Fine. It's "Thou shalt not murder". By the way, murder is defined as the killing of humans with some degree of premeditation or at least malicious intent. So yeah, I think flooding the entire world and killing everyone on it as part of a grand mysterious plan sounds to me like murder. Especially considering that he is killing innocent babies and children along with the elderly, the sick and the disabled. That looks to me like murder.
Is the act of executing a criminal for his crimes murder? How about the act of killing an enemy in war time? If so then just about every single government in history is guilty of ridiculous amounts of mass murder. There's a huge difference between what you're claiming as murder, and what is actually defined as murder.
And so what Dre? I don't want to hang around with those that are morally reprehensible. To be honest, I have thought about this for a while and I can't see what's so immoral about Satan and really, in hell you don't slum with Satan, you just burn for eternity for finite crimes. Did I also mention that punishing people infinitely for the finite crime of disbelief in God sounds incredibly immoral?
This is just wrong on so many levels that I'm lacking a place to start. How about the fact that Satan was the one that originally tempted Eve to eat that fruit in the garden of Eden, and so is directly involved in every single evil act throughout all history?
Well you don't literally burn in Hell, it's not as if it's actually a lake of fire or something like that.
But Nic, Bob is pretty much correct on everything else.
God commits actions which if humans do, they are given eternal suffering after death. At the very least, this means that calling God "good" has absolutely no meaning, seeing as His actions contradict what we personally deem good (what He created us to deem evil mind you).
Dre, often things aren't quite as black and white as people make it out to be, a lot of things depend on the circumstances. Let's take the example of killing a man.
Killing a healthy innocent man is obviously evil.
Putting a wounded guy that's in a lot of pain and asking you to finish him out of his misery is a bit of a grey area but defensible.
Shooting a terrorist that's threatening a bunch of children is an act of heroism.
You see the point? The motive behind an act can matter just as much (if not more than) the act itself in whether said act is right or wrong. As to how this applies, the best explanation I can give is to compare it to human activities.
For example, suppose a young boy is spanking his sister because his sibling stole and broke his toys. Most parents would discipline the boy, because although his sister was wrong in what she did, it's not the boy's place to punish his sister. However, if the boy went and got his parents right away, it's quite possible that the parents would spank their daughter as punishment.
Or to take another example, suppose you knew the location of a murderer who'd killed one of your friends, so you ambushed him and shot him. Even though he was guilty, you're still going to jail for what you did. However, if you'd let the authorities handle it, it's completely possible that they might have convicted the murderer and sentenced him to the death penalty for his crimes.
It's similar with God, really. If we trust our human governments in judging people to be innocent or guilty and subjecting them to death, what is your problem with the concept of God, who is all-knowing and basically THE highest authority, condemning someone to death?
And regarding finite crimes/infinite punishment, recall that all you have to do is accept God's forgiveness and basically say "I'm sorry" to avoid said infinite punishment. Not doing so basically makes said infinite punishment self inflicted, plus makes you guilty of rejecting God's infinite love (which may qualify as an infinite crime, depending on your definition).
Additionally, what alternative to you suggest? Killing people condemned to Hell for all eternity? It's quite arguable on whether that's an improvement or not. Rewarding unrepentant guilty people with heaven after a small period of punishment? In the long run that's not a punishment at all.
@Reaver
Your second paragraph is just trolling me, so I'll focus on the first.
First off, you took my quote out of context, and added some misinterpretation onto it for good measure. The point is that the final judgement of Heaven or Hell is of infinite importance (as Bob has pointed out with his "infinite punishment" argument), which means that the finite importance of earthly decisions just doesn't compare. Regardless of what sufferings a person undergoes here on earth, if they get into Heaven, they'll do fine. (A lot better than fine actually, but you get my drift.)
Secondly, consider what happens when the Israelites DID let them live. (They weren't exactly model listeners, their obedience to God's commands was spotty at best.) They became corrupted by said idolaters, and sunk to their level. Check the last five or so chapters of judges, a gang of men knock at this guy's door, demand to be allowed to **** the guy's male guest, DO get to **** the guest's wife-to-be to the point of killing her, and an entire tribe (or roughly 1/12th of the population) comes out to DEFEND said murderers rather than hand them over to the rest of Israel for judgement. That's why God said to wipe them out. It's like killing a cancerous cell early. Sure, it will die in the end anyway, but if you don't kill it it could end up spreading a LOT more evil before it does die.
