>Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in.

I think this is far too modernist an interpretation. When Genesis was written the characterization of God wouldn't have been interpreted as a "child-abusing jerk." God's behavior reflected what was expected of a father and a king given the culture and morals of the time, as well as the cold and indifferent brutality of the natural world, and was little different in those regards to other sky-father gods.

Bear in mind this same God doesn't "grant slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies" either, at all. People sacrificed animals to God and God engaged in infanticide more than once.

All very fair. My interpretation is intentionally quit modern.

To be honest, trying to interpret the original authors intent has driven better men than me completely crazy. The Jewish and Christian interpretations, for example, are pretty clearly at odds with one another as are the modern and early Christian understandings.