By the way, there’s a flaw in your logic:
” because they are decoding the text in a way which retains the absurdity of having a loving god want to bash the brain’s of babies out on rocks.”
Here’s the problem: Everything from “absurdity” onwards comes from no place.
You made a good argument about interpreting to fit the position, but what of the absurdity of lifting words out of a historical context, utilizing modern sensibilities towards, and then BACK PROJECTING its meaning?
Seems more logical that, let’s say, a 3rd or 4th century interpretation might be a little closer to accuracy than one done 20 centuries later. No?
Now this dude, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia – who was never canonized because he was considered as espousing beliefs similar to Nestorius; via http://classicalchristianity.com/…/st-cyril-of…/ – but nevertheless, his interpretation of Psalm 137, which is closer to psychology than anything else, (sin = missing the mark or in today’s terms “bad thoughts vs good thoughts”) – dates from around 375 AD or so and has formed part of the *in use* interpretation of Psalm 137 for 1600+ years.
Yet, here we are, late 20th, early 21st century, skipping past at LEAST 1600 years, then a few more centuries and going, “Hey, yeah, so that stuff you were saying you believe for 1600 years? Yeah, sorry. You REALLY believed that you should kill children”.
Lifting the text in a “Back to Basics” manner is a rather modern ‘thing’, thanks to the Bible-only idiots from about 250 yrs ago. [I DON’T want to crack open my protestant reformation stuff at the moment, so the 250 yrs ago is off the cuff]….
The style of interpretation that you are using is ahistorical and modern, placing a modern bias upon ancient texts.
In short, _nobody_ seems to have used that passage in that manner WITH THAT MEANING, at least since 1600 years ago, at least until the Bible-only folks came into play. and they’re idiots, generally speaking.