Absolute truth, not limited truth, is a necessary component of many religions.
Christians frequently insist that God is Love. What they generally mean is that their particular version of god is always loving in every conceivable situation towards every conceivable person. Unless he gets righteously angry, of course.
The problem with this mindless assertion is that is is inconsistent with reality and with the rest of the standard Christian story. Leaving aside the difficulties of proposing a supernatural being with human-like emotions, all but extremely liberal Christians are faced with the uncomfortable theological necessity of positing a god with absolute and unchanging characteristics in the face of significant and embarrassingly contrary evidence.
In the writings which these same Christians believe are divinely inspired by the Jewish-Christian god, one or other of the oneness-trio is frequently depicted as behaving in a very unloving manner towards all manner of people, including those that this multiple personality calls his own chosen group. Fundamentalist Christians have the added problem of having to maintain that these writings are absolutely accurate in every detail – except, of course, when it suits them and/or their leaders to interpret the passage as allegorical.
The problem would dissipate (except for the supernatural part of it) if Christians were willing to accept that their version of god was emotionally capricious (like many of the Greek and Roman gods).
Unfortunately for them, a god which is nice one minute and an utter bastard the next does not fit in with the central theme of a perfectly behaved god who is so overwhelmingly moral that he can transfer his perfection to all humanity for eternity by having part of himself tortured for a few hours and then killed for a few days. If this god is only loving in a limited fashion then the whole theology of the sacrificial death for the sins of capricious humankind comes tumbling down.
Most Christians faced with the stark reality of the Old Testament description of the Yahweh god work extremely hard to deny it, ignore it, shelve it or explain it away.
The weakest argument is that god’s ways are not knowable to man so that what looks as if it were disgustingly immoral is actually wonderfully moral when looked at through god’s eyes. In other words, they argue that what looks to be black is actually white when god is the agent because they just do not have sufficient understanding of god’s purpose. If they argue that they do not have sufficient understanding to understand god’s actions then it is very arrogant of them to imagine that they have the understanding to interpret it. They can’t have it both ways.
Another approach is to suggest that the covenant which the Yahweh god made with the Israelites in the Old Testament is null and void now that a new one has been made with the world by Jesus. Christians who argue this are rarely prepared to discard the writings of the Old Testament because they also believe that it contains divinely inspired predicitions of the New. This approach still fails to absolve the Yahweh god of the atrocities for which he is credited or to explain why behaviour which is credited to him by one author is attributed to the devil by a later writer (see the story of David and the census).
It also creates a spiritual split personality which pits the Son against the Father in a kind of supernatural family feud. Which personality is in charge here: the loving one or the terrible one? What can we say about a dependent personality who agrees to have himself humiliated and tortured in order to fix a problem created by another personality? What can we say about the morals of the dominant personality? If the dominant personality loves to kill and torture and "test" his subjects, then what kind of Hell would his Heaven be for those who were trapped there for eternity?
The bottom line is that the Christian scriptures do not describe the kind of god which most Christians say they believe in.
Their god conforms to the their own moral viewpoint and upholds only those cultural values and mores which they and their community think are axiomatically good. They see these things as static and unchanging “truths”. The fact that the concept of morality has been evolving over the centuries is not known to them.
They have truly created a god in their own image, a god which is incompatible with the sacred scripts which they think describe it.