Really, though?

There is a nontrivial amount of time spent in the NT indicating that mankind has some innate understanding of the nature of the christian god (law written on their hearts etc). It seems to me, then, that if this is true, one should expect, in general, that things which strike a large group of people as being wrong, are indeed wrong (according to the system of morality of the christian god). Furthermore, it seems that we should certainly expect that this innate understanding of the christian god (imparted by the big man himself) should not convict this very god who gave us this understanding.

This isn't to say that things which appear 'wrong' might not be mitigated by external factors, but shouldn't one expect that humans would have an innate understanding that actions performed by the christian god are not judged in the same way?

Arguments from outrage are weak because what outrages one person will not bother another person. To say "God must be evil because he kills people!" is going to end up in a predicted predicament every time.

Also because logic was developed by men and men tend to see emotion as a weakness, or at least a lesser force than logic. If women ruled the world for the past 4,000 years, things might be different...

Today @ 10:56 PM post located here
BeHereNow:

Arguments from outrage are weak because what outrages one person will not bother another person.

Wouldn't that tend, then, to contradict the claim that men have the law of God on their hearts? I mean, I don't think it is unreasonable that a small portion of the population would think that murder is ok (even if the law of God was written on our hearts), but the vast majority ought to find it objectionable if the christian god had any influence on our innate morality.

To say "God must be evil because he kills people!" is going to end up in a predicted predicament every time.

My point isn't that God is evil becuase he kills people, but more the question, why doesn't we innately comprehend the difference between actions performed by God rather than by man? If I find, say, murder evil when performed by another human, why do I find it equally (if not more) evil when performed by the christian god? (yes, the christian god cannot murder etc etc, I needed it for the parallel sentence structure).

Also because logic was developed by men and men tend to see emotion as a weakness, or at least a lesser force than logic. If women ruled the world for the past 4,000 years, things might be different...

I assume this is a joke, or sth? :)

DivineOb:

Wouldn't that tend, then, to contradict the claim that men have the law of God on their hearts? I mean, I don't think it is unreasonable that a small portion of the population would think that murder is ok (even if the law of God was written on our hearts), but the vast majority ought to find it objectionable if the christian god had any influence on our innate morality.

It isn't just Christians who have a problem with argument from outrage.

My point isn't that God is evil becuase he kills people,

I was giving an examle of argument from outrage. It doesn't have to be about murder, it can be about anything.

I assume this is a joke, or sth? :)

I have no idea what sth means, but I was definitely being serious. When I said logic is developed by men, I should've specified that I was referring to the practice of formal logic as taught in colleges, etc., not the innate ability to use logic.

Also because logic was developed by men and men tend to see emotion as a weakness, or at least a lesser force than logic. If women ruled the world for the past 4,000 years, things might be different...

Yeah, whatever, dude.

I'd put this up for a vote in the sororiety: If you lived in the society described in the above link, and could determine the future according to two choices, which would it be?

1. God-thx 4 getting rid of the smelly male influence so we can rul planet.

2. God-plz send warmongering spacefaring alien race /w ability to hybridize with human DNA. Open to previous Nephilim solution THX PLZ!

I somehow suspect a higher-than-normal count for #2. And do go read the Derb's take on the issue before you go spouting off missense like that again.

Ah, good ol' ePoet Ker, blessing us again with your plebian tendancy of shooting from the hip!

You know, you did a wonderful job of illustrating argument from outrage and exactly why it's useless. Very noble of you to offer yourself as a vessel of demonstration.

However, perhaps if you'd like to be taken seriously you could venture into the netherlands known as Forming an Argument.

Or you could just link editorials... wait, you already did that. Uh oh.

DivineOb:

Wouldn't that tend, then, to contradict the claim that men have the law of God on their hearts? I mean, I don't think it is unreasonable that a small portion of the population would think that murder is ok (even if the law of God was written on our hearts), but the vast majority ought to find it objectionable if the christian god had any influence on our innate morality.

