Actually it may be worse than what any of you are thinking.
Critical research suggests that the Jews attributed their own savage warfare and acts to their gods which, under the Davidic dynasty, were condensed into the state religion of the cult of YHWH. When they were victorious, whatever the means, the Jews attributed this to God. When they lost, similar horrific acts performed by their enemies but now upon them were also attributed to YHWH but as punishment. Whatever the violence, who ever performed it, the Jews attributed it to God.
Theology changed after the Babylonian exile, recognizing human independence and responsibility for their own actions, but the traditions were hard to change (and most weren't). The result is that the construction of the Tanakh would see a mixed theology as redactors attempted to balance past tradition of attributing all things, good and evil, to a God who controls all and reconciling it with a more ambiguous theology of the all-controlling God who permits things such as the evils of war.
The unfortunate invention of literal interpretation or fundamentalism in both Christian and Jewish movements has led some modern theists to a form of Marcionism in which all events in Scripture must be explained as something far different from the patchwork of generations of writers and editors or rejected.
The fundamentalist Christian movements in particular have even colored descriptions of Jesus as if he did not possess qualities which do not reconcile with their simplistic theology. Jesus on more than one occasion forbids and forgoes serving Gentiles, once referring to a Gentile woman and her people as "dogs" in order to see if she will accept her "place" in society in exchange for Jesus saving her daughter. At other times Jesus acts as if he does not know what his actions may be implying, such as when he asks his disciples where the crowd will get its food (though he knows well he is going to feed them miraculously) or when he walks on water and pretends as if he plans to walk past the apostles who in a nearby boat are screaming in terror because they believe they are witnessing an apparition. And he constantly berates the Pharisees even though, because of his belief in the resurrection and the written works rejected by the Sadducees, is likely one of their number.
It appears as if there is a great fear on behalf of the religious to look at Scripture with open eyes and attempt to draw from it on its own merits instead of explaining away difficult to reconcile parts by the "wearing of rose-colored glasses." Scripture is not as bad as the bad interpretations which make it out to be, and these "peculiarities" of Scripture may mean something far more different than many realize.
