A List of Some Mass Murders, either perpetrated, or approved by God (1 Viewer)

[kal-el]

The entire population and every animal on the earth during the flood, except for 8 people. Genesis 7:23

Every single resident of Sodom and Gemorrah, except for Lot and his wife.
Genesis 19:24

All the innocent first born of Egypt, by God on the first Passover night. Exodus 12:29

The vast hosts of Pharoah, and the 600 captains of the chariots that drowned in the Red Sea. Exodus 14:27-28

3,000 Israelites killed by their Levite tribe at the request of God. Exodus 32:27

11 Leaders of Israel who refused God's orders to invade the Promised Land. Numbers 14:37

250 Levites who challenged Moses' authority. God would have killed the whole tribe, if Moses hadn't pleaded and pointed out the lack of justice this would serve. So, God repented, a little, and re-organized his killing. Numbers 16:1-40

14,700 Jews because they disagreed with Moses after the killing above. Numbers 16:41-49

24,000 Israelites who worshiped another God. Numbers 25:4-9

12,000 men and women of Ai, in an ambush directed by God. Joshua 8:1-30

10,000 Moabites by the Israelites. Judges 3:29

25,100 Bejaminites with God on their side, fighting against fellow Jews.:lol: Judges 20:35

70 men for glancing into God's ark of the covenant. 1 Samuel 6:19 Note: The King James version states that 50,070 people are slaughtered.

God orders Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of a hill country, the south, and the vale. Joshua 10:40

All the Amalkites killed by Saul, who obeyed God's orders. 1 Samuel 15:3-7

200 Philistine men, killed by David so he can get their foreskins to get Saul's daughter. 1 Samuel 18:27

70,000 by a plague sent by God. 2 Samuel 24:15

450 of Baal's prophets, by Elijah, who was guided by God. 1 Kings 20:28-30

42 Children eaten by bears, because of them cracking jokes at Elisha's baldness.:lol: 2 Kings 2:23-24

Everybody that died as a result of the famine sent by God on Samaria. 2 Kings 8:1

185,000 Assyrians slain by an angel. 2 Kings 19:35

Job's children in a stupid contest with his pal Satan. Job 1:13-19

God kills a firstborn. Genesis 38:7

God kills Pharoah's army. Exodus 15:4

2 Of Aaron's sons are killed by God. Numbers 3:4

A huge wholesale genocide, perhaps God's second biggest (behind the flood). 2 Chronicles 14:8-14

God kills everyone, because he couldn't find anyone to stand up to him.:lol: Ezekiel 22:30-31

It seems God takes a break from killing humans, but animals are a different story.:lol: Ezekiel 32:13

God tells the Israelites to stone a man, who happened to pick up sticks on the sabbath. Numbers 15:32-36

 

[Kandahar]

What's your point? The parables of the Old Testament reflect the Hebrew culture in 1900-1500 BCE. Whether or not you're Christian it's silly to take the Bible literally, if for no other reason than it contradicts itself repeatedly.

 

[Kelzie]

I've said it before and I stand by it. God comes off very badly in the Bible. I can't grasp why someone would read it and go "Hey! I wanna worship this God!"

 

[kal-el]

I've said it before and I stand by it. God comes off very badly in the Bible. I can't grasp why someone would read it and go "Hey! I wanna worship this God!"

My thoughts exactly. I guess great minds do think alike.:2razz:

Originally posted by Kandahar
What's your point? The parables of the Old Testament reflect the Hebrew culture in 1900-1500 BCE. Whether or not you're Christian it's silly to take the Bible literally, if for no other reason than it contradicts itself repeatedly.

My point is that Christians need to re-read their bibles. They need to see the verses that their preachers ignore.

 

[americanwoman]

My thoughts exactly. I guess great minds do think alike.:2razz:



My point is that Christians need to re-read their bibles. They need to see the verses that their preachers ignore.

Fat chance. Those people just let others do their thinking for them.

 

[Kandahar]

My point is that Christians need to re-read their bibles. They need to see the verses that their preachers ignore.

