Hello Foogword, thanks for taking the time to write.

My friend, I’ll address each question, as they raise serious issues.

But this is a dead giveaway that you haven’t done your own research on these areas.

If you had, you’d find these objections evaporating. None of these accusations is accurate.

You wield them as weapons, but you haven’t taken the time to check if they’re even true.

You said:

“And since we already know that Jesus shares God’s glory as much as the Father does, it’s clear that Jesus is fully God.”

So meek and kind, merciful Jesus was responsible for the rape, genocide and slavery we find in the bible:

take slaves: Leviticus 25:44–46

Slavery can’t be discussed by proof-texting, because God lays out provisions in every book of the Law that inform every other. If you proof-text, you miss them all, and you end up reading the passage wrongly.

Exodus 21:16 outlaws enslaving anyone against their will. You cannot kidnap someone into slavery. You cannot sell someone as a slave. You cannot possess someone as a slave.

If you do any of these, it’s a capital offense. You are killed for enslaving someone against their will.

This is why you never see a slave market in ancient Israel, despite them being ubiquitous in the ancient world.

You never see slave traders in Israel.

Such things were outlawed.

Now take that understanding into Leviticus 25.

It means that you are not enslaving anyone against their will.

It means that no one is selling these people into slavery.

This is why the passage doesn’t have a slave trader or slave market. No one is selling anyone against their will. That was outlawed in Exodus 21:16.

Rather, these are foreigners themselves who are signing up to work for rich families in Israel.

They become ebedim — which is translated servants, bond-servants, workers, soldiers, administrators, slaves, and even refers to Jesus Himself as the Suffering Servant.

Given that the word refers to every single service type of role, we can’t press it into meaning “slave” in this passage, especially with all the provisions outlawing slavery.

These foreigners who become servants in Israel are now subject to Israel’s laws. The Law repeatedly commands Israelites to treat foreigners as well as themselves, if not better.

No one is being mistreated in Leviticus 25.

Deuteronomy 23:15–16 then provides for their freedom. If at any point they feel abused or mistreated, they are free to leave, and the Law protects their right to leave. It prevents the “master” from getting them back. They are free to live wherever they want in Israel as free citizens.

Do you see it yet?

The Law destroys slavery at every level.

People love to proof-text, but they miss all the provisions that make slavery impossible in Israel.

Which is why you never see slave markets or slave traders anywhere within ancient Israel.

God outlawed them.

You said:

“you can beat your slaves if they survive a day or more: Exodus 21:20–21"

Nope.

The word is ya-a-mod, which means standing up, healthy. Elsewhere in the Bible, it means you are healthy, able-bodied, ready for action.

Exodus 21:20 mandates that if the “master” kills a servant, the master is punished as a murderer.

Exodus 21:21 mandates that if the “master” causes any wound that lingers more than a day or two, the master is punished. The only way the master isn’t punished if the servant is standing up, healthy, after a day or two. Any wound greater than that results in the master being punished by law.

Any Hebrew scholar will read the text this way.

Unfortunately, the English translation got corrupted when slavery was legal in English-speaking lands. Thankfully, newer translations are correcting this.

You said:

“commit genocide: 1 Samuel 15:3"

Nope.

Read the full history.

Amalek tried to commit genocide against Israel.

They attacked Israel when they were weak, coming out of Egypt.

They continued to attack Israel every time they could, killing Israelite men, women, and children, and taking everything they could.

Amalet was devoted to destroying Israel.

Finally, God told Saul to attack back. Amalek had demonstrated no repentance or remorse. They would never stop attacking Israel, proving it by attacking continually over generations.

The only way to stop the attacks was to destroy the attackers.

This is not the ideal solution. The ideal solution is for Amalek to stop attacking Israel, so no war has to be fought at all.

But because Amalek kept attacking, Israel finally had to fight back.

Israel didn’t commit genocide, as Amalek continued existing as a nation, bothering David after Saul. Saul attacked one city/outpost, likely the one closest, that was responsible for most of the attacks.

You said:

“a rape victim has to marry her rapist who only has to pay a fine: Deuteronomy 22:28–29"

Read the entire chapter. It deals with multiple situations of marital infidelity and intimate relations outside of marriage.

It repeatedly protects the woman, especially when she has done nothing wrong.

In this case, the fifty shekels is the bride price. He’s paying it to her father to marry her.

If you read the rest of the Law, you know that the father doesn’t have to give her to the man. He can choose not to. If he sees that his daughter doesn’t want to be with the man, he can hold her back and not give her to the man.

This verse is parallel to Exodus 22:16: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged in marriage and sleeps with her, he must pay the full dowry for her to be his wife.”

This law makes the man take care of the woman. He can’t sleep around with a bunch of women and leave them to fend for themselves. If he treats a woman as his wife, he has to marry her, so that she is provided for and taken care of.

And if the woman’s father can see the man is no good, he doesn’t have to give her to him. He can refuse the dowry and keep his daughter safe at home.

The result of this law is that the woman is always in a position to be cared for. She can’t be used up and discarded. She isn’t a plaything. She’s a person who must be respected.

“You said:

And here is Jesus inspiring someone to write about dashing babies against rocks: Psalm 137:9"

This last one is the ultimate proof that you haven’t bothered to research these claims.

Psalm 137:8–9 clarifies that Babylon dashed Israel’s babies on the rocks. The Psalmist laments this and wishes for vengeance, that someone would do to Babylon what they did to Israel.

But the Psalmist isn’t doing anything violent himself, and he isn’t advocating for anyone to commit violence.

He’s lamenting what they’ve suffered and longing for justice.

Would you deny a parent their longing for justice when their children are murdered?