[WikiEN-l] Bible websites

[stevertigo]

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> stevertigo wrote:
>> It's always slightly ironic when
>> atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design,
>> one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as
>> flat and contrite a way as possible.

> Atheists who haven't gone so far as to make a devotion of their beliefs
> are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological
> subjects objectively. The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth
> of a particular version of the Bible.  He disbelieves them all.  Yet
> this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary
> artifact.

While I did say that there were point of view issues to take into
consideration when dealing with similarly polarizing subject matter, I
would never say that certain people were more qualified* than others.
Especially not atheists. By the way, an "atheist who [hasn't] gone so
far as to make a devotion of their beliefs" is called an "agnostic"  -
not an "atheist." Atheists *hate agnostics.

> [agnostics] are perhaps in a better position to deal with certain theological
> subjects objectively.

Which ones? Even the moderately tricky ones like lapsed soteriological
consubstantiation might be a challenge for them.

> The atheist's faith is not committed to the truth of a particular version of the Bible.

What faith?  If you are talking about the capacity to reject dogmatic
interpretation, people of faith do that anyway. Catholics, for
example, buy and use condoms even though there are several fatawa
against them.

> He [the agnostic] disbelieves them all.

Hardly an endearing trait, but anyway the ability to reject the
dogmatic aspects does not mean "disbelief."  I know for a scientific
fact that there are plenty of crypto-believers walking around.

> Yet this allows him to view the Bible as purely a cultural and literary artifact.

"Artifact," as in "obsolete?" "Purely cultural" as in "non-Divine?"
"Purely literary" as in "purely fictional?"
Hence your hypothesis is only that non-believers can view things
non-believingly?  Ha!

-Steven