Okay, you're tackeling a biggie.
1) The logical fallacy of the "loving" God. "Loving" does not mean all accepting. God does love us. We assume that you love your children. Loving your son would not mean that it would be "okay" for him to torture, rape, and kill his sister.
In the same context, God is righteous (perfect) and imperfection cannot exist in his presence. Under OT, purification meant ritualistic process and following the law. This is the reason that the High Priest wore a robe with bells on the hem, and a rope around his waist when entering the inner chamber.
Equally(and getting back to my incestuous analogy), if there is no greater (or lesser) sin, and all sin being equal, we are all guilty of henious violation of our relationships with God, and each other. Grace will save us from eternal seperation from God, contemplation of grace and its meaning will (hopefully) help us with better decision-making, but it will not save us from physical consequences. (See #2...)
2) We suffer the consequences of the sin of others. This is the concept of generational sin. Whether it is a genetic defect carried by a parent, or a family/community disagreement, our actions effect those around us, our family, and our children. Being familiar with genetics really makes this a profound insight. "Nurture" contributes a fair amount to an individual, but "nature" can be a shining glory or a 14 ton anchor. Nature exceeds nurture, under stress.(See #3...)
3) The fallacy of "fair". Free-choice for all means life won't be fair. Period. The only time #2 is mitigated, in real-time (nature>nurture), is when we actively pursue a relationship with God. If that relationship is strong, heuristic options that are not discernible to nature become apparent with nurturing.
In relation to free choice, we know that our perceptions physically alter reality, on a sub-atomic level. God is both inside and outside our "reality". Clearly, there are key "landmarks" where He intervenes, both persoanlly and nationally, but His knowledge does not alter our reality the way our own knwoledge does. Physicists feel free to chime in here...
4) The last thing I would toss out there is that Judeo-Christianity makes sense. Some things are allegorical, much (possibly even "most") is not. We know that homo-sapiens today are derived from a "pure" genetic strain. How long was that chain unlatered? Dunno. But, the knowledge fits well with a binary (or very limited) breeding pair and their progeny establishing a species. It also fits well with the decreasing lifespans noted in the OT.
5) James 2: 14-20, faith without works is as dead as works without faith, to paraphrase. Faith is intended to direct your works, in short.
I studied quite a few different religions in my teens/early 20s. Homo-sapeins are not DNA-traces from tigers (Bhuddists), or any other species, so that discounts Animistic religions across the board.
Finally, remember, the Talmud and the NT are books. They are not the history of every living thing, and there are certainly some mysteries (Melchizadech is a great example).
I would strongly recommend the Hebrew Bible http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Hebrew-Bible-John-Collins/dp/0800629914/ref=tmm_pap_title_0#_
I like the KJ, but this was translated from the Talmud and NT scrolls(largely Aramaeic) by Jews, for Jews, and is arguably the most accurate translation available.
Last, but not least, if all religions seem to have some common themes ("everything is cool, tolerance, ecumenicalism, etc., etc.."), consider the game "telephone". Group of kids sit around, and one whispers a message to the person next to them, and it gets passed along. by the end, most of us know, its generally pretty different from what was originally said. MHO is that we've had the originator of the message come back to give us a gentle reminder at the halfway point. According to Him, its our job to make sure we get that word out.
