But this just again misses the point. It's not that I'm evasive at all. You're just not following the argument or you're choosing not to. If I were to spill out massive amounts of theology (which I will for the sake of argument), am I really going to be interested in your cursory take of it, and do you not see that your take on it would be entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether I subjectively find value in what I cited? That is, the question is not whether it passes muster for you, but you've got the impossible task of convincing me that it's subjectively valueless to me despite my insistence otherwise — Hanover

This quote above is imo, an admission that your current theistic viewpoints are completely petrified/ossified. That's fine by me. I agree that no matter what logical or rational counter points I offer you, you will dismiss them in automode, before they even land or can impact any memory of skepticism you once had.
If your critical thinking can no longer assault your theism then yes, you are fully cooked.
Debating you on the area then, is only of value to any readers, of the exchange who may be in danger of theistically ossifying as you seem to have. That possibility alone is worth my effort and my attempt.

By analogy, can you not see the folly in trying to convince me I'm not actually inspired by the sunrise? That you may just see the cycles of time and planetary movement isn't relevant to me. — Hanover

Can you calm your sense of your own primary importance for a second or two, and realise YOU were never my main target in this exchange/this forum/ this thread or this life?

But, since you asked, let's look at Leviticus 19:16. This sets off the prohibition of not being a talebearer among your people, which, at first glance appears to simply be a simple proscription against gossip. Let's turn though to the Chofetz Chaim, the seminal volume on Leviticus 19:16 and see what it has to say. But, let's jump ahead to Chapter 10 for the hell of it, and see when such speech is permissible. Sometimes it's permissible you say? Yes, read on: https://torah.org/learning/halashon-chapter10/

Take a look at that and outline it for me. Your task isn't to show me where it's not valid or where the analysis comes short, but it's to explain to me why it's of no significance in my life, even if I insist that it is. — Hanover

Now that's far more interesting! However, I think you are being rather arrogant with your preamble about what you have dictated 'my task as,' but I will analyse your offering, and respond asap.

I read Leviticus 19:16 and I found out a little about Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan and scanned some of the content from his book on the link you posted.
So we basically have 'what to do, if ....... happens and what do to next depending on the outcome of this suggested action or that suggested action. Do's and dont's, based on various circumstances a person might encounter when dealing with a neighbour or someone in your immediate community.

I have so many questions for you that have nothing to do with the content of the text you offered or whether or not, I find it fit for purpose. We can discuss my opinion of it as moral guidance if you wish, but first.
Moses is supposed to have personally wrote Leviticus but I assign high credence to the proposal that Moses never existed. So have you looked at evidence from folks such as Dr Richard Carrier? and a list of other highly qualified biblical scholars who are convinced Moses never existed and neither did the biblical Jesus Christ.

Could a tribe of humans that have never heard of judaism or any other human religion. A tribe that has had no communication with the 'outside world.' But they have been a tribe for many centuries and they have experience of the idea of having, and dealing with, neighbours. Do you think they could come up with a list of do's and don'ts to advise their new generations about how to best deal fairly with neighbours and what is and is not acceptable behaviour when dealing with neighbours?
Why are you convinced only a god can advise you on such matters via an interpreter or his/her/hesh writings?
How do you know Rabbi Kagan did not make many errors when he was interpreting what his god wanted you to do when dealing with neighbours?
Why does your god not just tell you how to deal with neighbours directly?
If we took all mention of theism from Mr Kagans old book and removed such poorly conceived, almost 'silly' sentences and titles such as:
3. Speakers with the same sins cannot speak
All this applies if the witness is a better person than the transgressor. If, however, the witness is just as bad a sinner, sick with the same immoral behavior, it is forbidden to publicize the incident.
Could almost any group of secular humanists come up with at least as good as a set of guidelines, for dealing with gossip and neighbours in general. Why do you need 'god said this?' When you have no evidence that your god exists and it remains divinely hidden to you.
Why is it not communicating with you directly?

