we discussed elsewhere, though a case could be made that they weren't diseases at all, but actual possessions -- leprosy seems to be dealt with in a non-demonic manner, for example.)

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

You're demonstration of their innocence is what? Exactly what was your proof? It wasn't their crime? I told you two birds with one stone. You ignored this. So unless you have a counter to that, you're twisting and drawing straws. Because according to that same bible God does not kill innocent people. So if it is not stated, it is guilty.

I did not ignore this. I pointed out that you simply assumed their guilt. Your only claim to their guilt has been "well, everyone was basically a barbarian in those days". Your assumptions don't cut it.

And yes, the "crime" that angered god enough to kill 70K people wasn't the crime of those 70K people.

Originally posted by adjensen
then he's fairly consistent with his description of the natural world,

This alone cannot be the criteria by which we determine the divinity of the books nor the accuracy of Jesus' metaphysical claims. It was an interesting article in many ways but it seemed to fall short in it's conclusion....

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I repeat, The Bible says God does not kill innocents. But all men are guilty of crime. So God will not punish those who do not know their sin until the last day.

It's as simple as that. If you can't understand that, then you are drawing straws and nothing more.

Here's a handy dandy flow chart seeing as you don't get it.




[edit on 25-8-2010 by Gorman91]