Why is it okay when God kills people?

[Amarok]

1. He does not have to owe us something to do something honorable I don't owe a child I saved from drowning anything but as I'm not a total douche bag I do it all the same

2. As for the idea his only owes us judgement of grace then he's a monster and judge by such a creature would be a parody

3. Nope we don't deserve death by  being contrary to his self proclaimed holy  or just nature is BS and once again circular reasoning  

4. Then his justice is a farce

5. No he dose not have any such right merely a self proclaimed right that you obfuscate with circular reasoning it must have been god because god did it and so on

So nope more fail you concept of justice is backward and barbaric

[vorlon13]

and some religious types get all gushy when (their) god contrives to kill somebody in a rather vivid way, say like explosive diarrhea or rabies.

[Rhondazvous]

God is supposed to be the bastion for morality, yet he goes around killing people pretty willy nilly in the bible.  Not to mention how he demands blood sacrifices--which would be more than a little creepy if he were human.  So why isn't it creepy just because he's some invisible wizard?

Obviously all of this only applies if he's actually real--but even if you convinced me of his existence, I don't think I'd support the guy.  The whole thing reeks of "Might makes right", and that everyone would gladly follow Satan if he were more powerful than God (though they'd never admit it).

"God only kills the wicked!"

Really?  Seems like a pretty poor excuse.    All the children in the flood were going to be wicked?  In which case he was killing them before they actually do anything.  And you can say "Well, they'll go to heaven!" all you like, but unless you happen to be pro-abortion, that argument holds very little water.

And what about the 70,000 people he killed when David took a census?  Those 70,000 people just happened to be wicked?  We're supposed to just take his word on that? 

Lot's wife was killed because she looked back. 

All the first born children of egypt.  Yeah, all of them.  There weren't any other ways he could have freed the supposed slaves of Egypt?  I mean the guy left no evidence behind of them ever being there, seems to me he just wanted to be a dick about it.

Killed a guy because he wouldn't hit a prophet that told him to hit him.  (Apparently this wasn't one of his insane tests like with Abraham, but you can see why you might not want to hit a prophet especially when...)

The youths killed by bears because they teased a prophet.  

Ezekiel's wife... just to make a point. 

I really don't see how anyone can look at this guy and think he's obviously the good guy.  Do you think Harry Potter is the tragic tale of the benevolent Lord Voldemort?  Is the Hunger Games the story of how the evil Katniss Everdeen stops President Snow?  Is Star Wars the story of the downfall of a loving benevolent Empire by a bunch of evil rogues? 

God appears to be the villain of the story, but people give him a pass because 'Well he created everything!" which amounts to might makes right.  And frighteningly you can look at it and start to see how the Nazis were able to do all the things they did.  The justifications of God's actions are lacking.  All most people can say is that you can't judge God by man's standards.  To which I say: I wonder if the Nazi's thought the same thing about Hitler. Or who else's actions we'll justify because we are powerless to stop them.

Yahweh was first and foremost a war god. His role has not chanted since ancient times. Westerners use him to justify taking other people’s land. To serve in this capacity, he has been given a license to kill. By making themselves “god’s chosen people” they feel they have a right to the land and everyone else is just breathing the air they want to breathe.

To say that we cannot judge god by human standards negates the other idea that we need god for absolute moral standards. A god who reveals his will through charismatic individuals can offer no moral absolutes.

[SteveII]

I think its an appropriate question (otherwise I would not have responded). However the whole premise is that God owes us something.

Or that God respects our right to life simply because it's an honorable thing for a divine being who supposedly created us to do.

The only thing that is owed us is death apart from the grace of God.

Says SteveII and not God. [1]

Why do we deserve death? Part of being God is being holy and just (essential attributes).

Bullshit on "holy" being an essential attribute of God. And your theological notion of "just" is so bronze-age and not in tune with our modern humane intuitions of what is just, that to attach such a notion to God should be seen as an insult to one's intelligence. Surely, God is beyond such bronze-age conception of "just". [2]

His justice demands that there be an atonement for anything short of holy. Nothing created could satisfy the justice attribute of an eternal God and bridge the gap to holy so God humbled himself in the person of Jesus and made a sacrifice of eternal substance with eternal significance for all time (past, present and future).

Says SteveII (and his preachers) and not God. [1]

So, when God kills someone, we see that he certainly has the right to, but that can't be all there is to it because why doesn't he just kill anyone at any time and why the whole plan of redemption in the NT? It is reasonable to infer then that there was another reason than just plain judgement -- mainly that it was for greater good or long-term consequences only an omniscient mind could calculate (as an example, motivation, or some other effect that might have taken years or centuries to realize--like the conditions that led to Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

Or an even better explanation, and one that is so conclusively clear you'd have to have a Christian agenda to reject it, is that Christian theism is man-made (resulting in errors and contradictions and ambiguities typical of humans), and hence we have all this confusion and nonsensical conceptions of "just" and "right" resulting from such confusion. [3]

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.
  