But the Christian hypothesis is that God gave us a conscience and then allowed us to twist it and/or stop listening to it. Thus the vast majority of people will agree on very basic morality (e.g. hurting people is bad, the Golden Rule is good), but can disagree widely or be generally wrong about particular aspects of morality.

My point isn't that God is evil becuase he kills people, but more the question, why doesn't we innately comprehend the difference between actions performed by God rather than by man?

Good question - I'd say a combination of the above and the following:

- We tend to have difficulty understanding God

- We don't have an immediate need to understand what is moral and immoral for God to do, it's more important for us to understand human behavior (hence God would have focused on the latter instead of the former when giving us our consciences)

- We tend to elevate ourselves and lower God, so we tend to apply human standards to God

BeHereNow:

Also because logic was developed by men and men tend to see emotion as a weakness, or at least a lesser force than logic. If women ruled the world for the past 4,000 years, things might be different...

That may be true about men, and in my experience it's mainly men who argue about religion, politics, etc. But speaking as a woman, I don't like arguments that are based on emotional appeal rather than logic. And I know men who think it's perfectly fine to appeal to the emotions when debating something of moral significance.

You know, you did a wonderful job of illustrating argument from outrage and exactly why it's useless. Very noble of you to offer yourself as a vessel of demonstration.

I'm sorry-how does argument from nonsupported conjecture over, uh...4 frickin' thousand years merit anything other than a shoot-from-the-hip retort that takes those conjectures to their logical conclusions? At least my sources are available online and make arguments (many of which support YOUR conclusion, assuming you had one other than 'things would be different.')

Or you could just link editorials... wait, you already did that. Uh oh.

An editorial and a short story.

Uh-oh. Ker is mad!

Breathe deeply, and ... aaahhhh

Now, continue.

Epoetker:

I'm sorry-how does argument from nonsupported conjecture over, uh...4 frickin' thousand years merit anything other than a shoot-from-the-hip retort that takes those conjectures to their logical conclusions?

You're retort was nothing more than a red-flag for insecurity. Must I write a 5-page essay to back up every sentence?

Let's examine what I said, that has you in such a bind:

Also because logic was developed by men and men tend to see emotion as a weakness, or at least a lesser force than logic. If women ruled the world for the past 4,000 years, things might be different...

a. Emotion is typically frowned upon in logic.
b. Men are typically known to be less emotional than women.
c. Formal logic was developed almost exclusively by men.

So far, so good. Next part is hypothetical, of course.

d. If the world were a matriarchy, it seems logical that women would have developed logic.
e. If women developed logic, and women tend to value emotion more than men, it seems reasonable that women may not mind an argument from outrage.

And notice how it's ON TOPIC. Always important.

So. Your response?

Yeah, whatever, dude.

Ah! Wonderful!

You even included a link to some 40-page fiction story. Awesome start! Let's examine the rest.

I'd put this up for a vote in the sororiety:

You would? Why? So, did you put it up? Oh... only females can post there. Otherwise you would have, right?

If you lived in the society described in the above link, and could determine the future according to two choices, which would it be?

What society are you referring to? I did not propose any such hypothesis for how "society" would be today without patriarchy. In my original post, I didn't even propose an argument. Just brainstorming to stir up discussion. Not making a formal argument. Can't you distinguish?

Wait a sec... are you attempting to argue from ridicule using a false dilemma derived from a straw man? Well, perhaps you aren't as witless as you look: let's take a look and see:

1. God-thx 4 getting rid of the smelly male influence so we can rul planet.

2. God-plz send warmongering spacefaring alien race /w ability to hybridize with human DNA. Open to previous Nephilim solution THX PLZ!

Aww man... I'm sorry. Listen, I'll pretend you didn't mean to type that.

At least my sources are available online

Last time I checked, online sources aren't de facto superior to references to text. How would a source being online help your argument?

and make arguments (many of which support YOUR conclusion, assuming you had one other than 'things would be different.')

