A psychological approch to how religion works

[OnlyNatural]

I mis-phrased that last one. What I meant to say was do not reject the entirety of a complex ideology because certain parts are rejected. Similar to the best lies have a bit of truth in them, or every cloud has a silver lining. Very few things are either all truth or all lie. Most people just mix and match what they see as relevant truth and apply it to their lives. That, IMO is why there's some many factions in Religion.

As far as a moral guide, You'd have to be cherry picking to find it amoral, IMO.

It's certainly not amoral (without moral relevance), there are some very moral parts, and some very immoral parts.

I'm sure there are good moral truths in the Bible, but there's also a great deal of immoral stuff. But, just because some parts may be morally true and relevant, it says nothing about whether the God described, and his system of sin and salvation, actually exist. It's like saying there are great moral truths in Aesop's fables, but nobody believes the characters exist or that the stories literally took place.

A comprehensive OT and NT approach including: context, how they relate and multiple translation is indicative to me of a higher moral standard than society. It's common to many different denominations of Christianity I've experienced. You can take 30-50 OT verses on their own without any context or view outside the OT and see profuse immorality. Or you can take them in context and their fulfillment and how they're applied to Christianity from the NT and wind up with a very moral guide.

So we look at biblical proscriptions in their context (thousands of years ago, in the Middle East), and realize that in today's context, they should no longer apply, or should be changed?

IMO, there are some immoral passages and some good, moral ones, but the system as a whole is on the immoral side, if you really think about it. Those who see it as a moral guide are just following the good parts. Why wasn't a new prophet sent to tell us to change our interpretation of the Bible? We had to figure that out on our own, as a society. The entire Bible may have been perfectly relevant and moral in the society during which it was written, but not today. We must either keep reinterpreting and dropping parts of the Bible, or realize that it's actually the humans of modern society who are shaping the moral climate of today. How much longer will we chip away at God's word before we realize we don't need it anymore?

What you see as unnecessary I see as a natural progression, because I see personal experiences that cause me to believe God does exist. If you had those experiences you'd probably feel the same way. You haven't so you don't, that's OK. But just because you don't share those view doesn't mean it's irrational or unimportant and unnecessary to me. Nor does it show a lack of any personal accountability or societal responsibility.

I'm sure it feels important and necessary to you, and I'm sure you're rational in every other way. And I don't doubt your personal or societal responsibility. But this is what it always comes down to with religious belief, you feel that it's true, you've had personal experiences and interpret them in your own way, it makes sense to you. But subjective experiences do not necessarily represent objective reality, even if many people report similar experiences. A good example is the many reported cases of 'alien abduction,' but nobody really believes these people, despite their personal revelations. There are better explanations, like sleep paralysis. I think there are probably simpler explanations for religious phenomena, but the illusion that there must be 'something beyond' still persists.