Where in the Bible is the Christian God Cruel and/or Incompetent...

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not agree with your postulation that the atheist attacks the Bible, and therefore not the Christian God.
It is the Bible that I am using to define who God is!

It is so to say the same as telling me that I am still a good person, but my CV is a total corruption.
Nope, if my Biography is a description of me, and the Biography shows my immoral actions, (for instance if I was Hitler or Stalin) then you cant say Hitler and Stalin or I are still good guys.

The problem is knowing the difference between attacking god written in the bible and attacking the god of the bible.

For example, I can tell you I dislike how Terminator killed the bad guys but if I said that to Arnold Swarzeneger fans, they'd know the difference if I'm talking about the character Terminator or the actor.

I'm not sure how my point relates to Stalin and Hitler. I'm just saying there's a difference between criticizing what's written about a person and criticizing the person himself.

Let me make it very clear.
The Christian God, is the Biblical God.
Old and New Testament.
Any Christian or atheist who thinks different, created their own Idol, and are guilty of idolatory.
The Christian God is YHWH, the Father, YHWH Ruach, and Yhaweshua, the Word.

Most atheist I would assume don't disagree with you. What I'm saying is because, by technical definition, atheist do not believe god exist, the only thing they can attack is what's written "about" god not god himself.

There's a huge difference in attacking a character and attacking the actor.

if you dont accept the above, be free to accuse that god of whatever you want, but as soon as you speak about the Biblical God, the Trinity, you are speaking of Elohim YHWH.

You're taking this as a personal attack on your god.
This has nothing to do with your god just what's written about him (in general) in your scripture.

Do you understand the difference?

Atheist can't accuse your god of anything because they do not believe it exist. They can only "accuse" what's written about him (him/the written character). The problem is not atheists, but some Christians find it hard to tell the difference between what (not who) atheists are critiquing.

The only way I can think of that an atheist can actually criticize god is if he or she knew god to begin with. However, if they never believed he exist, your comment is irrelevant to their critiquing the biblical god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wait?!

And I worked throug each and every one, and could not find God wrong in his actions.

GE 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.

NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious.

DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho--men, women, and children--with the edge of the sword.

You don't see anything wrong with these????

How does the morality of killing a child change based on the person who does the killing?

Likewise, what spiritual lesson can you get from these?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Awful clunky for " utilitarian"

A flood?

Yes, a global flood accountable to change an planetary sphere that shaped out of a nebulous cloud into a massive collection of liquid, solids and gas, from a smooth surfaced sphere, into the mountainious and oceanic earth we see today.

A " bible" that nobody can understand?

Now why would you say "Nobody" if I do understand the Bible?
You should have said"only you".
But then again there are millions that also know and understand the Bible as I do.
Perhaps you should try to read it before you claim you dont understand it.
It is simply a wonderfull collection of the history of mankind since the creation of the universe.
furthermore, the only ancient book which described more than 3000 events, places, topographies, people etc, and which was said to never have existed... Only to be discovered by archaeoloy in the last 200 years.
Funny that the most intellectual people understood the Bible, and made claims unequal to any other ancient book, such as Newton who said he studied the Bible throughout his lifer, and could not find a single error, not in history, theoretical and experimental science, or any other explanation.

Plagues and murdering children instead of
a lil tweak to UNharden ye Pharoah heart?

So, you would rather describe how your god should act, than to look at the rightiousness in the reason of God's actions?

Then there is your basic of wanting a peaceful
perfect world of worshippers but - well, you
know THAT story.

I dont know that story, for I never asked for a world of perfect peaceful worshippers.
I ask that God's will prevails and that He accept my will in asking forgiveness of my sins.
I dont want some world Church, one religion, or any of that.
I want everlasting life...
I want to live in an immortal body such as Adam and Eve had before they sinned and became mortal.
The same living body Jesus received after he ascended into heaven.

 

[ChristineM]

And I worked throug each and every one, and could not find God wrong in his actions.
But you are welcome to give me an example of one that you think might prove the point.
I visited that website for years, and again see the superficial ignorance of an atheist that lookes at the judgements of God and claimed it to be cruel.

