Four questions for Christians

[Foxaèr]

Man-made law is subject to change.

We must make the best of the only thing we have.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Man-made law is subject to change for making things more convenient.

Because the world keeps changing? What good is law that doesn't address the need of the people? How can we make laws for people who will live 500 years in the future?

[Consilius]

Taking slaves in war might have been common for Egyptians. Not betraying those whom you had offered hospitality to. Reciprocation of offense was exactly what they expected.

Perhaps god should have disappointed them in this regard, eh? Again, regardless of what the egyptians might have expected (and you're full of shit..in no uncertain terms - on this count) your god won't be able to escape my criticims of it's own acts in the narrative on these grounds.

You are still dodging my question which, obviously, is very important to this argument. Say I murdered another human being. Why is this a bad thing?

How many times do I have to tell you that it does not matter? Your argument will be be tq if it is, and it will be tq if it isn't.

But hey, I'll run with it, why is it a bad thing? If it isn't then what again are we hoping to point to as a poor attempt to justify the whole killing kids-as-punishment bit? You're screwing yourself left right and center on this one. I'm thrilled to see that this is what is required to make an attempt at being an apologist, please, continue.

I'm not saying death is a good thing, I'm still looking for a statement from you on a particular thing about dying that makes it bad. Simple.

---

Man-made law is subject to change.

We must make the best of the only thing we have.

Say, in a dramatic turn of events, massacring children would benefit a nation.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Say, in a dramatic turn of events, massacring children would benefit a nation.

Pray! Nah, just kidding.
Now i'm curious, what would your god want us to do, in this situation? Please clarify what you mean by "benefit" before you answer the question.

[Ryantology]

Say, in a dramatic turn of events, massacring children would benefit a nation.

Say we attempt to describe just what sort of extraordinary situation would ever present us with a decision in which the best option is killing every child.

[Foxaèr]

Say, in a dramatic turn of events, massacring children would benefit a nation.

Hitler thought genocide was for the benefit of purifying the world. What Hitler did was wrong.

[Consilius]

What the specific event could possibly be is irrelevant. Let's say that children could be made into the optimal bioweapons for an intergalactic conquest that would supply earth with unheard of bounties of natural resources.
My argument is not limited to this case I just made up. It represents much more.

---

Say, in a dramatic turn of events, massacring children would benefit a nation.

Hitler thought genocide was for the benefit of purifying the world. What Hitler did was wrong.

'purifying the world' is not of concrete advantage to anyone.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

What the specific event could possibly be is irrelevant. Let's say that children could be made into the optimal bioweapons for an intergalactic conquest that would supply earth with unheard of bounties of natural resources.

mhm, and what would you do in this situation?

Actually your situation, it wouldn't benefit anyone. Because parents and everyone else who did not die or participate in the killing will feel so much anger and disgust at their fellow human beings that likely chaos would just break out. But anyway, like you said, irrelevant, so what would god want you to do?

[Foxaèr]

'purifying the world' is not of concrete advantage to anyone.

Your god of the bible disagrees.

[Ryantology]

What the specific event could possibly be is irrelevant. Let's say that children could be made into the optimal bioweapons for an intergalactic conquest that would supply earth with unheard of bounties of natural resources.
My argument is not limited to this case I just made up. It represents much more.

I believe the specific event is of paramount importance. There are specific examples of child genocide described as 'good' in the context of Christian morality. It is not just an ambiguous idea to Christianity; child genocide is explicitly acceptable according to the morals you are supposed to adhere to. If you are attempting to suggest that secular morality does not hold a higher ground, you have to come up with at least one reasonable scenario in which a modern secular morality would, in a manner like your morality, not only regard mass slaughter of children as acceptable but an act which is explicitly considered positive.

I mean, is "God said so" the only acceptable justification?