jasminer:


Lol, Yes or no can't answer your question if that's what you're waiting for because that would be generalization and one size can't fit all. I myself will kill a child if I feel my life is threatened and my actions can be or condemned or justified depending on the scenario.

Unprovoked, it's wrong to kill any human regardless of their age.

In war, whoever needs to die for the safety of your country and people should be killed without thinking twice even if it's a day old child.

God never asked anyone to rape any woman, the punishment for rape is death. If you have no proof of otherwise, don't repeat this question again because this is the second time I'm answering it.

What possible threat could a day old infant pose to your life? I need common, plausible examples. Thanks.

jasminer:


Lol...You're smart but I'm smarter. I saw your trap, twerked all over it and hopped over it with one toe

You paint scenarios, I answer then automatically, because I answered, that's what my religion teaches... Very sly of you.

It's amazing how non Christians speak NONSENSE about Christianity with so much audacity and authority because they have read psalm 23 and the book of Genesis.

I am the Christian, so what I tell you about Christianity is the fact. All this nonsense impositions and insults won't make any point. If you watch, I've never insulted you since we began this discussion but you have been insulting me and even my God directly and indirectly which is a big disrespect to me.

I overlooked it because of people who genuinely need answers to questions about Christianity.

I asked you one question but you never answered. Even if you answered, your answer will be the same as mine. You'll act the same way the Christians act in the same situation, you know this, anyone reading this knows this... What's the whole hypocrisy about?

I'm sorry but you're not quite half as smart as you assume yourself to be.
If you were, you'd have abandoned the argument a long time ago.

Have you forgotten you said these things you are defending now were wrong?

jasminer:


Yes they are wrong.

This was before our main argument began, before you entered my trap.
So why are you defending genocide, infanticide and slavery when you already admitted that those acts are wrong? Why did you contradict yourself? Why did you adjust your stance as the argument went on? Oh, you didn't know that was were my questions were leading to?
Please madam, explain why you are defending genocide, infanticide and slavery when you already admitted that it's wrong. I'm waiting.

jasminer:


My fellow hypocrite, I condem killing anyone unprovoked, I defend killing anyone who tries to kill you as a person even if it's a child (self defense), I also defend killing anyone who not only tries to kill you, but anyone who poses a threat to you as a military personnel especially in war.
In the same vein, you defended killing children as well in certain scenarios.

What next will we defend my fellow hypocrite

You defended killing infants too because you're scared of what they'll do in the future. Abi you forgot that one?
Add it to your list.

jasminer:


I know you've run out of ideas to argue about So let me give you some

Do you know that as a Christian, I believe that God can take anyone's life at anytime he chooses without giving anyone any explanation because all living things and non living things belong to Him.

I mean, the most innocent children, and the most Holy prophets. He can decide for any reason best known to Him and nobody can question Him because He owns all.

Oya... Food don land

Ahn ahn, but you said those things were wrong nw.

jasminer:


Yes they are wrong.

So Jehovah don dey do bad things since be that? I guess he's not benevolent after all.
Contradictions upon contradictions. Nawa.

jasminer:


Let me also give you another shocking side of Christianity...

There was a king called Manasseh who killed people, sacrificed children, killed prophets etc and just before he died, he repented and sought for forgiveness and he was forgiven.

After all the killings, God forgave him just like that. What can you say about this

At this point you are even revealing how flawed Christianity is. Someone killed children, killed adults and anyone he could kill, sacrificed them and asked for forgiveness only to be forgiven and sent to heaven.
That means Hitler could be in heaven if he repented.
If person kill your pikin and government let him go free because he said sorry, you go dey shine teeth abi?

jasminer:


Let me nau drop the Hiroshima bomb because I want this thread to reach 100 pages

Do you know that Jesus himself in Matthew 24 vs 3-31 that in the end time just before rapture, there will be floods, famines, wars and rumours of wars and all these are just the beginning of sorrows

Why will He say that? Hmmmmmm

This your Hiroshima bomb dey sound like ordinary firework o.
Is it Jesus that wants to send the famine and floods? Is he the one that wants to lead the war? If no, why are you trying so hard to paint him bad? This one wants to set her lord and savior up o. Chai.
Even if you successfully paint him bad, it's still to my advantage nw. You'd only be giving me more points to use against you.

uche40:




It's curious that you affirm that genocide, infanticide and slavery are wrong given that the Bible seems to support these acts. Could this be an implicit condemnation of morality in the Bible?

