God's God

[archangle]

I don't take the bible literally. It seems you do. You will have to prove to me that it has to be taken literally today first.

inquisition? I rest my case. Literal interpretations are a look into a person mind.

You great great grandchild may suffer because of the choices you make today. Can you tell me what is so wrong with that notion? Yep, twisting this god to an evil thing that is running around dominating people for pleasure is more rational. Your literal take shoo is more "better" than theirs all alright.

[Lord Privy Seal]

I don't take the bible literally. It seems you do. You will have to prove to me that it has to be taken literally today first.

inquisition? I rest my case. Literal interpretations are a look into a person mind.

You great great grandchild may suffer because of the choices you make today. Can you tell me what is so wrong with that notion? Yep, twisting this god to an evil thing that is running around dominating people for pleasure is more rational. Your literal take shoo is more "better" than theirs all alright.

1) The Bible is a Rorshach test that "means" whatever the reader wants it to mean.

2) The Bible communicates information from its authors ("inspired" or otherwise) to its readers.

Pick one.

Note: the second option doesn't mean that all of it needs to be interpreted literally. Parables should be interpreted as parables, law texts as law texts, mystical apocalyptic symbolism (the Book of Revelation) as mystical apocalyptic symbolism, proverbs as proverbs, poetry as poetry, allegory (Genesis) as allegory, and so on. It just means that the text should not be treated as infinitely malleable Silly Putty.

If you prefer the first option, that's fine. You just don't get to go and claim that your interpretation of the inkblot is any better than anyone else's. "You can only be saved through Jesus!" "Oh, really? What, are you taking a passage literally or something? Sorry, that's against the rules." I'll agree with you that the Bible is a terrific Rorschach test, for believers. All of them (including the fundamentalists who pretend that they read it as a combination science text, history text and Manual For Living) read it through a filter of SPAG (Self-Projection As God).

I pick the second option, at least when I'm discussing the Bible as a putative source for Christian doctrine. If a legal text (not a mystic allegory or Gnostic gematria diagram) says "The Lord your God is a jealous god, his name is Jealous" I treat the straightforward meaning as the most probable interpretation of what the author intended to communicate, rather than deciding that it means "The Lord your God seeks to satisfy values through friendship and ponies" because that's what I'd prefer it said. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...the second option doesn't mean that all of it needs to be interpreted literally. Parables should be interpreted as parables, law texts as law texts, mystical apocalyptic symbolism (the Book of Revelation) as mystical apocalyptic symbolism, proverbs as proverbs, poetry as poetry, allegory (Genesis) as allegory, and so on. It just means that the text should not be treated as infinitely malleable Silly Putty.

A good test for the validity of symbolic interpretation is consistency. Assigned meanings should carry throughout the text in order to be taken seriously.

The Archilect Dyson Sphere of computronium example is very good thought problem about the relationship between general and specific revelation. Natural reason leads me to the conclusion that a god exists. Now along comes a voice from a worm-hole issuing commands and smiting people for effect. How do I know this anti-doggie-style god is in fact the god of general revelation? I don't. It's a problem of epistemology at that point and not ontology.

..."The Lord your God is a jealous god, his name is Jealous" I treat the straightforward meaning as the most probable interpretation of what the author intended to communicate

From that we can start to wonder, in what sense is God jealous. It seems clear to me that God is protective of something He values highly, the nation of Israel. Now we can reflect on the nature of Providence as it applies today.

[archangle]

I don't take the bible literally. It seems you do. You will have to prove to me that it has to be taken literally today first.

inquisition? I rest my case. Literal interpretations are a look into a person mind.

You great great grandchild may suffer because of the choices you make today. Can you tell me what is so wrong with that notion? Yep, twisting this god to an evil thing that is running around dominating people for pleasure is more rational. Your literal take shoo is more "better" than theirs all alright.

1) The Bible is a Rorshach test that "means" whatever the reader wants it to mean.

2) The Bible communicates information from its authors ("inspired" or otherwise) to its readers.

Pick one.

Note: the second option doesn't mean that all of it needs to be interpreted literally. Parables should be interpreted as parables, law texts as law texts, mystical apocalyptic symbolism (the Book of Revelation) as mystical apocalyptic symbolism, proverbs as proverbs, poetry as poetry, allegory (Genesis) as allegory, and so on. It just means that the text should not be treated as infinitely malleable Silly Putty.

If you prefer the first option, that's fine. You just don't get to go and claim that your interpretation of the inkblot is any better than anyone else's. "You can only be saved through Jesus!" "Oh, really? What, are you taking a passage literally or something? Sorry, that's against the rules." I'll agree with you that the Bible is a terrific Rorschach test, for believers. All of them (including the fundamentalists who pretend that they read it as a combination science text, history text and Manual For Living) read it through a filter of SPAG (Self-Projection As God).

