god knowingly hates children

I'll respond to each verse in order.1- Lamentations gives us a picture of God's fierce anger and firey passion. This isn't a hatred of children but of sin, which reaps it's results. If either a woman or child goes out and murders someone, they have broken a law and are judged accordingly. The same is true here. This verse also does not say that God forced the women to eat their own children, but simply that they did.2- Matthew is not saying that God hates children at all. By that logic, this verse would be saying God hates fathers and mothers too. That simply is untrue as God created the family structure. He is saying that he does need to come first despite this system though. Nothing about hating children here.3- Judges tells a story of people killing enhabitants. This includes the women and children. This isn't a hatred of children, but simply the people here not playing favorites. To say this is God hating children also implies he hates men and women who are also dying. This simply isn't true since God made men and women in Genesis and called them 'very good.'4- What is not included in the 2 Samuel passage is when David is joyful after the death, saying he knew that he would see his son again in heaven. I can see why you left that out though, it kinda gets in the way of your whole agenda. Also, if I were to ask you your thoughts on abortion, I couldn't know what you would say, but the majority of people would say that it's acceptable. You can't play this game of abortion is alright when we do it, but if God ever kills a child then he is obviously evil.5- I already talked about this Matthew passage in the last round. This had nothing to do with God.6- Your passage in Numbers sounds pretty bad until you realize the context. The purpose of this command was to wipe out all Midianites. If they got rid of all of the men and the women old enough to reproduce then the clan could not be revived. When he says take the women for yourselves, it is saying that the women would become part of the Isrealites. This has nothing to do with hating children and everything to do with making sure the Midianites can't reproduce.7- If the passage in Ezekiel is evidence God hates children then he also hates old and young, maids and women, and men. This, like all of the others, is simply illogical. God wasn't playing favorites with the children, but he was by no means targetting the chidren.8- For 1 Samuel 15:3 please see point 7.9- Hoesa is praying in this next passage that God would withhold his blessing of children. This is actually contradictory to the point your trying to make, since for Hosea to pray for children to be withheld they must be valuable.10- This passage from Exodus 12, again, hurts your case more than it helps. This not only recognizes the fact that God see's children as the most valuable earthly thing we have, (thus being his final and worst plague) but he also goes one step further in this story letting everyone get a way out if only they would repent and put blood on their door. God gave them a way out.11- Exodus 21 has been discussed in previous Rounds of this debate. This is God setting up his chosen nation who a few chapters ago delivered them from Egypt. Isn't he in a position to demand some standards?12- Your quote from Psalms was probably the most puzzling verse to me at first. Then I recalled the setting. This was also predicted in Isaiah. This is what the Babylonians had done to Jewish children before, so it a just retaliation recorded here. God has said Vengence is mine, so he is in the place to demand retribution when he deems it necessary.13- This passage in 2 Kings is a conversation between a woman and the King. She is describing what she did to her child. Unless you can show me where God justified this, condoned this, or supported this, you have no case. This was actually rebuked by God, as he predicted this type of pagan cannibalism in Lev 26:29 and Deut 28:52-57. The way this women presented her case without emotion adds to the horror of what's going on here, but this had nothing to do with God.14- The verse in Deuteronomy describing what to do with stubborn and rebellious children sounds perfectly logical. There is a standard set for obedience, and it is not met. This is in normal circumstances by the way. My opponent would say that a child has the right to be rebellious if his parents are raping and beating him/her. The problem with this argument is that there are other laws that address raping and beating. This is not talking about parents in those circumstances.15- What was left out in this section from Judges, is the fact that a war resulted from the atrocities commited here. God did not condone anything here, and had his nation bring justice to the men of Benjamin who did this. But of course my opponent wouldn't include that bit, because it kind of goes against his narrative.16- As you stated this exodus verse is a repeat. God made a way out. The children did not have to suffer because of their pharoah, they could have obeyed God and lived. Also, God did not harden Pharoahs heart until after he denied God willingly several times, so this was not a forced rejection either.17- Your translation of 2 Kings is faulty. The original Hebrew word, Na'ar, is more accurately translated young men - As old as twenty. Regardless, these men were mocking the prophet and God and by that nature God himself. Calling someone bald head today does not carry the same cultural significance that it did back then. This was both an intentional and deep insult against both God and his prophet. It's hard for us, in our position, to fully understand what happened here. But we know that these individuals knew what they were doing. It's also important to note that this is not a full transcript of what happened, as the Bible is only summarizing.18- This was a prediction of what would happen due to a famine around the world. This had nothing to do with God condoning it, it was simply him stating it would happen. This prophecy came to pass. 2 Kings 6:28, Jeramiah 19:9.19- Your first verse in Jeremiah, the one in chapter 11, records God's wrath against a clan or nation. This does not mean God hates children themselves.20- Your second verse in Jeremiah is a fulfillment of God's prophecy in Leviticus. This happened because God plagued their land and caused famine. As a result, the people began to practice pagan cannibalizm. This is not God condoning it.As you can see, my opponent has provided 20 passages from scripture elegedly proving God hates children. I've found that the vast majority if not every single one of them has absolutely nothing to do with God hating children. I would also like to point out my opponent never addressed any of the point I brought up in round four, so those all stand without and refutation by my opponent. Therefore, my arguments have withstood his, and his cited verses for his argument don't seem to hold water. There was no conclusionary statements made, nor any reference to remarks that completely destroyed his point of view, delivered in round 3. It is indisputable that according to the Bible God made man and women unique. He also designed the growth cycle of child to adult and when he had finished his creation he called it very good in Genesis 1 and 2. Sin may have altered some thing on earth, but that does not change the fact that God designed children and he has a place for them. My opponent never refuted the verses I presented in which God declared children as valuable gifts, the heirs of his kingdom, and a pure joy to the world. Over and over again my points were simply brushed aside by some fallacious comment such as "you're too young," or "you couldn't understand this." My points themselves were never discussed in these situations.I have found this debate extremely enjoyable, and I think it's been a fruitful one as well. Some ideas I was a little uneasy about before, but my opponenets inability to respond to them has encouraged me in that sense considerably. I would like to thank my opponent for participating with me, and sticking with it until the end. Several times over this debate we got off topic and touched up on some different ideas we didn't have space to address fully. Because of this, I would like to forward an invitation first to my opponent for a follow-up debate on any of these subjects we weren't able to fully address. Second I would like to forward the same invitation to any observer who would like to challenge me.Thank you for your attention throughout this discussion.