Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

Please, Christianity has also been the cause of the most horrific acts in history. The Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisitions, The Crusades, The murder and subjugation of the Indians, and the holocaust..... Just to name a few.

Good Lord. You can add up all the crusades, witch trials, and inquisitions together and it will be less than 10 percent of what the atheistic stalin did alone. Of course that is 10% too many but it isn't even in the same relm of what just the modern atheists have done.

1. No act contrary to the bible can be blamed on God or the religion.
2. It is a judgement on those people alone.
3. If you wish to actually sincerely evaluate a teaching then it is infinately more reasonable to study it's adherents not it's rebels and violators.
4. The indians of which I am one were not wiped out for religious reasons. It was 99% greed. Neither were the Aztecs or Incas. Any casual understanding of history will show that.
5. Hitler actually used eveolution to justify his actions. I am aware that Hitler had a superficial connection to Catholicism in an effort to control the church but that was abandoned early when they refused to cooperate at least in general. The subjegation of one race and the assertion of superiority of another has much more in common with a book that is titled: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Than with the bible which gives the only valid foundation for the equality of man or used to give the only foundation suffecient for inalienable rights.
6. The actions of the atheistic tyrants is not opposed by anything found within atheism. The actions of theological tyrants is opposed by teachings found in the bible.

I had more to add to my original answer to this. This claim you made is such a collosal fail it is a wonder it is still used by bible critics.

 

[jasonwill2]

Good Lord. You can add up all the crusades, witch trials, and inquisitions together and it will be less than 10 percent of what the atheistic stalin did alone. Of course that is 10% too many but it isn't even in the same relm of what just the modern atheists have done.

1. No act contrary to the bible can be blamed on God or the religion.
2. It is a judgement on those people alone.
3. If you wish to actually sincerely evaluate a teaching then it is infinately more reasonable to study it's adherents not it's rebels and violators.
4. The infians of which I am one were not wiped out for religious reasons. It was 99% greed. Neither were the Aztecs or Incas. Any casual understanding of history will show that.
5. Hitler actually used eveolution to justify his actions. I am aware that Hitler had a superficial connection to Catholicism in an effort to control the church but that was abandoned early when they refused to cooperate at least in general. The subjegation of one race and the assertion of superiority of another has much more in common with a book that is titled: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Than with the bible which gives the only valid foundation for the equality of man or used to give the only foundation suffecient for inalienable rights.
6. The actions of the atheistic tyrants is not opposed by anything found within atheism. The actions of theological tyrants is opposed by teachings found in the bible.

I had more to add to my original answer to this. This claim you made is such a collosal fail it is a wonder it is still used by bible critics.

First of all, Stalin or the other atheists didn't kill because he was an atheist, he was gonna kill no matter what because power corrupts. The crusades and inqusition though WERE on religious grounds. They assumed an atheist position because having religion in their countries was a risk to their power. If they could of used religion to keep people inline and in fear, they would of. It was just more pragmatic though to supress religion. Wasn't the fault of atheism though. They were going to kill those who threatened thier power either with or without religion, whichever worked best.

Also neo-dawrinianism doesn't equate to atheism, and isn't even scientific and doesnt help natural selection anyway.

And your 2nd point would also apply to all atheist killers too, not just the ACTUAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS that sanctioned said wars. As well there are more people today and our technology makes it possible to kill more people faster, so you can't just take the gross/raw numbers without considering percentages, populations, ease of killing, and the ability to field the killing. Fact is that there are many factors that go into the final kill count, so you have to look at it in what is relative to the time. What may seem like a smaller slaughter in the past may of actually been worse than one today that killed twice as many, as perhaps back then they had 6 times less people, and killing that many people took 10 times more effort.

Which would make the killings of old more brutal.

 

[1robin]

First of all, Stalin or the other atheists didn't kill because he was an atheist, he was gonna kill no matter what because power corrupts. The crusades and inqusition though WERE on religious grounds.

I said there is nothing in atheism that would argue against Stalin. I also said that just because some missguided lunitics claim to be acting in the name of religion is meaningless. If I go out and shoot some people and say I did it in the name of jasonwill will you accept blame for it. There is no way that actions completely contrary to the bible can be blamed on it or God. It is logically incoherent. In Stalin's case he very definately did kill many people in the name of Atheism. He was a failed seminary student who was chosen by Lenin in large part because of his hatred for religion. However my point was when you adopt a system that can not justify the sanctity of life or the value of every person then it will directly influence what you do. I do not know what percentage of the 15 million he killed because of atheism but it isn't a stretch to state the obvious that his ideals justified his actions. This is not the case with Christianity in fact it is the opposite.

They assumed an atheist position because having religion in their countries was a risk to their power. If they could of used religion to keep people inline and in fear, they would of. It was just more pragmatic though to supress religion. Wasn't the fault of atheism though. They were going to kill those who threatened thier power either with or without religion, whichever worked best.

