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

Originally posted by adjensen

And this god is also not just love. As we see here the biblical god also has a penchant for hate and for very specific things.

Again with the circular logic and trying to force God to conform to what you want him to be. However, you're not even right on this accord -- those are all behaviours, and God says he hates those behaviours. The old "hate the sin, love the sinner" that we're all supposed to practice.

I'm not trying to force anything nor is it circular logic. That is pulled directly from the bible and the context is quite clear. If god has unconditional love as you claim, what does it matter if we engage in any of those behaviors?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

And this god is also not just love. As we see here the biblical god also has a penchant for hate and for very specific things.

Again with the circular logic and trying to force God to conform to what you want him to be. However, you're not even right on this accord -- those are all behaviours, and God says he hates those behaviours. The old "hate the sin, love the sinner" that we're all supposed to practice.

I'm not trying to force anything nor is it circular logic. That is pulled directly from the bible and the context is quite clear. If god has unconditional love as you claim, what does it matter if we engage in any of those behaviors?

Because it shows that you have no love for him.

Again, God is just. God loves you. God gives you some basic guidelines to live by. They are not unjust, and they don't really require all that much from you, aside from rejecting your own self centred nature (which, from personal experience, is really hard, even though it shouldn't be.)

But in the face of that, you reject him. You tell him to take his salvation and stuff it, because you don't need it, you don't need him, and you'll make do on your own. You, TD, take it one step further by actively working against him, trying to convince those who do believe that it is all a big hoax.

And yet, when it comes down to judgement, once you have no choice but to recognize who he is, and it's too late to go back and love him the way he loved you, you believe that God not welcoming you with open arms is somehow unjust?

Your circular logic is finding something that supports your claim, which you can only do if your claim is correct, and which, from a Christian standpoint, it is not. Works fine for the atheist who wants God to be unjust, wants God to be evil. Doesn't work so well for the faithful, who know better.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by adjensen]

Technically, one could be a mass murderous, child abusing, pedophile rapist, accept Jesus on his deathbed and be granted access to heaven.

I have always wondered what the injustice in that was supposed to be.

IRL, I have recently reconciled with someone with whom I have been hammer and tongs for several years. The person got in a jam, needs assistance, has few alternative sources for that assistance besides me, and simply caved on all issues that divide us, petitioning me for the favor.

Significantly, providing the requested assistance costs me basically nothing. I ain't no saint, just not pointlessly vindictive.

So, I assist. What is the problem? In what sense am I being unjust?

Though the nonbeliever who lived a charitable life as a good person gets eternal torture.

I don't think that is anywhere near universally taught among Christian denominations. However, I will defer to adj's explanation, based on grace, that is, based on salvation being a gift. I will also pass on the question of whether the alternative (or only alternative) to salvation is torture, according to "Christian consensus."

In typical Protestant thought, salvation is specifically not a reward for good behavior.

Yet another way in which Jesus is not Santa Claus. But that's another thread.

There is no injustice in not getting what you are not owed in the first place. This seems obvious to me. Further, the nonbeliever obviously expects no reward from God for being charitable. So, there is not even any defeated expectation or any violated "contract" about which to complain.

So, I don't get either leg of your justice dilemma.

If he created us he also instilled in us that free will. Very odd, too, considering that a being with the properties of the biblical god could not possess free will of his own. (If you are omniscient you are doomed to knowing everything to be done prior to your doing it).

I do not accept that foreknowledge with certainty of one's own choices makes the choices "unfree," even for a being in time and space.

Offered the choice between licorice ice cream and chocolate, I will invariably choose chocolate. I know this about myself. There is no doubt. How does that make the expression of my reliable liking for chocolate and of my reliable dislike of licorice "unfree"?

For any eternal being, one who exists outside time and space, whether or not a god, then there cannot be foreknowledge of anything, because there is no fore.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nlouise
OP, none of us are up to his standard. We are saved by grace. Christians are the only people who will tell you that. All other 'religions' has some form of human pride behind it, whether it is works, or following the OT Law, etc.

True Christians realize that we could never be perfect. It isn't about what we have done, it is about what he did for us. We didn't create Him, he created us.

I have a philosophical problem with such a thought. If a perfect being created humans, why then are we not up to his standard? If we're not up to his standard, why does he want our attention?

Hi OP. Ok, I just can't stop myself, here I am, back again.


He created us perfectly, however we are not perfect in our actions. Can you say that you are perfect? I know I am not.

God is perfection, he wants to perfect in us, but we don't listen to him, we do things our own way and that is why we are not up to standard. It is the condition of our hearts.

If we could say we are perfect, then it is no longer the Grace that God gives us, but something we have earned, and believe me, we have not earned anything.

