Talk:Examples of God personally killing people/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Old and new

Before this page gets renamed, you will note there are examples form both the old and new testaments.--Bob_M (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

God seems to have been responsible for a lot more deaths than Satan... MiddleMan 13:45, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I think, actual examples of Satan killing people are a bit thin on the ground. There's Job's family - but that was really a bet with god. I can't think of any others off hand. --Bob_M (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

God killed every living human on Earth in the Great Flood. Compared to that, every mass-murderer in human history has been a piker. --(Gulik)67.102.192.7 14:44, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

What I can't understand is if God wiped everyone out except Noah and his family where did all these Baalists comes from. What made them convert from the one true religion? What went wrong with Conservative family values? I mean it wasn't as if there were any lbruls to lead them astray. ɱ@δ ɱ!ɳ^Hello?/_{I did this!} 15:23, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Mmmm. Yes. Wonder what Baal had? Seems to have been very popular. Have to find out a bit more.--Bob_M (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Winning smile and charming personality perhaps? Or maybe he was a little more tolerant when it came to smiting his followers with godly wrath? _liessmoke^mirrors 08:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

A hot wife: Baal was the consort of Ishtar, the goddess of sex and violence. (JHVH would have a hard time competing on one of those scores.) --Gulik 20:50, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Uzzah

I was always interested by this guy, and the seemingly blatant unfairness of his death. Now, I am aware that there are theological arguments that could hypothetically be made about this, but I am more inclined to believe that the fellow was a casualty of the Ark's construction. Turns out the thing was built like a massive Leyden jar – and, being in the desert, the charge could have become enormous. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:03, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Theologically it could be covered biblical death penalties Specifically "Non-priests going near the tabernacle when it is being moved. (Numb 1:51)". So I guess he got what was coming to him.--Bob_M (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, but I still kinda prefer the Leyden jar explanation :). --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 13:19, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Right, gold foil inside and out, housed in the tabernacle with all those wonderfully ornate silken curtains just shedding off electrons by the trillions. A modern (external) defibrillator only packs a 400 joule jolt, tops. I've used telsa coils to charge a leyden jar, once. The tesla coil would produce bolts up to three feet. When I powered down thew coil the leyden jar (a glass polar water bottle) spontaneously discharged to the grounding spike (which I had placed in case the tesla coil malfunctioned to save the transformer from damaging feedback), the spike was about a dozen feet away. The next day I noticed a ring of dead earthworms around where the spike was. If I ever want to get into the fishing bait bidness I'll know how to scare up "product". ~~ CЯacke® 21:54, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Jesus

I see that Jesus had been added to those killed by God. I think this may be stretching things a bit, as God didn't carry out the act personally as is described in the other occasions. Any thoughts? --Bob_M (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't really fit with the "personally" bit in the title as he didn't exactly do the dirty work himself, he just let the "justice" system at the time work its course. _prettydilettante^lies 04:24, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, God is God. But Jesus is also God (unless you ask the Arians, of course, but let's not go there). So it's more an "example of God killing himself" than anything else, which is of course sort of the point of the whole exercise. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 04:28, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree - it's a bit of a stretch, but a stretch that, like I said, a decent lawyer could make on some sort of negligence-causing-manslaughter charge. Hey, I'm the new guy, you don't think it should be there, take it down - I'm cool with it...PFoster 08:47, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, cheers. I'll take it out. I suppose we could start a broader list of "people killed because of God's lack of intervention" - but that might include all of humanity not currently dead. People killed by God's command is another possibility. I suspect it would include about half the book of Joshua. And much of the rest of the OT.--Bob_M (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

You know, if it was God killing God would that not be suicide? If so would that not be a sin? So I beg to question if Jesus truly was sinless?--TimS 08:50, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Just as a side comment, how can God be "Just" when he breaks his own rules? (Above suicide issue)--TimS 08:59, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Strangely enough I was thinking what to call a god killing himself while I was mowing the lawn. Should it have a special name? I mean if you kill a god it's deicide, but should suicide by a god have a special name? Anyway, I've removed the example.--Bob_M (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe übersuicide? Or suideicide? Or just übercide? I'm not really sure. Thunderkatz^Ho! 09:10, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

autodeicide. PFoster 09:31, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps have a word with those following the Norse gods - which will mostly die at Ragnorak .

