Who has killed more - Satan or God?

[Blam!]

Fact remains: killing isn't murder.

Murder = unlawful (unjust) killing. You would need to prove that God is portrayed as killing unjustly.

"Literal" = not literal. Those are the words in english, literally, but not the 'literal meaning'.

Again you need to show how it was unjust. Since this is the nature we have (no matter what your religious beliefs), if God didn't do it was it nature that was unjust?

Technically speaking god didn't do anything Frods. It's your (and many other christians) concept of god that's being criticized. I have to ask you what the fuck you're talking about here? You go on like there's some agreement about "man's nature (no matter what religious beliefs you hold)" without realizing that this sentiment itself is just a religious belief? Nature isn't a moral lawgiver in any case Frods. Windmills.

Agreed. God doesn't exist, therefore god didn't do anything. All we have here is a religion, belief and concept of god.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't know the answer to this.
Which fictional character is attributed with death by smallpox, plague, childbirth, war? Ah but that's all wrong, god created us all as transient creatures so our deaths were part of his plan, god killed/will kill us all,...unless we kill him first.

[fr0d0]

Hey Blam

Don't you think the killings/atrocities committed by God can be considered as a "murder"?

No. The authors of the bible describe, from everything they observed and wrote down, that God is just and good. Yet you think they said the opposite. I would suggest that you misunderstand what you see.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
If Christians consider that verse as a "law" so they can kill homosexual since it is just "kill" and didn't considered as a "murder" since Christians didn't break the law?

1. That is a law of the time, applicableonly to that time.
2. The law decides what is 'just'. In my country there is no death penalty, so the law doesn't prescribe killing at all. It allows some killing to be justly motivated though.

Or God can do whatever he wishes since he's all-powerful?

God can only do what is logically possible, as he is a logical God. He cannot be bad, or do evil, or he would not be God (The Christian God).

Do I need to prove the atrocities/killings committed by God? The bible mentioned all of that shit already.

Indeed you do, because the bible says the opposite to that.

The bar graph of kill count by god- it's all summed up according to the bible [if you considered the bible as a "actual evidence" or not]. It's all in the bible, in the verses which we describe god's behavior with humanity.

Yes. The just taking of life. No murder.

I don't see TheSummerQueen's post in this thread and I don't recall of what has she said. Could you please refer me to the source?

Sure. It's here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-9333-pos...#pid202415

If God is trying to solve the "sin" problem then the atrocities against humanity does not make sense.

There are no "attrocities against humanity". You don't like the idea of humans sufferring. Neither do I. Do we think it just for a mother to defend a child by taking a life? How can we not allow God the same right?

God is supposedly omniscient, yet let Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit? Or that's a story to describe our nature? A metaphoric story for human beings capable of doing good things also doing evil things? Or a metaphoric story of disobedience against god?

It sets out our nature, as capable of understanding good and bad and choosing.

It's the starting point for this point of view: that human beings aren't perfect. A philosophical anchor point.

I should have said 'serious" instead of literal. Before, I thought literal is one of synonymic word for seriousness.

To me it's an incorrect understanding. People call it literal because they want to take the english approximation of the original language literally, rather than the actual meaning that can be thoroughly understood done seriously.

Well, the bible did mentioned that god is omniscient. Why punish humanity with "sin" that God created in first? If forbidden fruit don't consist of "sin" but conscience then why god punish humanity for ability to distinguish between good and evil?

The 'sin' was to choose death over life. All sin is people choosing what is destructive to them. Togetherness with God is what's good for us. If you said that in different words you might not have a problem with it.

[frankiej]

Don't you think the killings/atrocities committed by God can be considered as a "murder"?

No. The authors of the bible describe, from everything they observed and wrote down, that God is just and good.

Can't you maybe just think for yourself. You are just applying someone else's thought as your own... Just because a bunch of assholes said it thousands of years ago doesn't mean it is fact.
You should be a little sceptical of it.

[Nappeun]

1. Killing isn't bad. Murder is bad. God murdered no one. (eg a mother kills someone about to kill her child - a just taking of life)

I'm just gonna pretend that your point is valid and ask, if god was all-mighty, all-wise and all that stuff why did he even have to resort to such a barbaric act as killing, surely he could've thought of something better than what the average caveman would've come up with?

[Minimalist]

And why is "god" such a piss-poor marksman, Nappy.

Consider:

"Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel..." (I Chronicles 21:12)

"So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men." (I Chronicles 21:14)
Comment

David made an offense against God in taking a census of the people, so God gave David a choice. Oddly enough, David ignores God and never actually gets around to making a choice; so the Lord makes the decision for him and sends pestilence upon Israel.

It appears unclear as to why David committed a crime, but why shouldn't God have punished individual offenders instead of killing an army of innocent bystanders? Atrocities such as this appear outrageous enough when perpetrated by Attila the Hun, Hitler or Pol Pot, but when it comes from a, supposedly, loving God, it should make one wonder if this represents a Devil instead of a God.