Remember the guy in Matthew who told Jesus that he was following the law perfectly, what did he lack? Jesus told him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor, and follow him. The guy walked away sorrowful because he had accumulated a lot of wealth.


edit:
Someone refered to Hate the Sin Love the sinner.........Mahatma Gandhi said that, not in the Bible.


[edit on 7-9-2010 by nlouise]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SacGamer

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...

One concept that you have a hard time understanding is no one is innocent. If everyone is a sinner and I personally agree with that statement than everyone is deserving of punishment. So God has never killed an innocent as he knows everything we've done and what is in our heart.

You also tend to make God very small. Because something is to man does not make it necessary to God. God is not ruled by cause and effect as we are. For God to exist there can be no beginning and no end. Therefore God lives outside of cause and effect and this was created solely for our purpose. So God's death was the only cause that could affect the resurrection which was the only proof that man could understand as eternal life. God was not sacraficing to himself he was sacraficing himself to man because he loves us.

The bible teaches that God walked with man many times but it was not until the resurrection that people truly believed in the eternity of God.

For people like you, you are blessed. Jesus has told us that those who hear the word but don't understand it he will be more merciful to. For those who hear, understand and don't follow he will not be merciful. On judgment day I will be held to a higher standard than you. My hope is you will accept Jesus as savior, not to be saved after death but to experience being forgiven and saved by the loving and just father before death. And so you might know for certain that you are saved for eternal life.

Originally posted by adjensen
Again, God is just. God loves you. God gives you some basic guidelines to live by. They are not unjust, and they don't really require all that much from you, aside from rejecting your own self centred nature (which, from personal experience, is really hard, even though it shouldn't be.)

I keep hearing you claim things that seem unsupported by the texts which define christianity. I have challenged you on it and above you've changed the claim of unconditional love to reflect that there are guidelines (conditions). But instead of supporting your claims about god's nature when asked you simply make the claim again. I can take your unsupported word for it or I can refer to the religion's texts which display that god is not all love and not always just. Is it self-centered or circular logic to rely on those texts? Should I simply make up qualities that I'd like to see in god and hope for the best?

Originally posted by eight bits
So, I don't get either leg of your justice dilemma.

Because of the inherent disparity between human justice and cosmic, religious Judeo-Christian justice. Those who claim a "just god" must bridge that gap.

For any eternal being, one who exists outside time and space, whether or not a god, then there cannot be foreknowledge of anything, because there is no fore.

For any eternal being to exist outside of time and space, how then would it have any effect on those things that exist in time and space? The biblical god acts within our space and performs duties in a timely process.

There's a lot of goalpost shifting here. When convenient, move god outside time and space. When convenient, disregard the eternal torture for the non-believer. At some point there must be an economy of definitions we can rely on and agree to.

Originally posted by nlouise

He created us perfectly, however we are not perfect in our actions.

How can one make a claim that humans were created perfectly? Why so susceptible to disease and injury? Why so many birth defects and early maladies? Etc.

What is a "perfect action"? How does a god who made a perfect creation explain the inability for it to perform perfect actions?

There's a large disconnect between the claim and what is observable reality.

Originally posted by SacGamer
One concept that you have a hard time understanding is no one is innocent. If everyone is a sinner and I personally agree with that statement than everyone is deserving of punishment. So God has never killed an innocent as he knows everything we've done and what is in our heart.

I disagree. Infants and even fetuses are innocent. Both killed by god or on his instruction in the bible.

God was not sacraficing to himself he was sacraficing himself to man because he loves us.

No, he did sacrifice himself to himself, though allegedly for the benefit of man. Still, it wasn't a sacrifice anyway since he allegedly survived death and is said to live today.

On judgment day I will be held to a higher standard than you.

Perhaps you may find it polite for you to apologize for an insulting statement such as this.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Based on your statements you don't understand the word of God. Nor are you willing to listen to those who do. So based on the text in the bible my statement is true. You cannot dispute the text with a believer then refuse to accept that you are not a believer. So I was not being rude simply stating what I believe to be a fact as I have read it to be. You appear to be aware of the context but not of the meaning, but what I have said about judgment is clearly written for all to understand. Sorry if you are offended but you are claiming that which I believe in to be false. The point about children I believe you are correct but since they have not sinned they will not be judged. To me when God takes a child he has saved them from man and done nothing wrong. God has taken many people in my life at which I rejoice. You will not see me cry at a funeral because I know they are not dead.

Originally posted by SacGamer
Based on your statements you don't understand the word of God. Nor are you willing to listen to those who do. So based on the text in the bible my statement is true.