When she answered that it was wrong, she didn't know I'll be making reference to stories in the bible where these acts were propagated by the Christian god. When I finally made reference to it, she had no choice but to defend these same acts she agreed were wrong.

kingxsamz:


This your Hiroshima bomb dey sound like ordinary firework o.
Is it Jesus that wants to send the famine and floods? Is he the one that wants to lead the war? If no, why are you trying so hard to paint him bad? This one wants to set her lord and savior up o. Chai.
Even if you successfully paint him bad, it's still to my advantage nw. You'd only be giving me more points to use against you.

Lol, Jesus isn't the one sending the famine, starting the wars or causing the floods. The devil is the one doing that.
Jesus only foretold the things that will be happening around the time that he will return to take his church away.

kingxsamz:


At this point you are even revealing how flawed Christianity is. Someone killed children, killed adults and anyone he could kill, sacrificed them and asked for forgiveness only to be forgiven and sent to heaven.
That means Hitler could be in heaven if he repented.
If person kill your pikin and government let him go free because he said sorry, you go dey shine teeth abi?

Asin ehn, this kain forgiveness is soooo annoying. Like someone killed God's children and because he genuinely and sincerely repented, God forgave him just like that. This God is too forgiving

Just imagine. How dare He forgive such a wicked man. Forgiveness should be selective, atheists should never be forgiven even if they sincerely repent and turn to God.
Imagine that after all these negative things you say about Christianity, you nau turn around and confess your sins and God nau forgives you
Haaaaa! We go fight for heaven ooo

kingxsamz:


Ahn ahn, but you said those things were wrong nw.

So Jehovah don dey do bad things since be that? I guess he's not benevolent after all.
Contradictions upon contradictions. Nawa.

I said humans killing unprovoked is bad.
I never said that God taking the life He gave someone is bad.
It belongs to Him afterall. I gave my child money, after some hours, I collected the money back from my child. Which law have I broken? But if I give my child money and you come and collect the money from my child, if I catch you, you go collect wotowoto

kingxsamz:


You defended killing infants too because you're scared of what they'll do in the future. Abi you forgot that one?
Add it to your list.

I don't deny anything I defended.

So you see, me and you are partners in crime in this one.
Christian+atheist partnership... Laughing and falling down from pawpaw tree

kingxsamz:


I'm sorry but you're not quite half as smart as you assume yourself to be.
If you were, you'd have abandoned the argument a long time ago.

Have you forgotten you said these things you are defending now were wrong?


This was before our main argument began, before you entered my trap.
So why are you defending genocide, infanticide and slavery when you already admitted that those acts are wrong? Why did you contradict yourself? Why did you adjust your stance as the argument went on? Oh, you didn't know that was were my questions were leading to?
Please madam, explain why you are defending genocide, infanticide and slavery when you already admitted that it's wrong. I'm waiting.

Lol, that's where you're wrong, if I abandoned the argument from the beginning, how can we arrive at this partnership where you also defended genocide and infanticide

uche40:


What possible threat could a day old infant pose to your life? I need common, plausible examples. Thanks.

The children being born in Boko Haram, iswap or even ISIS terrorist camps, do you think they pose a threat to humanity?

uche40:


It's curious that you affirm that genocide, infanticide and slavery are wrong given that the Bible seems to support these acts. Could this be an implicit condemnation of morality in the Bible?

