[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If you mean worthless in the sense of defining our morals, or our understanding of the universe, then I would say that I stand behind that. I don't see how a text that attempts to explain our existence by leveraging the concept of a being whose basic existence cannot be demonstrated to begin with provides any value.

In the first place, this must present as a serious problem for you in your attempts to find any appreciation in practically any ancient literature whatsoever, since the default position for virtually every culture on the planet until probably 300 years ago was a theistic one. I would suggest that you re-evaluate the literature in concert with a recognition that "religion" was inseparable from life: these are not really "religious" texts or "religious" propaganda, given that religious presuppositions permeated every single facet of existence. It is a simple matter for us to compartmentalize and thus to dismiss religious claims on the grounds of their being religious. But this was quite literally unthinkable and bewildering for ancient thinkers (for that matter, "religion" was conceptualized very differently in the ancient world than in our own, which further complicates amateur attempts to evaluate it). The problem with your above statement is in the presumption that the biblical texts were apologetic religious compositions. They presumed a dominant worldview, and need to be understood in that respect—I had attempted to do just that in my own very "secular" reading of Genesis 1 above.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

As Carl Sagan once said...

Who said anything about god? My whole argument in this thread is about gaining an appreciation for the LITERATURE.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

...I see no harm in answering a question with "We don't know yet", but what I do see harm with is making up an answer for the sake of comfort, and closing the investigation. Religion promotes this lack of questioning, and it is something I see not only lacking value, but harmful in one's endeavour to gain a deeper understanding of our world.

How unbelievably presumptuous and patronizing of you to merely assume that the hundreds of millions of theistic or religious people in the world are engaging in some sort of existential placation, or that they are willfully dismissive of the pursuit of truth, knowledge and understanding by virtue of their faith. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and it is highly prejudicial for you to presume your own conclusions vetted from your private religious experience and to project them onto others. This is a straw man.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Similarly, a text which contains such a vast array of contradictions throughout its pages would not serve to be a very useful guide on any subject, nevermind one that is purported by many to provide an objective moral framework. You and I do agree on something, that morality is undoubtedly subjective.

First, I take issue with your presumption that value and function must proceed from consistency. If you are bothered by contradictions then I would suggest that you are reading the text wrong. Keep in mind that the Bible is not—nor was it ever intended to be—a single, coherent composition with a central theme or idea to govern it (Such an hermeneutical burden was imposed upon scripture in large part as a consequence of the invention of the codex). The Bible is a collection. I have many books on my bookshelves as I am sure you do yourself, and there are very few of them that appear "consistent" or "non-contradictory" with one another. What a dreadful bore that would be!

You seem to me to be reading the Bible precisely in the same manner that I have been attempting to rebut. I am not advocating for reading and using the Bible as an "objective moral framework"—how preposterous. What I am trying to suggest is reading the biblical literature in the context of its own world, and drawing from it applicable insight; reading the text through a sense of recognition that it might actually spark my own intuition and ingenuity. This most certainly does not mean checking one's intellect upon cracking its pages, and blindly asserting all of its ideas. But what it does require is a sensitive and occasionally even sympathetic hearing on the part of its recipients. Since when did developing an appreciation for literature require consent or agreement to an author's purported ideals?

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

BUT, if you mean the books have value simply as a collection of texts, then I suppose that depends on who is the one reading them. I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but my grandmother sure seemed to enjoy them when she was alive. I read the Bible and it only served to push me further away from the beliefs I was once indoctrinated with.

This is an horribly simplistic analogy. Most of the literature preserved in the Bible is the the high-water mark of intellectual and cultural achievement for the societies that produced them. Would you consider Harlequin comparably so for us in our time? I heartily hope not! We read great literature because it is great literature. The Bible contains an enormous wealth of great literature—admittedly some of it is better than other bits, but a sensitive and careful appraisal of biblical literature can never hurt. In fact, such past appreciations of biblical literature have themselves inspired and spawned a bounty of brilliant literature and art from Chaucer, to Milton, to Davinci, to Blake, to Tolstoy and beyond.