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.

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.

---

Your reasoning is circular. God does not have the right to judge people because he judges people?

Your reasoning is what's circular.  "God is good because he is god."

Based on God's own actions in his own book of propaganda show him to be an unjust and immoral god.

No, God's nature is the standard of what is good since God is defined as "the greatest conceivable being". 

Two analogies:

1. Just as a high-def recording is judged by how closely it approximates the actual event, good can be measured as how closely it approximates the character of God. 
2. Two artist are asked to paint NYC. The only way to know which one is better is to compare it to the real NYC. So, moral choices are measured in how close they approximate the nature of God. 

I am not saying that your objections to all the death is unfounded. Because we have a built-in moral compass (in the image of God) we find these situations objectionable. However, I am pointing out that this objection does not in any way undermine our idea of God or indicates an inconsistency or fault in logic.

[Rhondazvous]

I think its an appropriate question (otherwise I would not have responded). However the whole premise is that God owes us something. The only thing that is owed us is death apart from the grace of God. Why do we deserve death? Part of being God is being holy and just (essential attributes). His justice demands that there be an atonement for anything short of holy. Nothing created could satisfy the justice attribute of an eternal God and bridge the gap to holy so God humbled himself in the person of Jesus and made a sacrifice of eternal substance with eternal significance for all time (past, present and future).

So, when God kills someone, we see that he certainly has the right to, but that can't be all there is to it because why doesn't he just kill anyone at any time and why the whole plan of redemption in the NT? It is reasonable to infer then that there was another reason than just plain judgement -- mainly that it was for greater good or long-term consequences only an omniscient mind could calculate (as an example, motivation, or some other effect that might have taken years or centuries to realize--like the conditions that led to Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

Since you insist that god is the creator and nobody asked to be created, he does owe us as much as a parent owes his child. A parent who chooses not to provide his child the necessities of life is put in jail for child neglect.

It's not that god owes us death, but he chose to give us death when he with full omniscience set Adam up to din.

Your second paragraph denies the omnipotence of god. An omnipotent god doesn't need to calculate the end result because he creates the end result. There can be no reality outside his will. What you describe is damage control, not grace.

---

Your reasoning is what's circular.  "God is good because he is god."

Based on God's own actions in his own book of propaganda show him to be an unjust and immoral god.

Or god has the right to judge people because he can judge people

Or christians say god is judging people. But when they meet their own untimely suffering and death, they call it something else.

[GrandizerII]

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.

[Cecelia]

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.

[Rhondazvous]

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.

You're asking him to look outside the bible to justify a god that doesn't exist outside the bible. He knows this and will resist you.

[SteveII]

I think its an appropriate question (otherwise I would not have responded). However the whole premise is that God owes us something. The only thing that is owed us is death apart from the grace of God. Why do we deserve death? Part of being God is being holy and just (essential attributes). His justice demands that there be an atonement for anything short of holy. Nothing created could satisfy the justice attribute of an eternal God and bridge the gap to holy so God humbled himself in the person of Jesus and made a sacrifice of eternal substance with eternal significance for all time (past, present and future).

So, when God kills someone, we see that he certainly has the right to, but that can't be all there is to it because why doesn't he just kill anyone at any time and why the whole plan of redemption in the NT? It is reasonable to infer then that there was another reason than just plain judgement -- mainly that it was for greater good or long-term consequences only an omniscient mind could calculate (as an example, motivation, or some other effect that might have taken years or centuries to realize--like the conditions that led to Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

Since you insist that god is the creator and nobody asked to be created, he does owe us as much as a parent owes his child. A parent who chooses not to provide his child the necessities of life is put in jail for child neglect.

It's not that god owes us death, but he chose to give us death when he with full omniscience set Adam up to din.

Your second paragraph denies the omnipotence of god. An omnipotent god doesn't need to calculate the end result because he creates the end result. There can be no reality outside his will. What you describe is damage control, not grace.

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.

[Rhondazvous]

Since you insist that god is the creator and nobody asked to be created, he does owe us as much as a parent owes his child. A parent who chooses not to provide his child the necessities of life is put in jail for child neglect.

It's not that god owes us death, but he chose to give us death when he with full omniscience set Adam up to din.

Your second paragraph denies the omnipotence of god. An omnipotent god doesn't need to calculate the end result because he creates the end result. There can be no reality outside his will. What you describe is damage control, not grace.

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.