What do you say.
If we were to visit Death row, and see how these people wait for their appeals, or the actual day of execution, will you then claim this to be cruel and immoral?
and will you make a summary of the people who were executed by the state and say the state is immoral?

Or will you also look at the offences of the convicted killer who perhaps raped, and murdered inocent lives?
Will you agree with the death penalty for a man who raped and killed a 6 year old, after he slit the childs mother's throat, after he shot her husband?

I would love to see how anyone can think the above offender should have more humane treatment than his victims.
I would love to learn which ignorant person would accuse a judge and jury of immorality for sending the man to his death.
Do you agree?

There is little point in discussion, you mind is set and of course you are welcome to your interpretation. Personally i find someone who commits genocide and condones theft, rape and sex slavery to be a loathsome creature.

And your straw men has nothing to do with a claimed onmi everything god but i suppose it does help ease your mind to make such comparisons

 

[SA Huguenot]

Wait?!



GE 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.

Now what does God have to do with Simeon and Levi's anger in killing Secchem?
If you want to say Jacob was wrong in not acting, or God allowed it, you will also be wrong.
Jacob did not bless these 2 brothers at his deathbead with all the blessings of their brothers, due to their anger in this instance. In the eyes of God, Secchem was guilty of raping Dinah, and should anyway be executed for his act.
Or are you one of the latest liberal leftist thinkers that think rape is fine, and any court who convicts a rapist, is wrong?

NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious.DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

Oh, and again you are accusing God to be so guilty, and Korah and the rebellious learers and people to be rightious?
I urge you to go and read what happened in this incident. Get the full history and rethink your claim.
Korah and his fellows rebelled against Moses and his brother, and they denied Moses' authority of being the chosen leader of God over Israel.
They wanted to rule!
But, lets take all the facts into consideration.
1. God lived amongst Israel.
2. God spoke directly to Israel, which they eventually asked Moses to tell God not to do anymore.
3. These 250 leaders was actually attempting a revolution, and in the face of God telling God they dont want His rule!
Nope, again, you are doing the same in taking sides with the rebelious people who hate God.
And as Korah, you should reconsider your rebelion, for it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho--men, women, and children--with the edge of the sword.

You don't see anything wrong with these????

How does the morality of killing a child change based on the person who does the killing?

Perhaps you should take note of how the Canaanites were not so inocent as you make it out to be.
When Israel left Egypt, the Canaanites continiously attacked the rear of Israel. This was where the elderly and weak were massacered by them.
the Canaanites saw Israel coming closer to their land, and sent for instance their diviners to curse Israel. One such incident was recorded on Baalak and Baalam. you know, the talking donkey story which atheists like to use as sone silly story. Well, the king Baalak sent Baalam to curse Israel. however, God intervened every time.
Then Baalam got a great idea, he told Baalak to sent his daughters to seduce the men of Israel, and to infiltrate Israel with Baal worship.
some of the men of Israel actually did take these women and practiced not only harlotry, but Idolatory in the presence of israel where God was living in the tabernacle in their midst!

Now, is this not blatantly being arrogant against God, and taking an idolatrous religion into His presence?
Lastly, the religion of Baal worship was one of human sacrifice, and sex orgies.
even in archaeology, thousands of babies burned alive to Baal Moloch gets excavated wherever the Canaanites lived.

perhaps you would like such a world today?
I think it was due to the extermination of Canaan that this religious practices were sent into obliviation.
Just think if God did not act in this occasion, what a terrible religion of baby sacrifices, and temple prostetution we would have today.[/QUOTE]

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But lets look from God's point of view.
1. God made everything perfect.
2. And God made man to be the occupant of the Earth, and to do well with what God created.
3. God gave Man free will, otherwise Man was nothing more than a pre programmed being worse than a lapdog trained to do what He wanted.
4. By having free will, Man had the choice to be a moral being, or to be a Godless being no more than a greedy, murdere, rapist, and thief. What would prevent any person not believing in a Creator who he will meet one day, to simply take what he wants? Nothing.
Now, in this point of view, lets look at the flood.

