"I think that it is sick to think that a vengeful, blood-thirsty and cruel God has ever existed, and that he's the God of the New Testament. I deeply think that any Christian who dares think that our God is able to kill someone (through floods, earthquakes, whatever) doesn't deserve to remain Christian and should become an Atheist. I deeply think that Genesis, Exodus and some other books like Joshua are just as legendary as the Iliad and the Odyssey. In other word it is twisted and irrational to think that the tale of Creation, of the flood are real."
I find it interesting that many scientists totally discount religion (and certainly the denial of evolutionary theory), and that many Christians--certainly "Fundamentalist" ones--deny much of scientific reality. Yet, I would propose that BOTH groups are missing the point. Scripture does not represent/ report "N.Y.Times" reality." By its very nature, it is poetic-allegorical, not factual. And, in some respects...to the extent that it is uplifting and "speaks to the human heart" it probably has legitimacy or merit. In its own realm is valuable. Would it be valuable when I am replacing the spark plugs of my car or doing my office books? Probably not. On the other hand, when I look for inspiration, I may not find it in a "double-entry" bookkeeping text or an auto manual (or a medical textbook). Each kind of communication (and world-view) has its place..in its own distinctive realm.
Now, more on the religious/scriptural side of things. 'Tis critical, seems to me, to comprehend that scripture is NOT literally the "Word of God." It is the writing, the interpretation of prophets--human beings--through the ages, and through various traditions. What's more, these human beings frequently were people with the usual human failings, strong convictions, and even psychopathology. Anyone who insists that these failings have had no effect--imbued or imposed no coloring--upon scriptural content need to reconsider (and perhaps need to have their collective heads examined).
At the very least...if we assume that there is some kind of (undefined) fundamental cosmic power or, let us say, "Ground of Being," how may we be assured that the prophet or commentator has accurately experienced and recorded this reality? Is language even CAPABLE of expressing such things? It truly gets worse than this..because in some OT passages (Koranic ones too!), we have the representation of a truly difficult, patriarchal deity...jealous, vengeful, arbitrary, frequently violent without provocation, in a word, a Middle Eastern potentate warlord type god, who neglects to wipe his feet as he enters the door, and thinks nothing of ordering the destruction of a city (or immolation of an entire world!), vanquishment or enslavement of a people or the stoning of a wayward spouse or smart-alecky child.
Please allow me to add that the passage in the OT which alludes to the idea that man was "made in the image and likeness of God." We all know (unless you have been sleeping under a rock for all your life) that psychopathology and other varieties of "twistedness" have run rampant across the planet, through history...in the form of practically neverending wars, pogroms, persecution and colonialism (and, yes, cut-throat "predatory capitalism"). If this is the case...and you happen to recall the rules taught in your one Logic class many years ago...one may safely conclude that YHWH (or however you choose to call Him) is certifiably insane. Please meditate on this. I believe I am on safe ground in my observation. And, please don't immediately try to qualify that passage by saying, "well, what the passage REALLY means is..." I fear you would have to resort to "special pleading" to make your case. If you accept the OT as literally true, you must admit that the world is ruled by a violent, mischief-filled, bipolar disorder inflicted, nutcase of a god who occasionally deigns to take us "to his breast" and shower goodies upon us…but, all too frequently, allows many forms of violence, invalidation, and pestilence to run rampant across the planet.
Now, Christianity presents some particular--and additional--problems. First, it was made the official Roman Empire religion during the reign of the emperor Constantine (who, btw, never became a Christian until he lay on his deathbed). This alone, must give one pause, nicht war?
Next, this tradition, while incessantly railing against other traditions (and frequently banishing or murdering its competitors), borrowed and incorporated great masses of "Pagan" content, including the concept of the "Trinity," the idea of purification by blood, the faith and hope of new life and purification (or "justification") based on the sacrifice of a divinity.
Then, we have the fact of significant contradictions in the Bible, and evidence that scribes and Church fathers altered passages--through the centuries--in service to their beliefs and agenda (on top of the fact that the Evangelists penned their "gospels" many years after JC dwelled on Planet Earth..if he ever actually existed as one individual, instead of as a representative of a general Middle Eastern trend). Of course, there are also problems with "John's" having elevated Jesus to the level of the "Logos" from Neo-Platonism (when there already was considerable confusion about this man's identity...prophet, Jewish king, messiah, "Son of Man" or "Suffering Servant"). I might add that Jesus never claimed personal divinity, but--when asked--actually denied this station!!
Next is the problem of a particular wing of the Christian church, led by Paul, someone who never met the historical Jesus, differed radically in theology from the Jerusalem church, and had a peculiarly Greek view of the universe and Christianity (notwithstanding his nominal status as Jew), and a distinctly pessimistic view of man's state in the cosmos.
Finally, figures like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli fashioned a Christianity which even further emphasizes the negative and morose aspects of the religious tradition. I happen to feel all right about a very lightly shouldered version of Christianity which emphasizes how we are all "children of the Living God," and which reflects the values of the "Sermon on the Mount." But anything in the way of doctrine-dogma which departs from that pretty much "gives me the willies!!" And, PLEASE, don't insist on the absolute and literal inerrancy of the Bible. That kind of unsophisticated "True Believer" rant is only suitable for young, credulous children and mental midgets. What did Paul say along these lines? "When I was a child, I thought as a child..." Yep, and he seemed to never recover from that very limited atavistic scheme and mode of mental functioning.
