Is the story of The Flood ethical?

[dangerdan]

If one is to assume the story of The Flood to be literally correct, can God's actions be deemed the most unjust, unethical and immoral acts in the history of the earth?

[fonso]

My point is that they were offered salvation prior to the flood. If they rejected salvation prior to the flood, why would they accept it if the flood didn't happen at all?

Precisely. You could argue that most, in the course of time, would die off and still go to hell, but you cannot surely say the same for all of them, unless we adopt simplistic assumption. Returning to the topic, I am of the opinion that the story of the flood is not ethical on the part of God. I am, of course, basing my opinion on what I believe a humanistic, totally Bible-ignorant person would say after hearing the story of Noah and the flood.

Why is this a better solution?

Why not? Surely, there were innocent kids out there who didn't deserve to die. The story presupposes that everyone, other than Noah and co., were wicked beyond God's passable standard that they all merit the death-list. I find the possibility of this exact scenario happening rather absurd....but going by the story, I could name a myriad of reasons (humanistic, practical, and even ridiculous) why this would be a better solution. Not that they would matter anyway, as God's solution is unquestionably the 'best'. How can I compete when the Bible endorses 'His' method?

"If he is all-loving, why did he kill me. If he is all-forgiving, why am I burning in hell for all eternity?"

This is addressed in some posts, but I don't think a thread has been specifically created to discuss this. Feel free to start a thread on this issue.

Ok. I'll read-up on other posts to see how far the discussion there has gone.

If they were worthy of being saved, they would've chosen to get on the ark before the flood hit the world.

I believe our standards of 'worthy' differ here. To explain my side, and considering that the story were indeed, true, I would say that it is improbable that only Noah and co. were morally passable or pleasing to God. I would also doubt that Noah could indeed have physically paid a visit to every single human being. If Noah had warned the people of one village, and they didn't believe him, do you think that the people of that village would pass the story on to the next village? It wouldn't be Noah talking then. The argument would then add a variable -- that the continent was whole back then. The above-mentioned task is still difficult, short of saying impossible in my opinion.

From your statement, I believe you are saying that only those who chose to get on the ark were 'worthy'. I say, there were other worthy people even before there was the ark. God just got lazy and decided to tell only Noah to convince the world (which he did a very poor job at).

Take the case of innocent children.
Innocent children is another matter.

Question 1. Reading the thread, if we were to consider that children go to Heaven, would you say that all five-year old kids back then were so wicked that they failed God's standard of being worthy?

Question 2. And how about those who were younger? It sounds like God is saying :'They're going to Heaven anyway so it's okay for me to fill their lungs with water 'til they die. I'm doing them a favor anyway'. Again, back to the first issue in my previous post:

"They're not saved anyway so there's no loss for them in killing them off"
"They're already saved so they have everything to gain."

Humanists and many others will not find the 'ends justifies the means' methodology of this God appealing.

But does your standard of what God ought to be define what is the truth? That is, could not God exist independently of what you think God should be like?

It may well be! For those who claim that they 'know' God, it is no surprise that they often agree on what He is like, His qualities, etc. There's no doubt that God could exist independently of what we think He should be like, but if you rely on that statement, by what standard do we judge our god? We have to judge him. Everyone, at one point in time, has judged God, in one way or another especially in choosing to accept or discard Him.

I believe that He exists by our common standard, in addition to the means which are beyond our ability to comprehend. Though Corvus would easily argue that morality comes from a social standard, I believe that there is the voice of God in each and everyone of us. Bible-loyalty aside, in your highest comprehension of God, do you believe that the flood is something He is capable (morally) of doing?

Going slightly off-topic: does anyone have any idea how many people there were back in the pre-flood days? If there were, say, a million people or so back then, how was Noah even half serious about fitting them all in a floating wooden box?

Does the flood mean that Noah is the supreme ancestor?

[atheisthumanist]

Does the flood mean that Noah is the supreme ancestor?