I'm not Christian so I don't want to speak for them, but it seems to me that most religious works including the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. If one views the stories as parables, rather than as literal history, the biblical God's actions make more sense. Obviously, the Hebrew priests writing the Old Testament didn't see God's killings as acts of malice; they saw them as acts of a powerful hero.

It makes more sense to view the Bible through the eyes of the culture that wrote it, than to simply follow it or condemn it, word-for-word, based on modern standards.

 

[danarhea]

I've said it before and I stand by it. God comes off very badly in the Bible. I can't grasp why someone would read it and go "Hey! I wanna worship this God!"

God handed down many laws to man, but guess where the book of the old Hebrew laws were kept. Underneath the judgement seat of the Ark. God was literally above the law, and the meaning was that everything could be forgiven, as God was doing. Unfortunately, man forgot about the forgiving side of God. Even after Christ came into this world, man forgot about God's forgiveness.

 

[kal-el]

I'm not Christian so I don't want to speak for them, but it seems to me that most religious works including the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. If one views the stories as parables, rather than as literal history, the biblical God's actions make more sense. Obviously, the Hebrew priests writing the Old Testament didn't see God's killings as acts of malice; they saw them as acts of a powerful hero.

Is there any hint in the beginning that it is a work of fiction? Most children's mythological books end with "happily ever after", and start with "once upon a time", suggesting that it isn't meant to be taken literally. I take everything literally unless directed otherwise. If one views some literally and some not, how can they make the distinction between which is to be taken literally and what isn't?

 

[George_Washington]

It would take me all night to respond to every one of those quotes. Let's look at the first one:

"All the innocent first born of Egypt, by God on the first Passover night."


-Exodus 12:29

His motive was to send a message to the Pharoah of Egypt so that he would let the Israelites go free. Being that he is all powerful and stuff, how do you know he didn't allow the children to die painlessly and that he didn't immediately take them up to Heaven with him? Why are we so quick to say that God is a bad person?

 

[kal-el]

It would take me all night to respond to every one of those quotes. Let's look at the first one:

Ok

"All the innocent first born of Egypt, by God on the first Passover night."


-Exodus 12:29

His motive was to send a message to the Pharoah of Egypt so that he would let the Israelites go free. Being that he is all powerful and stuff, how do you know he didn't allow the children to die painlessly and that he didn't immediately take them up to Heaven with him? Why are we so quick to say that God is a bad person?

Why would a perfect God have to utilize violence, death and destruction to send a message? Surely, a perfect being has an infinite amount of possibilites at his disposal. Immediately take them up to heaven? Well, being is this is not scripture based, but we'll overlook that.:2razz: In that scenario, he's infringing on some's free will, forcing everyone into lockdown in the sky fortress with him.

 

[Kandahar]

Is there any hint in the beginning that it is a work of fiction?

Maybe "fiction" is too strong of a word, but there are definitely indications that the writers never intended for the stories to be taken as literal truth. There are at least two different, contradictory creation myths in Genesis 1-2, and yet another in Psalm 74. Even if the writers truly believed the basic myth to be true, they also understood that others had different interpretations of them.

Most children's mythological books end with "happily ever after", and start with "once upon a time", suggesting that it isn't meant to be taken literally.

That's a convention of our culture, and certainly can't be applied to Hebrew myths that are nearly 3000 years old. But since you mentioned it, the Bible *does* start and end with phrases very similar to those.

I take everything literally unless directed otherwise.

That's not a very appreciative way of viewing literature and poetry.

If one views some literally and some not, how can they make the distinction between which is to be taken literally and what isn't?

We can start with Occam's Razor. The stories of the Bible presuppose the existence of several entities for which there is no evidence. Contrast that with, say, the stories of Roman history, which are fairly straightforward and don't generally involve magical happenings.

