Working for the Lord wrote,

You say the rock didn’t mean truth or christ, it just meant rock, untrue. Then he adds, ‘Happy the man who takes your little ones and dashes them against a rock’—as if he would say: Happy the man who seized the things generated from you, ‘the enemy’, i.e. the evil thoughts [logismoi], not giving them a chance to grow strong in him and constrain him to evil deeds, but immediately, while they are still in their infancy, before they are fed and grow strong against him,[ flings them down on the rock, which is Christ.] In other words he utterly destroys them by taking refuge in Christ. (pp. 174-5)
St Dorotheus’s interpretation of this Psalm is completely foreign to the average modern reader, long accustomed to reading the Scriptures at a purely literal, historical level. By way of contrast with the Abba, consider John S. Kselman’s note on these verses in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: ‘Though anti-Babylonian sentiments are found elsewhere (e.g., Jer 50-51, Lam 4.21), none are so vividly compact as this’ (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, 3rd ed., ed. Michael D. Coogan [Oxford: Oxford U, 2001], p. 894).

What I said was that, metaphorical or not, the passage says "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."  The passage is talking about Babylon being paid back for what it did to Israel which includes Israel smashing their "little ones" against rocks.  You constantly accuse others of taking the Bible out of context but here you blatantly re-imagine the plain meaning of words to force the passage to say something that you are more comfortable with, something you want your Bible to say.  This is one reason I threw out religion, I grew tired of having to perform mental gymnastic just to keep what I was reading from conflicting with my own moral compass and what god was said to be like.

If you read what it actually says the question must be asked what kind of just and moral god would approve of or require anyone to slaughter children?  The answer is easy if you are willing to honestly question your own religion; no just and moral god would require such a thing.  That answer is a problem for those who want to hold on the whole "just and loving god" claim, so what do they do?  Well, some do like you and pretend as if the text actually means something completely different.  Other exempt their god from his own moral edicts and embrace a hypocritical "do as I say not as I do" kind of god.  They argue that, being god, when he commands children to be slaughtered then, because he commanded it, slaughtering children in that instance is good, just, and morally sound.

Both of those dishonest techniques for resolving the conflict are only needed by those who have decided the answer before asking the question.  You are beginning with the presupposition that your god is good, just, moral, kind, loving, etc. etc. and hold up your holy book as evidence of this.  Except that when we actually read what the book says we find that in fact your god is none of those things.  Ah, but that cannot be, the book cannot conflict with what has have already decided, the book must agree with what has been presupposed.  So you ignore the plain language and reinterpret (subjectively comprehend) what the book says to agree with your presupposition.

I concluded that if their were a supreme being which ruled the cosmos no such being would have authored such a convoluted collection of stories nor would he have undertaken such a convoluted "plan" to "save" his creation from a problem he knew would occur before it was created.  If there is a supreme being it is not the one described in the Bible or any other man written holy book for that matter.  If there is a supreme being it would seem that after he made the cosmos he decided to just let it ride and watch what happened or moved on to something else.