Summations Only

PD,I am glad that I can count patience among my personal attributes.

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

His position is that since some believe the stories to be true, those deaths should be added to the religious tally.

Butterflytyrant writes:

​

My position is - A person who believes that the deaths in the bible really occured, needs to count those deaths in the death toll.

​

your reply - I'm not seeing the difference.

---

I know you dont see it. What I cant work out is how it is possible for you not to see it. You keep missing it over and over and over again.I will try in this post one last time to explain this to you. After this you may have to just step out of the discussion as you cannot grasp a quite important part. If you cant understand this point, you will not be able to make any sensible comments.One more time with feeling...We have a new person, his name is Donald.Donald has reached his own personal position in regards to his moral superiority with careful thought.This is the point you are not getting. Donald has used his own beliefs to develop his position on morals.In Donalds case, the events and situations he either personally witnessed or knows about and believes are true have been used to develop his own opinion in relation to moral superiority.This does not mean that Donalds beliefs need to be applied to all other people. That would make no sense. But Donalds beliefs need to be taken into account when in discussion with Donald.If Donald counts those deaths when he is establishing his position in regards to moral superiority, then why should we not?This does not mean that the biblical deaths need to be applied to the religious tally for all of the people on the religious side. You keep missing that point. The biblical deaths need only be taken into consideration for the people that include those deaths in their calculations when establishing their moral superiority.You keep suggesting that I am trying to add the deaths in the bible to the religious tally for all of the religious side. This is an error on your part.Look at the statements you have quoted - now look at my statement - See how in your version, you are referring to the entire religious sides tally whereas in my quote, I am referring to a single person- "a person".

quote:

---

I am not choosing what someone adds to their own tally.

​

I am reminding those that believe that the bible is historically accurate that THEY need to add the deaths to their tally.

---

I know you're not. Amazing isn't it. I am as surprised as you are.

PD, You are missing the one important point. The only people who need to add the deaths in the bible to their tally are the people who believe that the Bible is a historically accurate book.If they have arrived at their position of moral superiority by counting the death toll of the respective teams, then they need to make sure that they count the deaths in the bible.Only those who belive that the biblical deaths did occur need to do this.Protillo, as you have pointed out, does not believe that the deaths in the bible really occured. So he does not need to add the deaths in the bible to his count.A bible literalist, who makes a statement like 'I believe that my faith has caused less deaths than yours' needs to add the deaths that he has counted that have lead him to establishing this position.I realise that I was unclear in the very first message, however I have made it clear since then.I have made it clear that the deaths in the bible need only be taken into account for the people who believe that the bible is a historical document.from Message 80
from Message 80
from Message 87
from Message 95
from Message 95
from Message 95
from Message 95
Notice from that last example where I stated 'person A' many times. Notice how 'person A' is singular. Its not refering to all religious people or the entire opposition to the OP. It id referring to 'person A' (whoever person A may be). from Message 95 from Message 95 from Message 108I have corrected you on this point on enough occasions now that you should not be making the same error. The issue is not deaths caused by 'religion free' people. It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons. If a person had developed their position of moral superiority through that religious book, then I will give a tentative yes. You would need to be a bit more specific about what you are saying though. Perhaps give an example of what you mean. Your continued repetition of the same mistake indicates that you do not know what my point is in relation to this issue.

Ah, right, I missed that. My apologies. I thought that Portillo was considerably more literalist than that.In that case I agree with you. If Portillo is is content to acknowledge that these stories are fictions, then it is inappropriate to use them. It still might be appropriate with another, more literalist member, but not with Portillo, at whom the thread was originally aimed.Of course, it does leave me wondering why Portillo has such a problem with evolution, when he's willing to dismiss half the OT as myth and fiction, but that's another discussion entirely.Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

You are missing the one important point. The only people who need to add the deaths in the bible to their tally are the people who believe that the Bible is a historically accurate book.

---

Yes I do understand that you feel the death toll should be relative to one's belief that the Bible is a true representation of history. I'm disagreeing that that is a legitimate way to tally atrocities.If we stick to keeping the tally to what the person believes to be true, then that can also impact the opposing list as I pointed out with Hitler. Like I said, what one believes to be true, doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

The issue is not deaths caused by 'religion free' people. It is deaths caused specifically for religious reasons.

---

Then let's look at a few from the Bible list you provided. (I'm not going to hunt for those without verses.)

• Genesis 7 - The one who created the people destroyed the people because he didn't like their behavior. Not a religious reason.
  ​
• Genesis 19:26 - Lot's wife was not turned to salt for a religious reason.
  ​
• Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for a religious reason.
  ​
• Genesis 38:7-10 - Er not killed for religious reason. His brother also not killed for a religious reason.
  ​
• Exodus 12:29 - The first born of Egypt were not killed for a religious reason. Same for the drowning in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:26-28)
  ​
• Leviticus 10:1 - Nadab and Abihu were not killed for a religious reason. The broke a rule.
  ​
• Judges - Killing the enemy with the help of a god doesn't make it a religious killing.
  ​
• Judges 14:19- Samson didn't slay 30 men for a religious reason.
  ​
• Judges 20:35-48 - The Battle against the Benjamites was to avenge a killing.

