Why did God murder children for making fun of a bald guy?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

If you believe that Yahweh is moral just because he says he is, that's just argument from authority.

True. The one case that an argument from authority would not be fallacious is if the authority appealed to is the ultimate authority. The reason an appeal to authority is normally fallacious is because men are fallible. An infallible authority wouldn't be.

The bible can't be used as evidence of anything anyway. The bible doesn't even prove that Egypt existed, much less Yahweh.

If the Bible isn't the source of morality for you, then what is?

Secular humanism is probably the best example of objective morality that we have right now, so if you want a standard of morality by which to judge the purported actions of your god, I suggest you start there.

Could you develop "objective morality"? I'm getting different definitions from different sources. Are these: Humanist Manifesto I (1933), Humanist Manifesto II (1975), A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities (1976), A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980), the most recent and accurate viewpoints on secular humanism?

---

Jesus claimed that a person should forgive another person 7 times 70. The God character hardly forgave anyone even one time.

Except when He bore our sins and iniquities on the cross and now we have forgiveness and recociliation with God. He forgives us once and for all sins.

---

Or, Christianity reinforces the truth of Buddhism, since the latter predates the former by 500 years.

Chronological order is not necessarily a validation of truth, or proof that one derived from the other.

You fucking asked for an evolutionary reason why killing would be immoral, and I gave you one. Just because it doesn't conform to your airy, magic version of morality and instead applies to real things happening in the real world, doesn't mean it's amoral.
Besides, in your worldview, are god's moral pronouncements nothing more than his opinions, detached from reality, or do they serve some purpose for the people that are supposed to obey them? If it's the former, why should anyone care about them? If it's the latter, then those real effects can be determined with or without a god.

The two commandments Christians are given in the New Testament are to "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind," and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." These two commands are routed in reality and serve both a purpose for those who obey them and for those afffected. If God's morality determines ours, then the effects could only be determined if he exists. If He didn't exist then the real effects could not be felt because morality would not exist. This is why I asked: where does the evolutionist get his/her standard of morality from? The Biblical theist says that morality comes from God "writing his law in our hearts and minds" and that is realized through our conscience. He is the author of our morality. Natural selection (an abstraction) cannot be the author of morality. This would be the fallacy of reification.

---

So is it your understanding that people don't have to forgive others now because Jesus forgave everyone 2,000 years ago?