No, there is nothing moral about child slaughter, even though the children may be of Amalek. They were still infants and babies. Neither was there any in using captured women and children and forcibly “marrying” them, which is nothing less than rape. How enlightening it would have been for a person such as yourself to be forced into their shoes and perhaps view the situation from that angle.
Any more distractions? We were talking about the brainwashing of Muslims, originally.
Well how absolutely objective and superior of you to exclude even as a possibility that the author of life could not have known what was best for infants and babies, taking them to Himself and stopping them from ending up like their terminally degenerate tribe, and providing husbands and children on the victorious side for women, which executing the rest of the guilty. And seeing as all have sinned, God would be just in executing all.
But here is the paradox. Atheists will blame God for allowing evil men to exist, then condemn Him when He wipes them out, yet He is the author of moral reasoning that judges evil as evil, and preserved the very record of His actions against evil, and the effects it has on all, upon which the atheists engage in their presumptuous elitist moral indignation. Yet under the objectively baseless moral reasoning atheism allows, all sort of evil can be sanctioned as beneficial. As they want to be as God.
Any more distractions? We were talking about the brainwashing of Muslims, originally.
In which you invoked Muslim arguments against the Bible, and then Jewish arguments against Christianity, as you war against both. So why should i not deal with this as with pretense?