 

[kal-el]

Maybe "fiction" is too strong of a word, but there are definitely indications that the writers never intended for the stories to be taken as literal truth. There are at least two different, contradictory creation myths in Genesis 1-2, and yet another in Psalm 74. Even if the writers truly believed the basic myth to be true, they also understood that others had different interpretations of them.

Yes there are 2 different creation scenarios, as well as talking snakes and donkeys, whales that devour people, then reguritate them, and a host of other stupid things. What indications do the authors make suggesting it is not meant to be taken literally? It says multiple times in the bible that all scripture is the word of God. It says nothing about it being mythology.
2 Timothy 3:16, Psalm 19:7, Isiah 40:8.

That's a convention of our culture, and certainly can't be applied to Hebrew myths that are nearly 3000 years old. But since you mentioned it, the Bible *does* start and end with phrases very similar to those.

How does "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", and "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen" even remotely sound similar to "Once upon a time" or "happily ever after?"

That's not a very appreciative way of viewing literature and poetry.

Well the bible is supposedly the inerrant word of God, not merely literature or poetry.

We can start with Occam's Razor. The stories of the Bible presuppose the existence of several entities for which there is no evidence.

You'll get no argument from me here.

Contrast that with, say, the stories of Roman history, which are fairly straightforward and don't generally involve magical happenings.

Right. But for a second bear with me, what if the authors of the bible were trying to describe exactly what they saw; it's just that they were primitive men. If you went to that time shining a simple flashlight, they would have thought you were glowing or something, and would have wrote that down. Primitve peoples cannpt understand simple mechanisms behind our everyday things. An airplane, or even a simple helicopter. They would come up with all kinds of ****, like "flaming whirlwinds" and such. As they never seen these things, they cannot possibly have at their disposal any words to accurately describe them.

 

[Kandahar]

Yes there are 2 different creation scenarios, as well as talking snakes and donkeys, whales that devour people, then reguritate them, and a host of other stupid things. What indications do the authors make suggesting it is not meant to be taken literally?

The fact that the Hebrew priests allowed several different creation myths to be included in the Bible indicates to me that they didn't think they should be taken literally. If they wanted people to take it literally, they would've picked just one.

The same thing with the Gospels in the New Testament. They contradict each other, but were the interpretations of four different people.

It says multiple times in the bible that all scripture is the word of God. It says nothing about it being mythology.
2 Timothy 3:16, Psalm 19:7, Isiah 40:8.

The second and third quote don't specify what "word of God" they're talking about; I try not to apply late-developed theology to the actual text. The first does appear to be talking about the Bible itself, but only says it is "God-breathed," which doesn't sound like it has to be taken literally.

The authors of the Bible had very different attitudes about what it meant for something to be the "word of God" than modern Christians do. While most modern Christians believe that the Bible is set in stone because it's the word of God, the Hebrew authors almost certainly believed that the Bible should stay current with the times because it's the word of God.

How does "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", and "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen" even remotely sound similar to "Once upon a time" or "happily ever after?"

"In the beginning" and "Once upon a time" sound almost exactly the same to me. The Bible ends discussing the end of the world and how everyone will live with Jesus happily ever after.

I fail to see your point though; as I mentioned, those phrases are conventions of modern culture and certainly you can't expect a 2000-year-old New Testament and a 3000-year-old Old Testament to follow the same rules of story-telling.

Well the bible is supposedly the inerrant word of God, not merely literature or poetry.

Says you.
As I pointed out, the self-contradictions in the Bible indicate that it can't possibly be inerrant. And I think that most Christians would argue that just because they consider it the word of God, doesn't mean it has to be taken literally. Why couldn't parables be the word of God?

Right. But for a second bear with me, what if the authors of the bible were trying to describe exactly what they saw; it's just that they were primitive men. If you went to that time shining a simple flashlight, they would have thought you were glowing or something, and would have wrote that down. Primitve peoples cannpt understand simple mechanisms behind our everyday things. An airplane, or even a simple helicopter. They would come up with all kinds of ****, like "flaming whirlwinds" and such. As they never seen these things, they cannot possibly have at their disposal any words to accurately describe them.