The whole world was corruptwith murder, idolatory, human sacrifice, and worse, and the Bible is clear...

Only Noah was found to be rightious and blameless....
Not even his wife, his sons and saughter in laws were rightious.

It would have been one more generation, and there would be no rightious person on the face of the earth, if God did not step in and did something.
Well, God gave them life, and a choice, and He has the right to take action to save the one person who deserved to be the ancestor of all humans on Earth.

I cant understand that any person would accuse God of killing the whole world, as if it was an immoral thing to do.
Then on the other hand accuse God of allowing these same immoral acts by humans, and making him guilty of that too.
In the accusers strategy, God is damned if He sits back and do nothing, and He is damned if He does something.
If he allows murder, rape, torture, slavery, etc. God is accountable. If God then judges the perpetrator, He is BAD.

It remains a point of an attempting to accuse the Christians of their God being bad by claiming ignorance, and building a straw puppet to destroy, hoping God was destroyed.

it simply does not work in this way, ...
And take care, it is a terrible thing for the Godless, to be caught in the hands of God!
He will judge us all fairly.

To close off,
I never hear how much God cared for the one man He saved, for he could simply have had Noah also drowned.
and for this reason you should also be gratefull to God, for if God did kill Noah with the rest, you would not be here to state this accusation.

Oh, and God even felt bad for having to kill everyone anyway.
Just think what He had to go through in carrying out the rightious judgement He had to sanction.

I'm sorry, but it is impossible to have a meaningful and reasonable conversation who takes stories such as Noah and the flood as historical fact.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There is little point in discussion, you mind is set and of course you are welcome to your interpretation. Personally i find someone who commits genocide and condones theft, rape and sex slavery to be a loathsome creature.

And your straw men has nothing to do with a claimed onmi everything god but i suppose it does help ease your mind to make such comparisons

Not my interpretation, but observation.
All I ask when you make accusations that God somehow committed atrocities, is to give the full factual description, and not just some superficial accusation.
Philosophy has it that half the truth, is a lie.
I find it self explanitory that people committing such practices to mention on the surface some fact, without giving the full account, does so deliberately to sooth their minds that they have a reason to say what they do.
Once they are shown the full informative event, they again stay on the superficial claim, simply ignoring what was revealed.
They also call this "Denial". (and denial can actually be identified as a mindset where the superficial argument prevails active to prevent further facts from lifting a person out of his comfort zone.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think there was a broken quote somewhere.

Now what does God have to do with Simeon and Levi's anger in killing Secchem?
If you want to say Jacob was wrong in not acting, or God allowed it, you will also be wrong.
Jacob did not bless these 2 brothers at his deathbead with all the blessings of their brothers, due to their anger in this instance. In the eyes of God, Secchem was guilty of raping Dinah, and should anyway be executed for his act.
Or are you one of the latest liberal leftist thinkers that think rape is fine, and any court who convicts a rapist, is wrong?

Who told the Israelites to kill (colonize) the promise land in order to live there as god wanted them to?

They didn't mingle with the people who already lived there. They actually stole their land so they have their own. Pure colonization.

The rest... I'm not sure how raping applies in this?

Oh, and again you are accusing God to be so guilty, and Korah and the rebellious learers and people to be rightious?
I urge you to go and read what happened in this incident. Get the full history and rethink your claim.
Korah and his fellows rebelled against Moses and his brother, and they denied Moses' authority of being the chosen leader of God over Israel.
They wanted to rule!
But, lets take all the facts into consideration.
1. God lived amongst Israel.
2. God spoke directly to Israel, which they eventually asked Moses to tell God not to do anymore.
3. These 250 leaders was actually attempting a revolution, and in the face of God telling God they dont want His rule!
Nope, again, you are doing the same in taking sides with the rebelious people who hate God.
And as Korah, you should reconsider your rebelion, for it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

You're assuming critiques of scripture is critiquing your god. I don't know the god you believe in because so many christians have their own interpretation, what exactly would I be critiquing?

