I think you're right in a high-content sort of way, but lists like this are pretty low-content.

I think an almost legitimate way to look at it is that it's a shotgun approach--there are so many examples of God killing people in the Bible, and so many that seem extremely petty, that the non-believer points to the list and says, "Are you telling me that every one of those killings was justified?" Examining specific points would surely be better, and the list supplies a starting point.

You could think killing is sometimes ok but that mass genocide is always wrong. You could think killing is ok but for an Omnipotent being with unlimited powers would have better options so killing would be wrong for him. You could judge like you have (just a different conclusion) based on the bible and the info given.


And again i think the path you are leading down in the end leads to not being able to have any unjust killings. I dont know the lady who killed her kids for God is not in communication with God and doing his bidding. I dont have all the info.

I dont believe you. Based on your post itt and itf its clear you think its wrong.


Btw i feel superior to very few. Most of the posters here when it comes to the subject are superior to me. I also dont try to humiliate any of the theists. Those are some more fun judgments though.

Whats even better is you have two people talking and the atheist is the big bad wolf in your eyes. Its not the theist when in an argument who needs to be opened, its the atheist. Is not the theist who tries to feel superior and humiliate (even though we have asshat atheists and theists who post here) its the atheists. Good stuff.



Yeah but then he inspired the book of revelations.

I was more musing on why preflood humans got death on mass for being evil yet we live. It makes Gods killings look arbitrary. But as long as Gods going to off us for the evil. Ok.

I agree that it provides a good starting point, especially considering the effort involved in generating it. I have no problem in someone grabbing a specific example and dissecting it, trying to find out if or how morality was maintained. Such lists mildly beg the question though, as they try to stand as a proof of immorality simply by existing; God has killed X number of people, so he is unjust.

You're right, my perspective only fits in to the extreme idea that says that God is immoral for killing regardless of the circumstances, which imo, such lists attempt to do. They are rhetoric in nature, and my criticism is not aimed at one who thinks that God may have committed some injustice, and examines a specific incident, but that any killing is proof of an injustice just because someone was killed. If your aim is simply to point to any killing to prove injustice, I think you will run into problems.

I think you could think God is always wrong for killing but think killing is sometimes ok for humans. That was my second example. You could think an Omnipotent God should have more moral options then killing where humans dont.

Interesting idea, I'll give you that. There are examples where God brings judgement on someone and does not kill them, so I don't think God does not have other options, but that sometimes his judgement involves death. So what you are suggesting is that God has a choice in what his judgement is, but I'm not sure that justice works like that. If God could pardon without punishment, he wouldn't be just.

Could God punish someone and serve justice by any other means than killing someone? Theoretically, yeah, but I think this is difficult to prove biblically.

Who is making an absolute statement? Pretty sure anyone making statements like "god is evil" has either explicitly given various qualifications already or would readily supply them if queried. As in, I might say that given my limited understanding and morality, it appears that the god of the old testament is a moral monster. But that isn't a statement of absolute certainty. Maybe there is actually some fantastic way that all the horrors of the book turn out to be entirely loving and benevolent, I just can't see it.

This is simply false. I can say that some types of killing are justified and other types are not, and that God commit the latter. For instance, I might say killing in self defence is an exemption but that this exemption doesn't apply to God.

I explained that I'm referring to the OP's list, which wants to stand alone to prove that God is evil. That's the absolute certainty I'm speaking about, that says God is evil because he killed X, without any further examination.

You can look at a specific example, and provide examples of why you feel it is unjust, and that is very different.

If God doesn't have a choice and human actions dictate the punishment, i dont know that id call the punishment a judgment. There is no thought needed. That would be more like karma.

I guess it could be a judgement based on the universe he created though. He judge that so and so actions deserve death and set it up that way. But if he couldn't set it up another way.....


Meh my issue is more with method anyway. Think its harder to get out of.

Well i cant prove any killing is just. Let alone Gods.

There is a school of thought that says God does not have a choice, because he must do what is right and just, and since he is omniscient, he knows exactly what justice requires. So when death is required, he must administer that punishment to be just.

I can't prove anything either, which makes many of these discussions kind of useless, but it's interesting to examine it anyway, I think.

I hope i didnt humiliate you to much.

Haha, that made me chuckle. I have very little dignity left in real life, I can handle looking stupid online, I'm not that bright to begin with.

Neh you're a good poster and dont look stupid. I like most of your answers.

Yes they are, and this is partly the reason why capital punishment is being abolished across most developed countries.
Unless you want to get specific with examples we all know the law and we all know the consequences of going against the law. The judicial system will put you in jail if you behave against the law. That is their policy and they stick by it. There is nothing hypocritical about their behaviour there.
I won't deny that in the judicial system, as well as most public-sector organisations, there is a lot of hypocrisy beneath it all. However, there are also private organisations which operate under integrity and minimal levels of hypocrisy. These are the organisations that typically sky-rocket in profitability due to their advanced accountability mechanisms. I will not worship a 'God' who is no better than man. A God who's words and actions are misaligned: a God who lies.