Unprovoked, outside a war scenario, killing anyone is a big offense and the punishment for it is death. But the things that happen in war can't be judged as the things that happen in a civilian court.
That's why the military has it's own court because if soldiers were to be tried in a civilian court, Omo, na firing squad

All is fair in war my dear, a soldier will never be making this argument because they know how decisions are made.

Let me give you an example, imagine you're driving a trailer which has "failed brake". In front of you is traffic, to your left is a bike with a woman and two babies, to your left is a coaster bus of 28 young men going to only God knows where. You must hit something and whoever you hit has only 1% chance of survival. Who will you hit?

Either you act or not, at least 4 will die but it could be up to 30+ depending on your choice. It's up to you to limit the casualties to the nearest minimum.

uche40:


I'm sorry jasminer, but you've been thoroughly misled by theist propaganda. Atheism has no relationship with biology. The single unifying idea among atheists is that there exists no evidence for the existence of God or gods. What you have done is commit the Fallacy of Composition by assuming that ALL atheists believe that humans are animals because a select few probably do. Lack of belief in God has no connection to taxonomy, so your question is misguided at best.

That being said, I'll still bite. Note that I'm speaking for myself here and not kingxsamz. To give you some context, I believe morality is an individualistic concept and so I don't think bestiality is objectively immoral -- in fact I couldn't care less if you decided to walk out right now and hump your neighbor's goat. Ultimately it comes down to how you perceive it subjectively. I personally feel it's disgusting and bizarre, and could lead to people acquiring awful diseases. The only argument I could make asserting the immorality of bestiality is that animals possibly lack the ability to give consent, so sex with animals can be considered non-consensual, which is the very definition of rape. And we all know rape is wrong because it is an infringement and/or violation on others' free will and right to make their own informed decisions.

Interesting... Thanks for your insight

I've heard another opinion that there's no God and hence all animals evolved from the same source with humans and apes evolving from the same ancestors. They further said that humans are simply smarter and have a better body frame and advanced communication senses which gave us adventage over all animals. They argue that such it's possible for a human to genuinely love an animal and be loved by that animal and if that animal is willing to spend the rest of their life with a human, then the human could wed them.

But I like the aspect of consent you gave. But what happens when an animal itself like a chimpanzee touches a woman sexually or an animal like a dog who has been exposed to sexual acts before attempts to ride a woman. In such a case, the animal made the first move, in such a case, it can't be rape can it?

suicidesheep:


But has there ever been a time in human history when we don’t have floods, famines, wars or rumors of wars?

Yup, before the floods of Noah, there wasn't even rain talkless of flood.

That being said, the rate of it's occurrence in recent years is more than the past.
Did you hear about the hunger stones that were seen at the bed of a dried up river in Europe which was last seen 600yrs ago. The stones had writings on them which warned the reader that if they could see those stones, it means that hunger is coming

jasminer:


Interesting... Thanks for your insight

Always a pleasure.

jasminer:
I've heard another opinion that there's no God...

I'd like to point out here that there's a difference between Gnostic Atheism and Agnostic Atheism. The position you describe here is held by Gnostic Atheists who posit that God or gods certainly do NOT exist. Agnostic Atheists on the other hand are not certain if God exists or not. They just don't believe because they've not come across any evidence for God. For the avoidance of doubt, I happen to fall into the latter camp.

jasminer:
and hence all animals evolved from the same source with humans and apes evolving from the same ancestors.

Yes, I think this is asserted in the Theory of Evolution.

jasminer:
They further said that humans are simply smarter and have a better body frame and advanced communication senses which gave us adventage over all animals.

It's just a matter of perspective if you ask me. Other species have their own evolved characteristics and to them, those characteristics give them adventage (sic) over us. Did you know that there are more bacteria alive in a single human than there are humans existing on this planet? Look at what the Corona Virus did to us in 2020. What about the Ebola Virus? Malaria? Then we can talk about dogs and cats who appear to be far more sensitive to their environment than any human being can possibly hope to be. The only thing we as humans can pride ourselves in is our evolved intuition and abstract thinking that has allowed us to seemingly dominate the planet as we know it now.

jasminer:
They argue that such it's possible for a human to genuinely love an animal and be loved by that animal and if that animal is willing to spend the rest of their life with a human, then the human could wed them.

