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

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nlouise

That example aside, let's look at some of the other killings of OT people. Job's 10 children appear to be innocent of any crime. David's newborn infant (2 Sam.12:14-18) killed by god was certainly innocent of any crime. The genocidal massacre of the Midianites (Num. 31) involved the killing of the male children also (along with all the men and all of the women who had slept with men).

While certain "crimes" are detailed of some of the people killed, there is no question as to the innocence of many of the people killed by god in the OT.

With Jobs story it clearly wasn’t God. It was Satan, and he had to get permission from God because those who are in relationship with God are under his protection. The 10 kids of Job: We do know it says that Job made atonement for them just in case they cursed God. (what???) This shows how much Job loved them. It however suggests that they (the kids) didn’t always do well.

This is in Ezekiel 14

God is talking about the condition of Israel’s heart. (5 That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols)

Then he talks about how they need to go directly to Him instead of through the Prophets. And then he mentions 3 names several times over Noah, Daniel, and Job. He mentions how when its time to atone for sin that these men were righteous, and that others need to be responsible for their own atonement.

(14Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.)

(16Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate.)

(18Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves.)

(20Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.)

This was repeated so many times, which leads me to believe that not only was Job making the atonement for his kids, Noah and Daniel were doing the same thing. This is not accountability this is enabling.


I will get to the other ones tomorrow. I have to get some sleep tonight.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You fail to understand the purpose of GODS killing in the Bible. In nearly every instance that God kills he is teaching. People were doing things that were inherently bad for them and not many would disagree. The people the Jews were instructed to kill were worshiping Pagan Gods and practicing human sacrifice. I’m sure you would let them continue to sacrifice their children in fire and allow them to teach how good this was to the masses. God decided that it was better for them and everyone else if they died. What better way to make sure this practice stops? Most people were on their way to personal destruction of some kind. So God is actually saving these people from their own destruction by ending their life early. If you were to read and understand the bible God tells you that no one who dies on earth is dead. So God did not kill anyone, he simply change their state of being to a spiritual one.

The purpose of Jesus dying on the cross is to represent the ultimate love, sacrifice, and grace that one could give to another. He endures this punishment to teach how much love one can show, what real sacrifice is and how even his murders could be forgiven. His resurrection is what proves his claim that he came to save sinners and had the authority to do so. The Christian religion is proof of his resurrection. Do you think anyone would believe that he was indeed GOD after watching him be crucified? Would anyone continue to teach and be persecuted for a dead GOD? Only people who witnessed the death and resurrection would believe enough to endure the persecution that the early Christian church endured.

Originally posted by Gorman91
That said, why does God have to be logical? This is the same God that basically made Noah build a TARDIS, and does a ton of crazy other stuff.

Why should humans suspend their logic when observing the behavior of an illogical god?

Logic and God are borderline incompatible. Logic is bound to common sense. Common sense dictates we should all not exist for the horrible world we create wherever we go.

I disagree that common sense dictates we should not exist. Such thoughts are not common sense but are caused by the stain of believing an illogical god telling humans they are not up to his standard.

So yea, I fail to see how logic is even applicable to God. Not to mention this is way off topic to the original post. You either accept it all or deny it all. You still have not resolved this issue.

If you accept it all then they were not innocent. If you deny it all it is irrelevant because it is a myth to begin with and those people were not killed by a god.

Make a choice.

In this post you're imploring people not to use their logic when it comes to assessing the biblical god's actions, that it is just to be accepted, and all of it to boot. Why is this? My guess, because accepting all of the bible becomes impossible because of the contradictions and morally repugnant behavior of its god, therefore we should not think about what's going on in the story. Sorry but I cannot shut off a natural function of thought, particularly when it comes to a morally dubious and murderous god demanding my worship. Should one willingly honor a bully?

reply to post by nlouise


I've read your contentions about a few of these incidents and I'm not particularly convinced of the "guilt" or "crimes" of the deceased. Still, what it all comes down to is that if we can somehow imagine the guilt of those killed by god it somehow makes it okay.

I can't square such thinking. If we have a god which is all-powerful amongst other traits, there is nothing that a mortal human can do to harm it. The act of killing by god for such petty crimes as offending him, or appearing wicked, or conducting a census, or blaspheming reveals the actions of a god with a petty, undesirable, brat-like personality unable to contain his rage and power when faced with adversities easily overcome by humans.

I understand this viewpoint may be perceived as offensive and if so I apologize, but this is simply a viewpoint of an outsider looking in - not someone trying to square up the behavior of a god they believe in. How can the rational person excuse this god's behavior simply because of the desire to believe and if one believes in him how could they in good conscience follow and worship him?