Onan

Crime - “spilling his seed”. Hate to turn this into a jihad, but he died because of where he did not put the seed (Not giving his late brother's wife a child), not where he did (Masturbation). The crime was spilling his seed in the stead of impregnating Tamar with it like God said too. That is how I understand it, did I misinterprate?--72.188.143.77 17:27, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

The "crime" is an omnipotent god micromanaging evolution to the point he finds it necessary to off a guy, (Er), to get to the "better seed" (Onan's), then killing off Onan because he was too smart to play by the rules of the culture that this god we're dealing with didn't see coming (some "god", eh?) So, Yes, you are correct as to WHY this god fella kilt Onan. But it's just as easy to say god didn't like the look on Onan's mug, because it's just the arbitrariness of it that rings hollow.

My personal opinion, Onan was a story to get to Judah's double dealing with Tamar. St. CЯacke® 18:32, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

No one noticed?

No one noticed the practical joke I put at the end of this article ('Recent killings by God')? — Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:38, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm so disappointed. — Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:39, 22 August 2007

My mother died of Alzheimers - it aint a subject for humour - possibly the worst way to go! Keep ^{me out of it!} 20:56, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

My mother too, died from the effects of Alzheimer's. I didn't take offense at the joke, neither, though, did I think it particularly funny. St. CЯacke® 21:13, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I work with people with Alzheimer-type dementia and other dementias on a pretty regular basis. It's a pretty horrible disorder. --Kels 21:17, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

In a quirky sort of way there are "funny" moments, globally it's tragic, but in day-to-day interactions there is much...fun. When you realize that the "sufferers" (at certain stages of the condition) stop caring that they're becoming increasingly impaired, or even forget that they have the condition, their lives become somehow more peaceful. It's oddly beautiful seeing a parent (based on my own experience) become the child they once were again. Being a caregiver (as I was) I believe it's easier to see the progression since it happens day-by-day. If one is unable to caregive and forced to institutionalize one's parent and unable to visit daily, the progression seems much more abrupt which is harder on the survivors than the patient herself. St. CЯacke® 23:06, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

From the moment we realised that my 'Telegraph crossword addict' mother couldn't spell her own name to the day she died in an awful hospital ward, there was nothing repeat nothing "beautiful" about watching the disintegration of a once very intelligent woman. Just as bad was the effect on my father who loved her until and beyond her death. Keep ^{him away from ME} 23:40, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I am sorry that your mother's death was so rough on you and your family. In my experience, my mother's descent into the depths of the illness led to many unpleasantnesses. I was able to keep her in her home until the last two weeks of her life, when, having "forgotten" how to swallow, she aspirated fruit juice into her lungs and developed pneumonia which is what ultimately killed her. From the onset until her death, we had about 12 years with her. Actually we had about 9 years with her and three years of having the shell (body) that she once occupied. She had a blindness or sorts, her eyes probably worked fine, it was her brain that could no longer process the images in a coherent way.

Still, while she was "devolving" she became childlike, loving to sing songs over and over. For a while I could get her out of a bad or combative mood by singing a song (that I had learned by rote from her) briefly engaging with her on some deep and mystical level. It was these times that I began to "look forward" to while blending her breakfast, or walking her to the toilet. It was a proof to me that some part of her was still "in there". Having seen my grandmother and aunt die of this same affliction that we, as a family, were steeled for the inevitable. St. CЯacke® 00:21, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

As a survivor of cancer, I have to agree that diseases are not (generally) funny. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 23:49, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I zapped the "recent killings" bit.--Bob^{bing up} 16:13, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Hi

I did not kill all of these people, it was Satan posing as me. I would never do such things, but Satan is a clever lier and sent his deamons over to edit the bible itself. *God* 23:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Yeah, you would never do dat... human 23:39, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Killed for looking at (or into) ark

Seems there is a bit of a discrepency on this one. KJV gives "fifty thousand and threescore and ten men". The NIV gives seventy, but with a note to say that some manuscripts have the higher number.--Bob^{bing up} 10:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Personally

