Sven

If it's open for interpretation, than it's relative, not absolute (what you claimed above).

Sorry, doesn't this question presuppose that god indeed make everyone this way?

This still does not answer my question why we even need the bible. As I said, the Lord of the Rings made me think more about killing than the bible.

You are equivocating between "attacking" and "hating". Which simply are not the same.
Attacking someone is right in some cases.
Hating someone may be "right" in some cases - but certainly in much less cases.

Chaupoline

The interpretation of the Bible comes from a better understanding of the world. If God says don't touch fire. The literal translation would be to stay away from fire. The interpretive translation from an understanding of fire would be that we should not touch fire because it will burn us, but we can use it to help us as long as we are careful.

There is always a reason, for everything that God says.

The Bible documents what is Absolute Truth.

Attacking is an action and hating is a motivation. It is correct to oppose the school board member based upon the school board member's deed.

Avatar

:rolling:

If that's the case. the God is a psychopathic monster that deserves extermination, not worship.

BadBadBad

Right. Once you understand the world better and realize the Earth was not created in 6 days and dead men can't come back to life, it is certainly much easier to interpret the Bible.

James T

Taking this position seems to be almost identical to making up your own mind without need to reference the bible.

Gunnaheave

Just taking a shot at answering the OP.

Because error is intrinsically more interesting that accuracy. An accurate claim matches reality, no tension, no drama, ...it makes for a boring story. But with error you get reality and a different description altogether. That's already more to think about than accuracy, but when you add the tension between the description and the reality, you get the elements of a genuine plot line. That's why people are often more interested in the things they don't believe than the things they do believe. Now add to this the fact that the errors of Christianity are tied to substantial features of Western society and you have a drama with a morale to the story. All the reason we migt ever need to discuss this "God" some people believe in.

keitht

Not a good example. If you do a little research you'll learn that most of the people McCarthy accussed were communists, and the Soviets were not interested in being our friends. Stalin killed the same as Hitler.

Keith

JPD

Understanding the world means that there is no need to refer to the bible. Prior to the bible, people didn't know that fire burned?

But the bible is full of the words of humans who claim to have communicated with "God". Apparently, you don't seem to have noticed the problem with verifying any of this.

Mary, by virgin birth, gave birth to a boy (did "God" provide the Y chromosome?). Adam & Eve had two sons and started the human race (actually that could be true but it doesn't bear thinking about. 'Darnit Bobby now you and mother will have to get married'), woman was created from a rib, and so on. Do you want "the truth" or "the truth"?

Chaupoline

Exactly, it is almost identical. The Bible is a hint book and not a cheat book. In Leviticus, it is stated that incest is a sexual perversion, and then it goes on about punishing the perverts. It doesn't exactly state why they are, just that they are. It doesn't mention that incest leads to complications of future children sired. It just states that it is wrong.

King Rat

This comment:
...and this comment:

...are incompatible.