Summations Only

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.

quote:

---

PUrpleDawn writes:

​

If you killed someone because an atheist wants them dead, is that an atheism-motivated atrocity?

​

No. Or, to be precise, not necessarily.

---

Why is it not an atheism-motivated atrocity?

quote:

---

God isn't a person now?

---

I don't believe the words people or person are used to refer to gods.

quote:

---

Yes, and "God wants them dead" would be a religious reason, wouldn't it.

---

No. What do the killings done by God have to do with religion?If an atheist wants someone dead, is that an atheist reason?IMO, you're not being consistent.

quote:

---

So far we have you stating that nothing in the bible is historically true and that god and the bible have nothing to do with religion.

---

I didn't say that nothing in the Bible is historically true and I didn't say that God or the Bible had nothing to do with religion. Careful with the absolutes. Please pay attention to the argument being made.BFT is adamant that deaths from the Bible should be included for those people who believe the Bible is historically correct. For those who believe the Bible is historically correct, the deaths listed are to be counted in the death toll as deaths due to religious reasons, according to BFT.If we are going to count them because they are considered true by a believer, then we need to look at the actual reasons for the deaths according to what's written. Just because the events are included in a religious book doesn't mean the reason for the deaths were religious.God is not a religion, he is a supreme being.In the flood account. The supreme being destroyed the people he created. He didn't like the way the majority turned out. What's the supreme being's religious reason?Judges 14:19- Samson didn't slay 30 men for a religious reason. What is the religious reason for the killings in the Samson story?You've already seen the rest of my list in Message 124. Show me what the religious reasons are according to the stories.Saying that because God did it or because it is in the Bible makes it a religious reason is no better than saying because an Atheist did it makes it an atheistic reason. Please address the argument being made and the verses brought up in Message 11 by Butterflytyrant. What are the religious reasons behind the events.

quote:

---

"God in three Persons, blessed Trinity...." goes one popular churchly song. So some people do. My dad certainly did in his sermons.....

---

We are working with stories in the Bible and since I said people or person, we are talking about humans. Where in the Bible do they refer to God as a person as in human individual? Are gods presented as humans in the Bible stories?

quote:

---

There's this guy, named jesus. Maybe you've heard of him?

---

Sigh... The Synoptics do not present Jesus as a supernatural being.

I assumed my opposition was intelligent enough to stick with the portion of the Bible referenced. The verses being addressed were in the OT. The God in the verses is the God mentioned in the OT. Jesus is not the God of the OT. Jesus is not the God of Abraham. That's why they need the trinity if they want to maintain that God is one.I'm not sure why you feel the need to rant because what I present is different than what you've heard. This is a debate forum. We pick a side or position and try to support it. I'm quite aware that people understand things differently than I do. They will present support for their own position. If you feel I've interpreted a passage incorrectly then provide support for your interpretation, don't rant at me.The current issue is about the OT verses presented in Message 11 and what the religious reasons are for those deaths.

quote:

---

With regard to Jesus? Yes.

---

Unfortunately that's another whole subject for debate. Even if one feels that Jesus was a god, does that make the God referred to in the flood story or any of the Hebrew Bible stories a human individual?Was I correct in Message 135, when I said that God killed the people in the verses listed and not a person?If we are going to tally up deaths caused for religious reasons, then we need to know that there was a religious reason for the deaths.God did it, IMO, is not a religious reason. That just tells us who caused the deaths. If we're pulling the data from stories, we need to discern the reason from the story.

quote:

---

Indeed. And god casting judgement is religious...especially over people who aren't his.

---

I disagree. We're looking specifically at the Bible deaths as actual events. We aren't discussing generalities. Message 11What's right and wrong isn't just an issue with theology. Civilizations have rules. Even animals have rules. When rules are broken there are consequences. I don't feel right and wrong are inherently religious. The religious might feel that they are, but that doesn't make it so. When one group tries to force their right and wrong on to another group, we have clashes. When one group wants another groups property, we have clashes. Casting judgment also isn't inherently religious. I don't see that God casting judgment in the stories is religious whether it is over his chosen people or not. Gods casting judgment on mankind seemed to be an accepted norm in those days. I don't see how a god casting judgment is different than a king casting judgment.

​

In the flood story, the supreme being created humans and didn't like the way they turned out, so he wiped the majority of them out.

​

In the Exodus, God was rescuing his people.

​

IMO, we need to look at the issue in context of the story, not just that if a deity does something it is automatically deemed a religious reason.

quote:

---

This is some sort of pointless distraction argument designed to lead people away from the actual discussion. An activity that I seem to notice PD is involved in quite a lot.

