This was a response to median, but I have my own take on it.
God wanted sin out of the world. When it didn't work, He repented. But, God owes nothing to us. He was doing it out of kindness to eradicate sin. We didn't deserve it.
What makes you think this 'sin' stuff ever existed in the first place? I'm quite serious here - saying that God only acted against sin, out of kindness to the thousands or millions of people he presumably slaughtered, is sounding like you're trying to make excuses for behavior which is beyond atrocious. Would you offer such a rationale on behalf of Hitler
, or other mass murderers in history? Or would you condemn them like the monsters they were?
I already explained all that stuff. God gave people warning after warning after warning of His judgment and the people didn't care.
What should God have done?
How about deciding not to exterminate millions of "human-shaped animals" with fire, flood, angels of death, or whatever, in the first place, and instructing his followers not to do so on his behalf later on? Instead of causing or instigating all those deaths, which he actually did do according to the Bible which you claim to know fairly well.
Which heinous acts were performed by God?
How complete of a list do you want? Just to name a few off the top of my head: The flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and instructing his followers to genocide the inhabitants of Canaan. Forget the excuses for why he did these things - anyone can come up with excuses to justify the unjustifiable. Judge it by the results.
The flood? Supposedly to eradicate 'sin'. The result? Thousands or millions of humans (never mind plant and animal species, which by your definition are 'innocent') dead, but 'sin' still present and accounted for.
Sodom and Gomorrah? Supposedly to eradicate local hotspots of 'sin'. The result? Thousands of humans dead, and 'sin' not even affected.
The genocide of Canaan? Supposedly to clear out the land for his "chosen people". The result? Thousands of humans, the true owners and residents of the land, murdered, the survivors (virgin girls) raped and enslaved...and the Hebrews themselves get culled and conquered repeatedly by their neighbors, and eventually evicted from the land they conquered.
YHWH does not seem to be particularly intelligent, never mind competent. He keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results.
What is your definition of heinous?
Oh, that's how you're going to play this? Okay, very simply, heinous means a vile, odious, or wicked act.
God is not heinous for bringing punishment upon the wicked. Every single one of us (including myself) deserves death. God created us, we belong to Him. He has the right to expect a certain standard from us.
Even if the people YHWH decided to kill actually were wicked (which is in no way confirmed, as they aren't around now to tell their sides of the story), their 'wickedness' couldn't possibly justify his own against them. Never mind this nonsense about every human deserving death - that's sounds like propaganda from a Stockholm Syndrome sufferer.
Even if YHWH did actually create humanity - which, you will note, is in no way proved - it wouldn't give him ownership rights. It wouldn't give him the right to slaughter humans by the thousands or millions. And it wouldn't give him the right to dictate some arbitrary standard of behavior. If he wanted possessions, then he should have stuck to making TVs or something like that, because TVs don't think, they don't act on their own, they just do what they're told and if they get broken, you either fix them or throw them out and get a new one. But living creatures are fundamentally different than that. When parents create a child, they can try to assert ownership rights, tell the child that it deserves death at their hands but in their kindness they're letting it live, and so on - but we would consider such people utterly heinous and wicked. Why give YHWH a bye?
If there is no God, why is promoting human well-being a good thing?
Isn't the human body nothing but a huge blob of chemicals and elements?
You're not doing a very good job of impressing me with your skepticism - you're just parroting the typical religious arguments regarding how you can't have morality without a god to provide it. I guess you're just skeptical of things that you personally disagree with? Well, anyone can do that. It takes a lot more oomph to be skeptical of things you agree with.
Cockroaches are blobs of chemicals and elements and we suffocate them to death with poison by the billions without a second thought.
Why is human life more valuable than cockroaches? Both are blobs of atoms.
You really haven't thought this through, have you?
There's a basic, fundamental flaw in your "blob of atoms" argument, and you can't even see it. You know how amazing it is that a "blob of atoms" can move around and do things on its own, whether it's a human or an insect? Thinking of things as "blobs of atoms" actually gives one a greater respect for life, because you quickly realize that this all came about through purely natural means, rather than a god doing magic and making things live. It's all interconnected, a mutually-supporting web of life. You don't get that through believing in a god which poofed everything into existence, because that god is separate and aloof from what it creates.