Exactly. They would've described things they didn't understand with concepts that would have appealed to their own culture. So when they describe God as killing their enemies, they obviously intended to portray him as a hero, not a genocidal villain.

 

[kal-el]

The fact that the Hebrew priests allowed several different creation myths to be included in the Bible indicates to me that they didn't think they should be taken literally. If they wanted people to take it literally, they would've picked just one.

The same thing with the Gospels in the New Testament. They contradict each other, but were the interpretations of four different people.

Look, if it wasn't meant to be taken literally, it probably wouldn't be the best seller, and if it was meant as a work of fiction, policemen at courtrooms would not require witnesses to swear on the bible. Whether it has contradictions is kinda a moot point; but I'd say when the bible contradicts known reality, it has the utmost relevance. I don't know, the bible claims that God is the ultimate author, this immediately "ups the anty" when one reads it. It is one thing to mistake Harry Potter for fact, but I'd say it's quite another to misread this fellow's word.

The authors of the Bible had very different attitudes about what it meant for something to be the "word of God" than modern Christians do. While most modern Christians believe that the Bible is set in stone because it's the word of God, the Hebrew authors almost certainly believed that the Bible should stay current with the times because it's the word of God.

Please expand on that statement if you would. You must remember, the bible was composed by a bunch of primitive perverts who most likely greatly manipulated what was and wasn't included in the bible based on their prejudices. It has many different authors over many books. The bible has been translated in well over 2,000 languages, and the translation process is still going on. And remember, it was originally written in Aramic and Hebrew, some languages do not have exact words to match, so others had to be substitued.

"In the beginning" and "Once upon a time" sound almost exactly the same to me. The Bible ends discussing the end of the world and how everyone will live with Jesus happily ever after.

Good point. Befittingly noted.

As I pointed out, the self-contradictions in the Bible indicate that it can't possibly be inerrant.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect me to argue that.

And I think that most Christians would argue that just because they consider it the word of God, doesn't mean it has to be taken literally. Why couldn't parables be the word of God?

I think it would be a huge waste of space if an egotistical diety had a 2,000 page book written about himself to brag about himself, if it were a work of literary fiction. Why would a perfect God do that? He's bored, so he needs to crack a joke?

Exactly. They would've described things they didn't understand with concepts that would have appealed to their own culture. So when they describe God as killing their enemies, they obviously intended to portray him as a hero, not a genocidal villain.

Yep. Those ancient tribals had nothing even remotely close in their environment to liken anything to. If one flys and lands in a helicopter, you can probably fool them by telling them you flew from heaven. I think we basically think the same way about the bible, except a little minor discrepencies.:2razz:

 

[cherokee]

farting in the summer makes me happy..:smile:
farting in the winter makes me sad..

 

[Kandahar]

Look, if it wasn't meant to be taken literally, it probably wouldn't be the best seller, and if it was meant as a work of fiction, policemen at courtrooms would not require witnesses to swear on the bible.

You're saying that the people who wrote these myths down and compiled them into a single book were anticipating it being a bestseller, and courtroom swearings thousands of years later?

Whether it has contradictions is kinda a moot point; but I'd say when the bible contradicts known reality, it has the utmost relevance.

I agree. The point I was making is that the self-contradictions indicate that the writers were comfortable in the understanding that other people had different interpretations. If they weren't, there would only be one account of various stories in the Bible.

I don't know, the bible claims that God is the ultimate author,

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the Bible ever claims that God is its author. Inspired by God, perhaps. But not written by God.

Please expand on that statement if you would. You must remember, the bible was composed by a bunch of primitive perverts who most likely greatly manipulated what was and wasn't included in the bible based on their prejudices.

Your characterization of them as "primitive perverts" is ethnocentric. Our morals are very different than theirs were, and yes, our morals are simply BETTER than theirs. That doesn't mean that they were bad people. It's difficult to find any books even 100 years old that don't reflect some moral values that seem bizarre to us, let alone stories that are nearly 3,000 years old. The Bible, like all other books, should be viewed in the context of the cultures that wrote it.

