literal interpretations of the bible (or any holy text for that matter) have been getting people in trouble for a very, very long time.
it's an assumption, and a poor one, that people that have faith, or that christians in general, take each verse literally, and act accordingly.
someone said it earlier in the thread....there's a reason there's an old testament and a new testament, and something that shouldn't be lost on anyone, believer or not, is that all of it was written by man, no matter how "divinely inspired" it may be. at best it's still man's interpretation of God's word.
it's still a choice as to what you get out of it. not everyone chooses wisely. those same extreme religious right that take it literally as THE word of the Lord, and act on it as literally described (yes, there are people out there that use ultra right christian beliefs as a basis for all kinds of very un christian things--racial genocide, polygamy, sexism, slavery etc...)..., are no different than muslim extremists that believe killing all the infidels is THE literal word of Allah.
these people are basically the same, as far as their "wiring" goes, and if you want to categorize those type of people as weak minded, you'll find agreement here.
past that.....that i pray, that i may go to church, that i raise my kids that way....my choice because i can decide on my own what to believe, and what not to.
it is, has been, and will always be short sighted to manage any of these groups by exception, when by far, the majority of people that believe in God, Allah, Buddah, or whatever, do it for the right reasons.
you can cherry pick verses from any religious text and find the same things, ie, baby slaying. doesn't mean there's not any merit to the religion as a whole, and doesn't mean that everyone that believes in it is going to slay said babies or kill "infidels".
not allowing for "times a changin'" is really the same issue when people use, say, 2nd amendment to justify why they need an arsenal at home. factoring in the time the amendment was written, the right to bear arms meant something completely different 200 years ago than it does today.
i think the same can be said of a text written 2000 years ago.
and just for the record, i'm a gun owner, and i'd prefer to keep them. i'm not trying to start a tangent discussion, just using it as an example of why literal meaning of text written by human beings can, and usually should, actually change over time.