Originally posted by SacGamer
You fail to understand the purpose of GODS killing in the Bible. In nearly every instance that God kills he is teaching. People were doing things that were inherently bad for them and not many would disagree. The people the Jews were instructed to kill were worshiping Pagan Gods and practicing human sacrifice. I’m sure you would let them continue to sacrifice their children in fire and allow them to teach how good this was to the masses. God decided that it was better for them and everyone else if they died. What better way to make sure this practice stops? Most people were on their way to personal destruction of some kind. So God is actually saving these people from their own destruction by ending their life early. If you were to read and understand the bible God tells you that no one who dies on earth is dead. So God did not kill anyone, he simply change their state of being to a spiritual one.

I don't agree with this at all. Your argument amounts to "they needed killing". It presumes that there is no other way to being about change than death, on a capricious whim from a god. It also presumes that the killing is acceptable because it's not really death, just a change. It also does not address the killing of clearly innocent people in order to punish another person that actually angered god (David's infant, several genocides, the taking of a census, etc).

The purpose of Jesus dying on the cross is to represent the ultimate love, sacrifice, and grace that one could give to another. He endures this punishment to teach how much love one can show, what real sacrifice is and how even his murders could be forgiven. His resurrection is what proves his claim that he came to save sinners and had the authority to do so. The Christian religion is proof of his resurrection. Do you think anyone would believe that he was indeed GOD after watching him be crucified? Would anyone continue to teach and be persecuted for a dead GOD? Only people who witnessed the death and resurrection would believe enough to endure the persecution that the early Christian church endured.

How is it a sacrifice if the sacrificed is only dead for three days then goes on to live forever? Why was it necessary for god to sacrifice himself to himself? What is the logic in following a god that requires sacrifices to begin with, then one who sacrifices himself to himself as a final act designed to fulfill a rule that he himself invented arbitrarily (and therefore could have just eliminated the rule and prevented all the bloodshed)?

It seems to me that this god has a real bloodlust for such a merciful god. And what does he do to people such as me who don't believe and worship him? Eternal torture. It would seem to me that this god and his followers have a lot of explaining to do...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nlouise

That example aside, let's look at some of the other killings of OT people. Job's 10 children appear to be innocent of any crime. David's newborn infant (2 Sam.12:14-18) killed by god was certainly innocent of any crime. The genocidal massacre of the Midianites (Num. 31) involved the killing of the male children also (along with all the men and all of the women who had slept with men).

While certain "crimes" are detailed of some of the people killed, there is no question as to the innocence of many of the people killed by god in the OT.

David’s newborn infant (II Sam 12:14-18)

Need to go back to the previous chapter.

David saw Bathsheba and had to have her. Even after He found out that she had a husband (Uriah) who was out to battle.

David slept with her and she got pregnant.

By the time Uriah got back from battle, the pregnancy would have been obvious.

In order to cover up what David did he set Uriah up for a battle that he knew would have him killed. He also kept Uriah from visiting Bathsheba, in a cunning manner, prior to that battle setup, to cover what he had done in the first place..

Now here is David, the one that the Messiah is to come from (bloodlines). This child would have been next on the throne of David.

Suppose God had punished David with boils or some other infliction instead, until he repented? Because Bathsheba and David became married, what do you think would have been going on in the mind of David every time he looked upon the child, knowing he murdered behind that pregnancy? Guilt. Anyone that has committed a sinful act knows that the constant ‘reminder’ is what keeps them in bondage to that sin.

Also, what would have been the state of the child growing up, knowing that his father murdered another man, not because he wanted to take the wife away, but because he had to hide the fact that he was born?

That child is with God. The child was not at an age of accountability, so we know it is with God. They didn’t have adoption agencies back then. Further more, God could have taken the child instantly, but instead allowed them a few days before taking him.

There is a 2-fold punishment here. The real punishment was that the ‘Temple’ was not going to be under David. He was taken out of that equation by this very act (Bathsheba/baby). It was the next baby that God blessed David with, ‘Solomon’, who built the temple instead, still providing a Messianic bloodline, and no blood on David’s hands behind his birth..

edit: don't know why the quotes didn't separate. tried to fix.


[edit on 4-9-2010 by nlouise]

OP, if Job understood these things, and David understood these things, and countless others, and these things involved them......why are you carring the torch for them? Do you feel like God is responsible for something that happened in your own life? Something bad?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


logic is perfectly well. I do not suspend my logic when trying to understand God. I simply accept that its useless with God. it's like having a hammer under water. You can have it and try to use it, but it's sort of useless.