I find myself moved to question whether the various people being killed by the largely defensive weapons of lion, bear or angel really belong on this list. Those are hardly personal killings by God, after all. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Mmmm. Yes, we don't, after all, include all the thousands allegedly killed at his instruction by the genocidal of Israel, as those were bit third hand. On the other hand the lion/angel ones were, according to the OT, direct miraculous interventions - so perhaps the text could be expanded to read "Killed by his personal hand or as a consequence of his divine intervention."--Bob^{bing up} 03:12, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

prehistoric fish & pleasiosaur

So this is a semi-serious question for those familiar with Young Earth Creationism. How do the anti-enviros explain how a flood managed to kill sea going dinosaurs, but didn't kill dolphins, trout, tuna and alligators, all of which think the water is a fine place to hang out during the floody season. Just curious.--WaitingforGodot 18:40, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's obvious! The kangaroos, on their floating mat cruise to Oz, had nothing to eat but plesiosaur - and they ate them all, yum! ħuman 21:37, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I've seen the question asked, but I don't remember any good answers. The problem is that, as the whole story is miraculous, you simply have to invoke more miracles to explain any inconsistencies. Consequently trying to tie people down with "What about x then?" tends to not get you very far as the answer is simply another miracle.--Bob^{bing up} 03:07, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Removed one

I removed this one as I'm not sure it made sense in context. Every human being, animal and plant that ever died. Crime - Original sin. Method of execution - All the various ways human beings, animals and plants die. And we're all going to go that way in the end, despite the fact that the whole "Original Sin" thing isn't really our fault...--Bob^{bing up} 15:39, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Converting to tables

I'd like to convert the list of fatalities in to a table. I think that it'll be easier to maintain. The table is currently in my sandbox - found at User:Concernedresident/tableexperiment. I think it's a good idea, but I'm fairly new to using tables in wikis. Feedback and suggestions are welcomed. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On Herod:

As someone who studied Catholicism for quite a while (went to a Catholic school, as the public ones in Baton Rouge are beyond shit), I would like to add that "failure to praise God" was probably the last straw as far as Herod is concerned. He also committed mass infanticide. 98.200.201.59 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

graphy graph

[1] I like it. Šţěŗĭļė counterpane

Can we get permission to steal use it? ħuman 04:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

King Saul

Well, it seems the most logical book ever written is contradicting itself.

1 Samuel 31:4-6. Yahweh didn't kill Saul, Saul killed himself by jumping on his sword.

1 Chronicles 10:14. Yahweh killed Saul for disobedience.

I think we should remove Saul since Samuel predates Chronicles. What you you folks think?Mr. Swift (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think 1 Chronicles is more about interpreting the reason for his defeat and subsequent death than a literal smiting by the angry guy in the clouds. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. 1 Chronicles 10:4 makes it suicide, but 10:14 says that the God killed him, and Samuel may say something else - I haven't checked. So, wow, a contradiction in the bible - whatever next? But if we start removing biblical verses because there is a biblical contradiction elsewhere there probably wouldn't be much bible left. So I suggest that we note in the article that God's homicidal guilt could be disputed in this one.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, Bob. I've added a suitable note. Well spotted, Mr Swift. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 12:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Because I tend to jump the gun, I removed Saul before checking here. However, I think my reasoning for doing so stands. God causes the Israelites to be massacred by their enemies several times as punishment. This probably doesn't count as a "personal" kill, because he lets someone else do his dirty work. In this case, 1 Chronicles seems to be describing this kind of kill, where Goddidit by sending the Philistines after Saul, leaving him the choice of falling into their hands or killing himself.

While I think contradiction is common in the Bible, I also think that this is not an example, as it falls into the very very very common pattern of "God punished the king by making him lose a battle." that makes the meaning quite unambiguous ("punish" here means "kill" of course, as that's the default Old Testament punishment). Assuming that we don't count that sort of thing as a personal kill, Saul shouldn't be on this list.

On the other hand, if "causing to lose a battle" is an acceptable method of personal killing, this list is gonna need to get a lot longer.

--Quantheory (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious

This is one of the most wryly funny, well-researched pieces of satire I've ever read. Brilliant. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

