From the Christians' viewpoint, their God is justified whenever he smites people, for he is annihilating sin a.k.a evil. Through the Bible we know that God is without sin, and therefore without evil. Christians believe this despite any questionable actions committed by their God. Why is this the case? It is because they believe that their judgement is corrupted by sin and that they are unable to understand a great being such as God-----this is why they scoff at an atheist's accusation that their God is evil.

All good and well, but I want to attack their defense through a different angle. It is required as they can excuse God's mass killings by saying he is acting against sin and is ultimately justified no matter the case.

However, I wish to bring something to light. The Catholic Church proclaims that the unborn go to heaven, and I believe many Christians conclude that young infants do too (if they die). Seeing as a fetus or a young infant can't profess faith or believe, yet are still admitted to heaven, one must conclude that they are sinless. This proclamation would be further supported as a young infant or fetus are barely sentient and cannot reason, thus lacking the ability to know they are defying God. So, what I would have to say is this: God flooded the Earth killing everyone but one family. This means he killed pregnant women which contained unborn fetuses, and also killed infants. He destroyed beings which were without sin. So would this not be reprehensible? Furthermore, in the bible, God causes multiple women to miscarry, once again murdering fetuses----beings without sin. A Christian would argue God is not evil for he only acts against sin, yet records in the Bible indicate he also acts against purity as well. Would this not throw into question, his own purity?

Now, one could counter the point I made above by saying God was sending these children to heaven anyways, so it doesn't matter that he slew them. But in my eyes, this would be an erroneous thing to say. For example, if I were to cut off a person's leg, but then maintain them for the rest of their life, would my initial action suddenly be considered good because of the actions that followed? I think not; I still committed a vile act by cutting off a person's leg. The same would apply to the Christian God. He slew pure beings, thus staining his own hands with the most vile blood possible---making them dirtier than the majority of humans as hardly any ever slay infants. This makes God no better than a brigand, a murderer, a rapist, or a serial killer. Through his own actions---if God were real----he would deserve the same punishment that he inflicts on others, for he is not pure anymore for what he has done, but rather as black and disgusting as the sinners he loathes.