Does God have the right to kill?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

If God exists and created humans does he have the right to kill a human?  And I mean ever, under any circumstances.  I'm not asking if God could also go without ever killing.  I'm asking if God has the "right" to ever kill.  Perhaps destroy is a better term.  But they are both the same in this case.  Does God have the right to destroy his creation?

[kaziglu bey]

No, because God decided that to kill (or, perhaps more specifically, murder) is wrong. Murder is killing someone who is not an immediate threat to self or others. If God is all powerful, then by definition, no one is a threat to him, and therefore any killing that he does would, again by definition, be murder, which he has specifically forbidden. The rule setter has no right to set aside the rules only for themselves. A Judge was recently investigated because he had gone into the Court system to dismiss his own moving violations. This is obviously not acceptable, since, as a Judge, he has a special authority to enforce the law, and I think it in fact warrants a higher standard of accountability. There's no room to say “Well, he couldn't have known any better.”  Therefore, I am not able to accept an argument that states that God is above his own laws. That would be like the President smoking marijuana in the oval office, while simultaneously approving raids against medical marijuana facilities. He would have no right to do so. We would consider such behavior contradictory, hypocritical, and unjust. We would never want to allow a person of such a status to be above the laws that they create and rigidly enforced. If God does something in spite of having declared it wrong, then it was either bad advice, or a wicked action. I see no other options.

So, as you can see, I think that God most certainly does not have a "right" to kill. In regards to whether God could go without killing, I think it is relevant to his right to kill. I'll explain. One might say that God could justifiably kill to protect others, in other words not murder, but the problem I encounter with that is that, being all powerful, he has an infinite number of options available to reach a non-violent solution to the problem. Humans have limitations that in many cases could make killing another person to protect someone else justified, simply because a person has no other options. For example, police may have no choice but to kill someone who is shooting up a school, in order to protect the lives of the students, staff and community. This is not the case for God, and it would honestly be nice to see him shower an enemy army with adorable kittens, laughing gas, Hostess Cupcakes, or something more humane than just death in order to prevent them from doing evil. It should not be necessary for God to do evil in order to prevent it. That is a limitation that people have. The fact that God has this very human limitation, when not having it should be his most defining and recognizable characteristic as a benevolent and loving God, as well as choosing to destroy his (followers) enemies, who can not possibly be a threat to him personally, leads me to believe that he is in fact, man made.

[Seppuku]

Personally I think when you give life you hold responsibility for it. Because God is often treated as a parent, He is our 'father', He is the reason we exist according to Abrahamic belief. But my parents are also responsible for my existence - my mum carried me 8 1/2 months in her womb and went through the pain of child birth (and I was a dry birth, so extra pain and I was a pretty quick delivery too, I guess I was impatient ). My parents made me and because they made me I became their responsibility.

Then you can think about scientists who could be able to create life. Say when/if scientists created humans, would it be right for the scientists to kill those humans when they've grown to a healthy stage and harvest their organs? Interestingly Kazuo Ishiguro's 'Never Let Me Go' is a novel that addresses that idea, it's a good novel - I am reluctant to see the film because I fear it might ruin it. Anyway, we would generally consider this immoral because they'd be ruining people's lives, even if they were people they created.

God also makes it His law that one should not murder and He asks us to be perfect like Him, so I think it's only sensible that He leads a good example.

[Anfauglir]

If God exists and created humans does he have the right to kill a human?

Perhaps, but only up to the point at which he gave them free will and ability to make their own choices.

When you create something, sure - you have certain rights over it.  But once you have said to that thing "okay, you have sentience, you have the ability to choose, go on out there are exercise that choice".....at that point, you lose your rights over them.  When you release a thing and makeit self-aware and responsible for its own choices, you forfeit any right that you have over it.

It'd be like me giving you a million pounds....but demanding control over how you spent each and every penny.  It would mean I'd never really given you the money at all.

To claim to retain rights over that creation would at the same time require that you likewise retain all responsibility for its actions....and if that is the case then you cannot blame that creation for anything it does: everything it does remains your own fault, and you would bear responsibility for everything it does, and should yourself suffer any punishment.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

It strikes me as a very peculiar argument to say that God should set a good example which means not killing, yada, yada, yada. Or that he has no right to tell us what to do because we have free will, etc. God is ultimately in control at all times. Not one of us draws breath apart from the will of God. Every good thing we have is a gift we did not deserve and that includes life itself.

To me to say that he does not have the right to end your existence makes as much sense as telling a novelist he can't tear up the lousy first drafts of a novel he is trying to write. The Bible uses the image of a potter who is dissatisfied with a pot he created and so disposes of it. Certainly, you can shake your fist at God all you want but to what end? Is the Creator of all things visible and invisible going to be impressed? Do you really think that a Creator who is  responsible for planets, universes,  dark matter, quarks,  parks and larks going to change his mind because you don't agree that he is the one who best knows how to run the world? And that emphatically includes dealing with us as we deserve.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I agree with Jane.  And I will add that according to what I have read in the thread "Subjective morality" that God uses subjective morality.  Now I'm not convinced this is true, but even if he does doesn't that give God the right to destroy us if he deems it moral?

Is it immoral for us to kill a virus?

[Seppuku]

With subjective morality, if God decides it's okay, then he will do it. But of course, you were asking us if it's okay and our subjective morality and what God says is 'okay' according to what many Christians claim, it'd be wrong. God tells us all the things that are wrong and evil and tells us what is right and wrong in the bible. If He is good and if He is loving then wouldn't He do what He claims is right and good as opposed to what He claims is wrong and evil? Sure ultimately He's the creator. But my parents gave me life, they do not possess any right over my life - I have my free will, they taught me all I need to know to make my choices in life and it would be wrong for them to murder me. One argument I've heard as to why God doesn't kill evil people (like Hitler, Kony, Stalin, Bin Laden, Saddam and so on) is that it would deny them free will and that God grants us all free will and doesn't intervene for that reason. Would it be wrong for us to kill bacteria? We're not talking about sentient or intelligent life here. The God of the bible doesn't say it's 'wrong'. At least this is how I've understood it.

If morality is objective, then wouldn't it apply to all? God included.

[Ambassador Pony]

To me to say that he does not have the right to end your existence makes as much sense as telling a novelist he can't tear up the lousy first drafts of a novel he is trying to write. The Bible uses the image of a potter who is dissatisfied with a pot he created and so disposes of it. Certainly, you can shake your fist at God all you want but to what end? Is the Creator of all things visible and invisible going to be impressed? Do you really think that a Creator who is  responsible for planets, universes,  dark matter, quarks,  parks and larks going to change his mind because you don't agree that he is the one who best knows how to run the world? And that emphatically includes dealing with us as we deserve.

Yes, the character yahweh does change its mind.

Based on the OP I think it's safe to assume the deity portrayed in the bible is what we are talking about. I've read the bible, and I remember parts where yahweh gets talked down from taking actions it originally decided to take.

One instance happened in part of the story about Soddom and Gamorah, as I recall. Yahweh gets talked down in the number of people it'll kill by Abraham. First 50 then 45...etc down to 10.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2018:22-33;&version=ESV;

[Traveler]

...Is it immoral for us to kill a virus?

Interesting question. And an interesting comparison. I think the answer depends on how accurate the bible is supposed to be. If the bible is accepted as truth, and we are supposed to be his special creations, and he's already laid out how important we are and what will happen to us (heaven and such) then I don't see how he could treat us as a virus. If the bible isn't accepted as truth, and god is "simply" a creator being with massive powers, then yes, I can see how he could destroy us with no second thoughts.

I put "simply" in quotes, because of course there's nothing simple about any god concept. 