So David fucks up a census and his fucking god kills 70,000 people. Why did the miserable bastard not just kill "David?"

[The Winter Saint]

Um, how about the flood? God didn't like the choices the world was making so he murdered the entire planet. Worst overreaction ever. Satan never went that far.

[Minimalist]

The flood was too early in the story for "satan." He hadn't been invented - or should I say imported from Zoroastrianism - yet.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/Satan_dvim.htm

Let’s start with the Hebrew Bible, the Tanach as it is called in Jewish literature. What role does Satan play in our Bible? The first appearance of the root word s-t-n (ןטש) is not as an individual at all, but as a verb meaning to hassle or oppose. In the story of Bilaam and the talking donkey, which we read a couple of weeks back, the donkey keeps shying away from the path because he can see an angel with a sword in the path to oppose him – “le-satan-lo.” The word is used elsewhere, most commonly as a noun “meaning an adversary who opposes and obstructs” (Ency. Jud; Satan) but in some places as a verb with respect to prosecution in a court of law (Ps. 109:6).



There are only three times where Satan as an individual turns up in the Tanach, and all are late in the Biblical period. Satan’s most famous appearance occurs in the the story of Job. If you recall that wonderful book, Satan appears to act as God’s prosecuting attorney with the role not just to look for misdeeds on earth but to try to see if people (not just Jews; there is no indication that Job was Jewish) could be tempted into cursing God. However, and this is a big “however,” Satan did so only with God’s permission.



Satan’s other two appearances are a bit ambiguous. In one instance, the prophet Zechariah refers to the satan (השטן) as creating divisions between the Jews who had returned to Eretz Ysrael from Babylon and those who had never left (Zech: 3:1-2). In another, the author of Chronicles laid blame on the satan for inducing King David to take a census of the people when it had not been authorized by God (1 Chron. 21:1). In these two cases, Satan seems to have some independence of action, but he is still an angel and certainly no match for God. To quote from Elaine Pagel’s wonderful book, The Origin of Satan (New York Random House, 1995; p. 39): “As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears . . . as one of God’s obedient servants.”

Scholars argue a 6th to 4th century BC date for "Job" which puts it solidly in the Persian period and therefore not much of a surprise that Zoroastrian ideas have been introduced. In fact, we have nothing other than the bible itself to indicate that Judaism existed at all prior to the Persian period and the bible is useless as history.

[Blam!]

Don't you think the killings/atrocities committed by God can be considered as a "murder"?

No. The authors of the bible describe, from everything they observed and wrote down, that God is just and good. Yet you think they said the opposite. I would suggest that you misunderstand what you see.

To the perspective of authors of the bible, yes, God is just and good. In modern time [Present], our perspective is opposite- I was asking out of perspective not by authors of the bible, I meant ours. For example, I do not consider Leviticus 20:13 is just and good - To me, it is a form of "murder". But what says you?

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
If Christians consider that verse as a "law" so they can kill homosexual since it is just "kill" and didn't considered as a "murder" since Christians didn't break the law?

1. That is a law of the time, applicable only to that time.
2. The law decides what is 'just'. In my country there is no death penalty, so the law doesn't prescribe killing at all. It allows some killing to be justly motivated though.

To #1, Agreed. The executions of homosexuals happened in the bible's period of time.
To #2, You're lucky to live in your country, rather than being as a resident in China.

Or God can do whatever he wishes since he's all-powerful?

God can only do what is logically possible, as he is a logical God. He cannot be bad, or do evil, or he would not be God (The Christian God).

In my perspective, I can't say the actions of Christian God [or Yahweh] against homosexuals are justified and good. Plus, there is slavery and some things are condoned by god in the bible.

Do I need to prove the atrocities/killings committed by God? The bible mentioned all of that shit already.

Indeed you do, because the bible says the opposite to that.

Even although I didn't mention the followers of god, considered god's action against homosexuals are considered as evil, unjust and atrocity. Or did I? I clear the misunderstanding in that topic. it's matter of perspective in our modern time, not in perspective of followers [or authors of bible] in the bible period. My apologies for the misunderstandings.

The bar graph of kill count by god- it's all summed up according to the bible [if you considered the bible as a "actual evidence" or not]. It's all in the bible, in the verses which we describe god's behavior with humanity.

Yes. The just taking of life. No murder.

In the perspective of followers in the bible period [or the perspective of authors of the bible], you are correct. However, in modern time, my perspective is opposite.

I don't see TheSummerQueen's post in this thread and I don't recall of what has she said. Could you please refer me to the source?

Sure. It's here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-9333-pos...#pid202415

Thanks for the reference. It cleared things up.

If God is trying to solve the "sin" problem then the atrocities against humanity does not make sense.

There are no "attrocities against humanity". You don't like the idea of humans sufferring. Neither do I. Do we think it just for a mother to defend a child by taking a life? How can we not allow God the same right?