We can read religious texts as having metaphors, allegories, parables, poetry, creative storytelling/speculation, (apparent) fantastic truth claims, everyday chit-chat, rumors and hearsay, references to historical events and real places, folklore, myths, narratives adapted from (other) myths, rules/commands, ..., perhaps authored by and for people of their times and places (geo-historical context).

So, maybe coherence is not really to be expected (unlike rigorous philosophical texts). Passages are often ambiguous or vague enough to allow for any number of readings.

In that respect, it is then up to readers to extract lessons, wisdom, value, etc.

I'm guessing moderate religious readers often have sentiments along those lines, though different from what you hear in temples, churches, mosques, synagogues, whatever clubs, by altars, from tv evangelists, adhan announced by muezzin from minarets. I've also come across a lot of not-so-moderate readers.

Some such texts have become trendsetters and embedded as cultural traditions. Someone, can't remember who, said something like "History is our greatest teacher". Too much adherence/belief or too much denying is dogmatism alike?

Theism isn't just one thing. The elaborate religions/faiths have those sumptuous texts, rituals, commands/rules, fate designations, gods/God being various narrated (individuated) characters, adherents claiming divine intervention/participation, with distinct public aspects, mutual incompatibilities, etc. At first, these could be contrasted by some spiritual traditions. Further on, they could be contrasted by unassuming nondescript deism, panpsychism, Platonism, simulation / virtual world hypotheses, Zhuangzian butterflies, or even just "the unknown", heading firmly into metaphysics. Probably not hard to find people leaning towards atheism with respect to the elaborate religions, and agnosticism (or apathy for that matter) towards whatever in the latter categories. Anyway, without making the distinction, things like dogmatism (along with a/theism, agnosticism) become muddled.

Here is a relevant modern lesson gleaned by an atheist from Saint Paul.

... there exists a despicable complicity between the globalized logic
of capital and French identitarian fanaticism.

What is being constructed before our very eyes is the communita-
rization of the public sphere, the renunciation of the laws transcendent
neutrality. The State is supposed to assure itself primarily and perma¬
nently of the genealogically, religiously, and racially verifiable identity of
those for whom it is responsible. It is required to define two, perhaps
even three, distinct regions of the law, according to whether the latter are
truly French, integrated or integratable foreigners, or finally foreigners
who are declared to be unintegrated, or even unintegratable. The law
thereby falls under the control of a “national” model devoid of any real
principle, unless it be that of the persecutions it initiates. Abandoning all
universal principle, identitarian verification—which is never anything
but police monitoring—comes to take precedence over the definition or
application of the law. This means that, just as under Petain, when min¬
isters saw nothing wrong in surreptitiously defining the Jew as prototype
of the non-French, all legislation would be accompanied by the required
identitarian protocols, and subsets of the population would come to be
defined each time by their special status . This arrangement is taking its
course, as successive governments each bring to it their own special
touch. We are dealing with a rampant “Petainization” of the State.

How clearly Pauls statement rings out under these conditions! A
genuinely stupefying statement when one knows the rules of the ancient
world: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3.28)! And how appropriate, for
we who will unproblematically replace God by this or that truth, and
Good by the service this truth requires, the maxim “Glory, honor, and
peace for every one that does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2.10).

https://archive.org/stream/BADIOUSaintPaulTheFoundationOfUniversalism/BADIOU%20-%20%20Saint%20Paul%20The%20Foundation%20of%20Universalism_djvu.txt

Link repeated from @Paine back on page 3, who seems to be about the only person to have noticed that the thread is primarily about atheists' understanding of religion, or the lack thereof.

Link repeated from Paine back on page 3, who seems to be about the only person to have noticed that the thread is primarily about atheists' understanding of religion, or the lack thereof. — unenlightened

Reading comprehension tends to go out the window when some types of atheists are triggered.

I think I'm still alright with using the term, while accepting that it's necessarily vague -- there's an upshot there in that it's worth setting out what one means in talking about dogma.