There are people, and religions, who believe that everything is sacred. Buddhist monks who won't intentionally step on an insect, for instance. Vegans who won't knowingly use any animal products for food or any other reason. I'm not sure if anyone has taken it down to the virus level, but there is a level of compassion out there beyond the norm. Who's to say that they're not right? In my more contemplative moments, I wish I were vegan. I believe that they are better persons than I. It makes me sick when I think of how our meat animals are treated, and yet I eat it anyway. I suppose I would wish that a god would be better than I at living compassionately, and finding ways to do whatever it is that he/she/it intends without doing harm.

But then I think of superhero movies (I'm preparing for a superheros game so its on my mind) and my heart races with excitement when they take down the destructive evil characters. If I were a god, I might very well look down on humanity, and at the way we're destroying the earth and hurting one another, and I might decide we'd used up our chances and needed to be destroyed.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Well my question was not "should" God destroy us but "could" God do it and still be within his rights.  So I think we agree that the answer is yes.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It makes me sick when I think of how our meat animals are treated, and yet I eat it anyway.

Yes I can sympathize with this, heh.

First I would like to address the parent and child analogy.  A parent and a child are both of equal value.  A man and a God are not.  A man and a chimp are not.    At what point do humans become immoral for killing a lesser creature?  At what point does God become immoral for killing a lesser creature?

Interesting question. And an interesting comparison. I think the answer depends on how accurate the bible is supposed to be. If the bible is accepted as truth, and we are supposed to be his special creations, and he's already laid out how important we are and what will happen to us (heaven and such) then I don't see how he could treat us as a virus.

The Bible does show we are special.  But does that mean the rest of creation is unspecial?  Is the earth itself unspecial?  What about it's animals?  It's oceans?  It's forests?  If humans act like a virus then how can God view them in any other way?  But they are actually worse than a virus.  Not only are they sucking the life out of everything around them but they even kill each other.  And what is even worse is that they know sucking the life out of everything is eventually going to kill them so they are also suicidal.  And what about those humans that do not act like a virus?  What is just for them?  Should they forever be subject to this?  Or at least until mankind zaps itself out of existence?  Clearly God must act is some way or what he created will be destroyed.

I would like to go over this before we explore the question of would a loving God allow such a thing to occur.  Or Why didn't God just create things to be different.  I intend to go over this next.  For the sake of the argument lets say a god does exists and has allowed this situation to develop.  If we wants to keep his creation alive then wouldn't his hand be forced into some kind of action?

Absolutely. I am surprised you asked:

I am aware of your sarcasm but I'm glad you posted that for me.  We know that chimps and humans are closely related.  However, this analogy demonstrates how far above our thinking that God actually is.  We are like unthinking pots of clay in comparison to him.  That is not to say he doesn't love his little pots but it demonstrates his thoughts are FAR above ours.  Probably even more than our thoughts are above a cockroach.

[Seppuku]

From God's perspective anything He does is well within his rights. He makes the law and whilst I'd argue that He should follow it, the bible shows accounts of Him not abiding by His laws. Generally I find such a God to be quite disturbing. I think many would like to think of God as being a calm and peaceful and loving deity, but at times He does things we'd normally find appalling. From the Christian perspective that's okay because He's God.

So with the lesser being side of the argument. Do we have the right to kill lesser beings? We do to a certain degree in that we farm animals and eat them. A vegetarian on the other hand may have a different perspective on this, but I eat meat, that means I have the slightly harder argument . If I were to kill somebody's pet dog, people would think I'm cruel and probably report me to the authorities. So as a society I think we draw the line somewhere. We are carnivorous animals and it's natural for us to eat meat and it's all a part of the natural world - carnivores will kill other animals and eat them in order to survive and get the right kind of nutrients to sustain a healthy body. It is possible to supplement meat.  It's a separate debate in itself, I tend to argue that without farming we'd have no real reason to breed their population and if we released them in the masses we've got, we wouldn't know the effect they would have on ecosystems. Maybe one day we will end up weaning ourselves off of meat as a species.

