Preface: All stated below is opinion based on my studies. I may use words that seem factual, but I do not always discriminate that which is fact and that which is opinion. Therefore, take everything below with a grain of salt in terms of "truth" which is what we should do when any man says anything anyways 
I think an all-loving God is a Christian misunderstanding that allows them to maintain the Word of God as Law to be unbroken. Like if you didn't think speeding tickets were meant for the greater good, you might be more inclined to speed whenever you wanted hoping not to get caught.
I have been doing much deep research into the faith, the original texts, the comparisons to other faiths. I do not see evidence of an all-loving God. Rather, I see a history of the Father of All transitioning to the King of Gods. As a Father, He loves all of His creation. As a King, he must show the power of his kingship to maintain that position. And, in a deeper understanding, I see deities as the first quest for understanding, but I'll mostly just be talking as if that's not the case.
Those who sin have two options, both of which are examples of why we must worship Him as the One True Loving God: Sin, by ignoring His Law, and be shown His unloving Wrath and by extension an example of why we must worship Him (because not doing so is a sin in and of itself). Sin, and repent, and He saves us from the Wrath He has shown us and provides an example of His Love to those who would worship Him as King.
The Wrath had to come first. Otherwise, non-believing good people would do away with bad people anyways, without need of a self-professed righteous King. Humans have a history of getting our courage as a people to overthrow the wrong-doers in our world. In His Law, He attempts to do away with the option of turning to another deity for salvation (or face His Wrath) by asserting His self-professed Kingship. As Father, these other deities are His creation as well, if by a true creation or by extension the creation of sin working against our minds. As King, He professes that those creations are there to server our sight of Him as salvation.
If you've ever seen the movie Major Payne, one of his soldiers is shot and in agony; Major Payne breaks his finger to take his mind off the bullet wound. In this pain of a broken finger, MP shows what an outsider may see as a twisted sense of mercy and salvation from agony. To the shot man, I'm sure he got over the "twisted" part pretty quickly and learned to accept and appreciate MP's righteous action. The difference between Major Payne and God is that God takes credit for both the bullet wound and the broken finger as assertion that had we listened to Him, there would not be strife in the world for the soldier to be shot in the first place. The man had to be shot first before he could be shown salvation and for us, as viewers, to learn to love and appreciate the otherwise twisted character of Major Payne. To a viewer who has been shot, MP as an analogue to God makes a lot of sense and would not question the actions. To a viewer who has not been shot, we raise a lot of questions:
-Why was it written for the script that the soldier get shot in the first place? The writer could have made everyone in the movie live, but we realize that evil and agony exist in the world and that story would not have had as much of an impact on us otherwise. There would also be no need for Major Payne as salvation had their not been a wound to save his soldier from.
-Why did Major Payne break his finger? Could not a field-nurse have administered pain medication and treated the wound? Then we would not have seen the "twisted" Major Payne in a different light, we would instead find salvation in a person whose soul purpose is to remove all pain and agony from all instead of treating our savior as "well he's a little messed up, but he -did- help the soldier out." Thus, we are treated to a story where Major Payne, as an analogue, is our only salvation despite the potential for someone else to do a better job that makes more sense if -allowed- to have our savior be anybody else.
Here are what I think are some major misunderstandings in the Christian view of the bible, especially in reference to an all-loving, all-powerful God. In my studies I find three things: Good and Evil are beyond God's control and are inherent in God himself. God as the Father can be accepted without the bible/quran, but God as the One True God (King) cannot. Which is probably why we're not on the cusp of a religious war with Japan whose population is only 2.3% Christian as opposed to our long history and current religious strife with Islam.
Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning God created heaven and earth
The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering over the water.
Then God said, Let there be light! So there was light. 4 God saw the light was good. So God separated the light from the darkness
As opposed to what? The darkness that existed on earth at its conception in Gen1:2? Many people misconstrue this to mean that darkness is "evil" as opposed to "not good." Which is like saying that a diet of potatoes is evil as opposed to not good. Rather, it is more like a metaphor for knowledge and consciousness. To stumble around in the dark is pretty crappy as opposed to flicking on the light switch. This extends to God himself. He created the heaven and earth in Gen1:1 but made no reference to its "goodness" because it was made in the dark; He himself was stumbling around at creation as any human creator/inventor would. He also
saw the light was good instead of creating light out of goodness. Throwing back to my light-switch analogy, had you ever just lived in darkness and turned on the switch you would probably go "Hey! Great! I'm never going back to the dark again!" And thus, we all have light switches in our houses. Similarly, if viewed as a metaphor for consciousness as the "light" in the darkness of our instinctual animal ancestors, as a species we might have been like "wow! I can tell what I'm doing now, this is great!" and we separated from the "darkness" of animals. (deeper understanding explanation later) Furthermore, this trend of "do this->then see it as good" continues until the end of Genesis 1, where he looks back on His creation and, feeling good about its state, finally takes a break from creation. Much like any human creator would. Imagine an artist who, as he makes his strokes, steps back and declares them good before moving onto the next stroke; only to finally stop painting when he views his work as complete and good.
