1. "God's ways are not our ways" . . . I'm assuming you are taking that from the oft-quoted Is. 55:9, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (NIV)
For the record, in context, God is not saying that He thinks differently than we do or that His ways are somehow incomprehensible. In the chapter, God is addressing people who He has accused of having wicked thoughts and wicked ways(vv. 7-8). He is saying that His ways are not evil nor wicked, like ours are, but they are holy and righteous.
2. So (1) didn't really address your question--just one of those passages that everytime I see it quoted that way I feel a need to give that quick explanation (
), the short answer is that in all the passages where God calls for mass slaughtering of people, including children, there is always an element of judgment. That is, the people being destroyed have demonstrated a long history of wickedness and have had ample time to repent. There is no exception that I have ever found. We must recognize that even as God is a God of love, He is still more a God of Justice and Holiness. Unrepentant Sin/Evil requires judgment.
Some may object that children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers and their fathers' fathers. To this, we may point out that the objection is (1) inconsistent, (2) relative, or (3) both.
(1) It is inconsistent in that children suffer for their parents mistakes in every aspect of life. A child suffers when his drunk father beats his mother and he on a daily basis. A child suffers when his mother is arrested for any given crime. A child suffers when either or both of his parents lose their jobs because the community in which he lives was irresponsible enough to create an unsustainable financial situation (i.e., when gov't's encourage banks to make bad loans, when people are greedy enough to buy houses they can't afford, and when entire economies are built on that money that doesn't exist--eventually it all comes crashing down and people lose their jobs over it).
In short, other people, children or not, suffer because of our actions. Such has always been the case. It is today, and it was then.
(2) It is relative because some will object that in the above scenarios, the loss suffered is not a loss of life. While this is true, who is to say that the loss of life is where the line should be drawn? In which cases should it be drawn there? Are there not cases where the loss of life is worth the sacrifice? If, then, children suffer as a natural part of life, to argue that the loss of a child's life is somehow some other type of suffering entirely is to simply make an argument relative to one's personal values only. If a child can suffer in one way, why not another? That is not to say that children's suffering (or more generally, the suffering of the innocent) is good, but it is to say that the suffering of the innocent is to be laid at the feet of the guilty party. In this case, the guilty party is not God. It is the evil nation whom He judges.
This arguments strikes me, then, as being similar to every other "problem of evil." It assumes that you are in possession of all the same facts that God is. The pages K provided give good explanations, or defenses, of why God had to do what God had to do. But even if you reject those, the point is that there COULD be such explanations. Does your ignorance of them mean that there is, then, NO such explanation? To claim it is is to claim omniscience!
As it stands, God has been gracious enough to give us hints into His reasoning. My point, though, is even if He did not, we still would have no place to stand in judgment. Remember what Jesus said to Peter when Peter insisted that Christ would not go to the Cross. He accused him of having the mind of Satan. And, as you quoted, God's ways are higher--more righteous--than our wicked ways. We may not have the stomach to do the right thing. But He does, and He will, because He is good. We, sadly, aren't.
God bless
