Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

That's all very interesting, but, and I think we've talked about this before, at the end of the day, the value of the Bible to me... such as it is... is as a claim to some sort of truth, ie that God exists and is, does, or did x,y, and z. Do you not see it as that sort of claim? Or even a claim at all? Given that you treat much of it as allegory, or as you say, myth and propaganda, how does that, to you, make a more compelling claim to the existence of God than a factual claim? Or are you just in awe of the literary aspects of it but without treating it as a claim? For me, if the majority of it is relegated to the realm of allegory, myth, and propaganda, without any concrete claim, then that does not make it more, but less compelling, ultimately boiling down to a bunch of random people's vague musings on God, which these days is a dime a dozen.

Yes, I'm sure the authors of the Bible intended to make all kinds of claims. They no doubt take the existence of God to be a fact, and want to make claims concerning his existence. They also want to make claims concerning morality. 

The manner in which they make these claims is perhaps what's at issue. 

Some sentences are metaphors, but so obvious that even the simplest sola scriptura literalist gets the message. When Jesus talks about casting one's seeds on stony ground, nobody thinks he's giving agricultural advice. 

Many important messages and lessons are best taught through literary styles, and not through a straightforward listing of facts. Readers who have to engage with a text, ponder it, debate it, and keep it with them over time, are more likely to get more out of it in life than if they just read a brief précis.