Note, I did not say that the thread is full of people with nothing to contribute. I specifically said that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, which is an objective fact. With that said, here is your list of mindless zealots, with and without things to contribute:

@mizal @hetero_malk @Axxius @Chris113022 @DBNB

If you're not interested in discussion, you're free to ignore the thread rather than making inane remarks. But I can see that this thread is filled with mindless zealots who can't tolerate anyone who doesn't mindlessly agree with everything God does, so further discussion seems quite pointless. In any case, I have said my piece.

But I dunno what I'm really saying this for anymore

Neither do I. As far as I can tell, nothing you have written contradicts anything that I have said. Yes, God has different priorities for different peoples living in different times. I have acknowledged this on numerous occasions. Just because parts of the Bible are no longer relevant to modern life doesn't mean God changes his mind on a dime, not that I think that's what you're suggesting. In fact, I'm not sure what your point is in that regard. Unless God sends down another prophet, there's no reason to believe his commands for us have changed. Yes, there are concepts that may be impossible to express in human languages, and that may leave parts of the Bible up for interpretation. However, most parts of the Bible are quite clear in their meaning, and in such cases, what is written should be held sacrosanct. For instance, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are almost entirely simple narration of events and God’s judgment and involvement in said events, and we should hold those to be the true course of said events if we are to believe that scripture is God-breathed.

I recognize that scripture is a product of the culture that wrote it. It's been repeated ad infinitum by others in this thread. However, it is also and more importantly the word of God, and nothing in your post contradicts that. In fact, you state that "the bible contains only the sharpest points, rendered loosely by God, with the abstraction necessary to make sense to a society alien to its descendants", so you agree that, at the end of the day, the words of the Bible are rendered by God. Just because God rendered those words to fit the circumstances of the people they were directed at doesn't stop them from being the words of God.

God commanding different things at different times for different peoples is not evidence that the Bible was written by people based on their own interpretations. In fact, it is stated in 2 Peter 1, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Islam is not just a cultural reinterpretation of Christianity. Muslims believe that God gave them new commandments through a new prophet. If you believe that those commandments were merely human interpretations made to suit their own cultural sensitivites, you would be decried as a heretic by any true Muslim. The scripture, in all cases, claims to be the word of God, not the interpretation of man. If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't believe anything else written by the authors.

What counts as scripture obviously depends on your religion, but whatever it is, you should believe that your scripture is God-breathed since that's what it claims to be. If you believe that your holy book is written by some guy who lied about being inspired by God to write it, then what's to say the entire thing isn't made up? It's propaganda either way since we know what God wants us to know in the Bible whether it's through his breath or through his followers'. I personally don't like throwing God's omnipotence out the window since it throws too much of scripture into question and leaves everything a matter of speculation, in which case you're back to square one from a theological perspective. Putting God's benevolence into question leaves the Bible's narrative largely intact except for the descriptions of God's benevolence, which can be attributed as propaganda.

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't assume that God is all-powerful if we take your stance that God is megalomaniacal. It could well be that God used his power to push Lucifer to rebel in order to have an antagonist that would make his righteousness shine more brightly by comparison. After all, God can hardly show how righteous he is without evil in the world. He does this often enough in the Scripture, where it says God "hardened" so-and-so's heart in order to make them do evil. For instance, in Exodus 7:3, God says, "But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." For context, he is telling Moses to reason with Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, but God will make sure Pharaoh doesn't listen to reason. Other instances where God hardens the heart of Israel's enemies explicitly in order to show his own power include Deuteronomy 2:30 and Joshua 11:20.

The Bible explicitly claims that its authors wrote it while under God's influence, so it's definitely written from a pro-God perspective, which by definition makes it propaganda. The question is whether or not it is truthful propaganda, and that is a matter of faith. However, what I wrote about God visiting the iniquity of the father up to the third and fourth generation is a direct quote of Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, and I believe a few other places, so this is what God wants you to know about him. I am aware that Ezekiel later claims that this is no longer true in Ezekiel 18:20.

Looks interesting. I’ll give it a read some time.

Haha, that’s pretty funny. Although, in the case of the flood, the Bible claims that everyone who was killed was irredeemably wicked, and in the case of children as shown in your image or even newborns, God visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation, so as long as they had sinful parents, grandparents, great grandparents, or great great grandparents, it’s okay. I guess that also answers my question about how it was okay for God to sacrifice David’s child for David’s iniquities. It’s good and righteous as long as God does the sacrificing. Going back to the comparison, David’s victims were no more wicked than him, and in the case of Uriah, he is not killed for any iniquities at all but to cover up David’s own wickedness.

I know that everyone is tired of my rants against David, but this must be truly the cherry on top.

“21 The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.

22 For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God.

23 For all his judgments were before me: and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them.

24 I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity.

25 Therefore the Lord hath recompensed me according to my righteousness; according to my cleanness in his eye sight.”

(2 Samuel 22)

This is truly rich coming from one of the most evil men I have read about in the Bible thus far, an adulterer and repeated murderer. Now he refuses to even acknowledge his iniquities and claims to be a righteous man with clean hands. Such utter bullshit.