You focus on death threats and punishments. But I've read the whole Bible, and putting it all together, I get a different characterisation of God. The god myths have no appeal to me, while the God of the Bible is very appealing. God does indeed kill people, and punish people. God also resurrects, and bears long with iniquity. It makes perfect sense that God's long-term plan is to have a family leaving in peace, united with the one true God and each other. The father whose child has disowned him knows that the prospect for peace and unity is zero until their situation changes.
The impression I get is that atheists imagine that a hypothetical righteous God would be one who makes no moral demands on humans, has no right to punish, and at the same time is obligated to "fix" every human discomfort (diseases, accidents, natural disasters). I would have no desire to live in such a world. Our most significant problems that challenge humanity are self-inflicted, and moral issues.
As for the Biblical story you're referring to (from Genesis 19), Lot's actions there were not actually consistent with Biblical morals. It is presented as an honest account of what happened, presenting both the good and the bad of someone who was called "righteous" (comparatively) but hardly perfect. It doesn't present the people of God as being perfect in every way, but shows how God works with imperfect people. The Bible also seems to assume a certain level of understanding from its readers, and not feel the need to say explicitly, "and note: that was bad" everywhere it might be applicable.
You focus on death threats and punishments. But I've read the whole Bible, and putting it all together, I get a different characterisation of God. The god myths have no appeal to me, while the God of the Bible is very appealing. God does indeed kill people, and punish people. God also resurrects, and bears long with iniquity. It makes perfect sense that God's long-term plan is to have a family leaving in peace, united with the one true God and each other. The father whose child has disowned him knows that the prospect for peace and unity is zero until their situation changes.
The impression I get is that atheists imagine that a hypothetical righteous God would be one who makes no moral demands on humans, has no right to punish, and at the same time is obligated to "fix" every human discomfort (diseases, accidents, natural disasters). I would have no desire to live in such a world. Our most significant problems that challenge humanity are self-inflicted, and moral issues.
As for the Biblical story you're referring to (from Genesis 19), Lot's actions there were not actually consistent with Biblical morals. It is presented as an honest account of what happened, presenting both the good and the bad of someone who was called "righteous" (comparatively) but hardly perfect. It doesn't present the people of God as being perfect in every way, but shows how God works with imperfect people. The Bible also seems to assume a certain level of understanding from its readers, and not feel the need to say explicitly, "and note: that was bad" everywhere it might be applicable.