Animals may have fewer rights but we don't find ourselves treating them as we please, because it is cruel and causes them suffering. When we do kill them, there's usually a reason (I don't support killing animals as a sport). Now, maybe this was the point you wanted to draw. Why would God want to kill a human? He will have a reason. The different I find is that, on one hand we have God, who is omnipotent and he is capable of doing anything without any kind of limitations. Then you've got us, humans, incredibly finite, weak by comparison and very limited. If there's anything God wants to do He'd be capable of doing it without the need to kill anybody. He'd lose nothing; there'd be no consequences He'd be unable to consider because He is omniscient. We are talking about a perfect entity. He is not limited by human imperfections and He cares for us. Even if your pet cat (or dog) was a lesser being to you and you loved it, you would not kill it, unless they were suffering a particular illness where it's merciful to put them down. Some people believe we should be able to even do that with humans (euthanasia). But God wasn't euthanising people in the bible, so I do think it's relevant.

[Graybeard]

The Bible does show we are special.  But does that mean the rest of creation is unspecial?  Is the earth itself unspecial?  What about it's animals?  It's oceans?  It's forests?  If humans act like a virus then how can God view them in any other way?  But they are actually worse than a virus.

I feel sure that God must have known how we would behave when he gave us dominion over the whole of the earth, and told us to multiply.

Ge:1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

When God created the Flood, he destroyed the wickedness of Humanity. What was left over must therefore have been doing the correct thing. We have merely built the great cities in the manner of Adam's sons.

I think you are being a little hard on humanity, who is simply subduing the earth in accordance with God's Word.

I would also urge you to look where God sends drought and famine - these are not really ecologically sound and caused much suffering to animals, etc.

This is the second post in reply. One more post allowed before Jstwebbrowsing replies.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

If there's anything God wants to do He'd be capable of doing it without the need to kill anybody.

But this is not so with creatures that have even a fraction of free will.  I mean he could have filled us with all this foreknowledge at birth but he also could have created us all to be gods, or he could have created us to all be rocks, but he didn't.  And really the foreknowledge couldn't exist without it actually having existed at some point in time. So the only thing he could do is hope we'd take his word for it. "If you do this then you will die."  That's what he told them.  Right there it is.  The secret to endless life and happiness.  The majority of mankind continues to choose to die.  How is anything God's fault? 

If he wants to remember some humans along the way that believe him and use their free will to love him, even in the face of everything they must endure, who can fault him for making sure they get an opportunity to live forever while the others don't?

Ge:1:28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Thanks you for that, again.  This is what God told them and he placed them in the Garden of Eden.  A paradise.  Then God told them, "I know you're going to find this hard to understand.  You are just going to have to take my word for this,  but if you do "this" you will die."  And I am quite sure the conversation was a lot longer than that.  In addition to other times that Adam talked to God.  God did not leave him in ignorance.  Tale note that the Bible says Eve was deceived.  This could reflect a lack of knowledge.  However it does not say Adam was deceived.  He made an educated decision not to obey because he disired more than God had given him.  This is also exactly what Satan did too.  He wanted more than God has given him.  He still does and so do humans, viewed as a whole.

But their just not going to get it.  But they won't simply take God's word for it.  So God has to let them prove it to themselves.  Eventually we will come to the right conclusion.

Also note that he did not instruct humans to suck the life out of the planet.

[Traveler]

...Also note that he did not instruct humans to suck the life out of the planet.

I'm not a biblical scholar by ANY stretch of the imagination, so go easy on me ... but wasn't there something about man having dominion over all the "lesser" animals, and the earth being here for our own use? Wasn't that used as justification for slaughtering all the buffalo, and for not worrying about destorying all the rainforests and digging up all the oil and such? That the earth is here for us to use, rather than to preserve? Or is that an abuse of whatever was written?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

No actually the Bible shows that man didn't eat animals until after the flood.  Then was permission given for them to eat animals and a fear of humans befell the animals.

[Traveler]

I was thinking along the lines of the American west. Wasn't "manifest destiny" a religious thing? Or am I confusing principles? That the white man was entitled to kill the "savages" and kill all the buffalo and rape the land because he was god's chosen? That was all very recent, well after the flood.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Wasn't "manifest destiny" a religious thing? Or am I confusing principles? That the white man was entitled to kill the "savages" and kill all the buffalo and rape the land because he was god's chosen?

