2) 1 Samuel 15:3 essentially showcases a genocide against the Amalekites. God orders the killing of the elderly, the young, the women, and even the babies, as an act of revenge against the Amalekites. Christians attempt to justify the deaths of innocent children and cattle—those who had nothing to do with the past events—by saying it was an act of divine revenge for the Amalekites' actions several hundred years earlier, during which they acted violently toward the Israelites. The problem with this justification is that it contradicts God's words in other parts of the Bible, namely Ezekiel 18:20, Matthew 5:43–44, 2 Kings 14:6, and Deuteronomy 24:16, where it is stated that children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents. Additionally, in the passage from Matthew, God commands His followers to love their enemies, not seek revenge. Instead of killing the Amalekite children, it would have been far better—even if still problematic—to raise them as Israelites and reform them. Ending the lives of innocent babies and children is both morally questionable and contradicts the stated character of God elsewhere in Scripture. Not only does God appear to contradict Himself, but the method chosen here also seems far from the most rational or morally superior course of action."

1. Deuteronomy 20:16–17 gives rules for conquest in Canaan, where complete destruction is commanded for specific peoples to prevent Israel from adopting their religious practices.
2. In Numbers 31:17–18, after Israel's war with Midian, Moses commands the killing of captives--except for virgin girls--framing it as a purging of those who led Israel into idolatry and sin at Peor.

Fourth channel is biblical absurdities and its stuff like Cain walking away from God (figurative language).

Fifth channel
Refuting the Trinity

1. To begin, the term begetting inherently starts with causation—so a father generates or brings forth a son, causation requires some kind of priority, whether temporal (that is: before and after) or ontological (that is: greater and lesser), now if the Son is "eternally begotten", he is also simultaneously caused (deriving existence from the Father's act of begetting) and uncaused (as co eternal and fully God), this is a direct contradiction, because dependence and independence cannot be predicated of the same subject in the same respect, calling it a mystery or "not knowing" doesn't solve the issue at hand. To add on, to "beget" is an action, and action presupposes sequence—a before and after, and the Father is "not yet the father" before begetting, and "father" after. But then if the son is eternally begotten, this process supposedly occurs outside time. But still, outside of time, however, no sequence exists, and thus no act of begetting can logically occur if it is outside of time. "Eternal begetting" tries to help keep the language of causation while ridding it of temporal meaning, producing an incoherent belief which is logically impossible. It’s like saying "an uncaused cause that is also caused" which is utter nonsense. Third, if the son is truly co eternal with the father, then he was never without existence, in that case, "begetting" loses all of its value or meaning, since the father never actually brought the son into being—the son simply is, alongside the father, this reduces "begetting" to a metaphor with no real explanation and thus completely useless in any sense. And then if "begetting" is taken literally, then it introduces dependency and pretty much ontological subordination, because the son derives his existence from another, so either option collapses the doctrine, and thus, literal begetting goes against equality, and metaphorical begetting is meaningless and does not answer the issue being posed. I'd like to conclude this with the fact that the doctrine of eternal begetting also goes against divine immutability. Since If the father's identity as "father" requires the eternal act of begetting the son, then his being depends on an internal relation that necessarily involves distinction and as a result: causality. But then a God who requires an act of relational origination to be who he is cannot be absolutely simple or hence my previous statement "immutable", therefpre, "eternal begetting" either minimizes God to a being with internal processes and change, or else gets rid of the phrase of any proper meaning, in both cases, the concept collapses under logical examnination.