And so far I think I've been clear enough in agreeing that a literal interpretation of the scriptures when a non-literal interpretation is offered is dogmatic. Pointing out that snakes cannot talk in response to a non-literal interpretation of the fall of man really seems to miss the point. (unless you're dealing with someone who insists on its truth -- which is common! -- but in this OP that's clearly not an issue)

I'm familiar with Richard Carrier.

The truth of the stories isn't at issue, though. Carrier reads the Bible with a historian's interpretation. This is one (very interesting!) way of reading the Bible.

But it's not the only way.

I've mentioned throughout that it's partly the fault of literalist theists who insist on the truth of the scriptures that this is a common line of attack. Many an atheist, and I include myself in this group, has been dissuaded byof theological convictions on the basis of literal interpretations of scripture being a central part of a particular community.

It's just that the group of my birth isn't representative of the whole tradition of scriptural interpretation. People read these things for a reason, even after figuring out that it's a story. And if we're convicted physicalists, then it's fascinating that a literal work of fiction holds more meaning for so many people than the entire library of Nature (the literal publication, not the metaphorical book of nature).

So to insist on the truth of talking snakes or the existence of Jesus is to miss out on what makes these stories compelling.

You seem to be stuck in black and white thinking: you seem to think that either the author has no idea what they mean, or they are one hundred percent certain about it.

I agree. But I think it is not just an odd doctrine. It seems to me to be actually immoral to destroy an innocent life in order to escape from guilt, (even if the victim volunteers). Once the sin has been committed, nothing can alter that fact. There are various things, practical and symbolic, we can do in order to go on living, but what really amounts to a resolution of the problem is a mystery to me. Time's a great healer, I suppose. — Ludwig V

Yes, the very idea that the sacrifice of a human. god life could atone for the sinfulness of human nature seems not just absurd but profoundly wrong, and as you say, immoral. The only answer apologist can give is "God moves in mysterious ways": which is not even close to being morally satisfactory.

I think believers generally don't think too hard on these matters; they just want a comforting story to live by. I support their right to do that, or believe whatever they want, provided they do not try to force their ideas onto others, and their beliefs do not in some way necessarily cause social, personal or environmental harm.

You seem to be stuck in black and white thinking: you seem to think that either the author has no idea what they mean, or they are one hundred percent certain about it. — Janus

They are a 100% certain about it. What makes it worth their while to make the effort - and believe me, constructing a novel is a lot of hard work! - is that they have something to say. The "no idea" nonsense is not an option... except maybe for some juveniles with a vague notion about maybe sorta writing, but they don't actually finish anything.

OK, you're just repeating the same black and white assertion, and applying it universally to boot; and since I was already aware of what you asserted without argument, and there is no substantive argument in this latest response, I think we are definitely done here.

there is no substantive argument in this latest response, I think we are definitely done here. — Janus

Okay. Just saying there are very few insults you can offer a wordsmith graver than "I understand what you say better than you understand it yourself."

Right, but I wasn't saying that; I was saying that the wordsmith's words may be capable of associations and interpretations that the wordsmith had not consciously thought of in the process of wordsmithing. And I'm not claiming that any interpretation is "privileged", although in cases where the wordsmith had very definite ideas in mind, then her intentions should certainly be acknowledged as authorial intentions, although in cases where the author is no longer with us to answer questions about her intentions, we cannot determine with certainty what they were.

I also acknowledge that this would also depend on how "literal" the work is. Some of the best poetry and prose literature is highly ambiguous. I believe the unconscious feeds into much of the greatest literature and of course the other arts as well, which should not be surprising since much of our own lives are lived unconsciously, which certainly does not necessarily mean without intelligence. That's my understanding anyway.