Well if they had actually read the Bible they would have read that God is going to "bring to ruin those ruining the earth."  (Revelation 11:18)

They would have read that Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself.  They would have read that Jesus said you should not even be angry in your heart.  They would have read how Jesus said to love one another as I have loved you.

So no.  I do not believe they read the Bible at all.

[EV]

They would have read that Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself.  They would have read that Jesus said you should not even be angry in your heart.  They would have read how Jesus said to love one another as I have loved you.

So no.  I do not believe they read the Bible at all.

I think that they may have read the Bible actually JST:

Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

There is evidence for both that the old laws are still existent, and that they are not as well.

We cannot reach a compromise on this, because if the Bible contradicts itself then it is unfortunately impossible to decide which is right, because it is 'inerrant'. This is one of the main problems Atheists have with Christianity JST, that the Bible says different things in the same texts, and that it is inconsistent. If it were truly holy scripture, inspired by a perfect being, then it would not contain any errors, inconsistencies or moral misjudgements, for instance the stoning of Children if they disobey their parents: Deuteronomy 21:18

This should both be simultaneously true and false. We cannot decide, because according to the Bible we are imperfect and immoral creatures, and must follow the scripture to the letter.

What do you think?

[Graybeard]

No actually the Bible shows that man didn't eat animals until after the flood.  Then was permission given for them to eat animals and a fear of humans befell the animals.

I feel I must correct you here:

Ge:1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Then we have:
Ge:4:2: And she again bare his brother Abel.  And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
...
Ge:4:4: And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.  And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

You may agree that it is normal for shepherds eat sheep and to sell the sheep for meat.

Ge:4:20: And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

Now people who "have cattle" (and this includes all types of domestic/farmyard) also eat their meat.

All this was before the alleged Flood.

Absent any statement denying the eating of meat, we must assume that God, who liked animal sacrifice created man to eat meat. You will note that our teeth and digestive system are designed for an omnivorous diet. You will say that God designed teeth and the digestive system: He therefore did it so we might eat both meat and vegetables.

Well if they had actually read the Bible they would have read that God is going to "bring to ruin those ruining the earth."  (Revelation 11:18)

I think you will find that "those who destroy the earth" refers to "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit" rather than Brazilian loggers.

Re:11:7: And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
...
Re:11:18: And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

I would be interested in your comments, as, regrettably, your statements do not seem to accord with fact.

Perhaps you could find time to clarify?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I think that they may have read the Bible actually JST:

Well I have made somewhat of an overstatment.  More specifically, they totally disregarded what they read or did not understand it.

What do you think?

I think I need to quit being lazy and make a thread discussing what laws must Christians follow.  According to what I have been taught, and I believe to be in line with the scriptures,  I will lightly touch on the matter to hopefully at least offer you some answer. 

The Bible itself is divided into the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament".  The word testament in this instance is defined as, "a covenant, especially between God and humans."   http://dictionary.reference.com

The very fact that there is a "new" covenant would suggest the "old" covenant has been replaced and this is indeed the case.  However, the law, which was a "part" of the old covenant has not been replaced.  Broadly, this is the reconciliation of the confusion between "it applies, it doesn't apply".  How it applies is somewhat different.  And there are additional covenants in the Bible, affecting different individuals.  But these are the primary two.

Allow me to go a little further.  The Hebrew Scriptures prophesies that God would bring a new covenant.

“Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.”
 
“For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days,” is the utterance of Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31-33

This "new covenant" was later "signed" with the sacrific of Jesus.  "Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

Notice with whom Jesus made this new covenant?  He made it with his disciples that went on to become the christian congregation and not soley with the jews.

How does this new and old covenant differ?  This I will leave for later.  I think there will already be questions about what I have posted. 

Graybeard

Could there ever be a reason for someone to keep sheep for other than meat? 

What about cattle?

Assuming they ate them, and them actually eating them, are two different things.