It has many different authors over many books. The bible has been translated in well over 2,000 languages, and the translation process is still going on. And remember, it was originally written in Aramic and Hebrew, some languages do not have exact words to match, so others had to be substitued.

While I'm sure that some things have been lost or changed in translation, the Bible has remained basically the same for the last 1,800 years. Prior to that time, the Old Testament was constantly being revised by priests. They didn't consider it dishonest or an affront to their god to change the Bible; they simply wanted to keep their core beliefs up-to-date with culture. In that regard, they were much more progressive than lots of evangelical Christians today.

I think it would be a huge waste of space if an egotistical diety had a 2,000 page book written about himself to brag about himself, if it were a work of literary fiction. Why would a perfect God do that? He's bored, so he needs to crack a joke?

Just because the stories may not have literally been true doesn't make them lies or worthless. Consider a parallel example: Just because there never was actually a race between a tortoise and a hare doesn't mean that Aesop was a liar and the parable was meaningless. Why couldn't the Bible be viewed in the same context? You may consider their claim of divine inspiration to be dubious (as I do), but one's thoughts on the inspiration of their stories don't have to detract from the message therein.

 

[kal-el]

You're saying that the people who wrote these myths down and compiled them into a single book were anticipating it being a bestseller, and courtroom swearings thousands of years later?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Discernibly, people nowadays believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, thus the swearing on the bible in courtrooms. If the majority of people believed it was a work of fiction, it would not be in courtrooms, nor in every single hotelroom.

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the Bible ever claims that God is its author. Inspired by God, perhaps. But not written by God.

That is an impeccable statement. The bible never claims that God wrote any of it (aside from the 10 Commandments), but it does state many times that it is the authoritative, effectual word of God.

Your characterization of them as "primitive perverts" is ethnocentric. Our morals are very different than theirs were, and yes, our morals are simply BETTER than theirs. That doesn't mean that they were bad people.

Ageed. Yes, in today's standards those are bad people, but in the ancient world, most of those acts could be construed as acceptable. Except for killing, I would say that no matter what time we are talking about, killing is always wrong, especially if their God says so.:lol:

It's difficult to find any books even 100 years old that don't reflect some moral values that seem bizarre to us, let alone stories that are nearly 3,000 years old. The Bible, like all other books, should be viewed in the context of the cultures that wrote it.

Yes I agree, but some things that were considered "miracles", would still be considered miraculous now. For instance, if it was documented that a whale swallowed a man, and had him in his stomach (without digesting him.:lol: ) for 3 days, then spit him out like flem, and the man actually lived to talk about it, it would still be a miracle. All of the events surrounding Jesus, The Apostles, Moses, Ezekiel, Samson, etc, etc, etc.

While I'm sure that some things have been lost or changed in translation, the Bible has remained basically the same for the last 1,800 years. Prior to that time, the Old Testament was constantly being revised by priests. They didn't consider it dishonest or an affront to their god to change the Bible; they simply wanted to keep their core beliefs up-to-date with culture. In that regard, they were much more progressive than lots of evangelical Christians today.

Agreed.

Just because the stories may not have literally been true doesn't make them lies or worthless.

Of course not, there a are quite a few examples, the actors may not have even lived, or like I said above they could be telling the truth of describing what they saw, but being primitive, have a reduced vocabulary, hence they could only use words in their environment to describe the things they saw.

Consider a parallel example: Just because there never was actually a race between a tortoise and a hare doesn't mean that Aesop was a liar and the parable was meaningless. Why couldn't the Bible be viewed in the same context? You may consider their claim of divine inspiration to be dubious (as I do), but one's thoughts on the inspiration of their stories don't have to detract from the message therein.

I see your point, but the bible seems like it goes to great lenghts to delineate it as the word of God. Sure, common sense would say tell one as they read it's ridiculousness, to take it as fiction, but the bible claims every word is divinely inspired.