Certain to upset some folk

[jj]

...and a cursory reading of some bits gives the impression that it's a purely 'historical' (or rather prosaic) description (e.g. the rape of the Midianites): God is mentioned frequently, but nowhere does it suggest that He approves or indeed instigates this naughty behaviour.
We're back in the realm of 'in the name of' again.........

[Deuce Bigolo]

Sounds very Yes Ministerish

Sir Humphrey would be proud but would ask for a redraft no doubt

cheers
B....OZ

[Deuce Bigolo]

Mission Accomplished

Dry Sherries all Round

cheers
B....OZ

[Pervert]

Whatever floats your boat . . . . but why does it have to be red?

I suspect if we all removed the mystical, esoteric aspects of the Bible (or any other holy book) and made it read as a less ambiguous tome, it'd get (mis)quoted a lot less. As JJ was suggesting, it's used to justify an action someone would take anyway.

The Old Testmament is the root for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so the more extreme elements in each religion get their justification from that. Although you do have to wonder what John the Divine was sniffing before he wrote the Book of Revelation---the New Testament's raison d'etre for so many survivalist groups in the US.