Humanity should not exist. Take away God all together and look at the world. Take away religion, people would still be fighting. Give them resources, they would stop fighting over that and start fighting over who has the money from them. Give them all money and they will fight over ethical and political differences. Take that away, and you no longer have humans. You have a bunch of mindless zombies doing their jobs and agreeing with each other, causing stagnation of development, social contradiction, and decay, which eventually leads to our extinction.

Sorry, but humanity is simply not worth it to exist. We see no time travelers, no big things, nothing at all. Meaning that nobody even likes us enough to intervene. We have these vague tales of alien contacts but they are always basically aliens that look like something human but slightly different, indicating fiction because most gods are just the same. Human but slightly different.

I've posted this before, but humanity can basically be summed up like this:



Sure we are capable of better, but that always requires us to ignore basic impulses. We have to ignore our nature to improve. Which is our downfall. For all societies naturally decay and die, and therefore all societies in time eventually forget to ignore their nature, and return to their animal-like core behaviors.

Humanity has no point to exist. We are a blight.


And once again you twisted it. You keep speaking but not supplying This is a major no no. Sorry but I cannot turn off my natural desire to call out bulls*t when I hear it.

You say contradictions but do not supply. You say moral repugnant, but when faced with having to accept the whole bible or deny the whole bible, you cannot pick one or the other. Because you can't. It would mean your logic falls apart.



I'm still waiting for your ability to not pick and choose and put meat on these bones you say exist. Claims without proof is lie.

So how about you stop twisting matters and get down the the most basic fact. According to the whole bible, prove that those people were good people who did not deserve to die.

Originally posted by nlouise

OP, if Job understood these things, and David understood these things, and countless others, and these things involved them......why are you carring the torch for them?

Understood what things?

Do you feel like God is responsible for something that happened in your own life? Something bad?

Honestly, I don't believe there is one, so no.

Originally posted by Gorman91 According to the whole bible, prove that those people were good people who did not deserve to die.

I have several times over.

I keep doing it.

At what point do I determine you're not paying attention?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I proved your examples wrong, several times over. You never even responded how my responses were wrong. You just said they were wrong and picked and chose. Chose one or the other, not pieces of both.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nlouise

OP, if Job understood these things, and David understood these things, and countless others, and these things involved them......why are you carring the torch for them?

Understood what things?

Do you feel like God is responsible for something that happened in your own life? Something bad?

Honestly, I don't believe there is one, so no.

They understood the reasons why God was doing what he did. Davids punishment was on his own head. He even got a choice.

The 3 Choices

7 years of famine
3 months of enemy pursuit
3 days of fatal epidemic

14And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

That meant, at least punishment was better from God than separation from Him.

To go one step farther about innocent people, do you know who the ‘Tribe of Dan’ is today? Can you say Illuminati? Do you think they are innocent people? Do you not think they are all blood relatives?
Who owns Wallstreet? the Big Banks? The largest Corporations? Israel? The USA? Who rules the Pope? Who rules the Monarchy in England? Tribe of Dan, its all about bloodlines. Tribe of Dan are the powers that be today.

15So 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.

Why do you think bloodlines are so important throughout the Bible? Why do think bloodlines are so important to the TPTB? Why do you think the problem in the garden of Eden was such a big one? (Cain/Able) Who do you think Dan was? Decendants of Cain.

In Revelations it talks about 12,000 from every tribe will be sealed by God before the destruction of the end. Only one tribe name is missing: Dan. Dan means judgement.


EDIT: OP, remember I offered a link earlier? This was the original topic of that post. Whether Satan fathered Cain or not. Bloodlines?

[edit on 4-9-2010 by nlouise]

edit: the reason David chose the worst punnishment was because it was the shortest term of separation from God. Each punnishment lifted Gods hand of protection with it. Each choice was somthing that God protected Davids people from, that apparently he had forgotten.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by nlouise]

TD, when I was at Mass tonight, a passage that I read reminded me of something that may be relevant to understanding the perspectives of those who are disagreeing with you, particularly Gorman91.

If one takes a fundamentalist view of the Bible, as both you and Gorman (and others) are doing, Gorman is correct in that one must view it ALL to be inerrant, and that, when contradictory issues arise, one must assume that they (the reader) are in error, not the text (apart from mistakes in translation or transcription.)

Both Christians and Jews believe that God is just, and that this justice is a fundamental piece of who God is (even as a non-fundamentalist, I believe this.) This is repeated many times in the Bible, so from your fundamentalist reading, you (atheist or not) must also accept that God is just.

Because of this, he would not kill 70,000 innocents to simply make a point with David, because this is a patently unjust action. If you accept this incident as being factual, you are forced to reconcile the act with the fact that it cannot be unjust.