I've mentioned throughout that it's partly the fault of literalist theists who insist on the truth of the scriptures that this is a common line of attack. Many an atheist, and I include myself in this group, has been dissuaded byof theological convictions on the basis of literal interpretations of scripture being a central part of a particular community. — Moliere

Well, whoever's fault it is, the fact remains that many theists are literalists. In America and Saudi Arabia (Islam) that group is so huge that they determine social policy and governments. So for me, there is justification for secular humanist education and some forms of assertive atheism. I've met too many atheists who left fundamentalism after hearing better arguments during their time as apologists.

So to insist on the truth of talking snakes or the existence of Jesus is to miss out on what makes these stories compelling. — Moliere

Interesting. Talking snakes is one thing. But dismissing the existence of Jesus would undermine Christianity, surely? How many practicing Christians would there be who think Jesus never lived? If everything comes down to compelling stories rather than truth then Hamlet or David Copperfield may was well be worshiped (actually I think Harold Bloom did just that).

How exactly does an allegory work to provide sustenance to a believer, any suggestions?

So for me, there is justification for secular humanist education and some forms of assertive atheism. — Tom Storm

Your objection seems more pointedly towards theocracy than a literalist fundamentalism. You don't need to counter the religious efforts at political control by enforcing some sort of atheist control. I'd think disallowing either would be the goal.

How exactly does an allegory work to provide sustenance to a believer, any suggestions? — Tom Storm

Sure, I think it a fascinating story that posits that there is nothing is more condemnable than to have the power to discern good, evil, and knowledge and not know love.

Is that not the story of Jesus, whose necessity arose from the eating of that impregnated apple?

But that's not a story I focus on, but I get it. We don't need any actual apples, serpents, or crucifixions for that to have meaning.

Importantly, that story has the attention of a culture, and so it matters. That is where we look for meaning, so that's where we find it.

A quote from the Reform Jewish prayer book:

"Help us to see, wherever we gaze, that the bush burns unconsumed .
And we, clay touched by God, will reach out for holiness, and exclaim in wonder:
How filled with awe is this place, and we did not know it ."

That is, the miracle of the burning bush is all around us, but, obviously, there is no real burning bush. I don't see how literalism (as opposed to allegory) could work. Do we look for real burning bushes and actual parting seas?

And I'm not claiming that any interpretation is "privileged", although in cases where the wordsmith had very definite ideas in mind, then her intentions should certainly be acknowledged as authorial intentions, although in cases where the author is no longer with us to answer questions about her intentions, we cannot determine with certainty what they were. — Janus

That's exactly why I'm defending the dead authors - seems like nobody else will. Nothing is privileged.
When you read something, anything, even the user's manual for an electric toothbrush, you bring something to that text and you take something from that text: it becomes partly yours, just as it becomes part of you. If it's something significant, like War and Peace, it occupies a fair bit of space in your head. Of course you take ownership of that - it's your head the thing's taken up residence in! You interact with it; you add your own ideas to it; the result is an edifice of thought that never existed before and can never exist anywhere else, ever again.

But it's not always a symbiotic relationship.

Once a work is in the public domain, you can say anything you like about it. You can appropriate it to any purpose, dissect it, lecture on it to your heart's content, discuss, write monographs about the characters' significance to stereotyping of the period, entire books about the author's sexual shortcomings as expressed in the following passage, read in subtexts and secret spy codes, say Hitler was influenced by it, whatever. Have at it!

The only thing I will not countenance is : "He didn't know what he meant."

Is that not the story of Jesus, whose necessity arose from the eating of that impregnated apple?

But that's not a story I focus on, but I get it. We don't need any actual apples, serpents, or crucifixions for that to have meaning.

Importantly, that story has the attention of a culture, and so it matters. That is where we look for meaning, so that's where we find it. — Hanover

Thanks for this account. It doesn't personally resonate with me but I get it. Sort of. Much human behaviour and many beliefs make no real sense to me, including Free Masonry, libertarianism, sport, fishing, and progressive religious beliefs.