Your statement is reflective of what is written in the bible but you do not know it to be true. It's still insulting to relegate others in the name of your religion.

The point about children I believe you are correct but since they have not sinned they will not be judged.

Then your prior point about god not killing innocents has been refuted. Claiming that they will not be judged doesn't negate the action of god killing them or ordering their death.

God has taken many people in my life at which I rejoice.

Gosh that seems insensitive, to put it mildly. I'll let it pass on the context in which you wrote it .But still.. what a thing to say.

For any eternal being to exist outside of time and space, how then would it have any effect on those things that exist in time and space?

Beats me. Although I don't see any particular reason why it would be a handicap.

It wouldn't seem necessarily harder than for 3-dimensional me to make my presence felt on "Flatland," a 2-dimensional "universe." I would be quite literally outside the plane that is the entirety of that "universe,", yet, since the plane is embedded in my space, able to commute at will.

I am not offering that as a theological hypothesis, just showing that being outside a space does not exclude being effective within it, too. Not even in secular discourse.

When convenient, move god outside time and space.

It seems to me that the category god concerns an eternal being who can cause temporal things or events. So, nobody's "moved" any of the gods, that's where they've always been, if they've been.

Suppose there is an instance of the category god, for the sake of argument. The instance inherits the category properties.

If there is a god, then it has no foreknowledge, because there is no fore (alternatively, it could simply be that time is isotropic for a god, that is, time has directions, but not a privileged direction). If there isn't any god, then the problem doesn't come up, say no more.

When convenient, disregard the eternal torture for the non-believer.

People of faith disagree among themselves whether anybody gets tortured. And where is the Biblical claim that the only alternative to salvation is torture?

I don't know anybody who argues torture for all the unsaved one day, and no torture the next. The same person arguing something both ways would be a problem.

However, that different people, even vaguely allied people who all like the same book, have different ideas is fairly routine, and not peculiar to religious belief.

At some point there must be an economy of definitions we can rely on and agree to.

Lol. There are a billion and a half Nicene Christians, give or take. "Economy of definitions" isn't likely to happen.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Again, God is just. God loves you. God gives you some basic guidelines to live by. They are not unjust, and they don't really require all that much from you, aside from rejecting your own self centred nature (which, from personal experience, is really hard, even though it shouldn't be.)

I keep hearing you claim things that seem unsupported by the texts which define christianity. I have challenged you on it and above you've changed the claim of unconditional love to reflect that there are guidelines (conditions). But instead of supporting your claims about god's nature when asked you simply make the claim again.

Rather than me citing scripture that you're not interested in hearing, or recommending books that might help you understand why we believe what we do, but which you've already said you will not read, how about if you quit equivocating and just answer the question?

You know what God offers you, and you reject it, and you reject him. You go one step further by actively working against him, trying to convince believers that it is all a lie. When judgement of your behaviour comes, God grants you your wish, permanent absence from him.

How is this unjust?

Originally posted by adjensen
Rather than me citing scripture that you're not interested in hearing, or recommending books that might help you understand why we believe what we do, but which you've already said you will not read, how about if you quit equivocating and just answer the question?

You know what God offers you, and you reject it, and you reject him. You go one step further by actively working against him, trying to convince believers that it is all a lie. When judgement of your behaviour comes, God grants you your wish, permanent absence from him.

How is this unjust?

That's a predictably typical way to avoid all the questions and challenges I presented you: present me with The Threat.

I do have respect for you, adjensen. I think you can respond topically but for whatever reason you've chosen the lowest common denominator this time. You should know that isn't going to work on me. So, how about we have a level conversation instead? Rise to the challenge, sir. Back your contentions and respond to my inquiries.

Originally posted by eight bits
Lol. There are a billion and a half Nicene Christians, give or take. "Economy of definitions" isn't likely to happen.

Well then, if "anything goes" is a religious philosophy then it's simply an evolved response to counter the inquiries of the common skeptic. The goalposts may continually move. This is perhaps the reason for the longevity of the christian religion.

In the end the believer loses. With so many possibilities and uncertainties the self-crafted viewpoint of the believer may be vastly different from the objective truth. Disappointment will be a certainty for all but a few.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen
Rather than me citing scripture that you're not interested in hearing, or recommending books that might help you understand why we believe what we do, but which you've already said you will not read, how about if you quit equivocating and just answer the question?

You know what God offers you, and you reject it, and you reject him. You go one step further by actively working against him, trying to convince believers that it is all a lie. When judgement of your behaviour comes, God grants you your wish, permanent absence from him.

How is this unjust?

That's a predictably typical way to avoid all the questions and challenges I presented you: present me with The Threat.