Stalin was an athiest way before he was a political figure. If you are unfortunate enough to read Marx then you should have known that atheism was a sincere core belief and drove his political ideology not the other way around.

Also neo-dawrinianism doesn't equate to atheism, and isn't even scientific and doesnt help natural selection anyway.

I never claimed it did. What I said is if true it would be a valid justification for race inequality and result in Hitler style actions. Some evolutionsts are honest enough to admit this.
When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Richard Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question
Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia
There is nothing in evolution OR in atheism that makes right and wrong have any ultimate meaning.

And your 2nd point would also apply to all atheist killers too, not just the ACTUAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS that sanctioned said wars. As well there are more people today and our technology makes it possible to kill more people faster, so you can't just take the gross/raw numbers without considering percentages, populations, ease of killing, and the ability to field the killing. Fact is that there are many factors that go into the final kill count, so you have to look at it in what is relative to the time. What may seem like a smaller slaughter in the past may of actually been worse than one today that killed twice as many, as perhaps back then they had 6 times less people, and killing that many people took 10 times more effort.

Which would make the killings of old more brutal.

I do not see the relevance to any of this. Since only the relatively miniscule numbers of people killed in the old testament wars THAT WERE AUTHORIZED BY GOD are relevant to the bible or God. Since not even the wars of the Jews not sanctioned by God nor any actions by random people claiming to be acting in God's name (if their actions are contradicted by the bible) are applicable then any adjusted totals would stimm be so vastly lopsided there is no issue here.

 

[jasonwill2]

I said there is nothing in atheism that would argue against Stalin. I also said that just because some missguided lunitics claim to be acting in the name of religion is meaningless. If I go out and shoot some people and say I did it in the name of jasonwill will you accept blame for it. There is no way that actions completely contrary to the bible can be blamed on it or God. It is logically incoherent. In Stalin's case he very definately did kill many people in the name of Atheism. He was a failed seminary student who was chosen by Lenin in large part because of his hatred for religion. However my point was when you adopt a system that can not justify the sanctity of life or the value of every person then it will directly influence what you do. I do not know what percentage of the 15 million he killed because of atheism but it isn't a stretch to state the obvious that his ideals justified his actions. This is not the case with Christianity in fact it is the opposite.


Stalin was an athiest way before he was a political figure. If you are unfortunate enough to read Marx then you should have known that atheism was a sincere core belief and drove his political ideology not the other way around.


I never claimed it did. What I said is if true it would be a valid justification for race inequality and result in Hitler style actions. Some evolutionsts are honest enough to admit this.
When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Richard Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question
Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia
There is nothing in evolution OR in atheism that makes right and wrong have any ultimate meaning.


I do not see the relevance to any of this. Since only the relatively miniscule numbers of people killed in the old testament wars THAT WERE AUTHORIZED BY GOD are relevant to the bible or God. Since not even the wars of the Jews not sanctioned by God nor any actions by random people claiming to be acting in God's name (if their actions are contradicted by the bible) are applicable then any adjusted totals would stimm be so vastly lopsided there is no issue here.

1. those lunatics were the offical catholic church, the OFFICAL Christianity.

2. Were you unfortunate enough to read it to tell me this?

3. over 2 million people were killed in the OT, not counting Noah's Flood. Also, if you don't see the point you fail understanding the relative scales of destruction forever.

 

[1robin]

1. those lunatics were the offical catholic church, the OFFICAL Christianity.

I don't care if they were all popes. Sometimes Popes have been the worst of all. If they act contrary to the bible the bible can't be blamed. This is a simple concept.

2. Were you unfortunate enough to read it to tell me this?

I was unfortunate enough to read some of it until the revulsion became too much.

3. over 2 million people were killed in the OT, not counting Noah's Flood. Also, if you don't see the point you fail understanding the relative scales of destruction forever.

How in the world did you establish this. For one no one knows if the flood is literal or symbolic for one. Second there are not detailed casualty accounts for many battles and I believe you are throwing ones in there that the Jews commited in defiance of God. God ordered very few battles. Third I am currently reading an exhaustive secular account of ALL the old testament battles and they do not even know what the casualties were most of the time. I would be suprised if ALL THE PEOPLE WHO EVEN FOUGHT in every battle (even the ones that don't count for this issue) from the battle of AI to Masada even total 2 million much less casualties. Fourth even if we use your bogus number that is still 1/8 of what Stalin did alone. Not to mention Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.... Fifth No one knows how many people would have died in the flood if it literally happened. I have heard 100,000 but no one knows and to claim you do is intellectually dishonest.

 

[jasonwill2]

Oh darn, I thought it was 6, not 10.

Anyway, no I'm counting the wars sanctioned by Yahweh specifically. Like the towns he said to kill even the women and children in.