Ge:4:4: And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.  And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

The first sacrifice made in the Bible was in Eden when God made a covering for their nakedness.  The idea of sacrifice for forgivness of sins originated well before Moses.  However there is no record anyone ever ate these sacrifices.  To say that they did is only an assumption on your part.

But no assumption is needed here:

"And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into YOUR hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."  (Gen 9:2-4)

If some individuals did or did not eat meat is irrelevent.  Even if they did then it was not common practice at least not among God's people.  This in no way proves the point of the post that lead to this topic.  The point trying to be made was that God approved of something similar to a "scorched earth" policy.  The fact that he gave "dominion" over the earth in no way suggests this means it is okay to abuse the earth.  Is that what it means when I say I have dominion over my dog?  That it is okay for me to abuse it?

So far as who is "ruining" the earth.  To show that God will also hold humans accountable consider this scripture.

 "And the earth came to be ruined in the sight of the [true] God and the earth became filled with violence. So God saw the earth and, look! it was ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. " (Genesis 6:11-12)

But this is not a debate about Revelations.  The point I was making is proven even without that scripture, although I did properly apply it.
 

[kaziglu bey]

Or that he has no right to tell us what to do because we have free will, etc. God is ultimately in control at all times. Not one of us draws breath apart from the will of God.

If this were true, wouldn't it utterly abolish any sense of responsibility from anyone but God? We would be reduced to characters in a cosmic video game.

To me to say that he does not have the right to end your existence makes as much sense as telling a novelist he can't tear up the lousy first drafts of a novel he is trying to write.

Does the novelist blame the novel? Does he tear it up to punish the novel? Can a novel feel punishment? Do novels make decisions for themselves, such as to be a lousy first draft? Would a novelist to who would render a yes answer to all of these questions be considered at all a sane or rational person?

The Bible uses the image of a potter who is dissatisfied with a pot he created and so disposes of it.

Same questions as those regarding novelists. 

Certainly, you can shake your fist at God all you want but to what end? Is the Creator of all things visible and invisible going to be impressed? Do you really think that a Creator who is  responsible for planets, universes,  dark matter, quarks,  parks and larks going to change his mind because you don't agree that he is the one who best knows how to run the world? And that emphatically includes dealing with us as we deserve.

Would such a Creator be concerned with us at all? Is he just as equally concerned with all other matters of His Creation? Why or why not? How can we "deserve" anything if we are not capable of doing even a single thing without God first willing us to do so? Isn't the one who designates an action to be taken ultimately the one responsible for his own dissatisfaction at the outcome of that action?

[Seppuku]

I should perhaps mention I have thrown away many drafts of my chapters, at no point did they feel pain or ask for my forgiveness or beg me for mercy. It is definitely a different case. A novel is just words on several pages, the characters are not real, they don't breathe, they don't feel they only create the illusion to gain a reader's interest and maybe even ellicit emotion, but we're humans. Though, saying that, I do have a character who in her maddened state thinks she's talking to the novellist that's writing her life and tries to beg him to be a little more merciful and to even rewrite the early parts of her life so she could be happier. The description I give is of myself and I am referred to as the 'Universal Writer' but I never intended that to be an analogy for people's relationship with a vengeful God.

I think the closest analogy would be a parent killing their child. To God we are His children. He is not a novellist, a watchmaker, a builder, a painter (from other analogies people use) but a father. As God created our species (according to Christians) our parents are the ones who brought us to this world when the conceived us and our mothers held us in her womb to grow us into a baby. We view our parents with responsibility over our lives. God is often seen as the father to all humanity, why can't He hold responsibility for our lives?

[Graybeard]

Graybeard
Could there ever be a reason for someone to keep sheep for other than meat?

Of course there are other reasons, but those other reason are not all the reasons.. Herdsmen would not eat meat, despite keeping sheep and cattle??

Assuming they ate them, and them actually eating them, are two different things.