meh

I think a better page would be about god telling people to kill--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There's already a redlink if you care to find out every instance of every lunatic saying God told them to pick up that shot gun. ADK^{...I'll mature your home theater system!} 15:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Like, from the Bible.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark David bloody Chapman is a prime-example of a murderer whom claimed God told him to do it. Also an excellent example of the dangers caused by a lack of egotism. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean in the Bible. On many occasions God told people to commit genocide and even kill children. Damn, it looks like I'll have to do this myself...--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How about Moses? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article says in the intro that it does not cover the vastly greater number of people killed at God's command. There was a fair bit of divine genocide. If I remember sometimes whole cities were killed and at other times the women and children were made into slaves - well at least according to the OT.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, god telling people to kill is nothing compared with him killing off the entire planet save 8 people and (50? 100?) pairs of "kinds" of dinos and cats and i don't know, elephants. That's so much more loving. think of all the cute koalas, and the lemurs, and the poor little sloths who had to walk from flipping (south america? shit, see how fucked up my biology is, i don't know where sloths are) south america on their slow little hands and feet to hopefully make it in time for the boat to leave. poor sloths. God is mean!--En attendant Godot 15:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thought of the flood just as I wrote that. But what would the biblically-calculated population have been be at the time of the flood? I see that we say 20 million, but I've no idea how that number was calculated.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you are a Christian Fundi, the population could not have been that big at all, since golly wally, there had only been some 1000 (?) years since adom and eve, and even under the order to "go forth and multiply", i'm guessing 1000 years can't change a population starting with two (2) very quickly. But that would be some seroius math that I do not understand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates suggests that the population would have been between 7 and 27 million, depending on what year it happened. Course, I've not seen anyone who "knows without a doubt noah happened" give me a good time when it *did* happen.... the earth is 4000 BCE, so... --En attendant Godot 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! But remember that people lived up to a thousand years in those days and presumably remained fertile as well - so that would increase the population somewhat. On the other hand dinosaur predation would presumably have reduced it a bit as well.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the generally accepted number is around 1,500 years after creation. But the calculated population by some fundies is 5 to17 billion! Given the the present population of the world is only a little under 7 billion then they must have taken the instruction to "go forth and multiply" very seriously.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How come fundies are just so bad at general awareness of things like "numbers" and i don't know, "i don't know what i'm talking about?". Hell, last night i argued with a fundi about gluons. it was evident she had heard someone talk about them, and strong and weak force, cause she tossed them around like word salad, but clearly had no idea what they meant. I don't know what they mean, either. but i admit that.... and here? how hard is it to figure out that 1 million and 1 billion are really really fucking different.--En attendant Godot 15:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(sorry, i don't know how to unindent)... by the way, did you read this quote: Had their population reached over 10 billion, they would have required similar technology as we have today (rail, refrigerated shipping, sophisticated farming methods, fast and reliable communication, etc)..... so you know, all the dirt and muck dredged up that managed to create ALL THE WORLD'S FOSSILS, didn't save one rail line, or steel building, or glass -- yet it DID save earthen wear pottery. Fuck these people annoy me. can they think????--En attendant Godot 16:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's just confirmation bias. They are simply unable to acknowledge the existence of information or evidence which would suggest they are wrong.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy tops off at 121 trillion before realising he's just fudging the numbers randomly and it's probably all a bit bollocks. ADK^{...I'll snap your attorney!} 16:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask PJR what his number is.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do people actually believe this?

I read through it but is it tongue in cheek satire or do people really see God as some unjustified child randomly throwing death from above for no reason?

Also the article overall has a bit of a messy tone, maybe if it was rewritten by a single person it would have a bit more semblance to it's over all theme (Whatever that is). ^{— Unsigned, by: 220.244.251.191 / talk / contribs}

Well, I imagine that most people who believe in God wouldn't interpret God as "some unjustified child randomly throwing death from above for no reason." I'm sure most people who would phrase divine murdering that way would be atheists. The article is meant to highlight the issue from this perspective. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that anybody who reads the bible literally believes that God killed those people. So, yes some people must believe it. How they then interpret God's emotional state is a question best asked at a religious site. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

When I was younger, I definitely believed that God personally killed all of these people. I was terrified, particularly with Lot's wife, but I figured I would understand more when I grew up. So yes, people do seriously believe this. Cow...Hammer^time! 15:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember asking myself the same thing when I first saw Caring for the animals in Noah's ark. I initially found it very funny as it debunked the ark story as if it was serious, later realising that (most) creationists do actually believe that story, making an article like that necessary. This article serves to highlight the people God had killed across the course of the Bible. SJ ^Debaser 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As everyone else here has said, I think it depends on your religion, your level of cognitive dissonance, and your skills at reasoning. I think most kids who are raised in christian homes, are taught that Noah really happened - and right there you have a pretty fucking petty, despicable God who killed millions of people "just cause". I know that when my father was a minister, kids were often terrified that god would do that again if they or "everyone" was bad. My dad tried to teach that it was an allegory. The Methodist Ruling Class at the time, didn't like that and told him to stop. My best answer, however, is this: Most Christians never take the time to consider what God really did, nor are they aware of some of the more minor parts. That's why the article is here. READ YOUR BIBLE, we say. cause it's damned scary. GodotGrow a vagina 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