Yes it is very possible. And as far as I can tell, there exists no reasonable moral argument to suggest the immorality of such a phenomenon, particularly if mutual feelings of love exist between the human and the animal.

jasminer:
But what happens when an animal itself like a chimpanzee touches a woman sexually or an animal like a dog who has been exposed to sexual acts before attempts to ride a woman. In such a case, the animal made the first move, in such a case, it can't be rape can it?

Humans can become victims of assault by animals. If the assault is sexual in nature and the human doesn't give consent, then technically it is rape.

jasminer:


Unprovoked, outside a war scenario, killing anyone is a big offense and the punishment for it is death. But the things that happen in war can't be judged as the things that happen in a civilian court.
That's why the military has it's own court because if soldiers were to be tried in a civilian court, Omo, na firing squad

All is fair in war my dear, a soldier will never be making this argument because they know how decisions are made.

Let me give you an example, imagine you're driving a trailer which has "failed brake". In front of you is traffic, to your left is a bike with a woman and two babies, to your left is a coaster bus of 28 young men going to only God knows where. You must hit something and whoever you hit has only 1% chance of survival. Who will you hit?

Either you act or not, at least 4 will die but it could be up to 30+ depending on your choice. It's up to you to limit the casualties to the nearest minimum.

You have tacitly made the claim that ALL instances of genocide and infanticide ordered by God in the Bible were only carried out during war scenarios. Can you confirm this as positive? I want you to think very carefully before you answer this question. Recall that you already condemned the acts of genocide and infanticide as morally wrong.

It is true that the ethics of killing in war is muddy waters. I mostly agree with you there. Nevertheless, why war?

What does your God really stand to gain from engaging in pissing contents with nations who defy him or go against his "divine" will? Why is he so bloodlusted and obsessed with wars in the Old Testament? If indiscriminate killing in any conflict or war scenario is to be justified, at least two conditions have to be met. The killings have to prevent calamities worse than it will cause. And, as a means of prevention, it has to be the last resort. Killing random people or infants should not be considered until ANY and ALL alternative means have been tried -- and have failed.

As the all-powerful, all-knowing deity of peace and love that your God is, is it so inconceivable for him to design a perfect blend of diplomacy and continuous examination to deal with any and all possible threats? Is war and violence the only means he can devise? Then why is he called all-knowing and all-powerful? Why is he called all-good (omnibenevolent)?

Even in the books of the Old Testament, it is proven time after time that your God's constant attacks and subjugation of the enemies of the Israelites are mostly ineffectual. His defeat of these nations only seems to contribute to temporary safety and long-term enmity between these nations and his chosen people since these nations will only view the Israelites' victory as a humiliation to be avenged.

jasminer:


The children being born in Boko Haram, iswap or even ISIS terrorist camps, do you think they pose a threat to humanity?

This is a non-answer, but I'll attempt a rejoinder to your argument in this post.

Obviously they don't as they're not actively taking part in the activities of the Boko Haram, ISWAP or ISIS terrorist groups. The individuals who pose a direct threat to your safety in this situation you've reconstructed are the actual terrorists themselves, and not the infants. So you haven't really answered my question.

Furthermore, I know you may think that killing infants in the instance you presented is totally unavoidable, but I want you to sit back and think carefully. Is it REALLY unavoidable? Is it really possible that you have exhausted ALL available options of ensuring that there isn't any needless collateral damage? Isn't indiscriminate killing somewhat tactless and indicative of lack of empathy? Like I stated earlier: If indiscriminate killing in any conflict or war scenario is to be justified, at least two conditions have to be met. The killings have to prevent calamities worse than it will cause. And, as a means of prevention, it has to be the last resort. Killing random people or infants should not be considered until all alternative means have been tried -- and have failed.