Only if you are Jewish or Christian. If you're Sumarian, it's Atrahasis who's the hero who built an ark and saved mankind. And that story predates the Noah story.

[Corvus]

I believe that He exists by our common standard, in addition to the means which are beyond our ability to comprehend. Though Corvus would easily argue that morality comes from a social standard, I believe that there is the voice of God in each and everyone of us. Bible-loyalty aside, in your highest comprehension of God, do you believe that the flood is something He is capable (morally) of doing?

Consider this; I have no doubt that everyone on this forum believes genocide is morally reprehensible. In any ethical system, human life is one of the highest values. If genocide is wrong, and, as Christians assert, God is the source of good, and can do no wrong, then why is genocide forbidden for humans, yet permissible for God. Though God may have the authority to perform such an act, this only goes to show that might makes right. Surely a right action is a right action whether it is performed from a position of authority or performed by a subordinate. There appears to be a double standard here. Should someone on earth murder another person because he feels his victim is far too corrupt to remain living, and moments later a flood sweeps through the land, destroying everything in its path, why is the murderer's action wrong and God's action right?

The human representation of Justice is characterised by a blindfolded figure holding scales. God's justice seems to be peeking, and her scales are noticeably lopsided.

Take the case of innocent children.
Innocent children is another matter.

Question 1. Reading the thread, if we were to consider that children go to Heaven, would you say that all five-year old kids back then were so wicked that they failed God's standard of being worthy?

Question 2. And how about those who were younger? It sounds like God is saying :'They're going to Heaven anyway so it's okay for me to fill their lungs with water 'til they die. I'm doing them a favor anyway'. Again, back to the first issue in my previous post:

"They're not saved anyway so there's no loss for them in killing them off"
"They're already saved so they have everything to gain."

Humanists and many others will not find the 'ends justifies the means' methodology of this God appealing.

I can’t understand how God can view maturity and judgement as something quantifiable, and not arbitrary. Not to mention that where one can exercise maturity and judgement in one instance, they could fail in another.

Consider how equitable God is towards people;

Person A born into a wealthy Christian family grows to become, because there are no obstacles to him becoming one, a devout Christian. He is content with his life and goes to heaven.

Person B is born into pre-flood earth is corrupted through no fault of his own by his surroundings, brought up by two idolators, both of which are members of a species that was God's greatest folly; women! (okay, he probably doesn't feel this way, but, hey, sometimes I do!). And so, through not having the advantage of the previously described Christian, when he becomes intellectually and emotionally mature and later dies, he is thrust into the pits of hell to burn for an eternity in hot fudge he can never eat.

Person B's case is repeated x X,
X = however many millions or thousands existed at the time of the flood.

If the story of the flood is such that no one could exist in pre-flood society without being completely irredeemable, then, as great a tragedy this loss of life is, the greater tragedy is that these people will be paying for it in hell, all because of the misfortune of not having been born into the proper family.

This is a tragedy echoed across the world. A person grows up in poverty, where existing is a day to day struggle, or in isolation from the rest of the world, and does not find God either because they weren't aware they should look, or circumstances prevented them from searching, and then subsequently suffers for an eternity when dead. This is clearly not a system where all people are born equal, or the judge is impartial. Person A in the above example clearly has a handicap.

[ST88]

Consider this; I have no doubt that everyone on this forum believes genocide is morally reprehensible. In any ethical system, human life is one of the highest values. If genocide is wrong, and, as Christians assert, God is the source of good, and can do no wrong, then why is genocide forbidden for humans, yet permissible for God. Though God may have the authority to perform such an act, this only goes to show that might makes right. Surely a right action is a right action whether it is performed from a position of authority or performed by a subordinate. There appears to be a double standard here. Should someone on earth murder another person because he feels his victim is far too corrupt to remain living, and moments later a flood sweeps through the land, destroying everything in its path, why is the murderer's action wrong and God's action right?

