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.

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".