non-believers and satanists

A Christian replaced the page the following text in Feb 2014. I felt it should be kept.--Coffee (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The atheists who created this website are dumb (not personally, PHYSICALLY.) What you already know about this page was actually true, however in not the way you'd think. God is misunderstood non-stop each day by trollers and haters, who only want to deceive his bad image. He only wants the people who believe in him and respect him, to enter heaven. Those who disobey his natural orders, or follow his opposites, are punished severely. Atheists bash people everyday about Christians being wrong, but when us christians want to speak our mind, we're not allowed to do that? How hypocritical and childish of those who decide to take his name out in spite. Christians are the most generous people around. They do not always committ evil and vast rituals that the non-believers and satanists do.

Do us all a favor and SHUT UP ABOUT SCIENCE. It is so ridiculous :(.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=14025 ^{— Unsigned, by: 192.110.144.242 / talk / contribs}

The link is worth following as it includes "Why are there still monkeys" and "Dinosaurs on the ark". I do have to wonder if it's serious though.--Coffee (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually a few seconds more thought leads me to believe the site is total satire.--Coffee (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Landover Baptist Church is a well-known parody site. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean the BoN post here is parody though. Could be a True Believer who can't tell the difference. I hope that's the case, simply because if that post was intended as parody it's pretty damn unfunny. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 21:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was pretty funny. Especially spelling commit with an extra 't' and the sad smiley at the end just killed me. XD Nullahnung (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh, maybe I'm just in a cranky mood. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 21:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Having recently read the introduction to Conservapedia's E = mc2 article my satire antenna were a bit faulty.--Coffee (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WARNING!!!

I can tell that the writer of this is very intelligent and I do appreciate good humor. We know that God is a jealous God. (He admit's this himself.). We are instructed to only refer to him with the utmost respect and reverence.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.53.215.193 / talk / contribs}

Thank you for your warning. It will be given due consideration.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

God

"God" is a gibberish word used to equivocate on some irrational concept each individual hopes to share with others. E.g. not only can they not agree to the details of their "god" they necessarily encounter logical fallacies when trying to express any detail on the word. It would be better to use a more accurate label such as Yahweh to show we are talking explicitly about the character of the Bible and not the individual idolized version that may or may not share properties with the character in the Bible.^{— Unsigned, by: Riluve / talk / contribs}

It would seem to be reasonable, when talking about the being whom The Bible refers to as "God" to refer to that being as "God" which talking about his various divine murders. Also "Yahweh" is typically thought of as being as the "Old Testament God" yet the New Testament also refers to God killing people. As this is an article about the generic God of The Bible then using the biblical term throughout would seem to be appropriate.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated Table

Just edited the table of Old Testament killings, added more information, Bible references and got rid of the obnoxious remarks within it. Spent most of the day going through this, but it was missing a lot of information so I thought I would fill in most of the gaps. Should be more professional now. RoryWatt (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the snark should be removed C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 01:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Attempting to justify things that never actually happened seems like a waste of time. It's better with the humour.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 06:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