You linked to a work of fiction and an extremist editorial. Big whoop! Ok.. so you made a vague point. You want me to congratulate you for linking a source? You rarely link sources to any type of real data. Almost every item you ever link is an opinion piece or some other fiction.

Look at my post on capital punishment for a lesson on how to use proper sources.

You could also check this post also if you still don't understand.

Whatever point you were trying to prove by saying I don't link sources was vacuous at best, contemptuously ignorant at worst.

But, let's continue

Look at your bombshell finish:

I somehow suspect a higher-than-normal count for #2. And do go read the Derb's take on the issue before you go spouting off missense like that again.

So you decided the fate of the false dilemma. Then, right before insulting your straw man, you cite a dying-gasp effort at shocking the reader with extremism--complete with a review of a novel (very solid evidence, indeed). Included in this fantasy editorial was this wonderful gem of wisdom:

Sexual intercourse itself is on the way out. I have written elsewhere about the sudden (historically speaking) ubiquity of fellatio among young people. This is a genuine social phenomenon of our times. Its significance in this context is that fellatio is an act of condescension by a woman towards a man.

I think that your editorial does indeed speak for itself, Ker, as you pointed out.

Conclusion: :l33t:

DivineOb: Do you see how this post of mine is more effective and conclusive than Epoetker's arguments from outrage?

India:

That may be true about men, and in my experience it's mainly men who argue about religion, politics, etc. But speaking as a woman, I don't like arguments that are based on emotional appeal rather than logic. And I know men who think it's perfectly fine to appeal to the emotions when debating something of moral significance.

Could it be possibe that your ranking of logic above emotion is due to your socialization that taught you to believe such?

As for the men who you mentioned, I'm curious if they are formal logicians. I was referring to formal logic, not regular common sense type logic. Typically outrage isn't highly regarded.



Edit:DivineOb: Do you see how India's post is also better than an argument from outrage?

Now one of my phrases is being used in vain!

Lurking for now. Did I invent this phrase, "argument by outrage"?

Did you really make it up?

Maybe you could explain it for us.

Today @ 06:23 PM post located here
BeHereNow:

Did you really make it up?

Maybe you could explain it for us.

I came up with it on my own some 5-7 years ago, which does not mean someone else hasn't. You've got the essence down correctly. But for clarity I'll post a short article I wrote on it:
*****
In an address long ago on the subject of Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith, we briefly noted Barker's excessive use of a tactic called "argument by outrage." The tactic is also used freely by numerous other critics (and was formerly used by such Skeptical heroes as Paine and Ingersoll) and runs more or less like this:

The critic finds some event in the Biblical text that they find morally offensive: The slaughter of the Canaanites; the stoning of the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, eternal punishment.

The critic recounts this event in such a way as to imply that by itself, the event is enough of a moral outrage that there can be no argument or counter to it.

Or as Glenn Miller has put it, similarly:

....an individual’s personal moral intuitions, if they run counter to moral intuitions of other experts and peers, may need further analysis and qualification, before they could function plausibly in constructing a logical argument of God's non-existence.

In other words, the argument that I THINK someone might make about this might look like the following:

The biblical God CANNOT commit any unjust act (Authority: theological tradition)

God ordered the killing of children (Authority: biblical text)
The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone’s personal moral intuition)
God, therefore , ordered an 'unjust act'. (authority: substitution of terms)
The ordering of an 'unjust act' is itself an 'unjust act' (authority: not sure--this is somewhat controversial in ethical theory, but I will grant it here for the purposes of illustration)
The biblical God, therefore, committed an unjust act. (authority: substitution of terms)
Therefore, the biblical God CAN commit an unjust act. (authority: from the actual to the possible)