It's not personal.

When God turned Abraham's wife to salt by looking back or killed thousands at Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't it be better if he sat down and talked with them or is it better to wipe them out because of their offences?

Perhaps you should take note of how the Canaanites were not so inocent as you make it out to be.
When Israel left Egypt, the Canaanites continiously attacked the rear of Israel. This was where the elderly and weak were massacered by them.
the Canaanites saw Israel coming closer to their land, and sent for instance their diviners to curse Israel. One such incident was recorded on Baalak and Baalam. you know, the talking donkey story which atheists like to use as sone silly story. Well, the king Baalak sent Baalam to curse Israel. however, God intervened every time.
Then Baalam got a great idea, he told Baalak to sent his daughters to seduce the men of Israel, and to infiltrate Israel with Baal worship.
some of the men of Israel actually did take these women and practiced not only harlotry, but Idolatory in the presence of israel where God was living in the tabernacle in their midst!

Now, is this not blatantly being arrogant against God, and taking an idolatrous religion into His presence?
Lastly, the religion of Baal worship was one of human sacrifice, and sex orgies.
even in archaeology, thousands of babies burned alive to Baal Moloch gets excavated wherever the Canaanites lived.

Not sure how all of this relates to my point.

JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho--men, women, and children--with the edge of the sword.

Now, unless you don't believe the bible literally, this is what the bible actually says. How could any person read this any other way regardless if they believe in god or not?

Remember: It's not an attack on the god you believe in (atheist don't believe it exists), but an critique (or for you an attack) on what's written in scripture.

There is a huge difference.

Also: What spiritual lessons did you learn from all of these deaths?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I'm sorry, but it is impossible to have a meaningful and reasonable conversation who takes stories such as Noah and the flood as historical fact.

Why?
Do you know that a global flood is the only explanation to the Earth's current geological formation?
or did you decide to simply brush God away by making Noah's flood out as a story too large to swallow?
I can not tell you to believe in the flood, if you already made up your mind that it did not happen.
But I can ask you to at least go and check what creationists say about it.
Do it for yourself.
And if you find some silly explanation from one guy, dont think everyone is fools.
I know of many scientists who were atheists that once investigated creationism, realised that evolution is perhaps the one scientific theory that needs more religious belief, than creation.
I for one do not have so much belief to believe in evolution.
It is a story of a frog that became a prince.
A fairytale at best.

 

[SA Huguenot]

When God turned Abraham's wife to salt by looking back or killed thousands at Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't it be better if he sat down and talked with them or is it better to wipe them out because of their offences?

Again, I urge you to read the Bible for yourself.
Abraham's wife was never turned into a pillar of salt.

 

[ChristineM]

Not my interpretation, but observation.
All I ask when you make accusations that God somehow committed atrocities, is to give the full factual description, and not just some superficial accusation.
Philosophy has it that half the truth, is a lie.
I find it self explanitory that people committing such practices to mention on the surface some fact, without giving the full account, does so deliberately to sooth their minds that they have a reason to say what they do.
Once they are shown the full informative event, they again stay on the superficial claim, simply ignoring what was revealed.
They also call this "Denial". (and denial can actually be identified as a mindset where the superficial argument prevails active to prevent further facts from lifting a person out of his comfort zone.

So committing genocide against his own creation because he was not omni enough to build a proper functioning model in the first place is ok with you??? That's fair fair enough

The full description is in the bible, of course you can cherry pick your way around them to suite your own version of faith,

So please feel free to provide your excuses why, for example, god condones sex slavery by allowing his chosen consumers to pick and choose the vanquished women, take them home, **** them (sorry, take then as their wife) then kick them onto the street if they are not satisfied? I would be very interested to hear your excuses for such an horrendous atrocity.

Oh, and no time machine allowed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Again, I urge you to read the Bible for yourself.
Abraham's wife was never turned into a pillar of salt.

I've read the bible. So, the flood never happened and the Israelites never took the promise land?

