1 - II or "Tell me who to smite, and they shall be smoten"

One of the things I was thinking of one day is what type of book the bible is - ie, where it would go under the Dewey Decimal system if there was no 'religious texts' section.......the 200s, as I recall. I think most people, assuming it is actually a non-fiction text, would probably class it as an historical document of some sort...along with books on war and the industrial revolution, etc.
But, really, the bible is a book about God - it is thus a biography. Just as most biographies are simply a collection of stories involving the subject, so the bible is too.
However, we can go further than that - the bible is, in fact, an autobiography. It is a book about God, written by God. Just as if, say, Stephen Hawking was writing his autobiography he'd need another person or that computer thing to help him, so God, because He:

1. is too omnipotent to interact with the human world in such a tangible way, and, more importantly
2. He likes humans to be involved with Him

got humans to be His scribes. A side point.

The main point is that God seems to enjoy (for a reason I am yet to determine) the admiration, the company, nay, even the potential of humans. The closest I can liken it to is the desire a child has for his lego people to start walking and talking - with the primary difference being that that child's desire ultimately boils down to a desire for control - a desire to be god. Which is essentially pride or, at least, selfish ambition. Whearas God's desire is purely for our benefit - that we were created to walk with God as a close and personal friend. Unforunately, sin destroyed that relationship - but that issue is raised later.

I think most people's problem with a personal God is that they see it as pride for someone to suggest that they know their Creator, and they see it as pointless for an omiscient Being to want to interact with His creation. Thus, their only conclusion is that God must be behind the scenes and pulling the strings - involving us poor unwilling pawns in some sort of sick game; a life size game of chess against the devil. Hence the philosophy of dualism, which seems extremely popular with free-thinking new age spirtulaists - their way, I guess, of balancing the beauty of nature with the ugliness of civilisation.

I find it extremely interesting that the genesis view of creation is one of the very few creation stories I have read or vaguely heard about that places the blame fair and square upon the shoulders of us. Sure - Adam and Eve are used as scapegoats; but I doubt many Christians, or indeed people in general who are honest with themselves see vast differences in the orginal two and themselves. Indeed, most people's objection is 'all they did was eat an apple'. A discerning reader would easily note that the serpent, while accountable, is certainly not the sole perpetrator. He merely suggests - he, as he will do from then on to the rest of us, tempts. Contrast this with, say, the equivalent scenario in the - I believe - Greek; Pandora's Box. Although Pandora herself blatantly succombs to temptation - softened to 'curiosity' - sin enters the world not via man's response to temptation but as a disease - which is offset by the 'friendly bacteria'; here named 'hope'. Thus, we can freely blame Pandora for releasing these horrors, and, fundamentally more important, blame the gods for creating such a terror in the first place. The greatest accusation that can be aimed at God in this respect is for allowing Lucifer to continue to exist after his fall from heaven - but would that really have solved everything? People often have a problem with 'God of love' vs 'problematic world' - I am thus forced to address the problem of evil in my next post.