How civil is it to be so dishonest as to state this and yet not add, “Assuming they did not eat them, and them actually not eating them, are two different things” And yet, you chose your words so as to appear to claim, as a fact, that meat was not eaten.

Ge:4:4: And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.  The first sacrifice was in Eden when God made a covering for their nakedness.

I regret that you are wrong. Adam and Eve had been expelled from Eden at the time of this sacrifice.

there is no record anyone ever ate these sacrifices.  To say that they did is only an assumption on your part.

And is equally an assumption on your part. The animals were killed.

But no assumption is needed here:  (Gen 9:2-4)

My point was that you wrongly said that God gave dominion to man over the animals after the flood – when, as Gen:1 states, clearly it was before.

Even if they did [eat meat] then it was not common practice at least not among God's people.

You have said that you are only assuming this, yet you state it as if it were a fact. Why do you do this?

The point trying to be made was that God approved of something similar to a "scorched earth" policy.

And so He did – are you saying that droughts, plagues (all causing immense suffering to man and beast), genocide, and flood were not at the hands of God? 

Is that what it means when I say I have dominion over my dog?  That it is okay for me to abuse it?

To your dog, you stand in the same position as God stands to you – God gives an eternity of punishment without forgiveness to sinners and, as Romans:9 says, may destroy things at will.

So far as who is "ruining" the earth.  To show that God will also hold humans accountable consider this scripture.(Genesis 6:11-12)

KJV1611 is quite clear – it was violence (wars, murder, rape, etc) that was ruining the earth:
Ge:6:11: The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Ge:6:13: And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

God destroys the Earth better than violent man could ever have done.

The point I was making is proven even without that scripture, although I did properly apply it.

It is neither proven nor did you properly apply Scripture. You have made errors and unwarranted assumptions devoid of biblical support. You have stated “I have said it, therefore it is true.”

[Jstwebbrowsing]

If this were true, wouldn't it utterly abolish any sense of responsibility from anyone but God? We would be reduced to characters in a cosmic video game.

Ultimately God is in control.  But he has "leased", if you will, the earth to Satan and to those that take up his same argument than man should choose his own way.  So God is not to be held responsible for what Satan and these humans have done unless he allows it to exist this way forever.

Does the novelist blame the novel?

Let's say the writer gives the book the ability to write parts of the story itself.  Let's say the writer tells the book that it can write about anything it wants as long as it also writes some about "the joy of writing".  But the book disobeys the writer and never even mentions "the joy of writing".  Does the writer have the right to tear up the novel?

Would such a Creator be concerned with us at all? Is he just as equally concerned with all other matters of His Creation? Why or why not? How can we "deserve" anything if we are not capable of doing even a single thing without God first willing us to do so? Isn't the one who designates an action to be taken ultimately the one responsible for his own dissatisfaction at the outcome of that action?

I think these are very good questions.

Would such a Creator be concerned with us at all?

This would depend on the personality of the creator.  If would you like then I will tell you how I drew my own conclusions.  The rest of your questions I will answer based on my conclusions since I must assume he does care in order to answer them.  I will not "pull out the Bible and start preaching", but I will make reference to Bible passages and based my answers on the Bible.  If you would like to examine these Bible passages yourself then please ask and I will provide them.

Is he just as equally concerned with all other matters of His Creation?

No not equally, but he does have concern for all of his creation.  I reason that he is concerned for all living creatures at least to the extent he wants to keep them alive.  Take a little bird for example.  He created birds with the ability to survive and has created everything they need to do so.  He also could have created them with some urge that they could never satisfy.  If he did then that would be a pretty cruel trick unless there was a good reason behind it.  So since he didn't then that shows he also wants them to be satisfied. 

And since he wants them to survive and be satisfied then he also must also be concerned about their habitat because without it, the bird dies.  The Bible even goes so far as to say that not one little bird can die without his knowledge.

From there the Bible goes on to ask the question that if God cares for a little bird that much then how much more so must he care about you?
 

Why or why not?

