The only verses that support “killing babies” would be those that refer to wiping out eight specific nations that G-d singled out as evil - seven Canaanite nations, plus Amalek. Outside of that, killing babies is not condoned.
There is nothing that supports rape in any circumstance.
The OT allowed killing in war, massacre of certain truly hated foes, and enslavement of enemies.
However, even in the modern world, killing in war isn’t considered the same as murder, and even killing of civilians is allowed as long as it is “collateral damage”. Does that mean that modern laws allow “baby killing” generally?
Only to those unable to handle the notion of nuance.
There is no doubt that the OT is “Iron Age” when it comes to sexual relations. Rape was punishable in the OT - by death if the woman was betrothed, or payment of a fine, and forceable marriage to the victim, if she was unbetrothed. Deuteronomy 22:25 thru 29:
Rape is certainly not “okay”, but the consequences depend entirely on the marital status of the woman - note that the person compensated was the father in the case of an unbetrothed woman - presumably because he’d lost the “value” of a marriage alliance using his daughter.
Here’s the definition of the word “true” that I use:
True: (adjective) being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:
What definition do you use, that causes you do find mine funny?
It seems the baby-killing is solid, though. Most of the “first born” must have been children or even grown men, but there also must have been babies among them.
I don’t agree. Just because God is depicted killing people, doesn’t mean that killing people is “okay” generally. God killing people with plagues and the like isn’t a ‘Biblical approval’ for biological warfare.
Neither of those was approved by God. Those were the demands of enemy gods.
Though, based on archaeological evidence, the current belief is that babies weren’t burned. Rather, there may have been a ritual where babies were quickly (and painlessly) passed through a flame real quick, as a sort of spiritual cleansing, like baptism.
Rape is certainly not OK in the Bible. It’s another form of sexual immorality.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Exodus 22:16-17
If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins.
Although this punishment may seem simple compared to today’s punishment, it was actually quite a punishment at the time. The woman was not required to marry the man, but to do what her father demanded. If however she did marry the man, the marriage was to be permanent. This means the man (rapist) was responsible for the support of the woman for all of his life. There was no out.
Women who weren’t virgins were not sought after for wives. They were outcasts. They had little or no means of supporting themselves in these days and often sold themselves into slavery or became prostitutes. Totally screwed logic to say the least.
That’s what I said:
God didn’t make Abraham go through with the sacrifice of Isaac, but Abraham certainly thought he might have to and therefore that killing his child was OK with God in that circumstance.
Yes, to assert that women sold into slavery were not going to be raped is totally screwed logic.
Deuteronomy 21:10:
nm
nm
“No true deity…”
Whether it’s okay all the time is besides the point. In at least this one case God not anly approved of baby killing, he sent one of his minions to do the deed.
Yup, a specific instance of rape was acceptable - that is, rape of women taken as captives in war. Note that this was hardly unusual for the late Iron Age - in fact, the OT gave such captives more rights then they generally enjoyed in other contemporary societies (the rapist was specifically prohibited from selling her after he was tired of her, but had to free her - not something that, say, a Roman would be required to do).
Just like a specific instance of baby-killing was acceptable - killing of babies from among the “accursed” tribes, like the Amalakites, who were supposed to be killed to the last person. Again, other contemporaries were not so limited.
But it is wholly inaccurate to allege, as a generality, that rape and baby-killing were “okay”. As the sections quoted upthread demonstrated, they were not.
The allegation is aking to suggesting that “baby killing” is okay under modern laws, because soldiers who drop bombs in war can create “collateral civilian damage” without being charged with murder. Societies today, as then, distinguish between what is acceptable in the context of warfare, and what is acceptable in society during peacetime.
Putting it in some kind of Iron Age context and saying it wasn’t generally approved is just handwaving away that rape and babykilling are in fact condoned in the OT.
where has this allegation been made?
Huh? Whether it is “okay” certainly implies that it is acceptable generally (a/k/a “all the time”).
In the NT, God allegedly deliberately sent his own son - Jesus Christ - for human sacrifice on the cross: it is part of Christian theology that God knew this would happen, and chose not to prevent it (even though he easily could). Since “in this one case” God approved of it, does that mean allowing the sacrifice of one’s son to oneself via torture without lifting a finger to stop it is “okay” according to the NT? 
This is totally false.
Rape is not condoned. You need to reread this thread.