The only thing I will not countenance is : "He didn't know what he meant." — Vera Mont

It's not that simple. I worked as a published writer for 20 years (side hustle) - mainly non-fiction but some fiction and drama. I have often encountered people who have commented upon what I wrote and come to me with interpretations of my work I did not consciously intend but, on reflection, where defiantly there. I might have gone in wanting to say X (and partly achieved that) but what the story really demonstrated is Y. I think writing often works that way and certainly the other writers I've known - and there's been a good dozen - mostly find the same. We tell richer or poorer stories than we intend to.

I have often encountered people who have commented upon what I wrote and come to me with interpretations of my work I did not consciously intend but, on reflection, where defiantly there. — Tom Storm

Somebody else can add an insight, see an extra dimension. That's great. But are you really telling me you didn't know what you intended to write, that you just had some kind of vagae association, when you were writing it?

The only thing I will not countenance is : "He didn't know what he meant." — Vera Mont

Right, but I haven't been saying the author did not know what they meant in the sense of had no idea what they meant but that they may have meant more than they were consciously aware of. My own experience of writing (both poetry and prose and a little fiction) has been that much of the time the work seems to write itself. It certainly is not as if I start with a clearly and exhaustively worked out intention and then set pen to paper and consciously make it all manifest.

I see has made pretty much the same point. Perhaps it's different for different writers. Anyway, I'm happy to leave it there and agree to disagree, because neither of us is going to be able to prove their point.

But are you really telling me you didn't know what you intended to write, that you just had some kind of vagae association, when you were writing it? — Vera Mont

I think you are missing the nuances. I probably can't explain it to you any clearer.

I once wrote a magazine story about the art of writing sitcoms - my intention was to describe how they were written and produced. What people got out of it was a different story - how the talent of a comic actor can make bad material come alive through interpretation. Sure it was in there, but I wasn't trying to write about that. It's what most people told me they took from the piece. My editor didn't even register what I thought the piece was about; he saw it as an amusing analysis of the role of performance. If you were to read that 20 year-old piece today, you'd probably talk about how it was about the days before streaming, when network TV called the shots and when they produced shows in house in powerful TV studios - a microcosm of that era. Sure that's there too, but I didn't intend to focus on that. By now my original intention for writing the piece has been eclipsed. It has new life as a historical document about how TV used to work, certainly not the art of sitcom writing. My experience as a writer and from knowing writers is that this is often how a work ends up being reinterpreted and shaped by time and individual readings.

I see ↪Tom Storm has made pretty much the same point. Perhaps it's different for different writers. Anyway, I'm happy to leave it there and agree to disagree, because neither of us is going to be able to prove their point. — Janus

Maybe it's one of those points you either see or don't. A bit like god... :razz:

For what it’s worth, my own meagre experience writing stories aligns with what you’re saying, Tom. To a surprising extent, I don’t know what I wrote until someone else points it out, or I see it later on when I’m revising it. Working on it to get it right is not an exercise in consciously sharpening the intended meaning of the piece; it’s a formal or intuitive activity. This is why writers, musicians, and other kinds of artists often talk about channeling a greater force, rather than commanding all their resources in an explicit and conscious way.

:up: Creativity is undomesticated and capricious, the artist is not always in charge.

Pointing out that snakes cannot talk in response to a non-literal interpretation of the fall of man really seems to miss the point. — Moliere

It certainly does. If it does anything, it emphasizes difference in the interpretation of "interpretation". The difficulty is that sometimes interpretations sometimes exclude each other - or seem to. They certainly reflect different presuppositions and different interests.

I suspect two different uses of interpretation here. One is a use in which interpretations do not exclude each other; each is valid or invalid on its own terms. The other is a use in which a rule is applied to a case. (Yes, I'm channelling Wittgenstein). Each application of a rule is an interpretation, so it may be applied in different ways. Sometimes, we can agree that the rule might be applied in different ways; then we seek a "ruling". But if the rule is to have any meaning, we need to be able to say that one way of applying the rule is right and another is wrong.