God will save all people and abraham's son wasnt given up as a sacrifice to test abraham's obedience?

Jesus had no reason to accuse the jews since he knew god will not punish them for their disobedience?

99% christians I speak to and their bible claims these killings and gifs justice on people who don't follow god and christ.

Religious book or not, it says what it says.

Are you christian?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why?
Do you know that a global flood is the only explanation to the Earth's current geological formation?
or did you decide to simply brush God away by making Noah's flood out as a story too large to swallow?
I can not tell you to believe in the flood, if you already made up your mind that it did not happen.
But I can ask you to at least go and check what creationists say about it.
Do it for yourself.
And if you find some silly explanation from one guy, dont think everyone is fools.
I know of many scientists who were atheists that once investigated creationism, realised that evolution is perhaps the one scientific theory that needs more religious belief, than creation.
I for one do not have so much belief to believe in evolution.
It is a story of a frog that became a prince.
A fairytale at best.

And another scientific genius comes to our rescue...

 

[halbhh]

What kind of a God says stuff like ─

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (and again at 20:16)

And why would God have done that?

To find out why, one would read more fully in the text.

That's the normal way people expect to better understand the things in a book: by that more full reading.

Let's look at this very question, here in the same book:

29 The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
Deuteronomy 12 NIV

Notice the word "even" -- They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

We get that there is a very strong emphasis in the wording.

Israel is directly instructed also that if they break this commandment, and end up worshipping such idols and sacrificing their own children in fire to idols, a overwhelming destruction will happen to them also.

And for a long time this warning is heeded it seems. It took centuries until Israel broke this primary emphasized command, and then they finally did begin sacrificing children in fire to idols, they also were destroyed, but for a remnant.

 

[halbhh]

But what will happen to the 69% of people in the world who do not believe in Christ? Is it 'bad news' for them?

According to the common bible, it seems everyone gets a chance -- the dead from seemingly all times get to hear the gospel:
1 Peter 4:6 That is why the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged as men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

You'll notice that this epistle from chapter 3 verse 18 through chapter 4 is telling us something that a significant percentage of Christians seem to never have read and have no awareness about.

I try to tell Christians generally that 'doctrines are not a substitute for the scriptures and are not a good replacement for reading scripture', and similar things to attempt to give them a hint they are missing out on so much if they mostly think in terms of just a few doctrines. Doctrines can be a real hazard when a particular doctrine tries to succinctly summarize what isn't so simple. I try to help Christians realize if they would give the doctrinal stuff a rest for a while and start reading through full books in scripture they'd learn so much more.

 

[halbhh]

Mystery enough by my account that you can't possibly know for certain that "Jesus was God."

Perhaps if I had not read much in the New Testament, I'd not know as you suggest.

But I have, so I do know what is in the texts.

This one -- whether Jesus is literally God -- is quite easy for anyone that has read through even just the gospels only. It's very plainly stated, and perhaps the only way to miss it would be to just not read or to read in a way that ignores the wording.

 

[Clara Tea]

I read the Bible, Quran, Gita, Book of Mormon, Hadith etc.
...and on the Bible I did so more than a dozen times. I actually summarised it too.
Yet, when ever I speak to non Christians, inclusive of Atheists, they try to turn the Christian philosophy of a loving God, especially Jesus, on its head with an argument that ...

"If Jesus is one of the Trinity, then it was Him who comitted atrocities, genocide, murder etc."
Another argument is that Christians believe in a loving God, but turns this thinking of God around with the question...

Why would a loving God create people, just so that they should die, get cancer, suffer..." and so on.

I have been thinking of these accusations and can not agree that the "Christian God" is accountable for these heardships and pain. The Bible actually gives the answers, and I found that it is only a very superficial reasoning that is claimed by people who never read the Bible on these questions, to find an answer.

Perhaps someone would supply me with a simple example, to enable me to see what they are talking about. If it is true that God is this immoral being, I want to know about such evidence.

I, too, have been wondering if God is not responsible for bad things. Rather, the bible might be God's instructions about how to behave and how to handle hardships (emotionally).