Every day I strive to be a man of my word. If God is any kind of role model, he would be one too. Parents telling their child that drugs are bad for them and that they should avoid them, while secretly doing them themselves, does not make them worthy of respect. Respect is earned, not given. God has not earned it.

Didn't think I was being snarky. I was just making the point that thinking people are capable of understanding that there is no justification for killing innocent babies and children. And people who don't understand that aren't worth talking to.

Right, he'd be merciful. Those contradictory positions that God supposedly holds of being both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Forget "God can't be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time", justice and mercy are actual contradictions, and actual labels that the Bible uses to describe God (where in the Bible is God described using the word omnipotent?).



Also, +1 to liking your posts.

You already admitted that there is hypocrisy in the judicial system by the same means that God is unjust, so I don't want to harp on this, but I don't quite understand why you don't condemn the entire system. I gave the example of holding someone against their will, because it is the most obvious example of hypocrisy by your standard, that you will be put in jail if you put someone in jail yourself. It doesn't even need to be this obvious, the judicial system employing any sort of punishment is hypocritical, since they act against your will and take away your rights, when they command the opposite.

When God punishes someone, and that punishment involves killing, making him a hypocrite by your standard, I believe that the entire judicial system should likewise fall into your standard of hypocrisy, not simply capital punishment.

I would agree with you if God was our equal, and he did not play the role of judge, which is why I brought up the issue of hypocrisy in the judicial system to begin with. Since he is our judge, I think he is exempt by the same means the entire judicial system is exempt.

If it helps, I agree that the punishment seems severe, not many would argue that it seems right, but if God is our judge, I think calling him a hypocrite is not the best objection. I really can't argue with you if you simply say he is too severe, which you do imply, I just find calling God a hypocrite may not be adequate, given his nature.

Fair enough, so do you believe that biblical God is axiomatically evil since he has killed children in the flood?

I think you're looking at it like God can't be a married bachelor, since when God judges an individual person, he will either be merciful or just, he can't do both at once. I think the point is that justice is always served, either through Christ or through our own condemnation, but mercy was shown in that Christ died for those who did not deserve it. So when he condemns someone, he is still merciful because Christ died for them, and when he forgives someone, justice was served through Christ dying on the cross.

Thanks! You've always been polite even when you disagree, so I appreciate that.

I do. And to be honest, I don't see how any decent person could believe differently.

That said, I realize there are a lot of decent and nice Christians. So I'm just saying I don't understand it personally. I"m not that there aren't any decent Christians. To me, if there is any way someone can justify a god killing innocents, then they either haven't thought much about it, they are brainwashed, or just aren't that intelligent. Harsh perhaps, but what other possibilities are there?

One thing to consider here is that in Christianity, there is no such thing as an "innocent." It might sound nitpicky if you're on the outside, but it's a fundamental tenant of Christianity. When you start out with the belief that every person ever is sinful and deserving of death from the very beginning of their existence, it's not that hard to justify.

Can't even count the number of times I've heard the argument that essentially boils down to "Everyone deserves to die, sometimes God just gives people what they deserve."

It'd be pretty difficult to say this about children. They are the sole representatives of innocence in any society. Anyone who does believe this to be the case, even for children, can not be living a happy life. And that is their burden to wear.

Some light and cheerful reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Bible makes it pretty clear that 100% of all people are sinful and (without someone sinless to pay the consequence of sin, which is death) separated from God/destined for damnation.

Some denominations do theological gymnastics to get babies and children off the hook, others say they don't know the ultimate heavenly fate of babies and children who die before accepting Christ, others just say "Everyone who doesn't accept Christ goes to hell, no exceptions."

Edit, re: "can't be living a happy life." Some can, I suppose. Many Christians I know (especially those who are older and have children/family that aren't Christian) operate with a profound and fundamental sadness that their loved ones will be damned for eternity instead of joining them in paradise.

I come from a strong catholic background and in my experience, although it may appear that they are happy on the surface, having such beliefs and maintaining happiness requires enormous amounts of energy and self-deception. Some beliefs are just not conducive to happiness because the most consistent predictor of long-term happiness is the quality of one's social relations, a large part of which is determined by one's general beliefs about people.

The more trusting you are of others, the more likely they are to trust you. The more positively you think of others, the more positive you will see from them and the more positively they will treat you.

P.S. please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that religion prevents people from long-term happiness but that specific beliefs about certain scriptures can in indeed. Much like a weak-nihilist can maintain happiness where strong-nihilists are typically depressed.

I have considered this and I lump that under brainwashing. Only someone who has been brainwashed, or doesn't think for themselves could sweep this under the rug and be okay with it.

But you're right. Many people do have this worldview. We are all born sinners, depraved, and undeserving of life or god. It is only when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior that we may be worthy of salvation. IOW, they are brainwashed.