I don't think Thunderball or myself was bringing forth Armstrong's name as a justifiable end to your perspective, just as a very respected writer who opposes your own viewpoint.
As for a dismissal of someone's evidence based upon a label of apologist, well that's just silly. She does do good popular scholarship and charges of revisionism can essentially be called meaningless. We live in an age where revisionism is seen as a positive re-statement of truths outside of the modern/colonial context in which they were written in.
Biblical truths should be seen as mystical and on an individual's experience. That's what gives them their meaning and it's obviously a very powerful effect on someone's life.
You cannot escape viewing God outside of the modern context. There is a powerful pull on the Western mind to attempt to view God as a scientific or material being. That has never been a dominant tradition among religious seekers and is only the result of the Scientific Enlightenment, which was initiated by mystics such as Newton and Bacon.
As for the beliefs of atheists... It is definitely possible for an individual to live with a lack of belief. Although I think it's a tough and difficult process. It all to easily falls into iconography and linguistics which bears a startling similarity to the beliefs of literal fundamentalists.
Anyway, those are the basis of my beliefs. It's tough to argue about these things with you, Cheese, as you have had (I'm guessing) a much longer time to think them over and process them. I am really just in the beginning stages of my journey, so a scholar like Textcritic is someone who can really give some good answers. I think that you would join me in believing that questions regarding a divinity, in existence or not, are some of the most fundamentally important questions that humans must answer.
|