We noted in general reply at that time that simply stating outrage is not a sufficient form of argument. It is merely a substitute for true argument, with the intention to win over the prospective convert by means of tugging on their heartstrings like an orchestral harp. If the reader finds the God of the Bible cruel, unjust, bloodthirsty, etc., as Barker does, then that is their own personal problem. What must be done -- but I have still seldom seen done -- is an analysis proving that a given action/directive by God was indeed unfair and/or cruel. No doubt the reason I have never seen this done is that no critic has yet been informed enough about the social situation of the ANE to make such judgments. The tendency is simply to assume, "the punishment is undeserved, and can never be justified." Such naivete amounts to all that can be gotten from a typical Skeptical critic. Again as Miller tells us:

But notice the problem--the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in Step 3. It there is no reason to believe it applies WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then our attempt at constructing a hard contradiction this way fails....This, of course, puts the ball back in the individual’s court to do one of two things: (1) show that these exceptions do NOT hold... or (2) show that although there ARE legitimate exceptions, there could not be any valid exceptions that would be operative in our biblical case.

But in any event, someone would still have much, much work to do, to be able to even offer the 'it is a contradiction' position as an argument. Without such work, this objection is simple assertion, unsubstantiated opinion (e.g, 'hunch'?), or emotional statement.

In light of repeated use of this tactic by Skeptics, it's a good time to issue some advisories on what such an arguer truly needs to do to make their "argument by outrage" more than just an emotional spin-doctoring. As we have said time and time again here, this world is not their world; our thoughts are therefore not their thoughts; their values are therefore not our values. The Skeptical critic tends to assume that people who lived in this day and age were "just like us" and would have reacted with the same immediate moral outrage as they did. That is simply not the case. Mere statement of data on a broad level argues for nothing; a moral hierarchy must be examined and established.

Take these two statements:

Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews.
Blethkorp exterminated 6 million Refrons.

We are rightly filled with moral outrage at the first one. But why? The obvious reason is that we know about Hitler and we know about his Master race schemes; we know about his attempt to seize power; we know he was morally wrong. The core of "argument by outrage" is to take something like the second item, however, and shake out the "least common denominator" so that the moral equivalency is made to seem to be the same. However, what if we start defining out the second one so that:

"Blekthorp" is the leader of the Harlanian race, a peaceful people who only wish to be left alone.

The "Refrons" are a predatory and parasitical race -- say like Star Trek's Borg -- whose only goal is to assimilate others into their culture or destroy those they consider inferior.

Now that we have the context, whence is the "argument by outrage"? I have chosen a clearly extreme illustration, but between these extremes of black and white lie shades of gray which are a combination of black and white. We would suppose that any Skeptic would agree that the Harlanians have a right to defend themselves. If the Refrons refuse to give up -- are willing to fight to the last to achieve their goal -- is it a moral outrage that the Harlanians exterminated 6 million of them? How indeed if the total population of Refrons was somewhere around 70 billion and executing 6 million was the only way to get the Refrons to decide that the cost of conquest was too high? Lest anyone think this a fanciful idea, consider the key parallels to the arguments over whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan.

To the end, then, of defusing "argument by outrage" tactics we will offer for consideration the following points that any "argument by outrage" must supply before it can be taken seriously. We will draw here upon a couple of Glenn Miller's items, one on the Canaanites and the other on the Amalekites.

Point 1: A "God of love" is not a God of sentimentality. One of the leading points used to assert contradiction about the divine nature is the question, "How can a God of love order such things?" It is a point to begin that "love" as the ancients understood it was defined within their understanding as a culture that was group-centered, not individual-orinted. as we noted in our essay on agape, in such contexts what is good for the group is what is paramount. Hence when the NT speaks of agape it refers to the "value of group attachment and group bonding" [Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 196]. Agape is not an exchange on a personal level and "will have little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and warm, glowing affinity." It is a gift that puts the group first and is most closely paralleled to another known concept of today -- not love, but tough love. The best example of this known in popular culture is the New Jersey high school principal Joe Clark who cleaned out his high school and made it a safe place for those who wanted to learn. Clark valued what was best for his students as a whole versus what the individual wanted.

