God's God

[archangle]

You have too or your belief falls apart. You say the exact same thing as literal bible thumpers always say. "We have to take it literally or my belief falls apart". Stating one has to take the bible literally is a look into how we form beliefs and Make sense of the world around us.

I don't have a problem with the whole Bible being some kind of mystic allegory/fable/myth/whatever, if you can provide some kind of system of hermeneutics, textual criticism, etc. that shows that your particular mystical interpretation is more accurate than other people's mystical interpretations or literal interpretations. At least, if you want me to accept your interpretation as the best one. So far the only "argument" you've offered is "I want to substitute 'hold accountable' for 'jealous,' and if you don't agree, you're a fundamentalist Bible thumper, so neener, neener!" In Chad's case, he wants to interpret those passages as saying that Yahweh is just extra-protective over his special Chosen People, never mind that he is portrayed threatening to exterminate them in one of the passages in question. Neither of you have provided any reason to accept either of your interpretations, other than that you're nice, ethical modern people coming to an ancient Iron Age text and forcing it to fit with your modern sensibilities because if you don't...your beliefs fall apart.

I can give arguments for my interpretation of the passages I cited. They were written into texts that are a combination of law (lists of commandments, rules of ritual practice, description of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, etc.) and putatively historical narration that explains the claimed divine origin and sanction of the commandments and rules. In other words, the genre implies a literal interpretation. Secondly, the claim that Yahweh is jealous (to the point of saying that his name is "Jealous"), is stated in the plainest possible language, repeatedly. Third, the nature of his jealousy--that he will become ferociously angry and punish 'his special people' for worshiping the 'wrong' deities--is also stated quite plainly. This interpretation is supported by the narrative parts of the same texts, where Moses is shown brutally enforcing the rules as if his god is in fact viciously jealous, on a number of occasions (e.g. killing 3,000 people when he found them worshiping the golden calf, exterminating the Midianites for causing some Israelite men to defect to their religion and marry Midianite women, etc.).

Can you provide any reason to accept your "non-literal" interpretation other than "LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU!"

Stating we must take it literally is a logical fallacy. We don't have to take it literally. In fact, I see absolutely no proof that is even should be.

So can I take it that you would not profess something so pedestrian and fundamentalist as the notion that Jesus once walked the wilderness of Galilee accompanied by twelve disciples, that he was crucified by Roman soldiers under the authority of Pontius Pilate, and resurrected himself three days later? After all, only fundamentalist Bible thumpers ever take a passage literally, right?

You will first have to give me more than "we must take it literally or my thinking falls apart". I need some proof of this evil god of yours wrote the book to be taken literally.

Hahaha, now you're interpreting us "non-literally," eh? Heck, I guess if you can pull "holding accountable" out of your posterior when reading Exodus and Deuteronomy, you can pull an "evil god" out of the same location when reading our posts. Nobody other than you has suggested that "an evil god wrote the book." My theory is that the texts in question were written by Iron Age barbarians who worshiped a god they projected in their own image (SPAG), just as you, a much nicer, more modern person, a child of the Enlightenment, worship a (much nicer) god projected in your image. As you read Biblical texts, you mentally edit them to say things that you think they ought to say.

The problem you guys have with non-literal, is that when you remove "your" take's limits, the bible then becomes a tool that may help people through this shit hole of a life. And you want no parts of that for any reason. I would look at that first.

So now it's a self-help book? We don't need the Bible for that. We have people like Zig Ziglar, Napoleon Hill, and Dr. Phil nowadays. Their books offer the benefit of not having to engage in a whole lot of spaghetti hermeneutics and intricate theological loop-o-planes, with their associated heavy burden of cognitive dissonance, before we can get to the self-help stuff. Also: if you have a "shit hole of a life," your Bible apparently isn't helping you very much. Maybe you should give Og Mandino a try?

I shoo did pull the notion that "we are held accountable for our actions" out of my butt. It is not rational to claim that this theme cannot be taken from the bible. It is seen in almost every "self help" type books.

Yes, your distain for over bearing thunder chucker's is valid. But to support that with the crap you are spouting about the bible is quite foolish. I can prove the bible is a book with far more reason than they can prove it is the only word of the god. But this 'evil god" angle is flat out stupid.

This " ... so anything goes then ..." slant is just amazing to me. Why in your-no-god's name would any reasonable person think this? I mean past your average high schooled drunk or college professor it makes no sense. Can you show me why " ... anything goes ..." because we don't agree on one interpretation and that any interpretation must then be valid?

Yep, reading your post I don't see any of that there loop-de-loop bs in your take alright.