I pick the second option, at least when I'm discussing the Bible as a putative source for Christian doctrine. If a legal text (not a mystic allegory or Gnostic gematria diagram) says "The Lord your God is a jealous god, his name is Jealous" I treat the straightforward meaning as the most probable interpretation of what the author intended to communicate, rather than deciding that it means "The Lord your God seeks to satisfy values through friendship and ponies" because that's what I'd prefer it said. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

we make up all kinds of bullshit to self justify.
You can pick any option you want. Your litmus test is invalid. Thus your conclusion is invalid. Well, I stated that wrong. I should say your stance is far less reasonable than a non-literal bible stance.
And to suggest that people can't change the "laws" to better meet the needs of society is closed minded. You don't think we as a group can revaluate a "law" that our great great grand wrote? Really? Say that to yourself ten times and see if it still makes sense to you.
I don't take it literally. You would have to provide a better test if you think I should take the bible in the way you presented it. Before even considering your "evil god" stance, you would have to show the bible as the "word of evil god".

[Ryantology]

From that we can start to wonder, in what sense is God jealous. It seems clear to me that God is protective of something He values highly, the nation of Israel. Now we can reflect on the nature of Providence as it applies today.

God's OT personality is entirely indistinguishable from real psychopathic mass-murdering egomaniacs such as Hitler. Vastly more likely is that God suffers from the most monumental case of narcissism imaginable, as in no sense of the word 'caring' does God care about anything except getting his due from his followers. God is jealous because apparently being omnipotent and omniscient just isn't any fun unless you're extorting 'love' out of the little people you make (and frequently break).

His NT personality is a lot more subdued, hardly seems like the same deity at all. The NT God is willing to forgo the psychotic rages against those who don't willingly wear his shackles, he'll wait until they're dead and just torture them forever for the crime of reason. He must have learned self-control in the intervening period, if not anything resembling the good qualities he is alleged to have bestowed upon us.

[Neo-Scholastic]

God's OT personality is entirely indistinguishable from real psychopathic mass-murdering egomaniacs ...God suffers from the most monumental case of narcissism imaginable

Perhaps you find it fun to shake your fist at the sky. You're missing the opportunity to participate in an discussion about a profound mystery. Unlike Lord Privy Seal, you don't have many original thoughts do you?

[Ryantology]

I don't do it to shake my fist at the sky, because no one's up there but astronauts. I just want to keep reminding you and your fellow Christians that you believe in very stupid things and you worship a being who, while fictional, would be responsible for more death and destruction and misery than every dictator or warlord in history combined if he wasn't. You think he's awesome, presumably because you like psychotic dictators, as long as they claim to be good and righteous. Reminding you of that is fun.

You are missing an opportunity to demonstrate that my character analysis of your deity is incorrect. Except, of course, you can't.

As for Lord Privy, I agree with his sentiments and I have made that obvious in the past. If you do not interpret the Bible literally, it is literally worthless. You'd be better off just inventing your own religion and dogma for all the value it has to anyone except yourself.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...you and your fellow Christians that you believe in very stupid things and you worship a being who,... responsible for more death and destruction and misery than every dictator or warlord in history combined ...

Save your angry atheist claptrap. We've all heard it before and wankers like you add nothing to the conversation.

[median]

God's OT personality is entirely indistinguishable from real psychopathic mass-murdering egomaniacs ...God suffers from the most monumental case of narcissism imaginable

Perhaps you find it fun to shake your fist at the sky. You're missing the opportunity to participate in an discussion about a profound mystery. Unlike Lord Privy Seal, you don't have many original thoughts do you?

A profound mystery? How did you come upon this idea that the religious assertions of your bible boil down to just a mystery? If it is just a mystery why do you accept it as true, accurate, and/or authoritative?

---

...you and your fellow Christians that you believe in very stupid things and you worship a being who,... responsible for more death and destruction and misery than every dictator or warlord in history combined ...

Save your angry atheist claptrap. We've all heard it before and wankers like you add nothing to the conversation.

OH I SEE. It's only "atheist claptrap" when we don't agree with your assertions and do not choose to respond to you in a fashion that you have somehow (likely due to your religion) come to expect.

Why can't you just be honest and admit you can't demonstrate this Yahweh/Jesus deity you claim to believe in? Isn't honesty part of your religion?

[archangle]

You have too or your belief falls apart. You say the exact same thing as literal bible thumpers always say. "We have to take it literally or my belief falls apart". Stating one has to take the bible literally is a look into how we form beliefs and Make sense of the world around us.

Stating we must take it literally is a logical fallacy. We don't have to take it literally. In fact, I see absolutely no proof that is even should be. You will first have to give me more than "we must take it literally or my thinking falls apart". I need some proof of this evil god of yours wrote the book to be taken literally. I hear bible believers say this all the time "If I don't, I am wrong". Yeah? so what.

The problem you guys have with non-literal, is that when you remove "your" take's limits, the bible then becomes a tool that may help people through this shit hole of a life. And you want no parts of that for any reason. I would look at that first.