 

[Shermana]

It can be argued that in context, Ha-Shatan was who tempted and brought those who were killed to the sins that led to them deserving their deaths.

 

[Caladan]

Oh darn, I thought it was 6, not 10.

Anyway, no I'm counting the wars sanctioned by Yahweh specifically. Like the towns he said to kill even the women and children in.

Makes Satan look like a choir boy. Also makes one ponder who is really the bad *** here? the Levantine storm God, or Satan the choir boy in his divine court. Personally, I don't see how the statistics above make God look bad. In the spirit of ancient near eastern gods, he seems to be doing very well: punishes the wicked, leads his people in war, and disciplines nations. There's bound to be some collateral damage.
Not a bad job. Maybe Satanists should reconsider that they are rooting for the do-gooder.

 

[1robin]

Oh darn, I thought it was 6, not 10.

Anyway, no I'm counting the wars sanctioned by Yahweh specifically. Like the towns he said to kill even the women and children in.

No matter how fancy the graphics are this number is unknowable and this graph is a lie. First since if the flood is literal satan led all the people to follow him until they were so far gone all they did was evil continuously, the bible says even their thoughts were completely evil even though God spent 100 years reasoning with them to repent they refused. So to spare countless people countless years of repression, violence, slavery, and misery God destroyed them all and started over except for the ones that listened. God is no more resposible for the path they chose than the hangman is resposible for the death of the killer. Second this graph is 8 times to small to put just Stalin's numbers alone in.

It also reminds me of what Hitler said. If you tell a big enough lie long enough people will believe it. I am not accusing you of lying but whoever made this graph was and it sure is big as hitler suggested. If This is the level of scholarship no wonder your figures are so out of whack. Did you actually get your claims from this?

 

[1robin]

Makes Satan look like a choir boy. Also makes one ponder who is really the bad *** here? the Levantine storm God, or Satan the choir boy in his divine court. Personally, I don't see how the statistics above make God look bad. In the spirit of ancient near eastern gods, he seems to be doing very well: punishes the wicked, leads his people in war, and disciplines nations. There's bound to be some collateral damage.
Not a bad job. Maybe Satanists should reconsider that they are rooting for the do-gooder.

This is one confusing response to an inaccurate graph.

 

[Caladan]

This is one confusing response to an inaccurate graph.

Inaccurate graph?
the graph means nothing. As Satan is not a main protagonist (or antagonist) in the Bible. He only very rarely makes an appearance in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).
I simply find it ironic that we are supposed to think that Satan is some powerful cosmic rebel, but it's really God who is the bad ***.

 

[1robin]

Inaccurate graph?
the graph means nothing. As Satan is not a main protagonist (or antagonist) in the Bible. He only very rarely makes an appearance in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).
I simply find it ironic that we are supposed to think that Satan is some powerful cosmic rebel, but it's really God who is the bad ***.

You have a very strange way of making points. As my grammer is terrible I am not complaining. Since Satan appears in the bible as the most beautiful archangel God made and was a member of the most powerful class of angels that have ever existed I find your assesment lacking. He then proceeds to lead Adam into betraying the entire human race which caused the entire nature of the universe to cease being perfect and is said to be roaming over the earth seeking whom he may devour. If you meant that Satan is infinately less powerful than God I agree. If you meant he is not a persistent menace to mankinds well being and tirelessly working to seperate man from God I do not. If you will review my last few posts you will see why I can claim that graph is grossly inaccurate.

 

[Caladan]

You have a very strange way of making points. As my grammer is terrible I am not complaining. Since Satan appears in the bible as the most beautiful archangel God made and was a member of the most powerful class of angels that have ever existed I find your assesment lacking. He then proceeds to lead Adam into betraying the entire human race which caused the entire nature of the universe to cease being perfect and is said to be roaming over the earth seeking whom he may devour. If you meant that Satan is infinately less powerful than God I agree. If you meant he is not a persistent menace to mankinds well being and tirelessly working to seperate man from God I do not. If you will review my last few posts you will see why I can claim that graph is grossly inaccurate.

You are a bit confused. This is all later Christian dogma, unrelated to the original text. But never mind, we are derailing the thread. Suffice to say that Satan only received the part of a cosmic nemesis with the emergance of Christian duality (with or without Zoroastrian influence).
If you compare the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament, it's easy to see that it's a different Satan which has been taken out of the original context.

 

[jasonwill2]

Makes Satan look like a choir boy. Also makes one ponder who is really the bad *** here? the Levantine storm God, or Satan the choir boy in his divine court. Personally, I don't see how the statistics above make God look bad. In the spirit of ancient near eastern gods, he seems to be doing very well: punishes the wicked, leads his people in war, and disciplines nations. There's bound to be some collateral damage.
Not a bad job. Maybe Satanists should reconsider that they are rooting for the do-gooder.