The human representation of Justice is characterised by a blindfolded figure holding scales. God's justice seems to be peeking, and her scales are noticeably lopsided.

Genocide can only be spoken of in terms of man vs. man. It's horrible because someone, some person, thinks that their right to live has more validity than another person's right to live based on to whom they were born. By placing themselves above an entire group of people with this characteristic (or, if you like, on the same terms as God), they are placing themselves above the laws of humanity.

It's a little disingenuous to say that "might makes right" in terms of God and so he can do whatever He wants. That this can be seen as evil in the eyes of man implies that God has the nature of man. This is simply not true. God has his own nature that is not only above man's nature but is wholly on a different system of ethics that goes beyond right and wrong. This is one of the main themes going through the Bible, as far as I can tell: Why do bad things happen to good people?

You talk of double-standards -- of course there is a double standard. God is not man, a man, any man. Justice, as we see it, has to do with fairness, which is a human invention. Justice in terms of God has a completely different meaning.

I can’t understand how God can view maturity and judgement as something quantifiable, and not arbitrary. Not to mention that where one can exercise maturity and judgement in one instance, they could fail in another.

Why wouldn't God be able to judge maturity and judgment either qualitatively or quantitatively? Surely he knows everyone's nature. It is we who give and deny rights based on an arbitrary system of birthdays. There are plenty of people who are not ready to vote on their 18th birthday or ready to accept alcohol into their lives at 21. But the date is arbitrary precisely because we do not know our fellow man's inner natures. Surely God knows.

Person A born into a wealthy Christian family grows to become, because there are no obstacles to him becoming one, a devout Christian. He is content with his life and goes to heaven.

Person B is born into pre-flood earth is corrupted through no fault of his own by his surroundings, brought up by two idolators... [sarcasm snipped] And so, through not having the advantage of the previously described Christian, when he becomes intellectually and emotionally mature and later dies, he is thrust into the pits of hell to burn for an eternity in hot fudge he can never eat.

We could talk about different experiences in Hell for different kinds of sins, and there is evidence for all different kinds of afterlifes (afterlives?). The point is, the degree of pain in the afterlife depends on the degree of sin in the present life.

But turning to your examples, according to scripture, Person A does not have as much of an advantage as you give him credit for. The only way a good Christian will get to Heaven is to believe. If he is brought up as a good Christian and maintains this throughout his life, there is nothing wrong with him being born into a wealthy family. But the fact of being wealthy comes with its own depravities -- I don't think you can be wealthy in a vacuum, or become wealthy when it is not at the expense of others. If you will, there are many more temptations available to you when you are wealthy -- many more opportunities for corruption. Someone who comes out of a wealthy family uncorrupted would be worthy of Heaven.

Person B just has a different kind of disadvantage. Someone who comes out of an idolatrous family uncorrupted is also worthy of Heaven. But if that person does not have the opportunity to "come out of the family" then scripture says he will be judged with that in mind. The parents are a different matter.

I agree that drowning is a terrible way to die, and I do not pretend to know what possible reason God would have for flooding the world if he was all powerful and could have just clapped his hands so that every impure being was suddenly dead. But I also do not begrudge Christians their right to believe that God has his own reasons that we can't apply to our own sense of ethics. Or if we do, we risk the misunderstanding of them.

[Corvus]

Consider this; I have no doubt that everyone on this forum believes genocide is morally reprehensible. In any ethical system, human life is one of the highest values. If genocide is wrong, and, as Christians assert, God is the source of good, and can do no wrong, then why is genocide forbidden for humans, yet permissible for God. Though God may have the authority to perform such an act, this only goes to show that might makes right. Surely a right action is a right action whether it is performed from a position of authority or performed by a subordinate. There appears to be a double standard here. Should someone on earth murder another person because he feels his victim is far too corrupt to remain living, and moments later a flood sweeps through the land, destroying everything in its path, why is the murderer's action wrong and God's action right?

The human representation of Justice is characterised by a blindfolded figure holding scales. God's justice seems to be peeking, and her scales are noticeably lopsided.

