Because people acting a certain way based on their beliefs does not make those beliefs true. If you thought that it did then people dying for their beliefs would logically make their beliefs true. You really don't think that the beliefs of the 9/11 hijackers are true, do you?
Have you heard of the term inductive reasoning? That's what the argument is all about, it's an inductive argument based how people act and how they ought to act. And the argument shows that morality seems to be objective rather than subjective. An inductive argument is refuted by showing that either premise is false or that the argument is not logically coherent. Instead of just stating your beliefs you could try to falsify either premise. If not it seems that the argument holds. So my question to you seem to be unanswered. Why is this not a very good argument for that moral is objective?
I don't know what happened and neither do you. I can use inductive reasoning, though. Since God didn't think those babies could be taught by the Hebrews to obey the law and, thus, be redeemed, then they must have already been too far gone to be saved. Therefore, they must be destined for Hell.
As Gilbo said, perhaps God wanted to end the sinful way of the Canaanite once and for all. Perhaps it was meant to send a strong messages to other nations as well. But you yourself agreed that God had the right to determine how long any person get to live, why could he not decide the life length of these children? And according to God life does not end with the death of your physical body, so how do you know what happened to these children after death?
What Bible verses support that contention? Do you think the Hebrew soldiers hated doing what God told them to do or did they take pleasure in following their God's commands? Better yet, would they be wrong to hate doing what God told them to do? So if God told you to torture babies, should you take pleasure in doing it or not?
Actually that is incorrect. God is immutable which means that God do not change His mind on what is and what is not wrong. For example torturing small children for pleasure has always been wrong, so that is one objective moral value that may be derived from the Bible.
The objective morality you have is that you must do what God tells you or you are being immoral. You do have a choice (free will and all that).
Where in the Bible does it say that it is wrong to kill another human being? Since people's sin are not counted against them, should they be punished on Earth for sins they commit?
God did use the children of Israel (as the Bible calls them) to bring Gods judgement on nations, but that is in context of the old covenant at a particular time in history. Remember that the children of Israel was led out of Egypt by a pillar of cloud/fire, so Gods presence was much more concrete at that time. And according to the new covenant God does not count peoples sin (regardless of their nationality or worldview) against them any more. So from a christian perspective anyone telling you that God have asked him/her to do something that is morally wrong is just lying. You can derive objective moral values from the Bible and you can know if peoples actions are condoned by God or not, but to do so you must have some basic understanding of what the Bible actually says. So I guess you aren't winning after all />/>