It is to be noted and something I would like to bring to the attention of the objective reader of the type kinds of claims that are seen in threads in the religion forum. They are
-
Claims which are supported with evidence such as citations, logical arguments, empirical evidence, historical evidence. These claimants put in the most effort to make sure they make a coherent case supported by evidence to support their claims. They often write in neutral/academic style of language and are critical
-
Claims which are not supported with evidence. These claimants put in the least effort and do not feel they need to make a coherent case. They engage in little more than rheotric, character assassination or supposition. They often appeal to known formal and informal fallacies, such as the appeal to faith. They often write in emotional style of language and are not critical of differences.
This thread is an example of 1 for a claim has been made that the OT is a barbaric and savage scripture, and then evidence is provided by citing from a peer reivewed expert source on religion which has collected passages in the OT where barbaric and savage acts are described explicitly such as Moses ordering people to kill 32,000 children in front of their mothers, then having the mothers killed and then having 32,000 young women taken captive to be raped.
Biblical scholars have been referenced who have documented the number of savage and barbaric passages in the OT, and have verified that such savagry and barbarism is the most commonly mentioned activity described in the OT.
The objective reader will clearly see that the case the OP has made has been demonstrated beyond a reason of doubt.


If I can answer the criticism, then I will, if not I will accept it.