The laws of thermodynamics... ahem, if I may interrupt, there is no proof or theory available to us that tells anything conclusively about the ultimate fate of the Universe. The latest findings based on Dark Matter and Dark Energy lean towards supporting a Cyclic Model. All life (in the present cycle) may indeed be extinguished, not only by the laws of thermodynamics, but even by something as lowly as a meteor strike. Life can rise again, and fall again, with each cycle. Not quite as "geo-centric" or "narrow" as you might be wont to conclude, if the Universe does operate in cycles.
And if all you have is probabilities, then you have no morality from which to declare "killing is wrong."
Re-read my previous comment. I explained this, Ref: societal obligations. Self-preservation is survival. If an individual entity benefits in terms of survival from its physiology and its environment, the individual's self-preservation will correspond with the preservation of the aforementioned variables. For man, society forms a core part of his success as a species. Anything that breaks society down, harms man's survival in turn. Murder would be one of those things (coincidentally recognised more or less universally by disparate cultures as, ahem, immoral). Likewise, other things.
What you are doing is taking an emotional view, using it to try to bootstrap socially shaming arguments, and trying to bludgeon me into agreeing that Christianity is unaware of evil.
All I did was show you a self-contradiction in your adopted dogma. Too bad you feel you were being bludgeoned; that was not the intent. When you said you didn't experience any difficulty in accepting a divinity figure ordering a man to slaughter infants, I recognised you were lying. My mention of the same earlier was not questioning your acceptance of your god's plans that lead to the slaughter - that is a given, akin to how a believing Muslim sees no lapse in morality when his faith compels him to eradicate non-Muslims by the means sanctioned in the Quran - I was asking if you were comfortable with the slaughter itself. Are you admitting that you would have wanted those infants to be cut up, even if you had the choice/power to edit things, you being granted in advance the property that your edits wouldn't change the ultimate conclusion of the narrative? You implied you would, but the only people I know who are comfortable with slaughtering infants are psychopaths.
Which is absurd even on the social level, since the worldwide symbol of Christianity is that of a religious minority, an itinerant manual laborer under military occupation, who was betrayed by His friends, convicted by a kangaroo court of His culture, and executed under torture by the occupying authority, by a method so painful that its very name has become a synonym for "painful torture".
LOL, now you are resorting to the same thing you accused me of adopting: appealing to emotions. As if no human died a more painful death than crucifixion.
Bone cancer is excruciatingly painful, and lasts for years as the disease takes its course, and the ones suffering don't have the luxury of knowing for a fact that they can transcend death (because they know they aren't divinity). And even more absurd on a Theological level, for Christianity's tenet is that this Man is God Himself, come to partake in our suffering and death ("he has tasted death for every man") and in doing so, to destroy the ultimate power of death.
Just to remind, that 'Man' isn't the same 'man' as you are. Blurring the distinction does no one any good. The 'Man' knew he could transcend death, but 'man' doesn't. Important difference.
It's cute. It thinks it knows science.
Have you noticed that thermo has been experimentally confirmed; but not only that, it gives its results even without relying upon the atomic model?
Whereas we have no experimental evidence to confirm cycles; it's still vaporware.
Re-read my previous comment. I explained this, Ref: societal obligations.
I read it. But it's pointless. Not as a pejorative, but a description of its relation to science. Science states that individuals and species go extinct all the time; whether localized short term changes in the environment such as a flood or famine, changes in the ecological niche (receding of Ice Age glaciers kind of helped do in the Saber Tooth Viking Kitty), or the Earth being struck by a whipped cream pie (Hugo-award winning Science Made Stupid, now unfortunately out of print), or yet again, the Sun following its evolution to Red Giant, or, longer still, the Heat Death of the Universe.
Life dies out.
So whence comes your insistence that "survival good, death bad" ?
You implied you would, but the only people I know who are comfortable with slaughtering infants are psychopaths.
Naah. You're failing to realize moral development over time. People did that kind of thing all the time back then: you can even find one of the Jewish prophets speaking to a messenger from a foreign king, "I'm looking at you odd because the Lord is showing me the devastation you will cause in Israel. Killing infants and ripping open women with child."
