And even better better Matthew says that Jesus is descended from Solomon. Well Joseph is, not Jesus actually, but that gets into another whole bit of confusion.
Classic case of sexual harassment. When de King want your booty, you give the king your booty or else.
You can’t assume God’s will is incompehensible just because we don’t like it. The God of the Bible has pretty clear about what’s going on: here are the rules, follow them and you’ll do okay, break them and you’ll be punished. David broke a law and he was punished for it. And if you accept that God is handing out punishments, you should also accept Biblical claims that he hands out rewards to those who obey his laws.
Correct, look what happened to Vashti. 
Look, your question really does boil down exactly to the problem of evil. Bad things happen to good people. Babies die for no reason related to human morality. Earthquakes and hurricanes and other natural disasters happen for no reason related to human morality.
The authors of the Bible were well aware that babies died, that people get sick and die, that the fate of every human being was misery and death. And so, their conception of God was consistent with the notion that babies who had committed no sins of their own got sick and died. This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. What’s the difference between David’s baby and every other baby who has sickened and died? None, obviously. Either every dead baby dies by the will of God, or none do.
I still vote for “Shit happens.”
If I remember my scriptures correctly, the baby was in on it.
Just like the ones he killed in the Flood.
God knows that you can’t trust those babies as far as you can throw them.
Except that when we ask for the logic behind a contradiction or an especially bizarre supposed action of God, we get that God is to great to be comprehended. As for rewards and punishments, a study of the more boring parts of the latter Bible shows us evil Kings who died at an old age in bed, and virtuous kings who died young in pointless battle. God’s rewards and punishments seem indistinguishable from chance.
How lucky we are that the reliable Christians never did such things.
God is nothing if not totally just and loving.
An impeccably logical statement.
Especially the nothing part.
<Baron Munchausen (from radio)> Vas you dere, Charley?
Incomprehensible may not be the right word. But no ethical system I can imagine subscribing to would rule Yahweh’s actions in this incident just, kind, or loving. It’d be one thing if we were talking about Odin, whose straightforward about being a dick; but Yahweh, claiming the mantle of righteousness, seems obliged in my view to actually be righteous.
Yeah, that doesn’t happen either.
To answer the OP’s question…
… I reconcile it by believing (and it’s quite hard for me sometimes) that “God more or less flat-out says we won’t understand everything, and that you have to accept what you can and move on” as smiling bandit says.
If I were writing the Bible, which I’m obviously not, I’d put in a section where God says, “This child should not have been conceived or born, and does not figure in the plan. By transgressing and killing Uriah and taking Bathsheba to wife, you have condemned the child to an early death.” Basically showing that if this not supposed to be there child were to live to adulthood, he would mess up the unfolding of the Plan.
Or better yet, have Bathsheba say it to David. That way God can keep the “ineffable” characteristic but the background still gets explained to the reader, and it’s deniable if it turns out not to be what’s wanted as Bathsheba’s misunderstanding.
That explanation takes care of the free will + God’s plan. It also manages the rules: God gave people consciences to hint to them what to do to make the best possible version of the plan happen. But the plan has contingencies on everything possible. The parts outside human control can fix the parts within the humans’ ability to choose.
You can go against destiny and make it your enemy, or you can follow it and accede.
I don’t actually believe that on all levels, I might on some, I’m not sure really (I tend to be rather agnostic about religion most of the time, in the sense of feeling I am of divided mind on the topic altogether). But it is my best idea of what the Bible should’ve been getting at, at that point in the narrative.
Personally, that’s my opinion as well. But if you’re not willing to give God credit, you shouldn’t be giving him blame.
Oh, that’s bullshit. I don’t give Mephistopheles credit for anything, and I don’t give Odin credit for much, but I’m perfectly willing to pile blame on the both of 'em. 
How can you go against destiny? If you go against destiny, doesn’t that mean you were destined to go against destiny, and therefore aren’t really going against destiny?
I mean, if the oracle says you’re going to kill your father and marry your mother, and you run away from home and kill a random guy and marry the widowed queen, and later found out that you were abandoned by them because the oracle said you were gong to kill your father and marry your mother, how exactly did you go against destiny? You didn’t go against destiny, you fulfilled your destiny.
If God has a plan, by definition you can’t go against God’s plan. At least the Calvinists are consistent about this. If you stab a baby, God decided that you would stab a baby, and if a baby gets stabbed, God decided the baby would get stabbed. If later you repent of your sins and are saved, God decided that you would repent of your sins and be saved. If you don’t repent of your sins and go to hell, God decided that you would not repent would go to hell.
If there is such a thing as destiny, or God’s will, then no human being can escape it. If you can escape destiny, then there’s no such thing as destiny.
I told you so…
Yes, human traits like “logic” and “justness” and “existence” clearly do not apply.