Personal deeper understanding:
All things that separate and give light are towards earth. In the original text, heaven is viewed more in the sense of the visible area above the clouds i.e. the sky. The sun, moon, and stars were a part of heaven(sky) but were to give light to the earth. Yet, no planets are formed or made mention of, because, to the earliest of enlightened mankind, they were indistinguishable. One of the highly debated verses from Genesis is that of 1:5:
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Now, I'm big on translation. There is a lot of translation problems that arise in an English view of the bible. However, there's not much to say for this verse as far as translation goes, it's pretty spot on. Light, as named day, and day, as to mean the passing of time from evening to morning is the same word. This is very uncommon in Hebrew, as their words tend to have multiple meanings. One of the reasons this verse is a hot-topic is because there is a day cycle prior to the creation of the sun and the moon as in Gen1:14 (two days after the first day-cycle).
In the view of deities as a quest for understanding, it might be easier to read Genesis as the first realizations, enumerations, labeling, and organizing. All of the consciously intelligent things we first learned to do that made us who we are today.
The important word here is not "day." Rather, "evening," "morning," and "one" are the keys. We now view day as a 24-hour period. But, in this reference, a day was meant to mean the passage from dark to light, with no concept of how long the day was or how it happened. Consider the scientific process. The first utterly obvious thing that is happening is that it gets darker and lighter in cycle ad infinitum. The term "evening" in Hebrew meant "to grow dark." The term "morning" meant (among numerous meanings) "to enlighten." "One" has many many meanings as it is written in Hebrew, among them: first, one, each, a certain, etc. from a root word of (spelled the same, spoken differently) "sharp" or "to go one way or the other" This is where translation problems occur. It could be read "the first day" or "a certain/distinct/sharp/one passage from dark to light." In a context of observational science, it's easy to see how this concept arose before the guiding forces of the Sun and the Moon: We observe dusk and dawn without the Sun in view and often the Moon is not quite so illuminated in those hours but typically always visible. Therefore, the first thought is "well this distinct change happens, but what causes it?" In the context of "one" as a number, we might also see the rise of the first kinds of counting and measurement. Counting and measuring are often one of the first gifts of the gods given to man in many cultures and in theory is probably one of the first marks of our higher intelligence. Certainly we knew how to count before the bible was written, but to explain it in the context that we started to understand counting, organizing, and separating that which is the same versus that which is different, then the gap of "two days" before the Sun and the Moon drive day and night seems more clear.
Remember that the light of day is also called day when unmarked by the actual passing from evening to morning. And light can also be viewed as enlightenment as a meaning for the word that the Hebrews used. The word "the" as often written in Genesis 1:5 "the first day" doesn't exist in the original text; it is rather "day one." Or, "enlightenment one." Similarly throughout the "seven days," the original texts write "day two" or "enlightenment two." Each of the days can be seen as a separate enlightenment of the ancient people, without any reference to how long it took them to realize these things. It is then easier to understand the order of enlightenment.
1: Dusk and dawn happen, somehow.
2: In looking over the ocean, a division is clear between the "flat" part of earth and all that is above (sky/heaven)
3: There is a division between that which we walk on and the waters that we do not. On that which we tread, plants exist, but not in the water. There is division among plants by way of their fruits and seeds being associated by only the same kind of plant. Some are fruits, others are not.
4: Hey you know that dusk/dawn thing? It's brighter when the sun's out, but there's still light when the moon and stars are glowing. (also there's no light in our tents, but I'm not going into that explanation) They must govern how day and night work. We also can't reach them, they must be in the sky/heaven.
5: Birds can travel in the sky and we cannot, they also do not fly in the water. Fish swim in the water and we cannot, they also do not fly. There are many kinds that give offspring only of their kind.
6: There are also animals that are stuck on the ground as we are. (original texts read as: cattle and creeping things that sustain life and perpetuate). Yet, we are unlike any of these in form and intelligence. (By this point) we hunt all things land, sea, and air. We must be special. Yet still, division among our kind is clear (as is not often the case in animals): male and female. For food is given seed-bearing and fruit-bearing plants as well as every living thing. For which, grass and herbs sustain all life as food.
Now, that's a pretty long exposition, and I may have run a little far with it. However, it's important to see it in this perspective when I get back to good/evil. The first book of Genesis is nothing but division. What is the same and what is different. The end of these divisions? It is
good to know the difference.[/I]
Ok, this is already pretty long, I'll try to shorten my words here. (Not an easy thing for me lol)
In the view of Genesis 2, we see that it starts off with God resting instead of at the end of Genesis 1. Exposition? Gen 1 are the common truths of life as early man had figured out. In Gen 2, we stopped with the clearly observable divisions. Our enlightenment was at rest. This is the point in the bible that divides(sure is a lot of that) the truth of man and the thought of man. Speaking of divisions, a good one to note is God's name written as Elohim all the way until Genesis 2:3 where he is then written as Yahweh/Jehovah/YHVH. Beyond that, the distinction gets a little hard to make. But it's important to note that in one instance below.
(lol I actually hit the char limit on a post) 1 of 2
