This post exposes how Christian apologists attempt to escape the moral weight of 1 Samuel 15:3, where God commands Saul to kill infants among the Amalekites. It argues that the “hyperbole defense” is self-refuting because softening the command proves its literal reading is indefensible and implies divine deception if exaggerated. The “they were wicked” argument is also dismantled for contradicting biblical principles that forbid punishing children for their parents’ sins and for violating modern moral intuition about justice. The essay notes that when asked to specify what a just and loving God could command, apologists remain silent—revealing the incoherence of their moral framework. It further critiques the selective reasoning that trusts human morality when affirming divine goodness but rejects it when confronted by divine cruelty. By invoking “mystery” to excuse infant slaughter, believers abandon reason and render moral language meaningless. The post concludes that any theology requiring the redefinition of love to include infanticide has already conceded the argument.