Genocide can only be spoken of in terms of man vs. man. It's horrible because someone, some person, thinks that their right to live has more validity than another person's right to live based on to whom they were born. By placing themselves above an entire group of people with this characteristic (or, if you like, on the same terms as God), they are placing themselves above the laws of humanity.

It's a little disingenuous to say that "might makes right" in terms of God and so he can do whatever He wants. That this can be seen as evil in the eyes of man implies that God has the nature of man. This is simply not true. God has his own nature that is not only above man's nature but is wholly on a different system of ethics that goes beyond right and wrong. This is one of the main themes going through the Bible, as far as I can tell: Why do bad things happen to good people?

I cannot understand how his ethics can be so vastly different than our own. This seems to suggest a subjective view of ethics, which most Christians ardently detest, in which God has one style of right and wrong and we have another. The argument runs along the lines of being that all ethical arguments proceed from God and God's nature and goodness is something derived from God, not human experience. Right and wrong are, in the Christian sense (correct me if I am wrong, Christians) universal, not subjective or relative to the situation.

I can’t understand how God can view maturity and judgement as something quantifiable, and not arbitrary. Not to mention that where one can exercise maturity and judgement in one instance, they could fail in another.

Why wouldn't God be able to judge maturity and judgment either qualitatively or quantitatively? Surely he knows everyone's nature. It is we who give and deny rights based on an arbitrary system of birthdays. There are plenty of people who are not ready to vote on their 18th birthday or ready to accept alcohol into their lives at 21. But the date is arbitrary precisely because we do not know our fellow man's inner natures. Surely God knows.

I say that there is no definite point at which one becomes mature enough to be culpable for "refusing" salvation, just as there is no definite point one becomes proficient in all matters of driving or the use of alcohol. It all depends on the circumstance, not on some chain of indefinable characteristics. How could these matters be judged? It boggles my mind, and I can only think that it must absolutely be arbitrary, though I suppose this is not reason enough to put it beyond God.

Person A born into a wealthy Christian family grows to become, because there are no obstacles to him becoming one, a devout Christian. He is content with his life and goes to heaven.

Person B is born into pre-flood earth is corrupted through no fault of his own by his surroundings, brought up by two idolators... [sarcasm snipped] And so, through not having the advantage of the previously described Christian, when he becomes intellectually and emotionally mature and later dies, he is thrust into the pits of hell to burn for an eternity in hot fudge he can never eat.

We could talk about different experiences in Hell for different kinds of sins, and there is evidence for all different kinds of afterlifes (afterlives?). The point is, the degree of pain in the afterlife depends on the degree of sin in the present life.

I am not entirely sure all Christian sects hold this view. The catholics may believe in levels to hell with ideas of varying severities of sins, venial and mortal, but I have also seen it claimed that all sins are equally damning in the eyes of a lord, with "a white lie being seen as equal to genocide" (I hope the author notices this, but I forget who mentioned it). Most Christian sects agree that salvation is based on faith/grace, and not works. Do you have some doctrinal sources to support otherwise?

But turning to your examples, according to scripture, Person A does not have as much of an advantage as you give him credit for. The only way a good Christian will get to Heaven is to believe. If he is brought up as a good Christian and maintains this throughout his life, there is nothing wrong with him being born into a wealthy family. But the fact of being wealthy comes with its own depravities -- I don't think you can be wealthy in a vacuum, or become wealthy when it is not at the expense of others. If you will, there are many more temptations available to you when you are wealthy -- many more opportunities for corruption. Someone who comes out of a wealthy family uncorrupted would be worthy of Heaven.

The point of the argument wasn't about whether Person A was wealthy or not, but that Person A, by virtue of his fortunate position granted to him by chance, his choices are such that it's far more likely he will be a believer than not by being indoctrinated by family and environment. He is one nurtured to believe in the lord, and informed in his ways through pure luck, if we believe in luck and believe the existence of God does not contradict free will.