The Bible shows that God created man in "his own image".  What does this mean?  It does not mean that we look like God.  God is a spirit and therefore does not have a fleshly body.  Being created in God's "own image" means we were created with the ability to reflect God's personality traits just like a child reflects the personality of it's parents.  The bible shows that God's primary traits are love, justice, and wisdom.  Man has the ability to show these qualities and are therefore more like God than other animals.  So God cares for man more than other things.  However, to stay alive man's habitat must be maintained.  No habitat, no humans.

How can we "deserve" anything?

We can't.  This is a major theme of the Bible.  There is nothing man can ever do to deserve anything from God.  Anything we get from God is given simply because God wants to give it.  What did man do to deserve to be created in the first place?  Nothing.  God just did it because he wanted to.  Why?  I'm not sure.  The best reason I can come up with is because he wanted to share life.



Edited to fix quotes GB Mod and 750 words removed to keep to around 500 as per the rules

[Graybeard]

Ultimately God is in control.  But he has "leased", if you will, the earth to Satan and to those that take up his same argument than man should choose his own way.  So God is not to be held responsible for what Satan and these humans have done unless he allows it to exist this way forever.

There are many problems with this paragraph.

1. You seem to have made a bald statement that God has lease the earth to Satan. You offer no proof (i) of God, (ii) of Satan or (iii) of the lease agreement.

2. This assumes there to be a God and a Satan. It casts mankind as a person who does not recognise the difference between good and bad, and a god who is not bothered whether mankind does recognise the difference or not.

3. It casts God as a slum landlord who knows there is a child brothel, run by an amoral criminal, in his property but does absolutely nothing about it. God is all powerful and thus could do something about it - he chooses not to.

4. Although he is aware that the situation has been going on for a long time, not only does he do nothing, but He refuses to take any responsibility. "I'm sorry, it is nothing to do with me." What is He waiting for? Is this perhaps why God never answers prayers? He's not bothered.

5. I have already shown you that God has a right to kill and that, 3000 years ago, He used to do it regularly and by the thousand. However, he has since given up doing it. - why, we do not know.

Tell me, how do you find this being worthy of worship?

I take it that you are a Jehovah's Witness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses#Satan

[Mostly Harmless]

No, because God decided that to kill (or, perhaps more specifically, murder) is wrong. Murder is killing someone who is not an immediate threat to self or others. If God is all powerful, then by definition, no one is a threat to him, and therefore any killing that he does would, again by definition, be murder, which he has specifically forbidden. The rule setter has no right to set aside the rules only for themselves.

This author goes on to discus an unfair judge.  This an argument based on an analogy.   By this reasoning, God might be guilty of your definition of murder because He created a universe in which death occurs.  In fact, we seem to live in a universe that is, itself, dying. 

But what if physical death is really not as significant as we take it to be?  What if it is not an end, but instead is a passage?  What if it is an end for some and a passage for others?  What if it's only temporary?  We just don't know.  Thus, how can we judge? 

It is quite possible that God will heal every amputee.  In fact, from God's point of view, He may have already done it.  If we can't fully understand space/time, how can we claim to make judgments in areas like this?

Many objections to God's existence are based on an understanding that cannot possibly be correct.  Perhaps the most fundamental belief about God is that He is the Creator.  Consider the implications of that.

What point is there in raising objections about the existence of a "straw God"?

This should be apparent to anyone who gives it serious thought and study.  I'm wondering if I'm wasting my time engaging in discussion here. 

[Graybeard]

If God exists and created humans does he have the right to kill a human?  And I mean ever, under any circumstances.  I'm not asking if God could also go without ever killing.  I'm asking if God has the "right" to ever kill.  Perhaps destroy is a better term.  But they are both the same in this case.  Does God have the right to destroy his creation?

Yes, undoubtedly He does. You need to read Romans 9 (all of it) There it is explained that
Ro:9:22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Ro:9:23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

He kills people off to show how powerful He is.

Next He told mankind in the Garden of Eden that he would die - the ways of death are many and varied, and all of them are caused by God alone.

[LoriPinkAngel]

What about euthanasia?