Do you see the trend here? In these stories, God is the boss. Disobedience is judged harshly in some cases.Dr. Adequate described in Message 39 the double standard that has appeared concerning these lists.Just because God is in charge in these stories and kills, helps kill, or orders killings doesn't mean the killings were done for a religious reason. These are judgment killings or battles. In these stories, God has that authority, just like the leader of a country. Show me the one's you consider to be killings for a religious reason.ABE: Please note what that religious reason is.Edited by purpledawn, : Warning

Hey Granny Magda, Inspired by Portillo, but not aimed at only him.From the OP -

quote:

---

I have heard this claim made many times. I have seen it brought up in debates and now it appears here.

​

I would like to challenge those who believe this to be true to support it.

---

I have aimed the challenge at any who believe that religious people stand on moral high ground or are morally superior/can make morally superior judgements or decisions etc and use death tolls or acts of violence to establish this claim.Portillo has advised that he does not see himself as morally superior. Which does make me curious what his point was when he brought it up. But that is for another thread.My challenge is open to everyone. I am also interested in the thoughts of others who have faced this particular claim.After PD and I have ironed out the current issue, I will start to discuss some of the other posts.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

So, let's get this straight ... if I were to slay a bunch of people "because God wants them dead", that would be a religious reason, but if God does exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason, it isn't?

quote:

---

So, let's get this straight ... if I were to slay a bunch of people "because God wants them dead", that would be a religious reason, but if God does exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason, it isn't?

---

You aren't in the Bible. We are looking at the stories and the reasons for the deaths according to the stories.Give me the religious reason for the deaths within the stories you quoted.

My point was that most people here dont believe in the historicity of the Bible, but when it comes to atrocities, suddenly the Bible comes alive.

We can discount all the atrocities in the Bible stories, there is still ample evidence that no religion has ever been better at genocide than Christianity.

I did. "Because God wanted them dead".

In Message 39 you pointed out the inconsistencies in labeling atrocities. In Message 122, BFT basically said it is about the reason for the deaths, not the belief or lack there of of those causing the deaths or ordering the deaths. IOW, religion motivated atrocities. Your response of "Because God wanted them dead" as the religious reason for the deaths, doesn't fit.In the flood story, a supreme being killed all but a few people. He brought them into the world and he took them out. There's nothing religious about it. Just because he's a supreme being doesn't make it a killing for religious reasons. According to the story how was this atrocity motivated by religion?

This is a strawman; apples & oranges.First, scores of wars involved religious aspects. Did you even read what your own Wiki link said about these wars and the number killed in them?

quote:

---

Death toll
Most accurate sources put the total deaths during the 15 years of the rebellion at about 20-30 million civilians and soldiers.[1][8] Most of the deaths were attributed to plague and famine. At the Third Battle of Nanking in 1864, more than 100,000 were killed in three days.

​

The rebellion happened at roughly the same time as the American Civil War. Though almost certainly the largest civil war of the 19th century (in terms of numbers under arms), it is debatable whether the Taiping Rebellion involved more soldiers than the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century, and so it is uncertain whether it should be considered the largest war of the 19th century.[citation needed]

---

This civil war led by a heterodox Christian convert. He, like so many pseudo professing Christians, acted counter to the tenets of Jesus and the apostles of the NT.Neither war troop casualties, tallied on both sides of a war or famines, etc, come under the definition of genocide.OTOH, RCC bloody perpetrators of the Inquisitions brutally tortured and murdered so many protesting true Christians who refused to recant and become subservient to the authority of the popes and bishops of Rome.Pious appearing despots professing Christianity persist in practices opposite to apostolic principles. They are as the religious Pharisees and Sadducee's, who Jesus soundly denounced as murderous snakes and vipers.The proponents of the fallacy that Christianity has been responsible for genocide have been posting mis-characterizations about true Christians and true Christianity.Relentless rants of several forum posters, regarding atrocities perpetrated under orders of ruthless rulers, wrongfully target real Christian followers of Christ and Christianity, respecting doctrines of scripture.

quote:

---

The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan against the ruling Manchu-led Qing Dynasty. About 20 million people died, mainly civilians, in one of the deadliest military conflicts in history.[1]

---

You can click on the term, heterodox in your link, in which the following definition of the term is stated.

quote:

---

Heterodoxy is generally defined as "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position".[1] As an adjective, heterodox is commonly used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" (status quo). Under this definition the noun heterodoxy is synonymous with unorthodoxy, while the adjective heterodox is synonymous with dissident.

---

Whereas you presumably think these atrocities were real. What should we do, split the difference?But real or not, if you think they were real, and if you're a fan of the God whom you think ordered them, then this does have a bearing on whether you occupy the moral high ground. If you're a genocide fan, that incurs the same moral odium whether or not I think the genocide actually occurred.

Round and round we go ...If I killed someone "because God wants them dead", that would be a religiously motivated atrocity, wouldn't it?

quote:

---

If I killed someone "because God wants them dead", that would be a religiously motivated atrocity, wouldn't it?

---

You tell me. If you killed someone because an atheist wants them dead, is that an atheism-motivated atrocity?That doesn't work with the flood since God did the killing, not a person.
That doesn't work with Lot's wife since God turned her to salt, not a person.
That doesn't work for Sodom and Gomorrah since God did the killing, not a person.
That doesn't work for Er since God did the killing, not a person.
That doesn't work for all the first born in Egypt since God did the killing, not a person.
That doesn't work for the drownings in the Red Sea since God did the killing, not a person.From your Message 39, I understood the difference to be about the actual reason for the killings, not just who ordered the killings or who carried out the killings.