Hello everyone!!

[Edwardo Piet]

We were talking about literal interpretation being, in your opinion, the most consistant one. Now you are talking about how highly immoral it is without twisting it. I really don't understand the connection there. As I have told you I don't understand the atheists criticism of figurative as well as literal interpretations.

They're not connected. Obviously. Of course the immorality of the OT is not connected to the truth or untruth of it. They are two separate issues and I don't understand how you address either of them the way you do.
I had already mentioned both the immorality and the untruth. I NEVER said these were connected. I just:
1. Don't understand how you can decide which metaphorical interpretation(s) of the "truth" of the bible to choose when there are so many.
2. I also don't understand how you can interpret the blatant horrific immorality in the OT as not being immoral. How you can twist that.
If indeed you do. Do you indeed see that the OT is full of horror?

I have had Atheist argue with on one point by saying: "You can interpret that any way you want!" and then the next point by saying: "You can't interpret it like that, it has to be literal!" I think this comes from an overall misunderstanding of the Bible. The Atheist (or skeptic) wants to translate it how they see it, which is usually negative and as simple as possible to prove their point.

Oh deary me. You don't seem to understand.
Obviously we CAN interpret it anyway we want. Literally we can interpret ANYTHING anyway we want. But what I am saying is if this is the case, and their are so many interpretations, how can you choose one particular non-literal interpretation over the other when there are so many?
My point is that its very inconsistent and made up. Its cherry-picking.
The only really consistent interpretation is a literal one.
Anyone CAN indeed interpret the bible or any book or anything in any way they want. But that doesn't mean they should. If they indeed want to be rational and logical and actually make any sense.

I don't see morality as entering into it because morality is subjective. Also the Bible is full of examples of immoral behaviour.

You will have to give me an example of twisting the scriptures to make them moral when they are not in order for me to understand fully what you mean.

I haven't seen you twist the scriptures to make it more moral. I'm simply saying that how could you interpret God as not completely sick evil and immoral when you read the OT? How can you interpret him as good? How can you justify GOD's behavior in the OT without twisting it?
If you don't, if you indeed think like me that Yahweh of the OT is evil sick and twisted - then do you indeed believe in God but you are willing to admit that you think he's an evil sick and twisted God with backward morality?
Or do you think God had some sort of 'moral makeover' by the NT. He suddenly got less evil.

Well, look at my post on What The Bible Really Teaches about Hell on the Religion board, that is a real good example of how to interpret it (The Bible) correctly and how it has been misinterpreted. When it is right it all adds up, when it is wrong it doesn't.

Yeah but I don't mean interpretations of anything in the bible. I mean the supernatural interpretations. How can you logically believe in the supernatural because of the bible? Because that does NOT add up.
I'm not talking about just ANY interpretations obviously. I'm not saying you can't use or understand metaphors at all in the bible. Obviously not because there are metaphors and correct interpretations of them in loads of books.
But with a very literal and absurd over the top unscientific and irrational claim like believing in God or even anything supernatural...how can you possibly think THAT adds up? How can you justify any of these supernatural nonsense.
If the bible didn't contain anything supernatural, miraculous or special it wouldn't be a 'holy' book. We wouldn't even be having this discussion so of course I'm just talking about the supernatural claims.
I am an atheist you know. And you're not. We're not talking only about the non-supernatural or natural parts of the bible are we? Our disagreement is mostly over the supernatural.

There is evidence again. You dismiss the Bible because it makes supernatural claims while at the same time saying that the supernatural is highly complex and improbable. How very scientific of you.

Indeed. Good thing too eh? I dismiss the supernatural because there both isn't any logical reason to believe in the supernatural or any "God" of any kind. AND because its highly absurd, complex and highly improbable.
There almost certainly is no God. Why believe in him? And how could you if you don't, and untill you do anyway? Belief is not a matter of policy.
And considering that my name on these forums is EvidenceVSFaith of course I'm going to talk about evidence again. Shouldn't I? Shouldn't anyone? You say it like its bad. Are you saying that there is indeed no evidence of God and any logical reason to believe in him but you do anyway?
Or do you think my name is EvF but I'm supporting faith? Of course I'm going to mention evidence.