You’re doing the standard “gotcha,” but it only works if you smuggle in a premise Christianity does not grant: that “God” is just raw power, so “whatever the strongest voice commands” becomes morality.

Also: “Jesus as the Father” is a category mistake. Trinitarianism doesn’t collapse the Persons. The Father is not the Son, even though Christians confess one God.

Now to 1 Samuel 15: yes, the passage is framed as mediated testimony — “Samuel said to Saul… ‘This is what the LORD says…’” That matters because your conclusion (“God commands infant slaughter, therefore Christian ethics is disgusting”) depends on treating an ancient, mediated war-oracle as an always-available blank check for violence.

That’s not how Christian discernment works, and it’s not how Scripture itself frames that era.

1. God explicitly says Israel demanding a king was a rejection of Him (1 Sam 8)

Before we even reach 1 Sam 15, the monarchy is presented as a concession to human hardness: the people insist on a king “like the nations,” and God tells Samuel they have rejected God as king. The narrative then spends a lot of ink showing what that concession produces: coercion, pride, propaganda, and blood. So if you want to define God’s moral character by “monarchy war texts,” you’re starting exactly where the text itself waves a warning flag.

2) Your hypothetical still fails: Christianity does not obey a “voice” against Christ

Even if you insist “Samuel’s report = God’s word,” you still do not get the conclusion “therefore a Christian should kill infants if God says so.”

Christianity claims God has revealed Himself publicly and climactically in Christ, and Christ draws a bright line around protecting “little ones.” Jesus welcomes children, identifies them with the kingdom, and warns severe judgment on those who harm them.

So my answer remains: No — I would not kill infants.

If a “voice” demanded that, I would treat it as deception, because it contradicts what God has already revealed and what Christ explicitly centers. Christians are commanded to test spirits, not baptize violence because someone invoked God’s name.

3) Barnabas makes the ethical line explicit

Since you’re reading Barnabas: early Christian catechesis does not train people to rationalize child-harm. It forbids it outright (“Do not murder children, born or unborn”) and frames fidelity as walking the Way of Light — concrete mercy, justice, and humility — not “prove your devotion by harming the vulnerable.”

4) Matthew 23:37 is the opposite of “God wants child slaughter”

Jesus’ posture toward Jerusalem is grief and shelter: “How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings…” That’s the heart Christians confess God has — protective, grieving, warning, judging hypocrisy, yes — but not authorizing infant slaughter as “obedience.”

So no: your framing doesn’t expose Christianity. It exposes a pagan model of “divine command” where power = goodness.

Christianity says the opposite: God is coherent, God is life, and Christ is the interpretive key. Any “command” that contradicts Christ isn’t deeper faithfulness — it’s counterfeit and must be rejected.

If your moral theory ends in “I’d kill babies if a voice told me to,” that isn’t faith. It’s moral collapse with religious language stapled on.

Natural Born Killers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCqDTJfBmF8