Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Esquilax]

genocide is never just!

Please demonstrate how that is so.

At the moment that you begin defending genocide you have clearly demonstrated that you have no morality at all, or are at least willing to completely divorce yourself from every tenet of morality that has ever been developed, in any workable moral system in history, to defend your untenable beliefs. Fr0d0, I thought you were better than this.

You omit the fact that God would judge the whole life of the child and it's potential descendants. Only God can know if that future is innocent or guilty, and is the only one who can exact justice. Once more, how are you judging God? What knowledge do you possess and how? If you cannot know, how are you making these claims?

Two things: one, if Ryantology can have no way of knowing, then how can you? You both have exactly the same basis, and yet for some reason you are assuming that each and every one of the people there would in time do something to deserve death, and despite calling Ryan on that very assumption, you make it yourself with the expectation that nobody will pick up on it.

And two, your entire objection is nonsensical, because of another favorite claim of yours, that you made today in another thread, "freedom is required for love." So obviously you believe that god gives us free will, with which we can sin or turn to god in equal measure. Therefore, how can you possibly say that these people, these infants have a predetermined fate?

More than that, if they're killed for crimes they haven't yet committed, then they haven't committed any crimes.

This just shows the underlying hypocrisy of every religious claim; in one breath you're willing to shrug off the evils of this world as a free will thing god will not intervene with, and then in the very next you claim that god is willing to rob the Amelekite children of their free will to choose good or evil, and that he had predetermined them to be evil from the outset!

Your position is entirely untenable here, from top to bottom. And when the top of your argument is a defense of genocidal slaughter, it utterly baffles me that you're still claiming the moral position.