In my perspective, the verses in the context is an atrocious act against humanity. But I'm glad you made clear that we don't like the idea of human beings suffering. About Mother to protect her offspring by taking a life - Logically speaking, God should be unable to condone the killings against humanity, if humanity is his creation [in other words, his children].

That make me to think -did authors of the bible describe Christian God [or Yahweh] are protective of his followers [children] rather than nonbelievers, infidels and heathens?

God is supposedly omniscient, yet let Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit? Or that's a story to describe our nature? A metaphoric story for human beings capable of doing good things also doing evil things? Or a metaphoric story of disobedience against god?

It sets out our nature, as capable of understanding good and bad and choosing.

It's the starting point for this point of view: that human beings aren't perfect. A philosophical anchor point.

So the bible says. But you are correct of human beings aren't perfect. We can improve ourselves peacefully as possible.

I should have said 'serious" instead of literal. Before, I thought literal is one of synonymic word for seriousness.

To me it's an incorrect understanding. People call it literal because they want to take the english approximation of the original language literally, rather than the actual meaning that can be thoroughly understood done seriously.

I understand, there's versions of the Bible such as King James Version, English, Hebrew or foreign languages. The mistranslations [or taken out of context] may be made. If you consider the story of Adam and Eve not as actual, but an actual meaning to describe our human nature, I can respect that.

Well, the bible did mentioned that god is omniscient. Why punish humanity with "sin" that God created in first? If forbidden fruit don't consist of "sin" but conscience then why god punish humanity for ability to distinguish between good and evil?

The 'sin' was to choose death over life. All sin is people choosing what is destructive to them. Togetherness with God is what's good for us. If you said that in different words you might not have a problem with it.

If Christians like believe in what is good, that's fine to me. Anyone have their methods.

[fr0d0]

Can't you maybe just think for yourself. You are just applying someone else's thought as your own... Just because a bunch of assholes said it thousands of years ago doesn't mean it is fact.
You should be a little sceptical of it.

Absolutely we need to think for ourselves. Point here is people saying that isn't what they said back then, when clearly it was.

Um, how about the flood? God didn't like the choices the world was making so he murdered the entire planet. Worst overreaction ever. Satan never went that far.

Whatever Gods reaction it was just. In Xtianity Jesus is the solution to that problem: God forgives and provides a way back.

To the perspective of authors of the bible, yes, God is just and good. In modern time [Present], our perspective is opposite- I was asking out of perspective not by authors of the bible, I meant ours. For example, I do not consider Leviticus 20:13 is just and good - To me, it is a form of "murder". But what says you?

Secular morality changes with the times. I believe that verse to refers to a secular law.

The law from God was right, the interpreters got it wrong sometimes. Jesus corrected the interpretations.

To #1, Agreed. The executions of homosexuals happened in the bible's period of time.
To #2, You're lucky to live in your country, rather than being as a resident in China.

#1 Yes I think that was very wrong. If 10% of people are homosexual (something I was told in school), I don't think it helps at all for ppl to be marginalised or persecuted.
#2 Yes I appreciate that.

In my perspective, I can't say the actions of Christian God [or Yahweh] against homosexuals are justified and good. Plus, there is slavery and some things are condoned by god in the bible.

/ In the perspective of followers in the bible period [or the perspective of authors of the bible], you are correct. However, in modern time, my perspective is opposite.

Well put.

Me neither. But I don't think that God condoned those things. Looking at slavery recently I understood that Gods influence on the slaves who became slave owners was to treat them more fairly that was common at the time.

I think that God's revelation of himself to his people was never "you shall do this without thinking about it". He didn't give them knowledge beyond their current understanding... hence the references in their own language and cultural framework of the way the cosmos was made up for example. His message was given using their setting, and not ours.

(hope that makes sense!)

About Mother to protect her offspring by taking a life - Logically speaking, God should be unable to condone the killings against humanity, if humanity is his creation [in other words, his children].

If the killing is just, then God can have no problem with it > being just.

If it is unjust, and the result of someone being bad, then God would have a problem with that bad act. We're going into the murky waters of free choice:

For us to be free to choose we must have the ability to do both right and wrong, without a higher power limiting that choice. If we choose bad, then the good deity is sad. I believe that in the end love always wins/ justice prevails.

That make me to think -did authors of the bible describe Christian God [or Yahweh] are protective of his followers [children] rather than nonbelievers, infidels and heathens?

The OT certainly says that. It also says that it rains on both equally.

If Christians like believe in what is good, that's fine to me. Anyone have their methods.

Yes definitely

Kudos Blam

---

1. Killing isn't bad. Murder is bad. God murdered no one. (eg a mother kills someone about to kill her child - a just taking of life)

I'm just gonna pretend that your point is valid and ask, if god was all-mighty, all-wise and all that stuff why did he even have to resort to such a barbaric act as killing, surely he could've thought of something better than what the average caveman would've come up with?

lol Well... there's the whole torture in eternity thing if that floats your boat.

Like I just said above... the biblical account never offers new scientific revelations beyond the culturally accepted one of the time. Min's flood account confirms that.