God's God

[median]

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

Translation: I choose to ignore the facts, so stop reminding everyone of them.

The question is very simple: what is the point of the Bible if one can interpret it any way one wants? You can derive no truth from it, or anything else of value. You are just inventing your own truth (as opposed to accepting at face value someone else's invented truth). This is all the sillier when the book itself depicts a god who is exact and demanding and does not tolerate it when people do not do exactly what they are told.

Why is it that we're wrong when we interpret the book as the mad ramblings of stupid and violent men in an ignorant time? What makes that interpretation less valid than anyone else's?

In one way, this post can bring us back to the OP (possibly). If religionists can just makeup anything about their alleged deity they want to (in this case "eternal" and not needing a cause) then we can makeup another alleged deity that this deity, yet still, doesn't know about (and couldn't), that the global universe needs no cause, or any number of claims that make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. "Oh no, the God I believe in is the one that is eternal by definition" is no different from, "No Timmy, my invisible magic unicorn is bigger than yours." It demonstrates nothing. Is every claim just as good as another? I suppose if apologists can just define their deity into existence, by attempting to give it secondary characteristics, or characteristics which are either extremely vague or indistinguishable from ones that have not been demonstrated to exist, then we can do the same and be equally as valid, right? But what is the point in "making a defense" of theism if you can't actually demonstrate these extraordinary claims? At the very least, this deity should be listed in the museum at the Hubble Space telescope as one of sciences greatest discoveries. But, it's not...