Soldiers are obligated to target those who have the capacity to inflict harm. Beings lacking this capacity e.g day old infants, are not military objectives. It could also be argued that based off their non-participance in terrorism crimes, the infants did not consent to their deaths, therefore their death was immoral. Consent is an important factor here because that is what we use to distinguish murder from suicide, sex and rape, theft and (consensual) economic transactions.

jasminer:


Yup, before the floods of Noah, there wasn't even rain talkless of flood.

Please provide citations supporting this claim.

jasminer:


Lol, Jesus isn't the one sending the famine, starting the wars or causing the floods. The devil is the one doing that.
Jesus only foretold the things that will be happening around the time that he will return to take his church away.

So how does that concern Jesus?
If he's not the one sending those things, why bring it up?
You're trying too hard to find a point you can run with.

jasminer:


Asin ehn, this kain forgiveness is soooo annoying. Like someone killed God's children and because he genuinely and sincerely repented, God forgave him just like that. This God is too forgiving

Just imagine. How dare He forgive such a wicked man. Forgiveness should be selective, atheists should never be forgiven even if they sincerely repent and turn to God.
Imagine that after all these negative things you say about Christianity, you nau turn around and confess your sins and God nau forgives you
Haaaaa! We go fight for heaven ooo

Even you acknowledge the flaws but you're hiding the pain behind those emojis.
Imagine an unbeliever kills your children, only for you to die one day and end up in hell because you told a lie, and then you see your children in hell, while the murderer is in heaven dancing and rejoicing.
Like I asked, if someone kills your children, your mother and your husband but the government decides to let him go free because he said "sorry please forgive me", you go dey shine teeth abi? Answer.

jasminer:


I said humans killing unprovoked is bad.
I never said that God taking the life He gave someone is bad.
It belongs to Him afterall. I gave my child money, after some hours, I collected the money back from my child. Which law have I broken? But if I give my child money and you come and collect the money from my child, if I catch you, you go collect wotowoto

You didn't say anything abeg.
You said they're wrong. Point blank.

jasminer:


Yes they are wrong.

There's no escaping this.
You must explain why you contradicted yourself.

jasminer:


Lol, that's where you're wrong, if I abandoned the argument from the beginning, how can we arrive at this partnership where you also defended genocide and infanticide

If you like lie about what I never said, the fact will always stare at you in the face.

jasminer:


Yes they are wrong.

Madam explain why genocide, infanticide and slavery now became good since you said they're wrong.
Or you just say anything that comes to your mind without much thought? You don enter trap today.

NeckingNgulping:
I'm an atheist, and I found that I'm incapable of dating women who are particularly religious. I could go out on a date with a religious woman, and that's usually solely by merit of me pretending the whole time as though I'm truly in for it.

Since long term relationship with these women would have necessitated that i make pretence a hobby, logic sets in and we inevitably part ways.

In a highly religious country like ours, it's quite hard to find a woman who's an atheist as me, let alone a decent one.

If by common sense, u can see light and darkness. There is no partial light nor darkness, maybe call it evening but still having a symptom of light in it. It's just self deception to be an atheist.

There is no secret as long there is a sky up there. I have never heard a scientist invented the skies. So many natural things existing, justify their existence and conclude the foolishness of atheism.

Women are naturally 10yrs in knowledge ahead of men, that's why they are gullible to orators and insight speakers. Intelligence and strengths attracts a woman more than religion.

jasminer:


Interesting... Thanks for your insight

I've heard another opinion that there's no God and hence all animals evolved from the same source with humans and apes evolving from the same ancestors. They further said that humans are simply smarter and have a better body frame and advanced communication senses which gave us adventage over all animals. They argue that such it's possible for a human to genuinely love an animal and be loved by that animal and if that animal is willing to spend the rest of their life with a human, then the human could wed them.

But I like the aspect of consent you gave. But what happens when an animal itself like a chimpanzee touches a woman sexually or an animal like a dog who has been exposed to sexual acts before attempts to ride a woman. In such a case, the animal made the first move, in such a case, it can't be rape can it?

