You made a lot of interesting points, my answers unfortunately canīt be simple and short.

Quote:


All the more evidence for the fact that the content of the bible isn't divine in origin at all.




Why? I just acknowledged something, that every historic and archaeologist will tell you too: that there was an evolution in human cultures. Evolution means: a gradual change.
It is only logical, to assume, that priests and prophets had to take into account the existing moral framework of a REAL human society in a REAL time at least to some extent.
You canīt change everything immediately , like in a fairytale, you can only work for gradual improvements.

A prophet is like a link between the relative worldly world and the absolute divine world.

He has to take into account both, the real situation and the absolute divine messages, that he receives.

Now this doesnīt mean, that he becomes a hypocrite, who compromises on the divine message and tells the people, what they want to hear. The prophets, that are mentioned in the Bible were often not really popular at their time, for the reason, that they told people the inconvenient truth.

Quote:


It's also pretty evident that the content has evolved and changed over time too, which is somewhat ironic in a way.




It is only realistic and logical. The Bible has a lot of different authors, who lived at different times, had different functions.

It is very important to keep in mind the historic context and at least try to see the stories through the eyes of the people who lived at ancient times.

King David for example had very different responsibilities than Jesus. God, at king Davids time was more or less accepted as a special God of Israel, the other tribes had their own Gods or idols.

But the universalist idea, that God is the God of everyone, who believes in him or even the God of all mankind was already mentioned in the story of Abraham.

Quote:


Besides, when I'm thinking about it, what's divine for cultures from the past is not what we think of as divine in most cases. For example the Faraos of Egypt, the Emperor of China, Emperor of Japan and also Kings in certain other countries once were believed to be real Gods. I really think that whole concept has simply changed to something more abstract.




Itīs certainly linked. The concept of an abstract, invisible monotheistic God just does acknowledge, that nothing in this world is perfect, especially politicians sometimes turn out to be dumb and evil, so it doesnīt make sense to worship them.

Quote:


The bible seems to have been written using a clever psychological formula which leaves just enough room for discussion for it to be either 'always right because of the vagueness and room for different interpretations' or 'God did it and you can't prove he did not, thus we're still right'.




I see it as a variety of attempts to understand the most difficult thing, that one can imagine. These attempts are described in the Bible and other religious books.

These attempts still continue.

If you take a simple all-or-nothing or true-false approach like in programming, the living God will always remain a mystery.

But would we reject modern medicine, just because the methods of some doctors in ancient time turned out to be wrong or even dangerous to health?

Quote:


My point is, the bible is full of these kind of psychological and philosophical traps, but far less obvious than the stone example and off course in favor of God instead of against it.




It is an attempt to understand everything, also the tragic stuff, the injustice ...
Of course the basic message is: if youīre a good guy and worship God, everything will be fine, but the Bible is filled with very serious reflections.
Just look at the story of Job for example, there is a "happy end", but it doesnīt sound very credible, more like the sugar, that you give to the bitter medicine.
I agree with Nitro, when he said, that our sense of justice is different than Gods sense of justice.
Usually, simply because we are selfish or tribalists, but God is the God of the "other" too and I think sometimes He has to restore the balance, if human beings get it (once again) terribly wrong.

Quote:


You're making assumptions based upon assumptions, in my book that's not the right way of using logic when it comes to truth.




You need everything, logical thinking - like in philosophy - is important, but just a part of it.
Wisdom, associative thinking and a general awareness, based on experience is more important.
The most basic and important thing is: Love in a spiritual sense.
This is the basic mystic experience: that you feel linked and connected with everything and everyone, that you become aware of the beauty and the infinite value of life ...

And about the "assumptions based upon assumptions" aspect: itīs called "inner logic"

But concerning pure logic: Evil can appear very logical too.
Martin Heidegger for example, a very smart German philosopher was for some time attracted by the Nazi ideology.

Quote:


Who knows, maybe God is a little child in terms of physical shape and intelligence?




This is, how the mystics and artists might experience Him.

Moments of inspiration, which are so important for artists have nothing to do with logic or consciousness, but they have very much to do with awareness, being open, being open also for something crazy, something new ...

The mystic condition is very similar to this.

I mean, some people imagine a "message of God" still as something, where God appears in a thunderstorm with lots of lightnings, and in the end a stone falls from the sky with the ten commandments.
Such descriptions are there for the worldly minded, and for those, who need special FX in order to be impressed. But in a metaphorical sense, they are often true.
One should keep in mind, that our language was not so abstract in ancient times, the people simply had no words for complicated psychological or spiritual stuff and they also wanted, that normal people could understand them.

Somewhere in the Bible Jesus also says something like this and a famous quote by Picasso comes to my mind:

"When I was a child, I could draw like Raphael, but it took me a lifetime to learn to draw like a child."

Henri Matisse, another painter, put it like this: "Creation begins with vision. The artist has to look at everything as though seeing it for the first time, like a child".

I think, the soul is in many ways, what we start with (spiritually), then we learn to separate and define ourselves, develop an "Ego", cosciousness, attitudes, opinions, theories ...

Mystics and prophets believe, that opinions and most theories and ideologies are more or less reflections of worldly desires or intellectual games and in order to become aware of the absolute, divine truth one needs a mystic experience, which then is like an absolute "point of reference".