How Apologists Defend God's Genocides

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps Christian apologists busy, it's that thorny issue of the Biblical accounts of God killing huge numbers of people. According to one source, the death toll at God's hands totals 2.8 million people. How do apologists "apologize" for God's deadly ways?

It's important to understand that it's a tenet of apologetics that God is perfectly righteous, and therefore nothing he does can be considered evil. Starting with this conclusion, apologists seek reasons to free God from any charges of immorality. I'd appreciate everybody's input regarding their own reasons why God is good despite his murderous ways, but here are some reasons to start with:

• God's killings are actually good, it's just that we cannot understand why it was good for him to kill.
• God is able to kill anybody he wants to, so it's OK for him to kill. His might is right!
• God is the creator of all life including human life, and therefore as the creator of life he can snuff it out any time and any way he chooses to.
• Since God is perfectly just, his perfect justice cannot tolerate sin, and he must eliminate sin by eliminating sinners.
• God kills those he sees as a threat to his "chosen people."
• We Christians invented and own morality, so if unbelievers say God's killings are evil, then they are stealing our morality.

[1213]

Yes, people are not virtuous. But, it is really about the right, people don’t have right to kill. God has the right, because He has given the life.

That doesn't take into account that people are thinking, feeling beings regardless of whether they are virtuous or not. Your God doesn't seem very virtuous when the omnipotent one invariably chooses bloodshed as his best option for solving problems.

I think God is virtuous. He has given life also to evil people and gives them a chance to become righteous. He is patient, I think that we exist, is proof for that. If people are evil and do not want to love as taught in the Bible, I think it is ok, if God does not allow people to live eternally. And, even if I would be perfect and God would decide that I should only live a short time, I don’t think it would make short life then meaningless and worthless. I would still have reason to thank God, because I have done nothing to serve this opportunity. There simply is not reason why God must give more than what He gives. But, according to Bible, God will give eternal life for righteous and I think that is nice.

[1213]

...
Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby. ...

I think everyone should decide it on their own case. At what stage you would want to be killed?

Oh no you don't. You have to address my request FIRST. "Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby."

I would say at the first stage and I thought it was obvious to everyone. And I think the best way to determine it is to ask, at what point would you want to be killed. If you would not want to be killed at any stage, why would you want to kill someone else?

[Willum]

Yes, people are not virtuous. But, it is really about the right, people don’t have right to kill. God has the right, because He has given the life.

That doesn't take into account that people are thinking, feeling beings regardless of whether they are virtuous or not. Your God doesn't seem very virtuous when the omnipotent one invariably chooses bloodshed as his best option for solving problems.

I think God is malevolent. He has taken life of people and gives them no chance to become righteous. He is angry and jealous, I think that we exist, is proof for that. If people are evil and do not want to love as taught in Greek philosophy, I think it is ok, since God does not allow people to live eternally. And, even if I would be perfect and God would decide that I should only live a short time, I don’t think it would make short life then meaningless and worthless. I would still have reason to think God repulsive, because I have done nothing to serve this opportunity. There simply is not reason why God must give more than what He gives. But, according to Bible, God will give murder righteous and evil alike.

[Miles]

...
Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby. ...

I think everyone should decide it on their own case. At what stage you would want to be killed?

Oh no you don't. You have to address my request FIRST. "Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby."

I would say at the first stage and I thought it was obvious to everyone.

Which is what, day 1 where fertilization takes place?

That's a baby? Really? I ask because it certainly doesn't look like any baby I've ever seen, or fit the definition of "baby."

ba·by
/ˈbābē/
noun: baby; plural noun: babies

1. a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
(Source: Oxford Languages Dictionary)
____________________________________

ba·​by | \ ˈbā-bē
\
plural babies
Definition of baby

1a(1) : an extremely young child especially : infant
(source Merriam Webster dictionary)

______________________________________

baby
noun
us
/ˈbeɪ.bi/ uk
/ˈbeɪ.bi/
A1 a very young child, especially one that has not yet begun to walk or talk:
(source: Cambridge Dictionary)
______________________________________

baby
​‌‌‌​noun countable
US
/ˈbeɪbi/
young child/animal:
1. a very young child who cannot yet talk or walk. A baby who is old enough to walk is a toddler
(Source: Macmillan Dictionary)

.

