Genocide in the Old Testament

[Ryantology]

No, but what's your point? The existence of vegans shows that it is not necessary for people to kill and eat in order to survive. You're dodging, as you always do on this topic.

Food animals are not killed as a result of a person really enjoying the act of ending an animal's life. Whether or not a person could eat something else (and, for many people, it's really not an option), it also isn't a deliberate act of malice on the part of the person who either kills or eats it. So, not murder.

You are the one who is dodging, because the key to this entire discussion is why God kills when it is obvious he cannot face a situation where it is necessary. God doesn't need to eat, or compete for resources. He has an infinity of options available to him if he needs to make something happen. You justify God's murderous rages by citing his ultimate intelligence. If relatively greater intelligence justifies killing, then should it not be a crime for a person to kill another person who is less intelligent? What about babies or small children, whose brains have not developed enough to put them on your level? How much of a gap must there be to justify killing the lesser creature, and on what basis do you make that determination?

We can't eat without killing something, be it plant or animal or fungus. That's unfortunate. But, then again, isn't that how your God designed it?

1. Humans kill other species unnecessarily.
2. Such killing is not called murder.
3. The justification given for 2 is that humans have greater mental capacity than the other animals they kill.
4. God has greater mental capacity than humans.
5. Therefore, it is not murder when God kills humans.

Your question is an implication that 1 is false, i.e. that humans only kill out of necessity. I've already refuted that in at least two ways: the existence of vegans, and the killing of ants.

That's how it works if you are happy that a lot of people died in misery and terror and you wish to justify enjoying it. If not, it goes like this:

1. Humans kill other species unnecessarily.
2. Such killing is not called murder.
3. The justification given for 2 is that while humans possess superior intelligence and capabilities compared to other life forms, it is by no means perfect or close to it. Sometimes we can't help fucking up, and sometimes we just don't act the way we should.
4. It is almost universally considered progress when we find new ways solve our problems and accomplish our goals which reduce or eliminate death and destruction to other living beings. Conversely, people who kill when there is no reason or any better options available, is regarded as a murderer.
5. God has perfect knowledge and total control over everything,
6. God cannot kill by accident, and his omniscience removes the possibility that he can't resolve an issue in a less-destructive manner.
7. Whenever God kills, it is because he has chosen not to solve a problem in a less-violent way. It ultimately indicates nothing more than God's desire to watch something die.
8. Therefore, it is always murder when God kills anything.

I grant that the logic behind the list above only makes sense to a person who has a respect for human life, so I wouldn't make the claim that it has objective value. It takes a special kind of contempt for mankind to think that people deserve something above them destroying them with malice and caprice. I wonder, if they were able to form such thoughts, would some crazy ant individuals would try to convince others of its species that they deserve it when a child fries them with a magnifying glass or pours boiling water on their colony, because of their evil and wicked nature.