---

You brought the verses in as evidence of deaths motivated by religion. I disagreed because IMO stories are not valid sources of data for this type of comparison. You persisted, so now I've asked that you show that within the context of the stories that the deaths were actually motivated by religion since you wish to count them as true. You brought them in as evidence.

quote:

---

This question is for PD -

​

Lets say I am a bible literalist and I say that I am moraly superior to you. You ask me to provide my count. I include all of the deaths from the history books that I have (including the bible). You count up all of the deaths from the history books you have. My position of moral superiority has been created using the bible as fact. I have come to my position using the bible as fact. I provide my numbers of the deaths, including those deaths cause by god and you tell me that I cannot use those figures because you do not believe that my religious book is fact. I have based my whole fucking life around this book. Including my position on morality. And you, you arrogant fuck are going to stand sit there and tell me that my book is fictitious so my position is invalid?

---

IMO, not a good hypothetical. The Christian using the Bible as fact would add to his numbers if he is actually using all the ones you listed (although I doubt if he would). My count should be lower. Why would I want to correct him when I'm ahead?What you're missing is that I'm not telling a Bible Literalist that he can't use the numbers because his book isn't fact. I'm telling a religion free person that the stories he pulled numbers from aren't fact and, IMO, the numbers aren't valid when comparing atrocities in reality. You keep reversing the scenario.Out of curiosity, has there actually been a Bible Literalist who counts the deaths from those stories in their numbers concerning moral superiority? Did Portillo? The blog I referenced in Message 29 didn't.You're ranting more about the fact that I've said the stories aren't fact, which you don't believe they are either, than addressing the verses that you introduced as evidence. If the religious members have an issue with my position concerning this thread, I have no doubt they will let me know.Are you going to address the evidence you presented in Message 11 and show how those deaths were due to a religious reason?Samson had a hissy fit and killed 30 men. That had nothing to do with religion. He needed anger management classes.

quote:

---

The two statements end in the same result. Everybody dies.

---

You supposedly want deaths caused specifically for religious reasons, not just that everyone dies. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up hypothetical and general statements instead of actually addressing the deaths you listed in Message 11. They all aren't the same. Why did God tell the group to kill everyone? Conquering another tribe to take their land, isn't necessarily a religious reason. Just because God gave the order doesn't make it a religious reason. We have to read the story to understand the motivation.

quote:

---

Are you actually planning on dealing with the OP at all?

---

You brought the Bible verses in as evidence of deaths for religious reasons. What were the religious reasons behind the deaths in the verses that you provided in Message 11?

The sticking point concerning the Bible passages seems to be a difference of opinion on what constitutes religious motivation. So far you aren't being consistent.

quote:

---

So, in my example, the will of god is little Jimmy being dead. In your opinion, is little Jimmy more or less dead because god killed him directly?

​

There are several people under my direct supervision at work. I delegate tasks. I also perform some of the tasks myself. If I decide to do a task myself, or delegate the task to one on my minions, the task is still done. Me doing my will has the same end result as delegating the task. Me being of higher rank does not change the outcome.

---

But that doesn't tell us why the task was being done. In Message 122, you stipulated that we are looking at the motivation for the killings, not just who did the killings. So in your scenario we would look at why you wanted the task done. What was the motive? A motive is something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act. Your motive for wanting the task done may be different than your minions' motive for carrying out the task you gave them. The outcome is the same, but the motives may not be.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting the the only definition of religious motivation is man being motivated by his belief in god?

---

You're not comparing apples to apples either. Actually by the definition above, if an atheists kills someone because they are a religious person, that counts as religious violence. Oddly enough if a religious person kills someone because they have no religion, I think it still counts as religious violence.It is the reason or motivation for the killing, not the outcome.

quote:

---

You cant let god off the for all of the killing his killing.

---

No one's letting God off the hook. You specified the conditions of the debate, but you aren't sticking with your own specifications. If the debate was about the violent nature of the Hebrew God, then the verses you provided would probably be evidence, but that isn't what you specified.

quote:

---

What do you think Gods motivation was? Pure homocidal, psychopathic rage? Boredom?

---

Why not? That's why we have to look at the reasons within the context of the story. Your Message 248 shows that you probably haven't read most of the stories you quoted. You are also adding religious reasons that have been added by apologetics. What religious precepts, texts or doctrines was God following in the flood story? None. God simply didn't like the way humans were behaving.If you're just looking at outcome; then if an Atheist gives the order the deaths would fall under that column and if a religious person gives the order, then the deaths fall under that column. The motivation is of no consequence.IMO, this still really leaves God's killings out of the running because he isn't religious. He doesn't have a belief system he follows.

quote:

---

If God kills a bunch of people for having the temerity to not not believe in him or follow his doctrines surely this qualifies. No?

---

My focus is on the specific stories, not a generality. Show me that that is the issue in any of the verses shared in Message 11.In the flood story we aren't told that God required belief or obedience to specific rules. We aren't told that God gave humans any direction concerning how to behave. God saw how the humans behaved and he didn't like what he saw. He destroyed what he created. Show me where the religion is in that story.This thread isn't about whether God's actions in the stories were good, bad, fair, or unfair. It is about the motivation behind the act. Just because God did it or ordered it, doesn't mean the motivation was religious in every event. Show me the ones that actually involve a religious motivation.