Hello everyone!!

[Daystar]

Of course the immorality of the OT is not connected to the truth or untruth of it. They are two separate issues and I don't understand how you address either of them the way you do.

We were not discussing the level of truth in the Bible itself, but rather the level of truth of interpretation. You seemed to me to have been addressing the interpretation as being somewhat dishonest as if it was being interpreted to disguise the immorality of the Bible. That is the way I understood it.

I had already mentioned both the immorality and the untruth. I NEVER said these were connected. I just:
1. Don't understand how you can decide which metaphorical interpretation(s) of the "truth" of the bible to choose when there are so many.
2. I also don't understand how you can interpret the blatant horrific immorality in the OT as not being immoral. How you can twist that.
If indeed you do. Do you indeed see that the OT is full of horror?

It depends upon the context. There is really only two ways to interpret anything, right or wrong. When Jesus talks about haides and Gehenna as a fiery torment Xians think of them as the same because over time they adopted the pagan meaning of hell, but in fact haides and Gehenna are two different places. How do I know? By researching what the original meanings of these words are. How they were used metaphorically or literally.

As far as immorality, like I said, that is subjective. The ancient Israelites had a play of words for Satan, calling him the Lord of Shit (Dung) by turning Baalzebub into Beelzebub. To some Xians that is immoral, but the Israelites and early Christians didn't think it was. It was common for a young maiden such as Mary, being 14 or 15 years old to marry a man like Joseph who was probably about 32. Modern day Xians would think that is immoral.

The Bible is full of examples of immorality as an example of what is immoral and also examples of what today we might think of as immoral that they didn't think of as immoral back then.

Oh deary me. You don't seem to understand.
Obviously we CAN interpret it anyway we want. Literally we can interpret ANYTHING anyway we want. But what I am saying is if this is the case, and their are so many interpretations, how can you choose one particular non-literal interpretation over the other when there are so many?

I don't know if there are as many interpretations as you might think. How you know which one is right and which one is wrong is by first removing the pagan influence and then looking at the original language. It is really hard for some Xians as well as skeptics to accept that the 6 days of creation were not 6 literal days, but a study of the original Hebrew word yohm and the removal of the insistence that 'days' doesn't mean literal days - even when in fact the way the ancient Hebrew usage is not that different from our own, we still buy into that simple literal translation because that is what we have seen it as meaning.

My point is that its very inconsistent and made up. Its cherry-picking.

It may seem like cherry-picking to you but that is only because 1. You don't want to believe the Bible is anything but bullshit and 2. You are unfamiliar with the original language. You don't have to be a scholar in Hebrew and Greek you just have to explore the possibilities.

The only really consistent interpretation is a literal one.

A literal interpretation of the Bible is only consistent, that doesn't mean it is correct. If the Bible is figurative and literal just as we too express ourselves, then a literal interpretation may be a consistent but it would be wrong a great deal of the time as well. Its a cop out. You are dismissing the Bible out of ignorance and saying that it isn't worth your time to really bother with a correct interpretation.

Anyone CAN indeed interpret the bible or any book or anything in any way they want. But that doesn't mean they should. If they indeed want to be rational and logical and actually make any sense.[/qoute]

Exactly! Now you are getting it.

[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='4671' dateline='1228053519'] I haven't seen you twist the scriptures to make it more moral. I'm simply saying that how could you interpret God as not completely sick evil and immoral when you read the OT? How can you interpret him as good? How can you justify GOD's behavior in the OT without twisting it?

What reason do I have to do otherwise? And anyway who am I to judge morality? Least of all the morality of the Creator. Would I judge him as bad for making war on ancient people of Bible times in order to produce a nation from which the Messiah would come? Did the Israelites not always give the opportunity for those people to safely step aside? (Deuteronomy 20:10 - 15)

If you don't, if you indeed think like me that Yahweh of the OT is evil sick and twisted - then do you indeed believe in God but you are willing to admit that you think he's an evil sick and twisted God with backward morality?

Of course not! Your trouble is you are judging Jehovah from hearsay, without knowing him.

Or do you think God had some sort of 'moral makeover' by the NT. He suddenly got less evil.

No, that is nonsense. They are the same. It was a different time so to the uninformed it may seem that way but that isn't accurate.

Yeah but I don't mean interpretations of anything in the bible. I mean the supernatural interpretations. How can you logically believe in the supernatural because of the bible? Because that does NOT add up.

I keep asking for you to give me examples and you never do. I can't do this if I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Like I have said here a few times, if science could explain some of the supernatural or spiritual aspects of the Bible then you could buy into them? C'mon, be realistic. Because some man of science says it is true it is true as opposed to some preacher man saying it? And don't tell me that you would have evidence to see and that would make a big difference because you wouldn't. You would take it on hearsay of science which you think, even though you wouldn't admit it, is infallible. The same as the religious do the preacher man. Figure out the science of it on your own. Do the impossible.

You see what you keep getting at? That you don't believe the Bible. That you don't want to believe it. You don't have to argue that with me. Doest thou protest too much?

If the bible didn't contain anything supernatural, miraculous or special it wouldn't be a 'holy' book. We wouldn't even be having this discussion so of course I'm just talking about the supernatural claims.
I am an atheist you know. And you're not. We're not talking only about the non-supernatural or natural parts of the bible are we? Our disagreement is mostly over the supernatural.

I consider my mission to discuss and if possible teach anyone who wishes to learn about the Bible. That doesn't imply belief or conversion, just knowledge. A step in the right direction.

I am also here to learn about what others think who may not see things the way I do. If you want to dismiss the Bible because you can't wrap your mind around what you call 'the supernatural,' hey - that is your thing.

I dismiss the supernatural because there both isn't any logical reason to believe in the supernatural or any "God" of any kind. AND because its highly absurd, complex and highly improbable.
There almost certainly is no God. Why believe in him? And how could you if you don't, and until you do anyway? Belief is not a matter of policy.
And considering that my name on these forums is EvidenceVSFaith of course I'm going to talk about evidence again. Shouldn't I? Shouldn't anyone? You say it like its bad. Are you saying that there is indeed no evidence of God and any logical reason to believe in him but you do anyway?
Or do you think my name is EvF but I'm supporting faith? Of course I'm going to mention evidence.

I have been talking to people like you for 15 years. I used to be like you and I have NEVER seen one shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, against God or the Bible. Evidence is subjective and I would be surprised that if science ever did provide you with the evidence you ask for it would do anything to change your mind. It certainly isn't my responsibility to show it to you.

I do know that if I had been provided with scientific evidence I would question and distrust it before I would God's word because it has proven itself to me and I have more faith in God than I do men. Even men of science.

But truthfully . . . honestly . . . I don't think you actually know the difference between Evidence and Faith. I think that you confuse them and keep your own opinion with more of the latter and less of the former than you might think. I think that as you grow older that will either piss you off or wake you up.