I'm still trying to figure out how you can say God doesn't exist and then say hell in the very next sentence.
I can carry on a conversation about Star Destroyers or Luke Sykwalker without believing that either of them exists.
You are absolutely correct in stating that God had all those people killed by the Israelites. He also has every right to kill each and every person who was alive since including you and me. The artist has every right to slash the canvas.
Most human artists don't create intelligent, self-aware art that is capable of actively objecting to its own destruction.
It's an odd definition of benevolence: The entity gave you life, promises you love and eternal life after your time on Earth, but is standing quietly in the corner with a stare locked onto you, holding a shotgun. "Don't worry, this isn't for you, unless you do something terrible."
I can't say I'd be at ease.
It is pure logic. The one who makes has the right to destroy. If there is a God who made the universe, then He also makes the rules. If we are found lacking (and, according to the Bible that you are quoting, we are all found lacking being born in sin), He has every right to do as He wishes. Even if we aren't found lacking He can do as He wishes and destroy... however this is against His nature.
...
Though the scripture says that he will still do it anyway if his infinite powers fail to find a better solution than "Kill everything and start over."
If he's truly ready and able to kill everything and everyone for some poorly-defined reasons, then he's not benevolent.
If "kill everything" is genuinely not something he'd do, under
any circumstance, then why the need for fear of a vengeful god? That shouldn't even need to be a concept that anyone's aware of. I'm sure he'd have the power to turn Earth into a delicious blueberry pie, but it's not something people usually worry about or fear. It's not a concept that is in the common knowledge.
But the idea that people
are intended to
fear this god does
not strike me as something to expect from a genuinely benevolent being.
To add to that, God doesn't destroy without giving those he's about to destroy the chance to change their ways. It's not something he just does out of the blue, and those that are receive plenty of warning. God may tolerate unholiness for a while, but at some point either in this life or the next, the wicked will be destroyed, and he has every right to do so.
Compared to an entity like this god, we're infantile, even well into old age. You can give an infant a lot of chances to change its ways. It'll still just drool on itself and squeal. Punishing it with death seems pretty cruel, and even downright evil, particularly if such behaviors are in its basic nature.
The bolded points are very, very good ones. :thumbsup:
...and that's the problem...that people simply don't know why X happened, and to be honest, they're making assumptions (i.e, evil God) based on the sheer lack of supporting facts. What they're doing is the reverse "god of the gaps" argument by using their own conclusions as gap fillers
We'll never have all the facts. It's all about trusting God, basically.
I'd find it difficult to trust a being whose presence is....well, entirely lacking in any substantial evidence, and whose behaviors are described as "unknowable," chaotic, malevolent, and inhumane.
Yes, people say "faith" is the answer to having that trust.
I don't see faith as much of a positive thing.
"Faith" in that sense is saying that you "know" what is not known. That is not a virtue. That is voluntary ignorance and blindness.
My idea of faith is that something must come with evidence to back it up.
I have faith that general relativity works, even though I've never propelled an object to nearly the speed of light. I have faith that there are a few hundred million transistors in my PC, even though I've never looked inside a single one of those chips. I have faith that an electromotive force is responsible for causing the lights in my room to produce light, even though I've never seen an electron.
But there's considerable evidence for all of those things, such that it is quite safe to assume that those things are "known." That's the level of "faith" that is both acceptable and necessary.