Thats kind of a big jump to conclude that since one part of the Bible may be a little out dated the whole thing is (but thats not my main point).

What Aware is trying to say (and correct me if am wrong) is that we must consider context when we are reading the Bible. Fennica brought some passages that a good many people think are proofs that God is not loving, but If we examine there context they begin to make a lot more sense. Fennica (and everyone else i have had this argument with) brings up certain passages within the Old Testament that seem to prove God is a genocidal maniac who only desires vengeance. This would be true if we read those passages out side of context and outside the entire Narrative (for that is what the Bible is, a story and it can get confusing if we pull random parts of the story out). We must remember that at the time people are telling the Joshua or Judges story that we find in the Bible today one was supposed to talk about ones God in that fashion. God was supposed to be mighty and the defender of his people. If we forget that those passages were written by a person (not dropped from from heaven in complete form) then we forget what God is really trying to tell us. Its not picking and choosing, its remembering that a story that was told thousands of years ago has a point beyond that of the literal details.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

The conclusion is not mine to make, Non Sequitur. I'm only wondering how selections are made on the basis that AwareAndicare sketched.

I was going to let this pass, but I have to note that in Judges 21, God doesn't even speak or have a major role. God does not command a single action in that story. Deuteronomy is actually pretty good if we read the last verse: "If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." The point of the law is that you CAN'T treat that person like a slave which is more than the other people in the area were doing at the time. Zacharia is a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem. The people of Israel had been mistreating their neighbors and "plundering" them as verse 1 says so there are certain effects, like those nations are going to get mad and attack you. Amazingly enough that is what happened when the Babylonians came.

For as many verses as people can point to for an evil God i can point to better verses that show he is (rescuing slaves in Egypt, protecting Hagar and Ishmael, etc...)

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I have no problem with considering context.

However, even this you write can be seen as picking and choosing. Not only do you repeat the same approach that AwareAndicare used, namely that the Bible is not meant literally because it consists of old texts, but you take the stories of a loving god literally while stories of the vengeant god are not to be taken literally but should be viewed in context with the first, literal part

How do you know what is literal and what is not?

I believe this to be a personal guide to overcome the problems life presents us all. I take these teachings at value for the time they were shared. The premise is to achieve and grow in spirit that transcends what we see as reality. I believe in the good that Jesus said we could achieve by being vigilante in spirit doing good for yourself and others. I see this as the best education i could receive as the intent of graduating to a higher form of intelligence and spirit for the good of all speaks loudest in those words to me.

Oh, so you admit you're just pontificating...

Excuse me, I'm a bit sick. I have to go use the "modern" technique of blood letting to get better.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

Sure. Although the word 'modern' does have a meaning, it was merely a casual remark to start with. The main point lies in the other part, - that you were equating religion with something that it really shouldn't or, rather, must not, be equated with.

Ok, have a good blood letting. It was only considered modern in the modern times in which it was modern, though.

so sorry for such a long time to reply, work has been far to busy at the moment.

What is literal and what's not is a very broad question that I think we sometimes get too concerned with, but if we must delve into the issue of how I know that the Bible is trying tell me about a loving God rather than a hateful God the simple answer is that the loving God is the central theme of the whole book. For every verse that the people list as hateful (and usually they are confined to a few of the Old Testament books) I can list twice as many that illustrate a loving God. And, just like any relationship, it requires a little experience to understand the nature of that love. But if one reads the book within context and reads the narrative with the central theme in mind (Gods interaction with His people) then the loving God message becomes quite clear.

On a more personal note, it is the experience of myself (and I would like to think most Christians) that God is so loving He is quite stubborn about it. Also it is just far more pleasant to believe in a loving God than a hateful one.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin