Why is it okay when God kills people?

[SteveII]

1. From a series of verses call "The Roman's Road":

• Romans 3:23 NKJV – for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
  
• Romans 3:10 NKJV – As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one;
  
• Romans 5:12 NKJV – Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned–
  
• Romans 6:23 NKJV – For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
  
• Romans 5:8 NKJV – But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
  
• Romans 10:9-10 NKJV – that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation
  
• Romans 10:13 NKJV – For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
  
• Romans 10:17 NKJV – So then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
  

Yes, according to SteveII's favorite book, not according to God. Sorry, but you don't get to argue from the Bible when the OP is about why we should believe the Bible God is the case. By making use of the Bible (and assuming it is God's word) to argue for the Bible God is going in circles.

And, by the way, I know what you're trying to do here, you sneaky you, lol. Taking the chance to preach the Gospel when you can.

2. If you are arguing about the Christian God, you don't get to redefine it to win the argument. Address my points or you have lost the debate on whether God's actions were just.

Bullshit. If you want to convince any of us why the Bible God must be the real deal, you have to do better than to argue from the Bible. The OP is appealing to our modern moral intuitions; it does not want you to assume the Bible God is just or moral because the question of his "justness" is partly what is being questioned in the OP.

Also, is this really about winning and losing debates now? Is this what it is about for you?

3. None of that is an argument. That is a typical dodge that boils down to: "I started arguing about how your God does not make sense and when you show me the reasons behind a particular belief, I will just fall back on (circle one) man-made; bronze-age; full of contradictions; Christians don't all agree; got science wrong; conspiracy" ...well done.

Sorry for hitting a nerve, but the OP is exactly about how the Bible God does not make sense, so you can't resort to the Bible to explain how the Bible God makes sense. Use your intuitions instead.

1. I figured I had to re-explain Christianity because it seems like you were struggling with the extremely basic premise of Christianity that we have all fallen short and what that means. 

2. I don't have to convince you of anything. If you want to argue about my belief, part of that is that the Bible is inspired and is therefore God's revelation to us. I gave reasons why your objections do not lead to your conclusion that God is not just. All you do is dodge questions--never answering them. A debate is an exaggeration to what is going on here--that implies that one party addresses the points of the other.

3. Wow.  Let me be clearer--the very same book you think illustrates that "God does not make sense" is the one that solves the problem. If you deny the solution, you deny the problem. You can't have it both ways.

---

If God is defined as 'the greatest conceivable being', then the God of the bible is clearly not God.  Because I can conceive of a greater being than the Biblical God.  

I mean what you're basically trying to say though is: God is good because his nature is good.  God's nature is good because he is god.  It's circular reasoning.

Ah, but you are ignoring an important part. The conception of God is not done in a vacuum. What are the goals he is trying to accomplish? The Bible says that the salvation of the greatest number of people freely exercising their free will is his goal (in accordance with his other characteristics like holiness and justice--which cannot simply be set aside). Admittedly there will be many lost. In such a framework, the decisions God made in the OT seems to be toward his ultimate goal of preserving the preconditions that will lead up to Jesus.

---

You are ignoring the high value he obviously places on free will and the free choice we have to have a relationship with him. While it does mean death to many, it also means that millions or billions have, with their free will, chosen God. A close second is that love is only possible with free will.
God has chosen to limit his omnipotence in favor of free will.

Let's see, god creates Adam, Doesn't give him the faculty to know right from wrong, but puts that knowledge in the fruit of a tree and tells the man not to eat the fruit.

How exactly does one have free will without knowledge? How is god justified in judging a man for disobeying him when he did not know disobedience was wrong until after he did it?

I'm offering you an opportunity to display your logic. something I so love to do.

Your view of Adam is not correct. Why do you think he did not know right from wrong? He intentionally disobeyed the only command God gave him. Do you think that God was not clear in not eating the fruit or that Adam wasn't capable of understanding him? The effect was not knowledge of right and wrong, but that their innocence was gone.