This is from a another site about the story of Samson:
Samson’s incredible exploits, as related in the biblical narrative, hint at the weight of Philistine pressure on Israel during much of Israel’s early, tribal period in Canaan (1200–1000 BCE). The biblical narrative, only alluding to Samson’s “twenty years” activity as a judge, presents a few episodes, principally concerned with the beginning and the end of his activity. Before his conception, his mother, a peasant of the tribe of Dan at Zorah, near Jerusalem, was visited by an angel who told her that her son was to be a lifelong Nazirite—i.e., one dedicated to the special service of God, usually through a vow of abstinence from strong drink, from shaving or cutting the hair, and from contact with a dead body.
Samson possessed extraordinary physical strength, and the moral of his saga relates the disastrous loss of his power to his violation of the Nazirite vow, to which he was bound by his mother’s promise to the angel. He first broke his religious obligation by feasting with a woman from the neighbouring town of Timnah, who was also a Philistine, one of Israel’s mortal enemies. Other remarkable deeds follow. For example, he decimated the Philistines in a private war. On another occasion he repulsed their assault on him at Gaza, where he had gone to visit a harlot. He finally fell victim to his foes through love of Delilah, who beguiled him into revealing the secret of his strength: his long Nazirite hair. As he slept, Delilah had his hair cut and betrayed him. He was captured, blinded, and enslaved by the Philistines, but in the end God granted Samson his revenge; through the return of his old strength, he demolished the great Philistine temple of the god Dagon, at Gaza, destroying his captors and himself (Judges 16:4–30).
So the story seems to follow a pattern, 1) Samson is deemed special or a chosen one by God 2) His "rebellion" against God. 3) His punishment for doing so, as he lost his power. 4) Salvation and saving by God allowing him to get revenge.
I think the story can have different meanings, but one could be, to try to tell people that, that even if one feel blessed and all powerful, this is due to the grace of God and if one does stray away from God they can loose it and harm will come to them. But that it is never to late to come back to him as he is caring and forgiving.
There are a lot of such stories in the OT, which follows a similar idea, so 1) God does something good 2) People (The Jews) stray or doubt God. 3) Bad things happens to the Jews as a result 4) The y ask for forgiveness 5) God steps in and save the day. And it starts all over.
To some degree yes, others seems simply to act as laws as we know them today. So how one should handle varies issues that must have been common for the Jews at the time. So in the last four books of Moses you can find a lot of laws about what one would consider rather mundane things, from how you should prepare your food to how one should act during war etc. So to me it seems that these acts both as direct and specific rules, while others seems to be more about common behavior, in cases where you may find yourself in situations, where you are not sure what to do. So basically moral guidelines.
The word sorceress is used.
Exodus 22:18
18 "You are not to allow a sorceress to live.
Revelation 21:8
8 But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."
God gave him a lot of commandments, again about all sort of things.
I don't think it is meant as going on witch hunts, but one can easily see how accusing someone for being a witch could lead to their death.
I do not see how one can defend this to even make remotely sense. This law to me, is all about respect for elders and to help secure a power structure in a family through the means of fear. If God couldn't do better than this, then he is not much of a God, I think.
In most cases children do behave if they are raised well and in secure and good environment, US is famous for their school shootings for instant. Which doesn't seem to be a huge problem for most other countries in the world. So I think an argument of killing children to solve the issue like in the bible, is to declare bankruptcy. Again I hold the firm believe that evil does not exist, and therefore no one can be born evil. Children ending up doing these things, are in 95% of the cases due to something they have experience during their childhood, whether that is due to the parents, friends, getting teased, lack of attention/care etc. they all play a part in why a child might end up doing something bad.
If one is going to argue that evil exists, then one also have to agree that babies can be born evil. Which I am yet to see anyone agreeing to is possible. As that would also mean that we ought to be able to figure out whether they are or not, and put them to death straight away. If one deny that babies can be born evil, then one ought to give an explanation of when evil occurs and how one distinguish that from what I would refer to as common social issues, as those mentioned above.
This is based on a false premise I think. Because you assume that the parents are good and therefore always act correctly. Therefore it must be an issue with the child. To me that is absolutely bollocks, and purely shows that it is the adults that makes the rules, because they "know" best. But shows a complete lack of knowledge in regards to what is morally right and wrong. Which could also explain why the stories of Adam and Eve, seem to make no sense. As it is clear that humans are not very well suited to see the difference between good and evil. Adam and Eve should have eaten the whole damn tree I think for that to happen. Looking around the world it is obvious that people do not share a common understanding of what is good and evil.
In humanities defense, God did create us and him being omniscient should have seen it coming, so why he gets all surprised and angry is sort of weird. Free will is not an excuse, if God the moment he doesn't like something jump to mass extinction, then free will have little meaning. Because those people he killed, did express their free will didn't they?
That is a good question, to me it requires one to analyze the story. The way it is written, what it is trying to tell. Whether it is reasonable to assume that the Jews would see the story as being so or not. So it requires a lot more than simply reading the text.
Uh. Thanks for telling me. 