Clark of course did not have Refrons of Amalekites or Canaanites to deal with. But the principle we wish to illustrate is that he did not see "love" as requiring him to coddle obstinate persons who would continue to be threats to the greater body of people. Someone could easily (as a non-objective or selfish parent of an expelled student might) say: "Mr. Clark is not exemplifying a loving spirit." He is, under the Biblical definition of love, even if not our modern one. But if inaction, or a different action -- leaving the Canaanites alone; moving the Amalekites to Southeast Asia -- had ended up in the historical view making matters worse, then we would sit here in hindsight accusing God of being immoral for allowing the worse things to happen (see point below) and it would be an example of non-love or even hatred.

Point 2: Chances Have Been Given. We may well imagine the same parent saying, "Mr. Clark needs to give my boy/girl another chance." Another chance? Here is a question. How many "chances" did the student have before? In fact, is not every second of every person's life a chance to "get right"? There is no problem here with a lack of choice or chances. Under the paradigm, the Canaanites saw and knew of what happened in Egypt; this is why the Gibeonites used deceit to forge a treaty. Egypt itself had many chances -- 400 years for the Pharaoh to stop enslaving the people; 400 years for the people of Egypt to show their own mercies on a personal basis.

Miller adds that the Canaanites "had a long exposure to truth and influences to 'moderation'" -- not just as the Bible records, but also in terms of the more peaceful society they conquered! Miller summarizes:

There was an abundance of information for these people--perhaps even MORE THAN the other nations around them had!--but they did not respond appropriately. (The other nations in the ANE seemed to respond to 'available' truth with a degree of moderation and correspondingly did not develop the ruthless, cruel, and degenerate practices of their Canaanite neighbors.)
We may further note that in the case of the Canaanites, the primary purpose was to drive out the people and force them to migrate. This is a chance to leave peacefully under one's own recognizance, so to speak. Note that this is not an inconvenience, as it might be today for deported persons; see below. The same may be noted for the Amalekites:

It is only after 200-400 years of opportunity and influences to change, and after 200-400 years of continued (and actually escalating) violence against Israel (who had not even been sanctioned or ordered to occupy Amalekite territory!), that God decides to execute the judgment given earlier.

There is therefore no basis for claiming that God does not show sufficient mercy or discretion in such cases. Critics will need to explain why not, if so.

Point 3: Second-Guessing God. We had a look at this issue here, but let's now make an application for this essay. We know of the nature of the Canaanites, as Miller has offered:

By the latter part of the Early Bronze Age Ebla (Tell Mardikh) in northwestern Syria had become a city-state of 260,000 people, with lesser "vassal" cities forming a far-reaching empire. It was the center of a vast commercial network, and records of its enterprises contain the earliest mention of such biblical cities as Salim, Megiddo, Gaza, Hazor, Lachish, and Joppa. An indication of the city's sophisticated planning is the audience court of the royal palace, which both architecturally and functionally mediates the space between the quarters with private residences and those with administrative offices." (ISBE, s.v. "City", p.707)

But something happened...something disrupted this advanced civilization...something destroyed the cities...something violently did international damage, driving nations from their homes, reducing this area to 'village life' again:

Sudden and violent destruction occurred throughout much of the ancient world ca. 2300-2100 B.C. Palestinian civilization returned to the village level, with many E.B. sites abandoned and others left unfortified, a situation that continued through the early stages of the Middle Bronze period (until ca. 1950 B.C.). While many factors may have been involved, especially significant were Egyptian raids and mass population movements, at the center of which were the Amorites.

[The Canaanite peoples were brilliant engineers, and put their skills to use building war-culture cities. Their sites include very heavily fortified cities, and advanced design war-chariot ramps and gates. (ISBE: s.v. "Canaan", p.588; POTW:176f; ECIAT:95)]
Politically the Canaanites were aggressive and warlike.

