Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[TheRocketSurgeon]

As I pointed out in the other thread, to which you replied, a God which punishes nonbelievers with eternal torture...

God doesn't torture, He sentence's you to an eternal punishment you have chosen, you actually choose the punishment you will suffer by how you lived your life here. Just as a murder chooses his punishment by breaking the law to a certain degree, the judge sentences him to that choice. You break God's law and seek not forgiveness you without a doubt will serve the eternal punishment you chose and made for your self.  

Horse shit. There is no need for an eternal punishment. It would be just as simple to withhold an eternal reward, and just let me die like an animal if I have not elevated my soul to heaven-worthiness via "The Way" taught by Jesus of Nazareth, called the Annointed One (Messiah).

It is a LIE to claim that we "choose for ourselves" to commit the crime, because even your theology acknowledges that we are born into a "sin nature" and that we cannot help but to violate those laws. So we're not talking about a choice to sin or not sin, that would equate to a choice to break the law or not break the law in your example. It's a red herring.

What you're talking about is a person who walks up to me out of the blue and says I and everyone else on earth owe him money, because we're on his turf and broke the rules of behavior required on his turf, and if I don't pay the money (which of course is in an amount I'll never be able to pay) or otherwise "choose to" become his loyal servant, he'll torture me.

That is a psychopathic monster.

In your example, God is not the Judge, he's the Legislature that makes the rules in the first place. Calling him the Judge is to pretend he is just obeying rules that he didn't create, which Are Just The Way It Is™, and he's helpless to do anything but enforce them as-written.  

 is not one whom a rational and honorable person would choose to worship. If your God is what you claim, then he is a monster and I thank Dawkins for his work in showing what a monstrous claim is being made by the Christian sects.

So you believe I'm not rational or honorable, you judge me without even getting to know me, you do so without a absolute standard, though you take Dawkins as absolute authority, a man without any absolute standards.
You call God a monster, why, because He wants you to live a purposeful life, one that He knows will make you joyful. You call Him this because you would rather live in sinfulness ie. rebel against Him. God offers you an eternal life, Dawkins offers you an eternal punishment, your choice, to follow a fallible man or an omniscient loving God.

I did not say that. I said that a rational and honorable person would not choose to worship such a monster. I think that you have simply not given it a genuine enough level of thought to realize what a monster this being you worship really is, and that if you did, you would reject the entire concept as contrary to basic human decency and innate morality (except for sociopaths and psychopaths, of course).

And I also didn't say I follow Dawkins. Why do you fundies always think we revere Dawkins like some sort of atheist deity? That's just fucking wwweeeiiirrrddd. I like a lot of what Dawkins has to say, and I'm grateful for the work he does, but that's also true of Tori Amos and Emma Watson! I certainly don't take any of them as authorities. You clearly don't understand how atheism works at all.

And now you're just LYING about the reason I called God a monster, even though I have described it to you as specifically and in detail as one could possibly detail. I have clearly explained that I find your god-concept to be morally repugnant. I would no sooner follow it than a White Supremacist ideology, no matter how happy they claimed they wanted me to be by accepting their views. They, and you, have views about the nature of humanity and about what constitutes moral action, that I find repugnant. Since I said it several times before and you apparently didn't grasp my meaning, I'll define it here:

re·pug·nant
rəˈpəɡnənt/

adjective

1.
extremely distasteful; unacceptable.

synonyms: abhorrent, revolting, repulsive, repellent, disgusting, offensive, objectionable, cringeworthy, vile, foul, nasty, loathsome, sickening, nauseating, hateful, detestable, execrable, abominable, monstrous, appalling, insufferable, intolerable, unacceptable, contemptible, unsavory, unpalatable; More

2.
in conflict with; incompatible with.

synonyms: incompatible with, in conflict with, contrary to, at variance with, inconsistent with

I prefer to think of it in terms of Thomas Jefferson's admonishment to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

This is no different than Dawkins. This president took advantage of his female slaves and fell in love with the godless French thinking. So I say again follow a fallible man or the God who wants you to spend an eternal life of great joy with Him, again your choice will give you either an eternal punishment you choice and the eternal torment you choose by your life without God and his forgiveness, or a joyful eternal life with God.

GC

Another word for "the godless French thinking" is The Enlightenment, which informed most of the Founding Fathers, which Jefferson being chief among them. And whether or not he "took advantage of" his slave Sally (most say they were in love but could not be together openly because of the racist culture of the time), his morals are irrelevant since I don't follow Jefferson as a moral guide, either. I do like his concept of "if there is a god, the following is more likely to be true than what the Christians are claiming about god", so I quoted it.

You seem awfully enamored with the idea of follow-the-leader... an interesting psychological edge to your tendency to seek out (and define people by) "who is obedient to whom".  I'd be willing to bet you have some BDSM tendencies in your sexual desires... not that there's anything wrong with that, just that I'm seeing a pattern that's highly suggestive.

No matter how many times you try to repackage the idea as a "free" choice, it can never be a free choice when I have already had the fault before I was born, and the choice is made over threat of torture. Your god is based on a concept developed when people still thought tyranny and slavery and genocide were a-okay... and you just haven't been able to massage the God 2.0 (aka Jesus) version enough to fully get rid of the fact that you worship a violent Blood God.

So again, I'll make it as clear as I can. I follow no one but my own conscience and my strong sense of feeling for my fellow human beings. I reason each thing out for myself, though I like to listen to many ideas before I make up my mind, and remain willing to change my mind if I come across better information. I have a strong sense of what is moral and honorable behavior...

and your God-concept fails at it in every imaginable way.

If I am to be tortured for the "free choice", then it is not a free choice, it's an extortion attempt. And I will gladly suffer that psychopath's "consequences" rather than sell out all of my brain and all of my morals to subjugate myself to such a repugnant idea of a higher power. The fact that you feel the need to lie and misrepresent all that I think and believe, and to put spray paint all over the big pile of feces that is your unchangeable dogmatic concept of power-hierarchy, with required submissiveness and unquestioning obedience to Proper Authority (ha!) and a moral code that is the most disgusting thing this side of ISIS, while not being proof against the concept, definitely does not make me any more inclined to give up my honor and lower myself and surrender both my morals and my intellect for a book written by people who didn't know what genes were or that the sun could not stop in the sky because it does not travel across the sky.