Even if you're told ten times, you'll never understand.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god and it has nothing to do with evolution. Not every atheist agrees with it, believes it or understands it.
There are theists who believe in evolution also.
What ever anyone says that isn't "no, I don't believe in a god" has nothing to do with atheism.

jasminer:


I said humans killing unprovoked is bad.
I never said that God taking the life He gave someone is bad.
It belongs to Him afterall.

From the content of your posts on this thread, it's clear to me that you consider the Christian God to be the source or arbiter of moral values. Ignoring the fact that morality is easily explained by evolutionary psychology, let us assume you are correct for the sake of argument. Unfortunately, by assuming that anything God orders is good or right, you have unwittingly admitted that God's morality cannot be objective and/or universal.

Euthyphro's Dilemma encapsulates this problem perfectly and it has yet to be answered satisfactorily: Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right? If it is right just because God says so, then morality is subject to his whim and has no real grounding except "might makes right". In other words, if tomorrow he declares that rape is good, does it actually become moral in any objective sense. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right, then he is just a "middle man" and does not determine what is moral.

uche40:


From the content of your posts on this thread, it's clear to me that you consider the Christian God to be the source or arbiter of moral values. Ignoring the fact that morality is easily explained by evolutionary psychology, let us assume you are correct for the sake of argument. Unfortunately, by assuming that anything God orders is good or right, you have unwittingly admitted that God's morality cannot be objective and/or universal.

Euthyphro's Dilemma encapsulates this problem perfectly and it has yet to be answered satisfactorily: Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right? If it is right just because God says so, then morality is subject to his whim and has no real grounding except "might makes right". In other words, if tomorrow he declares that rape is good, does it actually become moral in any objective sense. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right, then he is just a "middle man" and does not determine what is moral.

Good point. Watch her dance around the question to tell you "God never commanded people to rape so he can never declare it to be good".

uche40:


Always a pleasure.



I'd like to point out here that there's a difference between Gnostic Atheism and Agnostic Atheism. The position you describe here is held by Gnostic Atheists who posit that God or gods certainly do NOT exist. Agnostic Atheists on the other hand are not certain if God exists or not. They just don't believe because they've not come across any evidence for God. For the avoidance of doubt, I happen to fall into the latter camp.



Yes, I think this is asserted in the Theory of Evolution.



It's just a matter of perspective if you ask me. Other species have their own evolved characteristics and to them, those characteristics give them adventage (sic) over us. Did you know that there are more bacteria alive in a single human than there are humans existing on this planet? Look at what the Corona Virus did to us in 2020. What about the Ebola Virus? Malaria? Then we can talk about dogs and cats who appear to be far more sensitive to their environment than any human being can possibly hope to be. The only thing we as humans can pride ourselves in is our evolved intuition and abstract thinking that has allowed us to seemingly dominate the planet as we know it now.



Yes it is very possible. And as far as I can tell, there exists no reasonable moral argument to suggest the immorality of such a phenomenon, particularly if mutual feelings of love exist between the human and the animal.



Humans can become victims of assault by animals. If the assault is sexual in nature and the human doesn't give consent, then technically it is rape.

I've learnt something new even though I don't agree because of my own beliefs. Thanks

uche40:


You have tacitly made the claim that ALL instances of genocide and infanticide ordered by God in the Bible were only carried out during war scenarios. Can you confirm this as positive? I want you to think very carefully before you answer this question. Recall that you already condemned the acts of genocide and infanticide as morally wrong.

It is true that the ethics of killing in war is muddy waters. I mostly agree with you there. Nevertheless, why war?

What does your God really stand to gain from engaging in pissing contents with nations who defy him or go against his "divine" will? Why is he so bloodlusted and obsessed with wars in the Old Testament? If indiscriminate killing in any conflict or war scenario is to be justified, at least two conditions have to be met. The killings have to prevent calamities worse than it will cause. And, as a means of prevention, it has to be the last resort. Killing random people or infants should not be considered until ANY and ALL alternative means have been tried -- and have failed.