And the dude replies, "Who is your servant, that he should do this great thing?"
The prophet answers, "The Lord has shown me you will be the next King over Syria."
So the guy goes home, smothers the King of Syria in his sleep, and assumes the throne.
Or you have the quote in Psalms, "Woe to you, Babylon you devastator! Happy is he who does to you what was done to us! Happy is he who takes your little ones and dashes them against a rock!"
But, you know, this kind of thing still happens quite often in the modern, civilized, enlightened 20th century: as the diary of Japanase troops who invaded (IIRC) the Philippines talk about "we came across a pregnant woman today. We stuck our bayonets her huge belly and skewered her like a piece of meat." (Try the Time-Life series on WWII for that quote.)
Or, for that matter, the infamous Rape of Nanking by Imperial Japan, which was so bad, that John Rabe, the official representative of Nazi Germany to Imperial Japan, became horrified to the extent that he wrote a personal letter to Adolph Hitler appealing for clemency on humanitarian grounds.
Or the Holmodor, where official testimony before the US Congress of survivors related people eating their own children -- which was also prophesied, and happened, in the Old Testament.
Or the practice of under Mao's terror of decapitating a family member then forcing the survivors to sleep in a bed with the remains.
Or the Palestinian terrorist who attacked a family and hacked them to death including infants; or the other one who came across a dad and his four-year-old daughter, shot the dad to death first, and then picked up the girl and bashed her head in against a rock, so the last thing she remembered was the death of her father before her eyes.
If I really thought death bothered you, you'd be complaining about these more recent examples, rather than the GNUatheist approach of "OOH, look, I found this bloodthirsty God on an atheist site and I'll cut and paste and humiliate this Christianist because I know his Bible better than him."
The problem with this, is the same as with the other supposed gotcha of "why doesn't God heal amputees?"
They are both reduced cases of theodicy, relying on novelty for emotional impact.
It's not working.
LOL, now you are resorting to the same thing you accused me of adopting: appealing to emotions. As if no human died a more painful death than crucifixion.
No, it's easier than that. You thought you were going to wow me with suffering, because to you, Christianity is just SWPL, so I would be horrified if I knew what the world was "really like."
I just showed how your central contention was based on a chronic *mis*understanding of Christianity. You tried to pretend that if you came up to me and made a big scary face "BWUHAHAHAHAHA" I'd shit my pants and run. Which is funny, because a generation or so ago, the big fad among atheists was attacking Christianity as merely being a crutch for those who were hopeless in this life -- opiate of the masses and all that; the exact opposite of the current fad of accusing Christians of being spoiled and indifferent.
I guess the KGB-type controllers behind all your organizations figured out that it wasn't working, and also figured nobody would notice if they suddenly did a 180 on their accusations.
You atheists are too stupid to notice; as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, it begins to look as if no stick is too weak or absurd with which to try to attach Christianity.
If death bothers you, great. It's supposed to...but there is nothing in scientism which justifies this belief; whereas Christ came down and was resurrected to defeat death. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Incidentally -- as far as killing children, it's the atheist Peter Singer who advocates killing unwanted healthy children after birth at the mother's whim.
Suck on that.
Jews *used* to kill, but only within strict geographical boundaries; Christians killed, to counter hundreds of years of forcible conversion and invasions from Islam, then began pissing matches with each other (note, for the nonce, the Christians outgrew it from within, whereas the Muslims haven't even had anything corrsponding to the Reformation); Atheists began killing with the French revolution, then the Russian revolution and have left everyone else in the dirt in terms of body count: and if you read the exhortations of the Socialist and Communist leaders, you will find that they openly and continuously speak, almost in terms of sexual lust, for torture and death. And their deed follow them.
Similarly with the Muslims.
But that's not allowed to get mentioned, because shut up, because you're only supposed to prove your open mindedness by attacking Christianists.
You remind me of the Film Actors Guild from Team America:
Nice try.