How is your dad doing, btw?

Not well, I'm afraid. We thought he was much better Tuesday night, but yesterday he was right back to the scary dark mood and worry about disaster scenarios every waking moment. I'm hoping the anti-depressant starts kicking in consistently soon.

What is it that convinces you this God is not a psychopathic warlord?

Largely the cultural context of the original readers and writers. Again and again what seems ruthless to us was merciful to them.

That and the fact that hyperbole was used to communicate the bigness or seriousness of things.

Why can't a person read the Bible as the literal word of God while placing it in the relevant context?

Well, I think that we can expect a bit more cultural transcendence from an all knowing and eternal creator than we would from an ordinary person. Anyway the cultural argument that literal believers generally make can be reduced to "Ok, that was a really bad thing that God did but people back then were twice as bad, so it really was a significant improvement." I expect more from my supreme beings.

That's hard, Matt. My grandfather is going through some of the same thing, except he just sleeps all of the time. They thought it might be depression, but when they put him on medication, my grandmother took him off of it, without consulting the doctors. Oy.

Matt, I'm sorry. Crossing my fingers that the meds kick in soon!

As amusing and even informative as it is to read the Bible simply as text, as a story, that doesn't provide an accurate understanding of it. It can't be understood outside of its cultural parameters.

But in saying this you set yourself apart from those who read the Bible as the literal word of God.

A person can understand the cultural parameters of when the Bible was written and also believe it is the literal word of God. Just because someone believes the Bible literally doesn't mean they think it was written in some kind of vacuum. In fact, several people I know who believe the Bible literally also believe that it's very important to understand the historical and cultural context of the Bible, otherwise some of the actions don't make sense and seem random.

Does the parable actually say that the prodigal's father split the inheritance after the return?

No, at least not in the King James.

I can view things in their cultural/historical background and still think they're loony ravings. I mean, there's DeSade. Also there's Daniel.

I think I mentioned Ezekiel earlier -- that's where God says he'd have destroyed the Israelites except that doing so would have made him look bad to the heathens. Which makes his forgiveness look a little less munificent.

If we view the Bible as the struggle of a people to grasp and understand the idea of God, then of course it becomes a rich and spiritually exciting journey.

Well, I don't so much agree with that, either.

In fact, several people I know who believe the Bible literally also believe that it's very important to understand the historical and cultural context of the Bible, otherwise some of the actions don't make sense and seem random.

One of these days God should just go, "You know, I really need to get a new edition of the Bible out there. Let's see - who can I divinely inspire?"

Why can't a person read the Bible as the literal word of God while placing it in the relevant context?

Well, I think that we can expect a bit more cultural transcendence from an all knowing and eternal creator than we would from an ordinary person.

But the Bible was written for ordinary persons. It had to be written in a way that would make sense to the readers of a given time and place. God's truths are free of context, you betcha. But the medium through which they're delivered -- the Bible -- is inescapably tied to a culture and historical time.

Anyway the cultural argument that literal believers generally make can be reduced to "Ok, that was a really bad thing that God did but people back then were twice as bad, so it really was a significant improvement." I expect more from my supreme beings.

But you're basing your image of a supreme being on the interpretation that other people are using. Like that game of "telephone," where the message that gets passed along ends up being very different from what the first person said.

I didn't make my mind up about God based on others' opinions of him; I read the Bible. And I read it in context, both historical/cultural AND in terms of language.

God's nature in the OT -- which is exactly the same as his nature in the NT -- is both merciful *and* just. We like to focus on the merciful aspect, but there's more to God than hugs and puppies. Because he's a just God, he punishes those who deserve it. If he didn't, *that* would make him a sadistic bastard.

So far as Jews and the Pentateuch, there has been a tradition of commentary for millenia and possibly from the beginning.

Yes, Judaism has a rich and evolving history of struggling with these issues and, of course, it recognizes that these stories apply to a particular time and a particular people. The same can not be said for fundamentalist Christians.

You never see Tele-Rabbis condemning Lutheran kids in North Dakota for eating cheeseburgers. Cheeseburgers have to do with their way of worshiping God. But fundamentalist Christians take the Bible as universal truth and have no qualms about applying it outside a cultural context.