Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Delicate]

I'll respond to this claim in lieu of many others, because it seems like the most substantive response managed by an atheist.

I don't think the exact nature of hell is anything near the most important claim in Christianity. I'll grant it might be the most arresting to those given to superficial theatrical portrayals of concepts- hell looks pretty dramatic. 

But it's not important. Hell doesn't figure as a motivator for Christian belief (people don't become Christians because they want to avoid hell, despite the misconceptions atheists have). Nonbelief is not motivated by hell (most people reject Christianity on the claim that they don't think God exists). And the primary distinction you draw, between fire and brimstone and "separation from God" can and are, in my view, different descriptive perspectives of the same thing, just as one might use different terms to refer to the same thing.

So obviously this particular distinction is exaggerated beyond reason. And I can bet if you look closely, other distinctions are likewise easily collapsible.

This whole thing about denominational differences is far bigger in the eyes on atheists than it is in reality.

You know, Delicate, that's actually not a bad post. It has a few issues, though, in that you seem not to recognize that most of us are ex-Christians and have seen the religion from both sides of the fence. Also, you seem not to recognize that the other versions of Christianity we are told from the mouths of the Christians themselves are counter to the version of Christianity you allow yourself to see, based on your own personal experiences in the Christian social club. So you stereotype us atheist as "misunderstanding", when in fact we understand a broader version than you do because we listen more.

You're quite right that Hell doesn't figure as a motivator for most Christians to become "saved". Hell is primarily a motivator for people who doubt the faith to fear leaving; it also primarily plays as a motivating factor for evangelism, since the question is "now that you're going to heaven, do you really want your friends/relatives/loved ones to go to hell?" In that respect, the "separation from God" vs brimstone descriptions are trivial; however, that's not the context in which we were discussing them. 

The context was that any Being which creates a place of torture (regardless of the nature of that place of torture) to which it consigns any who do not worship it, when it is clearly within the power of this Being to allow those people to just die normally, is an immoral being. In other words, the story most Christians tell us of their God, in an attempt to warn us about the penalty for not accepting the salvation story, shows us that this God you claim is contrary to our own moral code-- we would consider this Being demonic, rather than holy, under your definition-set. Whether or not this hell factor is motivating for Christians is a red herring.

The demoninational difference is bigger in our eyes than yours because we have it pushed in our face constantly, in conversations with "Christians Who Are Not Username Delicate", and so we know those differences are deeper and more common than it probably seems to you from inside the circle of Christians with whom you associate in reality. In other words, from your point of view, they are mere discussion-points, perhaps worthy of kicking around a dinner table over beers (or sodas, if you're the anti-alcohol type of Christian fundamentalist, like my folks) to wonder aloud why the Methodists or Lutherans have the weird ideas they do about theology... 

To us, that "weird theology" is likely to be the reason the next Christian we talk to after you  tells us we "don't really understand Christianity because you're just atheists". Understanding those differences in theology is critical to understanding all of Christianity, not just the local variants (or common variants, even) with which we happen to be dealing, right at that moment.

There's a slightly larger issue influencing many of the smaller issues we're discussing, and I appreciate you thinking hard about this, because your reflections are worth reading.

The larger issue I'll call the "hyperdiversity fallacy". People given to this fallacy believe that Christianity, unqualified, is enormously diverse and variegated. Like totally, so diverse, bro!

This is usually the result of defining Christianity via contemporary cultural Christian Americana. The focus here is not on the claims of religion, but on the cultural expressions of religion. I think that's a mistake.  It's a mistake because the diversity of Christian religious (cultural) expression doesn't rule out the uniformity (or truth) of Christian theology.

So I think this is what intellectually rigorous atheism needs to aim for: An analysis and critique of Christian claims, not the cultures that Christians are a part of. If you can disprove Christian claims, you've refuted Christianity.

And I'm glad you're going that route by questioning the moral character of God in creating hell. I mean, I think you're wrong there, but at least you're not trying to judge the truth of a claim by the behavior of its proponents. 

I can't imagine judging the field of medicine by the actions of Mengele or Gosnell.