Religiously we have this data:

...the list of Canaanite "religious" practices included:
Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
Incest
Bestiality
Homosexual practices
Cultic prostitution--both male and female

Miller concludes, "So, we have international and extreme violence and unusually decadent (and destructive/dangerous) religious practices...." And with this in mind, let's ask the next question: Had the Canaanites been left alone, what would our world be like today? Critics need to ask themselves this question, especially in light of the definition of agape. As noted above, reform did not change these people. There were not other social alternatives available (see below). Would critics have us live in a world dominated by Canaanite practices today?

Point 4: Understand the Times and the Values. The critic who complains of various judgments delivered will first need to realize that it is not acceptable, argumentatively, to assume their own values on the text and assume that the subjects of judgment would have reacted as they would have. Take for example the actions of deporting the Canaanites, as noted above. Today such a deportation would be regarded as a cruelty; but in this period, it was merely an inconvenience, as again Miller notes:

Migration was not that big of a deal in that time period--the peoples are generally classified into the "mobile" terminological groups: pastoral nomadism, semi-nomadism, transhumance nomadism, etc. Migration and movement was a fact and way of life. With a little notice, whole tribes could migrate in days. The Canaanites had DECADES of notice--authenticated by the miracles of the Exodus--and any sane ones probably DID leave before Israel got there. Abandoned city structures are common all over the ANE and Ancient Middle East from that period.

It was only those who resisted this deportation who were exterminated:

In Joshua 12, the victory list is given as 31 kings (generally petty kings of city-states) this would be around 70,000 people (assuming they all stayed around--a very dubious assumption in light of the international fear of Israel at the time).
But this 70,000 is against a base of close to 2 million people! (Israel was approximately 1.6 million at the time, and these nations are said to be 'more numerous' than Israel in a number of places--e.g. Deut 7.1,7.) This amounts to approximately 3.5% of the 'target population'. The Israelites were specifically told to execute those who remained in the cities (Deut 20.16) and those who hid in the Land--and therefore did NOT migrate out--Deut 7.20. Granted the Israelites were less than thorough in their warfare, but this small percentage is a bit ridiculous! This doesn't seem like serious genocide to me--what's going on here?

And thus:

There is a strong possibility that most of the 'innocent' people left the country before the actual battles began in each local turf. Those that stayed behind were the die-hards, the "carriers" of Canaanite culture, the ruling, decadent, exploitative elite. We also saw that only a very tiny minority of people were actually killed in this campaign, relative to most military conquests in the ANE.

By the same token, Miller offers in the link above an extensive analysis of social options available for dealing with Amalekite innocents in this period. Lack of social options, and the demeanor of the day, tells us that: "people preferred quick deaths over slow agonizing ones...people preferred quick deaths to 'normal' foreign slavery." We who may not share these values have little to speak of, with no threat of slavery in our lives and a 7-11 on every corner, as I have come to say often.

Miller closes his item on the Amalekites with a comparison to a famous "lifeboat" scenario in which students are asked to select one passenger who will die so that 29 others may live. His assessment should be familiar to us:

Some students will try to avoid the issue altogether, by talking about 'taking their chances' on the boat, on the sharks, or on the rate of travel toward the island. But the scenario is not constructed that way--the 'there must be some other way' fantasy options don't exist...just as in real life tough decisions...just like decisions public leaders in governance have to make some time...If you the captain take a chance (especially given the odds stated above!) and lose all 30, when you could have saved some/most, this is generally considered unacceptable (assuming you value human life, of course).

By the same token, it is not enough for critics to bleat that there "must have been some other way" for an omnipotent God to have avoided these events that they find morally outraegeous. Until they have loaded up their Turtledove Time Machine, such an argument is based merely on emotional speculation; those that argue (for example) that, i.e., God could have provided food for all of the Midianite or Amalekite refugees rather than have them killed are of the same sort who prefer a senile Grampa God that doesn't enforce and rules they don't like, and cannot escape their own hypocrisy. Our conclusion for the present: "Argument by outrage" as it is now commonly used is not a valid approach to criticism of the Biblical text.

