News1 min ago
Who did the devil kill in the bible?
126 Answers
Apparently in the bible god killed an abundance of people and the devil only killed two or three. Obviously there's no way of getting through all of god's murders as there would be too many to mention here, but was a record kept of the devil's victims?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Scroll down to Sixth Circle (Heresy) and you'll see a mention of 'flaming tombs'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)
Sandy , ignoring the fact that a 'tomb of fire' is not quite the same a 'flaming tomb'. (typical slack use of language by those with religious propensities(sorry Mike)), this is just stuff made up by Dante. It doesn't even carry authentication by the church. Sandy,I apologies for accusing you of making up the bit about the 'tomb of fire', It was however made up even if not by you. :-)
Goodlife - “... birdie@ Do you think? When the natural desire of all normal persons is to live at peace, why is it so common for people to hate and make a practice of killing one another? It truly is a paradox...”
There is no paradox. In your above post you are taking the Utopian example of everything and everyone being equal and everyone having enough resources (food, water, shelter, energy, land, money, etc.) to live their lives without recourse to any form of struggle whatsoever. Life simply isn't like that. To think so is exceptionally naïve.
In your previous post you said that there wasn't a, “... valid basis for denying the reality of the Devil or for refusing to consider reliable evidence on the matter...”. I asked you to provide me with this 'reliable evidence' and what you have given me is nothing more than a circular argument.
Your 'reliable evidence' is the bible. You see evil and intolerance everywhere and you look to the bible to explain it. The bible says that there is an entity called 'the devil' who is the source of all evil in the world. How do we know the bible is speaking the truth? Because the bible is the inspired word of god and therefore must be true. How do we know the bible is the inspired word of god and speaks the truth? Because the bible tells us so. Ergo, 'the devil' exists.
Surely you can see the circularity of your argument? It is the foundation upon which your faith is based and it is self-reinforcing. That is your argument and that is your 'evidence'. It is simplistic, naïve and relies on circular logic to support itself. Whatever you do, don't even think about practising law if you think that your argument in any way constitutes proof or a valid position from which to argue a case ;-)
There is no paradox. In your above post you are taking the Utopian example of everything and everyone being equal and everyone having enough resources (food, water, shelter, energy, land, money, etc.) to live their lives without recourse to any form of struggle whatsoever. Life simply isn't like that. To think so is exceptionally naïve.
In your previous post you said that there wasn't a, “... valid basis for denying the reality of the Devil or for refusing to consider reliable evidence on the matter...”. I asked you to provide me with this 'reliable evidence' and what you have given me is nothing more than a circular argument.
Your 'reliable evidence' is the bible. You see evil and intolerance everywhere and you look to the bible to explain it. The bible says that there is an entity called 'the devil' who is the source of all evil in the world. How do we know the bible is speaking the truth? Because the bible is the inspired word of god and therefore must be true. How do we know the bible is the inspired word of god and speaks the truth? Because the bible tells us so. Ergo, 'the devil' exists.
Surely you can see the circularity of your argument? It is the foundation upon which your faith is based and it is self-reinforcing. That is your argument and that is your 'evidence'. It is simplistic, naïve and relies on circular logic to support itself. Whatever you do, don't even think about practising law if you think that your argument in any way constitutes proof or a valid position from which to argue a case ;-)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.