It seems to me that the conviction that one has the right, correct, true answer is the source of dogma, and consequently the most pernicious view. I don't think that atheism or religion are necessarily pernicious, it is the conviction that does the harm.

Yet, if there is any truth to be found in this chaotic world, and even if there is none, one has to take a stand somewhere. How can one do that and avoid becoming dogmatic?

I might have gone in wanting to say X (and partly achieved that) but what the story really demonstrated is Y. — Tom Storm

That might be a surprise, but, so long as X and Y are compatible, not a problem. Surely it's only a problem if X and Y are not compatible. Your use of "really" suggests that's what you have in mind. That's a situation that post-modernists particularly enjoy(ed).

My experiences of writing philosophy include the slightly weird experience of finding an argument taking charge and leading me down a path I didn't intend to go down and don't want to go down.

It's always worth understanding what the author's intentions were (or might have been) and what a text means (or might have meant) to the author's audience (i.e. in the relevant social and cultural context). But sometimes people forget that many texts are read and are important to audiences far beyond their original context The question of interpreting them in those circumstances must go beyond their origins. Indeed the problem starts to arise as soon as the text is published.

(Plato was scathing, in the Phaedrus about written texts for exactly that reason. He ("Socrates") says (from memory) that "they do not know to whom they should talk and when they should be silent.")

The only answer apologist can give is "God moves in mysterious ways": which is not even close to being morally satisfactory. — Janus

Quite so. That's the classic. When I first started asking awkward questions, I was told that "we don't worry about those questions". That produced the same result. I went and asked the questions where people do ask them - mostly in philosophy, with the obvious result.

I prefer what scientists do. They file the question under "pending", basically meaning "to be worked out later". That's the undogmatic response.

My experiences of writing philosophy include the slightly weird experience of finding an argument taking charge and leading me down a path I didn't intend to go down and don't want to go down. — Ludwig V

I can see that. Characters in fiction often do the same thing.

That's a situation that post-modernists particularly enjoy(ed). — Ludwig V

Yes. I am a reluctant post-modernist.

But sometimes people forget that many texts are read and are important to audiences far beyond their original context The question of interpreting them in those circumstances must go beyond their origins. Indeed the problem starts to arise as soon as the text is published. — Ludwig V

Yes. I've always held that any text is redolent with potential meanings so settling on a 'right' one suggests a paucity of imagination and joy.

But are you really telling me you didn't know what you intended to write, that you just had some kind of vagae association, when you were writing it? — Vera Mont

The vague generality of intention, along with the uncertainties associated with the media, combined, produce the great mysteries of art.

There is an experimental procedure which the artist can do, which demonstrates very clearly that what is produced is not necessarily what was intended. One can approach the canvas with no intent of painting anything in specific, and just start applying colours to it. There is of course, some degree of intent involved, but that is minimized to the point of allowing the nature of the medium (paint and canvas in this case, but it could be another form of art like music or rhyming) to dictate the outcome. This experiment demonstrates very clearly that it is possible for an author to not know what one intends to write, when it is written.

The unintentional results of an intentional act are known as accidents. In the artistic world accidents are very important, and have great significance because they teach us about the unknown aspects, the mysteries, of the medium. So in the specific artform you are discussing, the medium is a form of communication, writing. There are many unknown aspects, and much mystery inhering within this medium, and this allows great possibility for accidents. And since writing is a form of communication and communication gets granted a high degree of significance, in general, this allows the accidents to have great importance.

Interesting. Talking snakes is one thing. But dismissing the existence of Jesus would undermine Christianity, surely? How many practicing Christians would there be who think Jesus never lived? If everything comes down to compelling stories rather than truth then Hamlet or David Copperfield may was well be worshiped (actually I think Harold Bloom did just that). — Tom Storm

I'm not sure of the Christian demographic, but the Universalist Unitarian church has been on my mind as an example of a church organization that doesn't put emphasis on the literal truth of scripture -- it even allows multiple faiths within its structure. I've gone to some non-denominational churches which were similar in their emphasis that the story of Jesus is a transformative story which centers love -- and God is love.