As the all-powerful, all-knowing deity of peace and love that your God is, is it so inconceivable for him to design a perfect blend of diplomacy and continuous examination to deal with any and all possible threats? Is war and violence the only means he can devise? Then why is he called all-knowing and all-powerful? Why is he called all-good (omnibenevolent)?

Even in the books of the Old Testament, it is proven time after time that your God's constant attacks and subjugation of the enemies of the Israelites are mostly ineffectual. His defeat of these nations only seems to contribute to temporary safety and long-term enmity between these nations and his chosen people since these nations will only view the Israelites' victory as a humiliation to be avenged.

Please quote the other scenarios so I get a clearer understanding of where you're coming from. I mean provide the exact place in the Bible God commanded such

uche40:


This is a non-answer, but I'll attempt a rejoinder to your argument in this post.

Obviously they don't as they're not actively taking part in the activities of the Boko Haram, ISWAP or ISIS terrorist groups. The individuals who pose a direct threat to your safety in this situation you've reconstructed are the actual terrorists themselves, and not the infants. So you haven't really answered my question.

Furthermore, I know you may think that killing infants in the instance you presented is totally unavoidable, but I want you to sit back and think carefully. Is it REALLY unavoidable? Is it really possible that you have exhausted ALL available options of ensuring that there isn't any needless collateral damage? Isn't indiscriminate killing somewhat tactless and indicative of lack of empathy? Like I stated earlier: If indiscriminate killing in any conflict or war scenario is to be justified, at least two conditions have to be met. The killings have to prevent calamities worse than it will cause. And, as a means of prevention, it has to be the last resort. Killing random people or infants should not be considered until all alternative means have been tried -- and have failed.

Soldiers are obligated to target those who have the capacity to inflict harm. Beings lacking this capacity e.g day old infants, are not military objectives. It could also be argued that based off their non-participance in terrorism crimes, the infants did not consent to their deaths, therefore their death was immoral. Consent is an important factor here because that is what we use to distinguish murder from suicide, sex and rape, theft and (consensual) economic transactions.

Firstly, I've watch documentaries on children who were rescued from terrorist camps. It took some two years to gain any form of normalcy. I saluted the courage of one particular mother where even her own society turned their backs on her and her son but she didn't give up till she found an equally determined children behavioral therapist and they both after about 2yrs restored some normalcy to the child.
Before his rehabilitation, the boy loved to kill and destroy anything he could. Cut off head of toys, strangle pets and watch them die with rapt attention, capture little creatures and slice them open, destroy the toys of other kids, beat up smaller kids, throw stones at vehicles, rejected the name his parents named him and insisted they call him what the terrorists used to call him, hated cartoons, screamed at adults and hit or bite them if they try to correct him. No respect, no fear, even urinated on his mother for scolding him. So, as a military decision maker, if you have two hundred thousand children like this, what do you do?

Then the issue of the new Borns, can they survive without their mothers? Who is going to breastfeed ten thousand day old children at the war front? Who will bathe them? Change their diapers?

Is leaving them alive and orphaned your idea of justice? Vultures and wild animals will eat them up either way.

Do you spare their mothers who are actively involved in their husband's terrorism by their own freewill? Who even raised their husbands to be terrorists if not the mothers of the husbands?

Some things are easy to say than doing it. I've never seen American soldiers bring back orphaned children, does that mean no child was in the terrorist camps ?
As noble as it sounds, you may not even be able to carry back your weak friend who is still alive talkless of a random child as innocent as it is.

That's even apart from the high risk that those children will grow to harbor resentment for the Israelites even if the Israelites save them. Afterall didn't Pharaoh's daughter save Moses? Didn't Moses grow up to side his own people and even killed an Egyptian?

It's easy to write noble stories but if you are not a military personnel, you haven't been in a war, you didn't even live in the times we're talking about, it's easy to misjudge

uche40:


Please provide citations supporting this claim.

Genesis chapter 2 vs 5-6
... : for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.