Matthews and Benjamin in Worship and the Hebrew Bible make a similar point about war passages in the OT that speak of such atrocities as ripping open the pregnant or raping the enemy's women. War in the Biblical world was raged on several fronts: The one we relate to is simple "warrior versus warrior" in the present tense. But there were other confrontations on other levels as well. The actions of killing the young and unborn, were a way of warring against future generations of the enemy and keeping them from rising up against you in vengeance at a future date. Descendants who were of mixed heritage (due to rapes) would not so readily rise up against their own ancestral peoples. Such tactics were a matter of national preservation as they would not be today. David's bit about dashing infants against rocks (Ps. 137:9) was no sick desire to witnes acts of random cruelty, but a lament that such action would be taken as needed to preserve his own people from the future acts of cruelty of the Babylonians, which would inevitably come to pass.

BeHereNow:

Could it be possibe that your ranking of logic above emotion is due to your socialization that taught you to believe such?

Don't think so. I think it's more my own personality than anything. (Though I'm not a typical female in many ways.)

As for the men who you mentioned, I'm curious if they are formal logicians. I was referring to formal logic, not regular common sense type logic. Typically outrage isn't highly regarded.

I was thinking of one guy in particular, who is a highly respected, veteran debater. I don't know if he had formal training in logic or not. But his position was that morality is based on emotions and therefore it's valid to appeal to emotions when debating morality.

Yes, Holding has pegged what I was getting at (perhaps I should have linked to his original article in my message).

08-15-2003 @ 07:10 PM post located here
jpholding:
In other words, the argument that I THINK someone might make about this might look like the following:

The biblical God CANNOT commit any unjust act (Authority: theological tradition)

God ordered the killing of children (Authority: biblical text)
The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone’s personal moral intuition)
God, therefore , ordered an 'unjust act'. (authority: substitution of terms)
The ordering of an 'unjust act' is itself an 'unjust act' (authority: not sure--this is somewhat controversial in ethical theory, but I will grant it here for the purposes of illustration)
The biblical God, therefore, committed an unjust act. (authority: substitution of terms)
Therefore, the biblical God CAN commit an unjust act. (authority: from the actual to the possible)

I agree to an extent with Holding's characterization of this argument, and why in some situations it might not be effective. However, I think the above example slightly misrepresents how I think the argument is used for effectiveness. Specifically, the premise

"The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone’s personal moral intuition)"

is incorrect for a few reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure that anyone claims that a scenario might not be constructed which justifies the killing of children. The immediate objection is, of course, that an omnipotent and omniscient being should never allow such a situation to arise. The secondary objection is that it is not based merely on one's moral 'intuition' that killing children is wrong! The bible assures us that the laws of God have been written on our hearts. One must ask why the christian god would write a law on our hearts which would ultimately convict his actions. Why is it even possible to formulate an argument from outrage? Why don't I simply have an intuitive understanding that the actions of God will never be unjust, so I should never object to them?

We noted in general reply at that time that simply stating outrage is not a sufficient form of argument. It is merely a substitute for true argument, with the intention to win over the prospective convert by means of tugging on their heartstrings like an orchestral harp. If the reader finds the God of the Bible cruel, unjust, bloodthirsty, etc., as Barker does, then that is their own personal problem. What must be done -- but I have still seldom seen done -- is an analysis proving that a given action/directive by God was indeed unfair and/or cruel. No doubt the reason I have never seen this done is that no critic has yet been informed enough about the social situation of the ANE to make such judgments. The tendency is simply to assume, "the punishment is undeserved, and can never be justified." Such naivete amounts to all that can be gotten from a typical Skeptical critic. Again as Miller tells us:

And again I ask, regardless of conditions in the ANE, why was I not created with a moral intution which properly understood that the actions of the christian god are always justified because he never acts in an unfair manner? Why is it even possible to form an argument from outrage?

