As I see it, it's not hard to tell that about 95% of the Torah shouldn't be taken literally. Why is that interpretation less valid than that of a "Fundamentalist" who believes in the Torah is 100% literal truth? The point is that if one acknowledges the subjectivity of one's own interpretation, one should respect that of others.
Like I said, if you reject the construct of an afterlife, it is just a bunch of savages killing each other and hardly noteworthy.
This is just not true. Most Buddhists, for example, utterly deny an afterlife, and yet most vehemently condemn "savages killing each other" and hold all life to be highly noteworthy. "Secular humanists" (Let me nip this in the bud -- I most assuredly am not of that persuasion. In groups of more than about two, they generally make my skin crawl.) who deny an afterlife state that we are ethically bound to doing good in this life because that's all there is.
Killing is only allowed in defense or at the direction of the state (war, criminal prosecution.) Unlike Muslims, Christians are forbidden to do evil that good may result.
You are mistaken -- Muslims are similarly enjoined, the actions of bad eggs and wackos notwithstanding.
Where the bible takes itself literally, I do. That doesn't mean I understand it or like it. You rejected the bible before you ever looked at it, so your opinion is pretty much worthless to someone who is seriously asking what to take literally.
Truth is. You may not like it, you can deny it, but even you know it. That you insist that anything you can't wrap your tiny human mind around must not be truth doesn't matter. The fact that people believed the earth was flat (from observation) didn't change its true nature one iota.
I see the apparent contradiction between the creation account and what I can see with my own eyes through a telescope. I am just keenly aware of the limitations of my own intellect and senses.
This is just not true. Most Buddhists, for example, utterly deny an afterlife, and yet most vehemently condemn "savages killing each other" and hold all life to be highly noteworthy. "Secular humanists" (Let me nip this in the bud -- I most assuredly am not of that persuasion. In groups of more than about two, they generally make my skin crawl.) who deny an afterlife state that we are ethically bound to doing good in this life because that's all there is.
You missed my point, which is that if you reject the message of the bible (which you obviously do), then this instance you brought up is just a bunch of superstitious savages killing each other's children. Why do you find it worthy of your time?
You are mistaken -- Muslims are similarly enjoined, the actions of bad eggs and wackos notwithstanding.
Yes, yes, the "religion of peace" thing again. Anyone who can say that hasn't spent much time listening to Muslim clerics. Even the moderate ones who say "don't kill westerners" discourage it only because it is inconvenient for Islam, not because it is inherently wrong. The reject terrorism not for its horrific evil, but because it is poor strategy. (Actually, it has been a very good strategy prior to 9/11 as almost every western leader has talked tough only to capitulate quietly off-camera.)