I've gotten a chance to read the Christian CADRE response to the challenge I threw down on Monday. I must say, it's even less impressive than Steven made it out to be when he brought it to my attention. The author, BK, makes a big to-do about no Christians today wanting to apply the Biblical laws today. This isn't quite factually accurate; there's a minority Dominionist/Theonomist theology that believes much of the Biblical law should be applied today. That, however, is beside the point. The fact that most Christians would be horrified by the thought of enacting Biblical laws today only helps my case. They know it would be morally odious to do so, so why do they think the situation was different in Old Testament times?
On two counts, killing homosexuals and killing people of other religions, the main post contains no attempt at an explanation as far as I can see. There's complaints about context and how Jesus' message was love, but no explanation of how the moral standard mysteriously changed at some point in history. It seems sufficient to note that my challenge was ignored here, but there is also a quote from Dan Barker that is appropriate to the situation: "You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say 'God is love,' they will claim that you are taking things out of context!"
In the case of the extermination of the Amalekites, the main justification seems to be that they did lots of evil things. How this justifies killing their children is unclear; most people recognize that it would have been wrong for the Allies to exterminate Axis civilians after WWII. I also wonder what the definition of an evil society is. This argument could just as easily be inverted to say that because the Israelites were going to try to exterminate everyone in their "promised land" (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).