But notice the problem--the whole thing stands or falls on the accuracy of the personal moral intuition in Step 3. It there is no reason to believe it applies WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then our attempt at constructing a hard contradiction this way fails....

But that intuition was given to me directly from God! So why should it even be possible to convict the christian god based on that intuition? Secondly, one wonders why a god who can bring about any possible situation would choose to ever even act in a way that could possibly be objectionable to people.

But in any event, someone would still have much, much work to do, to be able to even offer the 'it is a contradiction' position as an argument. Without such work, this objection is simple assertion, unsubstantiated opinion (e.g, 'hunch'?), or emotional statement.

Conscience is not opinion, because it comes from God.

In light of repeated use of this tactic by Skeptics, it's a good time to issue some advisories on what such an arguer truly needs to do to make their "argument by outrage" more than just an emotional spin-doctoring. As we have said time and time again here, this world is not their world; our thoughts are therefore not their thoughts; their values are therefore not our values. The Skeptical critic tends to assume that people who lived in this day and age were "just like us" and would have reacted with the same immediate moral outrage as they did. That is simply not the case. Mere statement of data on a broad level argues for nothing; a moral hierarchy must be examined and established.

No. If the law of God is written on my heart (as it has been written on the hearts of all humans), then why might I find some action from God objectionable and others would not? Isn't morality absolute and unchanging? Why did people not object to such actions thousands of years ago when I object to it today if the morality written on our hearts is the same?

Take these two statements:

Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews.
Blethkorp exterminated 6 million Refrons.

We are rightly filled with moral outrage at the first one. But why? The obvious reason is that we know about Hitler and we know about his Master race schemes; we know about his attempt to seize power; we know he was morally wrong. The core of "argument by outrage" is to take something like the second item, however, and shake out the "least common denominator" so that the moral equivalency is made to seem to be the same. However, what if we start defining out the second one so that:

"Blekthorp" is the leader of the Harlanian race, a peaceful people who only wish to be left alone.

The "Refrons" are a predatory and parasitical race -- say like Star Trek's Borg -- whose only goal is to assimilate others into their culture or destroy those they consider inferior.

Now that we have the context, whence is the "argument by outrage"?

The argument from outrage still stands, I'm afraid. There have even been episodes of Star Trek dealing with the humanity of the Borg, and the wrongness of killing them when it was not necessary.

But really, lets stay on the topic. Morally I feel no less 'bad' from reading

Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews
God exterminated 6 million _____

Why is that? Why does the law written on my heart convict God, if he wrote that law?

I have chosen a clearly extreme illustration, but between these extremes of black and white lie shades of gray which are a combination of black and white. We would suppose that any Skeptic would agree that the Harlanians have a right to defend themselves. If the Refrons refuse to give up -- are willing to fight to the last to achieve their goal -- is it a moral outrage that the Harlanians exterminated 6 million of them? How indeed if the total population of Refrons was somewhere around 70 billion and executing 6 million was the only way to get the Refrons to decide that the cost of conquest was too high? Lest anyone think this a fanciful idea, consider the key parallels to the arguments over whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan.

And there is no moral consensus on the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan. Whats your point, that you can find some situation in which maybe possibly it is not wrong to 'exterminate' 6 million creatures? Let me grant that then. The question remains why the law written on my heart convicts the christian god, and why he would act in such a way (skirting the edges of morality) in the first place.

I cutting the rest of the text because it isn't relevant to the specific issues I am objecting to. Except I have to comment on this last part.

David's bit about dashing infants against rocks (Ps. 137:9) was no sick desire to witnes acts of random cruelty, but a lament that such action would be taken as needed to preserve his own people from the future acts of cruelty of the Babylonians, which would inevitably come to pass.

I just checked and every translation at biblegateway expresses joy or happiness in verse 8, not lamentation (at the act of killing babies that is. The psalm itself is a lament).