The problem with studying the real background of the bible is that doing that requires you to contemplate just what God was trying to accomplish.
Only if you're begging the question about the existence of said god. Try doing it without that assumption for once. You know, like trying to answer a question without having a preferred answer in advance.
It's not like there are any historical texts you can study to get that. I'm not an expert on theologists
(the people who supposedly contemplate such things)
You're implying that they don't actually contemplate such things? They're only pretending to?
but the ones I've read a bit of are as full of dogma as any fundamentalist. Not much 'critical thinking' going on there.
Well, for one, a lot of those theologians support your god hypothesis. They're the ones who forego critical thinking at the critical question of faith. For another, maybe you should read the full range of theology, rather than just apologists.
And the people who do contemplate these things without resorting to dogma don't have much to defend their conclusions with.
Those are the ones who fall back on dogmatic faith, disregarding the need for evidence.
Reason and logic are about all they can stand on. Does the story make sense or not.
These two sentences speak volumes. Wowzers. Reasoning and logic are ****, but an invisible, undetectable, magical guy in the sky makes sense. OK.
But then they can be accused of pulling it out of their ass even if it does. It's a problem...
People can be accused of anything. What matters is evidence, reasoning and logic. The problem is when you don't have the first and are sloppy with the other two.