OCG, thank you for this response. If you are one who does not believe that the entire bible is "God breathed" (aka - that this God thing is not speaking here) then I have little problem with that (in the sense that it is not authoritative or "from God" and hence I don't care what it says - even though it's still disgusting to me). At such a junction I would then want to discuss what parts of the bible are "inspired of God" and what parts are not - and what method is being used to make that determination. Btw, I readily admit that such a discussion would likely get nowhere with me b/c my standards of evidence are much higher for extraordinary claims of a 'god' speaking through an old book. However, my response (and I suspect most others here who mention it) is directed at those apologists who think the bible is "the inerrant inspired word of God", at which case it is not David speaking here but the alleged "all-loving/good" God. Should such be the case then there is a clear contradiction and I think this is why apologists so badly try to rationalize it away. It is clearly damning to their theology.
with much respect,
I would have sworn I responded to this but do not find the response anywhere so will try again.
First, your kind words are truly appreciated.
Second, I don't think I've ever been asked what parts of the Bible are "God inspired" and what parts are not and the methodology to determine that. Frankly, I am not sure I can offer much insight to such a complex question but I am willing to try if you are.
Apologists have a very difficult challenge in defending a literalist view of the Bible in this day and age. Their predecessors from many centuries back had an easier time as the existence of God was a given. That basic idea has changed over the last few centuries as science has advanced and explained things. Regardless, I have never been a fan of what I see as "God-in-a-box" theology.