Person B just has a different kind of disadvantage. Someone who comes out of an idolatrous family uncorrupted is also worthy of Heaven. But if that person does not have the opportunity to "come out of the family" then scripture says he will be judged with that in mind. The parents are a different matter.

But chance plays a massive part here. He can remain corrupted, but how is it possible to "find God" if there is nothing predisposing him to be found. And is ignorance of the law really an excuse with God?

I realise now that in order to expiate his sins, it would be necessary for Person B, living in pre-flood times, to slaughter a goat or two, because he cannot avail himself of the gift of Jesus' salvation, being indisposed by history, and that seems to contradict the salvation by grace view, or at least imply the rules changed.

[ST88]

I cannot understand how his ethics can be so vastly different than our own. This seems to suggest a subjective view of ethics, which most Christians ardently detest, in which God has one style of right and wrong and we have another. The argument runs along the lines of being that all ethical arguments proceed from God and God's nature and goodness is something derived from God, not human experience. Right and wrong are, in the Christian sense (correct me if I am wrong, Christians) universal, not subjective or relative to the situation.

I suppose I should leave this alone, not being a Christian, but isn't this exactly what Christianity proposes? That there is a subjective view of ethics is beside the point. There is one standard for humans and one standard for God. The Bible makes that pretty clear.

I can’t understand how God can view maturity and judgement as something quantifiable, and not arbitrary. Not to mention that where one can exercise maturity and judgement in one instance, they could fail in another.

Why wouldn't God be able to judge maturity and judgment either qualitatively or quantitatively? Surely he knows everyone's nature. It is we who give and deny rights based on an arbitrary system of birthdays. There are plenty of people who are not ready to vote on their 18th birthday or ready to accept alcohol into their lives at 21. But the date is arbitrary precisely because we do not know our fellow man's inner natures. Surely God knows.

I say that there is no definite point at which one becomes mature enough to be culpable for "refusing" salvation, just as there is no definite point one becomes proficient in all matters of driving or the use of alcohol. It all depends on the circumstance, not on some chain of indefinable characteristics. How could these matters be judged? It boggles my mind, and I can only think that it must absolutely be arbitrary, though I suppose this is not reason enough to put it beyond God.

I say again, why wouldn't God be able to follow the chain of characteristics? If he is the all-knowing, all-seeing enchilada them surely he would know everything needed in order to pronounce judgment. To put it another way: God knows your mind boggles, and he loves you anyway.

I am not entirely sure all Christian sects hold this view. The catholics may believe in levels to hell with ideas of varying severities of sins, venial and mortal, but I have also seen it claimed that all sins are equally damning in the eyes of a lord, with "a white lie being seen as equal to genocide" (I hope the author notices this, but I forget who mentioned it). Most Christian sects agree that salvation is based on faith/grace, and not works. Do you have some doctrinal sources to support otherwise?

I am quite sure that there are many sects that have a tradition which imposes (or threatens) the ultimate penalty for various sins.

In this corner...

Presbyterian 3rd Millenium Reformed:
The doctrine of purgatory expresses the Roman Catholic idea that that unrepented venial sins must be punished temporally, and that the temporal punishment due these sins that has not been meted out prior to one's death must be meted out in purgatory after one's death. Protestants, on the other hand, correctly argue that all the punishment due believers fell upon Christ at the Cross, including all temporal punishment (Rom. 8:1-4; Col. 2:14; Heb. 10:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:24). Because Christ's sacrifice was sufficient and effective, believers can never suffer God's punishment (temporal or eternal), but only his loving discipline (Heb. 12).

http://www.thirdmill.org/qath_answer.asp?file=99944.qna

...and in this corner

Order of Nazorean Essenes:
In Christian-Gnosticism, Origenism and in Manicheaism, hell is eventually dissolved along with its inhabitants. Some rebellious spirits are subject to reincarnation, while others experience what is termed in the first century Book of Revelation the "second death," a final judgment or dissolution of the soul, not its eternal burning (along with its body) in hell. The "Lake of Fire" of Rev. 20: 10, 14-15 is described as a place of purification and transmutation. The Devil and his angels, the Beast and the false prophet, etc., and Death and Hell itself are cast into the Lake of Fire. How then, we may ask, could hell be eternal if it is dissolved in the Lake of Fire? Augustine— and others before and after him— mistook the perpetual burning of the Lake of Fire for the perpetual burning of hell and the devil in hell. All are mercifully dissolved."

http://essenes.net/TheBondageOfOrthodoxy.html

You are correct in pointing out that most American brands of Protestantism, like evangelicals, speak of the "faithful" as incapable of being fallen in any way or even temporarily. And the levels of hell (or sin) doctrine is not widely recognized. I'm not sure why this is, because there are plenty of references to one type of behavior being worse than another.

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.

John 19:11
You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin

And various laws describe different and proportionatepunishments for retribution in Exodus ch21-23.
Ref: Church of the Great God
And I am curious as to what "his loving discipline" means in the above Presbyterian quote. Gives me the willies.

[otseng]

Though God may have the authority to perform such an act, this only goes to show that might makes right.

God did not simply wipe out the entire population of the earth on a whim. It was not the "might" of God that makes his actions right.

What counters the allegation that the flood was unethical was my first 3 points:
1. The people were not innocent
2. The people were warned of judgement
3. And a way of escape was made available

Simply saying that God killed everyone therefore it's unethical does not look into all the facts.

Suppose I killed someone with my Glock 22. That in itself would make it seem like I did something wrong. However, what if I explained that the person was in my house and holding my family hostage and was about to kill them? So, a more complete picture of the events is required to pass judgement on whether something is right or wrong.

Should someone on earth murder another person because he feels his victim is far too corrupt to remain living, and moments later a flood sweeps through the land, destroying everything in its path, why is the murderer's action wrong and God's action right?

It all hinges on the principle of authority. If an authority (eg government) decides that someone is guilty enough for the death sentence, the authority is not in the wrong.

The human representation of Justice is characterised by a blindfolded figure holding scales. God's justice seems to be peeking, and her scales are noticeably lopsided.

Justice however is not blind to wrong doings. Justice should consider if a person committed a wrong doing regardless of gender, race, age, position, political affiliation, etc.

Person B is born into pre-flood earth is corrupted through no fault of his own by his surroundings, brought up by two idolators, both of which are members of a species that was God's greatest folly; women! (okay, he probably doesn't feel this way, but, hey, sometimes I do!).

Another factor to consider is that to more is given, more is required. Though the pre-flood population might have been filled with idolators, they must've surely heard about God, even without Noah's preaching. It was only 10 generations from Adam to Noah. There were probably more highly accountable for their actions since they must've known more about God's ways.

[dangerdan]

What counters the allegation that the flood was unethical was my first 3 points:
1. The people were not innocent
2. The people were warned of judgement
3. And a way of escape was made available

Ok, lets delve into it, first things first -

1. The people were not innocent

Ok, this is the simple assumption that “everyone was simply corrupt”.

- This is truly a strange environment. It is radically different to anything we have on earth today. Anyone who has done any traveling will quickly tell you that people are roughly the same no matter where they live and what their race is. People just want to eat, sleep, and go about their lives without being killed or oppressed. Assuming that “everyone was corrupt” is much like saying “they were making 3 sided squares” or “they were making 1+1=3.” It may be true, but it is radically different to the world you and I occupy.

- Next would follow the question, “where did the corruption come from? Who is responsible for it?” And when you boil it down, I think, the answer is “the corruption came from god himself”. (this argument is also known as “the problem of evil” and “Einstein’s paradox”).

- This way of thinking, that “the corrupt should be smited for being corrupt” is the exact opposite to the philosophy of the new testament (the corrupt should be shown love). Is there any explanation for God’s sudden 180 turn of treating corruption? Did he have a mid-life crisis? (sorry, forgive my little joke)

2. The people were warned of judgement

Talk about a lame way to warn the world of impending doom! Especially if you are omnipotent! This way of sending Noah is pretty prone to error, don’t you think? As if you wouldn’t write it in the sky with fire!? That would be cool. That way they would KNOW it was God. Or set an example and drown a couple expendable villages. Or you could send out a booming (language translated) voice saying “repent yee, or I’ll drown you!”. This would be a much more accurate and reasonable way of warning the world. Otherwise, any sane person would just say “ok, Noah, you wild religious fundamentalist, whatever.” As I would have done.

3. And a way of escape was made available

Could everyone fit on the ark? How many people were in the world? A thousand? A million? This way of escape, coupled with the erroneous method of warning, doesn’t seem very well thought out plan.

Here is an idea though, God could have just clapped his hands and the evil and corruption would have disappeared. No killing. I mean, come on, he (she) is omnipotent. Would this be interrupting with “free will”? Well put it this way, do we hesitate to consider saving a drowning toddler from a pool because it would be interrupting their “free will?”. Do we say, “well, if we save that kid, then they’ll never learn to be careful around water”. Of course not. Furthermore, God, according to the bible, interrupts free will quite often anyway. “softening hearts” here and there.

[fonso]

1. The people were not innocent
2. The people were warned of judgement
3. And a way of escape was made available

Simply saying that God killed everyone therefore it's unethical does not look into all the facts.

A question for Otseng: If the story of the flood was somehow, proven to be false or make-believe (this is not saying it can be proven), would you continue to defend God's actions in this case as not unethical, or would you turn 180 degrees and rescind your arguments?

I would like to know if your basis for the flawlessness of God is based on defending everything that the Bible says, or from an inner understanding of Him.

Also if you may, I'd like your take on the two questions I posed in my previous post.

[Corvus]

You are correct in pointing out that most American brands of Protestantism, like evangelicals, speak of the "faithful" as incapable of being fallen in any way or even temporarily. And the levels of hell (or sin) doctrine is not widely recognized. I'm not sure why this is, because there are plenty of references to one type of behavior being worse than another.

I think we can come to agreement here. Some sects support what would be incremental damnation, and others do not. I wonder if you consider that these others who believe in a standard fixed penalty are holding a piece of doctrine that appears unfair, or do you consider them to have erred in interpreting the doctrinal information?

Suppose I killed someone with my Glock 22. That in itself would make it seem like I did something wrong. However, what if I explained that the person was in my house and holding my family hostage and was about to kill them? So, a more complete picture of the events is required to pass judgement on whether something is right or wrong.

But the harm God suffered surely wasn't so great as to warrant it. You killed in order to live. God will exist no matter how heinous our actions are. He will just be displeased. Furthermore, the complete picture - what exactly are the stages of hell, what punishments are devised for us in the afterlife, why God used a flood instead of willing them into existence, are not known to us. Even direct, 1st hand evidence He exists is lacking.

We were not present at the trial, do not know the laws and the principle that works behind them, and do not know the sentences.

It all hinges on the principle of authority. If an authority (eg government) decides that someone is guilty enough for the death sentence, the authority is not in the wrong.

The authority that decides whether someone is guilty or not is a process. If a serial murder went on a rampage and a vigilante put a bullet in his forehead, the result of this action would be exactly same as the result of any legal action, so surely the end would justify the means.

Also remember that the authority does not decide the law, it interprets it. Secular law is something decided on a principle, where citizens submit to it via the social agreement between them and the state (though Crixius will disagree, were he here) and if any aspect of the law becomes untenable for the citizens, appeals can be made to change it. The authority is subject to the law, not above it, and the case of the vigilante would be wrong because we've relinquished our authority to someone else - the law - for the purposes of justice. Otherwise, without the agreement, without a government, there would be nothing wrong.