Therefore, your choices are to either accept that there is an aspect of this incident which was not reported, but which makes it a just act (which is Gorman's point,) or that your fundamentalist reading of the Bible is incorrect, and that this incident is a fictional or interpreted event which has no bearing on the overall message of Christ (which is my point.)

There is no middle ground, of assuming that God can be just one minute and unjust the next, because this is in complete opposition to the nature of God as viewed by both the Jewish and Christian perspectives. You are welcome to hold such a view, but you can only do so outside of those faiths.

Hope that helps.

My point of view is that relationship with God is key, then knowledge.
Without relationship there is no marriage.

reply to post by Gorman91


I liked that human animations clip. Must have missed it when you posted it before. Great anology.

How many Killed themselves?

If you know God's law and the consequences for breaking God's law you commit yourself to that fate by your own actions.

You kill someone on earth, you know societies law so you sentenced yourself by your own actions.

Nobody else to blame.....

adjensen

Therefore, your choices are to either accept that there is an aspect of this incident which was not reported, but which makes it a just act (which is Gorman's point,)

Well, there's no choice about it. The 2 Samuel piece is visibly a fragment. It opens with God already angry again at the nation collectively, but without any indication of what God is angry about now, nor to what previous occasion the again refers.

We cannot exclude that the entire fragment is a counterfactual hypothetical, the favored form of prophecy. In other words, the missing part could be "Jerebab said unto David and the people of all the nation, 'The LORD says that if you persist in your sins, O Israel, then it will be written of you in future days that...'"

Add in that God inspires David to take the "census," and that conformity to God's will is not sin. It is obvious that the fragment simply cannot stand on its own as a complete account of the incident, if any such incident happened, as distinct from being prophesied or otherwise discussed.

Finally, we keep calling God's and David's project a "census" when it plainly is a military conscription, or the establishment of a framework for a national-scale conscription. The project may well not be a morally neutral act. Yet, the information we would need to understand the project is not provided in the received text.

or that your fundamentalist reading of the Bible is incorrect, and that this incident is a fictional or interpreted event

I have edited your remark there, not to cut off your witness to your faith, but to make a secular point.

More than many religious apologists, atheists are inclined to boast about their application of formal logic to religious questions.

It is certainly fine to argue, as TD and others have done in this thread, that the Bible contains contradictions. The price of doing so, however, is that one cannot then validly infer, exclusively from Biblical evidence, the character of any Biblical incident.

A contradiction implies everything, including everything and its opposite.

God killed 70,000 people AND God did not kill 70,000 people AND
Those people were guilty AND Those people were not guilty

follows of logical necessity from

God is just AND God is not just (or whatever Biblical contradiction one points to).

Like everybody else, atheists would prefer to have their cake and eat it, too. But logic is a harsh mistress. Once you have argued that a source contains a contradiction, then you must conclude that no proposition whatsoever may be validly inferred from the source.

Who asserts the Bible contains contradictions surely is entitled to have a personal opinion about a Biblical question, but that opinion and its opposite are of equal logical validity. Which is to say, neither can be said to be logical.


[edit on 5-9-2010 by eight bits]

reply to post by nlouise


Simply because David knew the punishment doesn't mean that innocent people didn't pay the price for it. And yes I am aware of the "Tribe Of Dan", though if they were so guilty, 1. god didn't punish the right ones, and 2, there is no specification of such guilt in either account of the event and such guilt remains an assumption.

Again, this still relies on the presumption that the "crime" of ticking god off makes it okay for him to kill them.

Originally posted by adjensen
If you accept this incident as being factual, you are forced to reconcile the act with the fact that it cannot be unjust.

Sure and there's a lot of controversy with this single incident because of the inherent contradiction. One cannot avoid contradiction by "The Two Options": believe all of it or believe none of it. [Well, the latter works]. Because in your case you are NOT a fundamentalist or literalist yet you use the bible.

We cannot simply assume that the killing of innocents is somehow just. This does not square with the rational individual's sense of morality. As you've implied, we must simply assume that it was just even if the evidence points elsewhere many times in the bible. The message behind all this killing could not be to demonstrate god's mercy, rather to demonstrate god's power and the fact that irritating him in the slightest will result in a fatal display of power. That is, the might-makes-right approach. This is why so many people refer to themselves as "god fearing".

I would just like to point out that today if we kill people because of their race, it is a hate crime, but the god of the bible killed entire demographics because of the actions of a few of their people.

I personally believe that the bible is not the word of god. I do not know if god exists in the judeo-christian sense, I lean more towards buddhist and hindu philosophies.

Just as history is written by those who win wars, the bible was written, re-written, revised and edited by whomever controlled the known world, and because the original source has been so raped and tainted, we can never know it in its original form.