But, if God is the all-powerful and all-knowing (even knows the future), it seems that God could intervene in human suffering. God apparently doesn't answer prayers, and allows cancer sufferers to continue to suffer (as you pointed out).

Surely a loving God wouldn't stand back idly as suffering is happening. If God is not loving or good, why would anyone want to spend eternity with God?

God is the one who flooded the world (Noah), so why would anyone want to live in heaven with a vengeful or mean God? God has killed a lot of people (Noah's flood, as one example). Why live in heaven for all eternity with a murderer?

Maybe it is about sucking up to power? If so, maybe suck up to Satan, because Satan, too, is powerful.

Surely we can't ignore meanness and evil when we choose to spend eternity?

 

[Trailblazer]

According to the common bible, it seems everyone gets a chance -- the dead from seemingly all times get to hear the gospel:
1 Peter 4:6 That is why the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged as men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Trailblazer said: But what will happen to the 69% of people in the world who do not believe in Christ? Is it 'bad news' for them?

Apparently you are saying that everyone will have another chance to hear the gospel message after they die, but if they rejected it in this life, why would they accept it after they die? So that still does not address the question I asked you above.

You are still saying that one has to believe in Jesus to be saved. Christians try to but cannot get around this without admitting that they believe that Jesus is not the Only Way. With all due respect, I think this exclusionary belief has no place in this new age and was never taught by Jesus.

I try to tell Christians generally that 'doctrines are not a substitute for the scriptures and are not a good replacement for reading scripture', and similar things to attempt to give them a hint they are missing out on so much if they mostly think in terms of just a few doctrines. Doctrines can be a real hazard when a particular doctrine tries to succinctly summarize what isn't so simple. I try to help Christians realize if they would give the doctrinal stuff a rest for a while and start reading through full books in scripture they'd learn so much more.

I agree that doctrines are not a substitute for scripture, but there is still a problem and that problem is that scripture can be and is interpreted differently by different people. Doctrines do not solve that problem though.[/QUOTE]

 

[Trailblazer]

I, too, have been wondering if God is not responsible for bad things.

Logically speaking, if God is responsible for everything in existence, God is responsible for the bad things as well as the good things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where in the Bible is the Christian God Cruel and/or Incompetent...

The god of the Old Testament is both in the flood story.

Cruel: For its own mistake, this god implements a cruel, unfocused plan against all terrestrial life, one that indiscriminately kills by drowning when a simple abracadabra reformation ought to have been possible for such a god. Instead, billions of creatures were forced to find higher and higher ground in fear, and finally, saw the water levels go over their heads and cruelly drown them for nothing. Imagine their terror.

Incompetent: This god allegedly used the same breeding stock that it had just committed genocide on to correct its own manufacturing failure. One doesn't need to be omniscient to know how that will work out.

Yeah, I know, I just don't understand scripture, and thus can't see the incredible love and the genius in that plan, easily seen by those infused with the Holy Spirit. I must hate this god to say such things about it even if I don't believe it exists.

did you decide to simply brush God away by making Noah's flood out as a story too large to swallow?

Actually, I researched the problem. I calculated how much water would be needed to bring sea level up above the highest mountain and compared it to the total water on earth. There not only isn't enough water to do that, but if there were, what would make it suddenly appear on the surface to cover mountains, and what would send it back afterward (I doubt that you want to see the arithmetic, so I won't trouble you)? If that's what you mean by simply brushing "God" away, then yeah, that's how I brush all false statement away - with compelling evidence.

I can not tell you to believe in the flood, if you already made up your mind that it did not happen.

Why would anybody care what others want them to believe, or what they believe, if they can't make a compelling argument in support of their position? Like most skeptics, I really only care what you know and can demonstrate, not in what you believe by faith. If you believe this god is neither cruel nor incompetent, make your case. Rebut my argument above with reason applied to evidence if you can. Explain convincingly why I have it wrong if you want to convince or persuade me.

Nothing less has a chance of modifying the skeptic's belief set.