I think this misconception comes from the commandments, which are basically only talking about members of your own tribe. "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to the ancient Hebrews it was talking to. So later on when God commands them to raze and plunder pagan cities, they aren't committing sins.

Then Jesus comes along and creates a new covenant, but doesn't reject the commandments outright. So there's a discrepancy between Jesus telling his followers to obey God's laws and telling them not to pillage pagan cities. Of course, this misinterpretation is deliberate among reactionaries, because it's pretty obvious Jesus's commands supercede the Old Testament, otherwise christians wouldn't be able to eat pork or wear certain types of clothing.

[–] Barabas@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago

The way I've seen it they're arguing that people were only living in little villages with essentially their extended families around 0 CE so that is the context it should be seen in. Ignoring that the parable of the Good Samaritan follows as Jesus is directly asked. And that there were many bustling cities around 0 CE.