Hamlet or David Copperfield sort of do fit within a holy pantheon of literature :D -- we sort of worship them, but in this different way that's more revering than as a supplicant to them. (though I have to mention -- future isolated society organized around Hamlet religiously sounds like a Trek episode)

In the United States I think this is more a minority position, but I'd prefer it weren't. I'd prefer more people treated the texts like historical objects with stories from a time far away from now and relate to them at a emotive, rather than literal, level. Non-literalists always seem more peaceful to me.

Yes, you all convinced me:
once a work is in the public domain, anyone can bring anything to it, put it to any use and make their contribution as important as or more important than the original and turn it into something quite else from what it was intended to be.

Yes. I am a reluctant post-modernist. — Tom Storm

That's a pity. You're missing out. The original guys enjoyed it. (The dialogue between Searle and Derrida is a good example.) It was having a sure-fire way of tweaking the lion's tail - where the lion was the orthodox academy. The sense of fun that I found in them was part of the appeal. (I also realized that it must have been part of Socrates' appeal when he revealed Socratic method to his friends. I suspect that it was one of the reasons he lost the trial.)

once a work is in the public domain, anyone can bring anything to it, put it to any use and make their contribution as important as or more important than the original and turn it into something quite else from what it was intended to be. — Vera Mont

I wouldn't go as far as that. It's probably true to say that one cannot limit in advance what interpretations might be found in a text. But I think there is a distinction between valid and invalid, difficult though it is. Could one find an interpretation of Hamlet that saw him as a man of action? I would take a lot of persuading. I hope I'm not being difficult.

This experiment demonstrates very clearly that it is possible for an author to not know what one intends to write, when it is written. — Metaphysician Undercover

The experiment does show that a text can have meanings that the author did not intend. So does the practice of improvisation in music. But that's not quite what's at stake - or so I thought. What was at stake was whether a text could have meanings that were not intended, despite the writer having different, even incompatible, intentions - or rather, whether it is legitimate to attribute to the text meanings that the author did not intend. In one way, that is clearly possible, but we often think (in other contexts) that such attributions are misinterpretations. If a teacher says "That's all" because that's all there is to say on the topic in hand, and the class leaves the room, it might well be a misinterpretation if the teacher was merely moving on to the next topic.

But I think there is a distinction between valid and invalid, difficult though it is. — Ludwig V

I'm sure. A brutal execution can morph into a ritual of sharing bread and wine, because, that, too, was written. A wrathful deity turns into a benign one, because you can juxtapose the passage about his loving the world. Appeasement sacrifice becomes the very invention of forgiveness through the correct interpretation. I comprehend it. But as available as all that is for embracing, it is equally open to rejection.

I have read the bible cover to cover, twice. First in my mid 20's, next in my mid 30's. I am 59 now.
I was an atheist before, during and after. There are many stories in the bible that have a useful moral relevance to any intelligent human, which can and has been used to assist humans in formatting secular moral code.
ALL STORIES, past or present can have this slant/relevance towards humans, thinking about how they should respond in hypothetical scenario's. The Scorpion and the frog story for example, is not from theism, but can equally inform secular moral code. The claim by some theists that we have NO source of morality, other than gods, is utter nonsense.
I have no issue with reading the bible in a similar way to reading marvel comics or Lord of the Rings or the Epic of Gilgamesh and garnishing some position, on an issue of modern secular morality. BUT,
It just becomes 'silly' at best and 'irrational/backwards/regressive/ridiculous/embarrassing/dangerous/nefarious/deadly,' at worse, to claim, similarly to your own comment;

I've mentioned throughout that it's partly the fault of literalist theists who insist on the truth of the scriptures — Moliere

that the bible or ANY written text or relayed story, that has ever existed, contains the memorialised communications of the creator of the universe.