I do have respect for you, adjensen. I think you can respond topically but for whatever reason you've chosen the lowest common denominator this time. You should know that isn't going to work on me. So, how about we have a level conversation instead? Rise to the challenge, sir. Back your contentions and respond to my inquiries.

I'm directly asking you to answer the question because this is where it went. I said that God is just and constant, and asked you to state whether you thought it more likely that God could be just and unjust, or that you were reading this scripture wrong and you didn't reply.

Instead, you moved on to say that God wasn't constant, because we believe that he loves us, and you cited something that indicated God hating. When I pointed out that none of that was God hating a person, but hating their actions, you went back to your "how can he be just if he's going to send me to eternal torture?" question.

I then asked you the question above, and you changed the subject again, to the question of unconditional love, rather than answer it. I'm just saying "enough is enough, stop avoiding this simple question by redirecting to something else."

The question remains, and it is not a threat, it merely asks for a clarification of something that you already stated. How is it unjust for God to grant you what you ask for, his absence?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nlouise

He created us perfectly, however we are not perfect in our actions.

How can one make a claim that humans were created perfectly? Why so susceptible to disease and injury? Why so many birth defects and early maladies? Etc.

What is a "perfect action"? How does a god who made a perfect creation explain the inability for it to perform perfect actions?

There's a large disconnect between the claim and what is observable reality.

Humans created perfectly: We have ears, eyes, a heart that pumps blood, hair, nose, teeth, ect. We have bodies that 'should' fight disease and illness, everything within our frame carries a unique function. That is physical perfection.

So susceptible to disease and injury: disease /dis·ease/ (dĭ-zēz´) any deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or function of any body part, organ, or system that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs and whose etiology, pathology, and prognosis may be known or unknown.

Why birth defects and early abnormalities: A whole host of reasons; vaccines, environmental factors, GM foods, smoking, drinking, perscription drugs, etc. God didn't do this, we did.

How does a god who made a perfect creation explain the inability for it to perform perfect actions? 'Sin', sin from the beginning, going back to the garden of Eden again. If you hypothetically believe the question you just asked, then obviously we weren't 'slaves' to God as others have claimed. We must have been allowed choices, and obviously the wrong ones were made.

disconnect between the claim and what is observable reality: What have I answered, that doesn't make any sense? What is not observable? Can you not see how birth defects can happen? Can you not see that your own body would not be functioning properly if you had not been created by perfection?

I would be asking where disease really does come from. There is a lot of information out there, available to the public. I know where the asthma I had came from. I went back to the vaccines that were given the year I was born and there it was; asthma. That info is available online. I have a brother that is 2-1/2 years younger than me, and when I looked up vaccine info for his year, dyslexia was a common side effect. My brother has it, sees things backwords.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You are kind of drawing straws at this point. Return to the basics. It is either all true or all false. Your response is that there are contradictions, and yet you fail to supply them, and then draw straws on other things to divert attention. This is really a sad course.

The fact remains. It is either all true or all false. Not in between. And in order for it all to be true, there must be an unjust action. Now you are welcome, still, on page 44, to prove without a doubt how God is not just. But I've failed to see you actually do this, which again is going on for 44 pages now. Your only response is the event in question. To use the topic as proof to reinforce the topic, is circular logic. Explaining why this question is still being asked 44 pages later.

So please do, if you dare, show how God is unjust. As we continue to await this proof, now 44 pages later.

With so many possibilities and uncertainties the self-crafted viewpoint of the believer may be vastly different from the objective truth.

Lol, TD, you've just described the human condition. Nothing special about religious believers in that regard.

Disappointment will be a certainty for all but a few.

Ditto.

Again, that all opinions cannot be correct is no reason for anybody to change theirs.

For what it's worth, I didn't intertpret adj's

When judgement of your behaviour comes, God grants you your wish, permanent absence from him.

as a threat.

We are, after all, discussing justice. And adj's question was, how was that unjust?

Giving somebody what they have asked for, without depriving anybody else of it, seems like a good candidate for a morally neutral or even affirmatively just act.

Unless, of course, you and I end up as roomies .

Originally posted by adjensen
How is it unjust for God to grant you what you ask for, his absence?

That is a loaded question. It presumes that I know god exists and I desire absence from him. In fact, I do not know that god exists and I'm already in the absence of god. So, this is not exactly a fair question.

But I'll play along. Assuming god does exist and these are his conditions it's still unjust to lay out such rules for a logical and thinking human while disguising your presence so well to convince some of us of your absence. To cosmically banish people for arriving at the conclusion that god doesn't exist after he intentionally hid so well is disturbingly evil.

Now that I've answered your question perhaps you could go back and address my previous inquiries.