[brunumb]

I think God is moral, even if He kills, because He has right for it and He has good reason for it and there is actually no reason why He should give more than what He gives.

That is just your opinion and as some have said, opinions don’t matter here.

[brunumb]

...
Please point out the stage of human development where the embryo first becomes a baby. ...

I think everyone should decide it on their own case. At what stage you would want to be killed?

At what stage did you become you? How did you know?

I would say it happened instantly at the first stage, when the growth begun. And I think it is evil to dehumanise babies, even if they are small, it is something that Nazis, or body part salesmen would do to gain own profit.

Around three quarters of conceptions fail to come to term even without any deliberate human intervention. So God can really be regarded as the greatest abortionist of all time since he is responsible for all life. Using the term babies and talking about selling body parts for what is simply a mass of tissue is just a ridiculous tactic to elicit an emotional response.

You haven't explained how you knew when you became you. As usual, all you are doing is expressing opinions based on nothing substantive.

[brunumb]

I think God is virtuous. He has given life also to evil people and gives them a chance to become righteous. He is patient, I think that we exist, is proof for that.

Your opinion is noted but it really doesn't count for much as an argument. I think God is not virtuous. How does that count as an argument? If God wanted to give everyone a chance, why didn't he give us a level playing field. If everyone was given similar opportunities in life it might be a little more reasonable to judge the so-called unrighteous based on the decisions they made. God really doesn't give everyone a chance to become virtuous. There is no sign of God doing anything at all in this world. It all only exists in the imagination.

[unknown soldier]

Why do you think it is wrong if God does not give eternal life for all?

I prefer life over death.

I think God is moral, even if He kills, because He has right for it and He has good reason for it and there is actually no reason why He should give more than what He gives.

So you think there are good religious reasons to kill people. You are not alone. People have killed other people for religious reasons for thousands of years. They have created Gods of war who have ordered them to kill the "unrighteous." September 11 is a recent example of such theistic genocide.

I also see you believe there is no reason to feed the hungry and cure the sick. You like it that way.

This is simply about what can be reasoned to be right or not.

But you just assert that God has the right to kill us because he presumably created us. Where did you get that idea? Is it just your own opinion?

Good, evil and bad are subjective opinions, and as some have said, opinions don’t matter here.

Then how do your opinions matter here? What you just said is self defeating.

I think that is same as you would say you create yourself. No, only thing parents do is that they make it possible that the gametes meet and have chance to grow. People don’t create people, they grow, and it happens not because of them, but because God set the life moving.

Again, God never shows up when the process of human reproduction takes place. People are there throughout that process. So if we have creators, we can actually see those creators: Mom and Dad. As our creators, they have the responsibility to nurture our lives, and we punish them if they kill their kids. As I see it, if God exists, then he has the moral duty to preserve our lives.

My morality is a morality of life, and your morality is a morality of death.

Stalin has not given life, so he doesn’t have the same right as God who has given life.

Just like you made up a reason to say God has a right to kill, I can make up a reason to say Stalin had the right to kill. He was the general secretary of the Soviet Union, and he had the authority to kill.

By what I see, the more you give nice things to people, the more evil they often become.

Really? So every time you give something nice to some person, then they become evil? That must explain all those evil kids on Christmas morning.

I never cease to be amazed at Christian apologetics!

[1213]

… He has taken life of people and gives them no chance to become righteous…

Why do you think so? What prevents you to become righteous?

[1213]

Which is what, day 1 where fertilization takes place?
…
That's a baby? Really? I ask because it certainly doesn't look like any baby I've ever seen, or fit the definition of "baby."

Yes, day 1, I think that is a baby. But obviously not very developed. If it would be ok to kill everyone who is not very developed, I think there would not be any limit on who could be killed. For example, if I would think atheists are not very developed, would it then be ok to kill atheist?