Most Satanists do not even think that Yahweh exists, whether theist or atheist. Satan is a title afterall and can apply to many things. There are not two dualistic sides of Satan vs God in Satanism, it just isn't that way.

Also a do-gooder that is as powerful as him doesn't need to have collateral damage.. and in many instances he had kids and women killed. Doesn't sound good to me.

No matter how fancy the graphics are this number is unknowable and this graph is a lie. First since if the flood is literal satan led all the people to follow him until they were so far gone all they did was evil continuously, the bible says even their thoughts were completely evil even though God spent 100 years reasoning with them to repent they refused. So to spare countless people countless years of repression, violence, slavery, and misery God destroyed them all and started over except for the ones that listened. God is no more resposible for the path they chose than the hangman is resposible for the death of the killer. Second this graph is 8 times to small to put just Stalin's numbers alone in.

It also reminds me of what Hitler said. If you tell a big enough lie long enough people will believe it. I am not accusing you of lying but whoever made this graph was and it sure is big as hitler suggested. If This is the level of scholarship no wonder your figures are so out of whack. Did you actually get your claims from this?

All I'm hearing right now is the same old dogma. If you add all the times that specific events LIST numbers, you get that number for the OT. However apparently this person estimates it to be much higher, i would only go by tyhe sure numbers.

Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)

By the way, those figures were taken from the Bible, they have verses to back them up. read the verses it shows as saying an actual value and decide for yourself. The Bible itself records Yahweh as killing lots of people.

 

[1robin]

You are a bit confused. This is all later Christian dogma, unrelated to the original text. But never mind, we are derailing the thread. Suffice to say that Satan only received the part of a cosmic nemesis with the emergance of Christian duality (with or without Zoroastrian influence).

I believe everything I said can be found in the old testament.

 

[Caladan]

I believe everything I said can be found in the old testament.

I know that you do, but it's based on anachronistic dogma. Just like the prophecies about Jesus which are supposedly found in the Hebrew Bible. Both in the case of Jesus and the Christian devil it's simply not the case. The Hebrew Bible does not speak about Jesus nor does it make a linkage between Lucifer and Satan. These are all later interpretations, or rather reinterpretations. But yes, it's all known to be part of historical Christian beliefs... for what it's worth.

 

[jasonwill2]

I believe everything I said can be found in the old testament.

I do not think it can; Satan was just a title in the OT if you look at the original language, which uses Satan to refer to many entities as pronouns, even mortals.

 

[Caladan]

Most Satanists do not even think that Yahweh exists, whether theist or atheist. Satan is a title afterall and can apply to many things. There are not two dualistic sides of Satan vs God in Satanism, it just isn't that way.

Depends on the Satanist. Can't say I have seen firm statistics about these trends. But one thing seems to be sure, and that is that many Satanist do use Satan as an entity, whether symbolic or actual which is in opposition to the God of the tradition around them. And it's also pretty obvious that many Satanists glorify the darkness of Satan... and this is where the irony comes in: God seems more aggressive and powerful by the logic of the graph. Who would want to follow this so called powerful rebellious entity which only killed 10 people, as opposed to a God who architects wars?
I mean, between Loki and Thor, most people would choose Thor.

Also a do-gooder that is as powerful as him doesn't need to have collateral damage.. and in many instances he had kids and women killed. Doesn't sound good to me.

I was actually saying that the graph makes Satan look like the do-gooder and God as the bad ***.

 

[jasonwill2]

Depends on the Satanist. Can't say I have seen firm statistics about these trends. But one thing seems to be sure, and that is that many Satanist do use Satan as an entity, whether symbolic or actual which is in opposition to the God of the tradition around them. And it's also pretty obvious that many Satanists glorify the darkness of Satan... and this is where the irony comes in: God seems more aggressive and powerful by the logic of the graph. Who would want to follow this so called powerful rebellious entity which only killed 10 people, as opposed to a God who architects wars?
I mean, between Loki and Thor, most people would choose Thor.

I was actually saying that the graph makes Satan look like the do-gooder and God as the bad ***.

That's the thing, Satan is the lesser of two evils if you believe in the Christian Bible. it makes perfect sense as he is actually good in that view. the darkness of him is just a tool though. we are not out to worship murder and violence after all. Dark does not equal evil, and light does not equal good.

edit: I should clarify.

Using evil symbolism and all that darkness with Satanism IS ironic, but that is why we use it. I think most Satanists realize the irony of calling Satan evil. We realize how non-evil Satan really is, and use the symbolisms to break through to what is ingrained in our subconsciousness by society.

 

[jasonwill2]

Wait, I just realized that Satan, according to Christian cannon, was able to kill billions by simply making some gullible woman eat a fruit, and that it will take Yahweh thousands of years to undo this.