C₆₅₄₁ - Yet you decided to undo the whole thing? the 'snark' and later referred to as 'humour' is very unprofessional.
Bob - You resort to the basis of 'it's a waste of time' to justify something that, in your opinion, did not happen. Rather than giving me your personal feelings and thoughts on the matter, how about telling me how I 'attempted' to 'justify' these things. What would be more professional and reasonable of you, would be to point out the flaws in what I wrote - explain to me where I have gone wrong. For all I have added is more references and better reasoning on verses, which many people take out of context a lot of the time. If you sit on one side of the fence, then you are in no position to take action in order to ignore or exclude further Biblical references on the matters in question.RoryWatt (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All of your edits are attempts to justify Gods alleged murderous activity! Incidentally, it might have been better if you had started on the talk page by explaining what you intended to do and why.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Justifications & removal of snark/bias aren't needed, but there was some useful info, context & clarification in some of Rory's edits. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel}. Yet again, you accuse me of trying to justify "Gods alleged murderous activity", can you please explain to me how you can conclude that what I say is false and thus on a pure basis to not be included. Perhaps some of the 'murderous activity' can be justified, I am only quoting from scriptures on the same subject am I not? Your action and response Bob only tells me that from the outset, you have already a biased line of reasoning and do not include any possibility of goodness in your way of thinking. Hence, you are not rational. And I do not want you to respond with anymore blind accusations of me.
The word 'justification' is not what should be associated with what I have editted, for 'justifying' itself is a matter of opinion. What was/am I adding? Only more scriptures for a more in-depth view, with that comes the history of the characters and events, and insight into possible reasons. To ignore additional evidence posted is not rational. What you should be doing is evaluating the evidence rather than the person giving it Bob.
Also, I would have started here if it were only a short edit, but after evaluating, it was easier for me to edit it and post here afterwards so as people could pluck at the changes and the debate could be more efficient. But reverting back to the original and saying 'you are attempting to justify it!' is the most ignorant and child-like response. Read the edits I have done, evaluate it for yourselves, and then tell me how and what I am wrong with. RoryWatt (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Haven't a clue what you've written but that's not how we do things. Before making MAJOR alterations use the talk page please. Scream!! (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have tried the talk page in the past, but to no replied, and still there isn't one(this was quite awhile back before I decided to make an account).
In that case Scream!!, seeing as a MAJOR edit requires a lot of space on here in order to talk on it, I will at some point evaluate the first 5 or so at a time. And I want to see counter points from the baboons above. Because that has not been provided yet. RoryWatt (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Way to go to get folk on your side: calling them "baboons". With such fine rhetoric I don't fancy your chances. Scream!! (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. RoryWatt (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Relax, take a deep breath. I think you did add some useful context but the problem I saw was justification for God killing people and removal of humor. You did you major edits, I reverted it once, you went ahead and did a bigger one and only after you had made the edits did you post to the talk page. Regards, C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why am I repeating myself? "Yet again, you accuse me of trying to justify "Gods alleged murderous activity", can you please explain to me how you can conclude that what I say is false and thus on a pure basis to not be included. Perhaps some of the 'murderous activity' can be justified, I am only quoting from scriptures on the same subject am I not?"
I mentioned the reason for posting here afterwards already "I would have started here if it were only a short edit, but after evaluating, it was easier for me to edit it and post here afterwards so as people could pluck at the changes and the debate could be more efficient."
I made short edits before hand because I was just testing to see how they would show up, the edits before you reverted it are included in the "bigger" or final one that I did. Notice, I also posted in the talk page directly after having edited the page.
Scream!! instead of answering me in any form, you make it personal thing to take offence it seems. The humour I used was very much the same within the pages. RoryWatt (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

that's the problem, you posted to the talk page AFTER making the edits rather than starting a discussion before making major edits to the page. C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 17:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer you in any form as I believe the entire Bible to be as near to fiction as it's possible to be. It would be like discussing the motives of Smaug or Saruman to me. What I do take issue with is your calling folk "baboons" which I doubt anyone regards as "humour". It is as a RatWiki member that I commented not as an editor of this particular page.Scream!! (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to worry about God existing less and less

Stuff like this is what is making me (and a few other Atheists I know) worry less and less about whether God is real or not. Seriously, worship a God that could possibly change its mind when we are in heaven, and just decide to start the whole thing over again?--Tsunadi (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look back in the history and my recent in-depth edit, I added a lot of context to situations but it was unjustly rolled back. I guess from a standpoint of Atheism, taking statements out of context to forcefully fit your own view or belief is what you love to do regarding biblical matters. It's also the very same obnoxious sarcasm that litters RationWiki. RoryWatt (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nadab and Abihu

Does anyone else wonder whether they may have accidentally put some kind of explosive combination in that censer that just hadn't been discovered yet? You don't need divine intervention if you stuff a pot with gunpowder, for example, without noticing. 73.185.107.139 (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good job

"Atheists are against Christianity", "Atheists just hate God" and other such statements seem to be proven by your circlejerk going on here.^{— Unsigned, by: don't read the gottdamn fine print Godhating atiests!! / talk / contribs}

Hey, it's all there in your own Bible. You should try reading it sometime. Bicycle^wheel 11:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)