[WikiEN-l] Bible websites

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> stevertigo wrote:
>>     
>>> ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic,
>>> and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects that
>>> directly affect theological sourcing. 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.
>   

"Qualified" is you word, not mine. Your eccentric distinction between 
atheists is seriously unhelpful.  It is one thing to believe that there 
is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a 
"devotion" to a cause.  Your crude hypothesis that atheists hate 
agnostics imputes upon non-believers the kind of sectarianism that is 
such a comfort to Christians.

>> [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.
>   

That atheist just reports what he sees.  Maybe he'll supply a few 
pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow 
their vaudeville to entertain a larger population.

>> 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.
>   

It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments. 
Rejecting dogma is only one aspect of the objectivity.  Decrees about 
condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church.  Jesus never wore 
them.  The Jesuits have often been at odds with the church's dogmatism.
>> 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.
>   

Of course, again, I said "the atheist", not "the agnostic."  
Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing.  It's true 
enough that disbelief goes well beyond rejecting dogma; it rejects the 
foundations for the dogma that god exists.  Yes, there are plenty of 
crypto-believers; somebody had to take over the closet when the gays 
vacated it. But how does "scientific fact" come into play.  Those who 
follow scientific method are more likely to say that there is no such 
thing as scientific fact.

>> 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!
>
>   
Artifacts are regularly being produced as long as there are humans to 
produce them, and a writing does not need to be fiction to be literary, 
though I am more willing to find "non-divine" acceptable.  Your final 
characterization of my hypothesis is reasonably accurate., but then it's 
also very close to an understanding of NPOV.

Ec