>>Again - let me be clear - I am not a Biblical scholar (which should be fairly obvoius by now.) So, these are probably not the best answers - but - it's all I've got...
>>
>>First, the Lord is good to all and He does show mercy to everyone. The Bible speaks of how it rains (being a good thing) on both the good and the evil. The fact that He lets any of us live is a mercy - for we all deserve immediate death for our sins. This does not mean that He is good to all - all the time. There are times where His justice requires that he "destroy" people. I see no contradiction here - sorry.
>
>So did Milosevic have a set of laws whereas anybody could be sentenced to any fine or time, but he was merciful not to enforce all of these laws all the time on all the people. The enforcement was selective... when the times required. I see such a parallel here - sorry.
>
>>The peace mentioned in Romans (and most of the New Testament) is not the opposite of war. It generally means a peace WITH God. It speaks of a right standing believers have before God. There have a peace with Him.
>
>"Have you forgotten doublespeak, Winston?"
>I didn't realize it was the regular use of words which mean different things, depending what they apply to. Never say what they mean, never mean what they say, eh?
>

Language is very complex - you should know that many words mean much different things at different times. You over-generalize when you say the "never say what they mean..."

>> But, besides that do you agree that there was a time when President Bush was at peace with Iraq? Well, now he is at war? Is this a contradiction? Can a person be one thing at one time and another (opposite) thing at another time? Sure they can - again - I see no contradiction here.
>
>So this God person is mutable? So, if he can change so much and so often, how much of these old texts is still valid? Can they still be trusted? He might have changed his mind an infinite number of times.

God is immutable in His character.