I would be very (pleasantly) surprised to see these skeptics throw up their dukes with the likes of an NT Wright.
The right scholars would be nonchristians- these guys would do the trickwww.stardestroyer.netYou see, they can quantify the Bible and, in the end place God in his level for vs competitions.For a bible without contradictions, evils, etc, that has already been done. It is called the Jefferson bible.As for rejecting people because they are materialists and the like... well, when you read the Iliad do you assume the Gods were really involved? No, "It is differant" it is the exact same thing.
I would be very (pleasantly) surprised to see these skeptics throw up their dukes with the likes of an NT Wright.Lol! Yea, do yourself a favor and don't hold your breath while we wait one of these guys to get drunk enough to actually volunteer for a shalackling like that.
Mariano: well a comedian you are not. Let me see if I can clarify things for you by splicing together a paragraph that you split in two and inserted your commentary for comic effect:Sam Harris wrote: "... 'The Scripture Project' where we will have religious scholars, historians, scientists, and other qualified people continue to annotate these texts on a Wiki. With the input of the right scholars, ..."Also, it's a wiki. Any registered member of the Reason Project can participate and contribute, no need to feel left out.
adonais, Your clarification changes exactly nothing. The "right scholars" still stands.
You seem to be against them picking and choosing who does the work. Here is a hint- there is a reason we have diplomas in the first place- to pick and choose who is qualified. It is an integral part of the process. Harris seems to be insisting that he only has people who would treat the bible like any other book.You seem to think it is special- that is nice, but you happen to be wrong. Remember- this site is devoted to making that claim and so far it has FAILED.
Adonais,Are you suggesting that Sam Harris simply meant "member of Right Reason" when he said right scholar? That would make the statement pretty meaningless.
stan: What do you mean "The 'right scholars' still stands" — is this some sort of taboo phrase that one is not allowed to use unless supplemented with a list of names? What exactly is your accusation? Josh: All I'm suggesting is that the two sentences read together are self-explanatory, and that there is no hidden agenda to make a story out of. Looks to me like Mariano went on a sensationalism spree, trying to invent controversy where there is none. Indeed the statement may be meaningless - so what; are we forbidden to speak unless every sentence is designed to astound the whole room? It's not like he was expounding deep philosophy.
Yes, and the "Right Stuff" was clearly in reference to something other than the "Left Stuff".When my daughter was four years old, I was careful when asking her which shoe went on which foot. I would ask, "Which is your right foot?". If her right foot was indeed offered, I'd say, "Correct." When she asked what "correct" means, I'd explain that she had chosen the "right" foot, as opposed to the "wrong" foot.Why make such a distinction? Because she was four. When I asked her for her left foot, and she offered it, I wasn't about to confuse her utterly by saying "That's right."You are as my four-year-old daughter.Clearly, Harris is referring to the "correct" scholars. It is not a judgment of their bias, but merely an attestation that where the goal is to become the "preeminent place for scriptural criticism on the internet", it will be necessary to court reputable, well-known, and possibly even controversial scholars.Do you think that when a coach determines that a particular free agent isn't "right" for his team, that he is making a judgment regarding that player's abilities, his ethic, or his selflessness?Nice try.--Stan
That Harris thinks the SAB is a worthy foundation to start with indicates he is highly unqualified to find objective scholars.
Thank you all very much for your comments, criticism’s and good points:Samuel Skinner,As to what this site is devoted to, please see our banner where the blog’s subtitle appears.Adonis,I was attempting to be light hearted and, perhaps only to me, humorous. Yet, let us not fool ourselves as to whom Sam Harris et al consider to be the “right scholars.”Stan, the Half-Truth Teller,Glad to have you onboard, your statements were adorable, please do check back when you are ready to get the other half of your tales out.Adonis, et al,The biggest mistake that the neo-atheist made is going after the Bible because in doing so they demonstrate time and time again that they are delving into territory of which they are still shockingly unfamiliar.When it comes down to it what a persons thinks about what the Bible is (divine or manmade) is irrelevant to determining if someone is handling its contents properly. Are any of you even imagining that Sam Harris and others will consider orthodox-conservative-Christian scholars to be “right.”I must also state that I did not understand the project to be a wiki. Where they request volunteers it is for transferring the contents of Steve Wells’ website to the Reason Project. This is a purely mechanical undertaking.aDios,Mariano
The right scholars would be nonchristians- these guys would do the trickwww.stardestroyer.netA Star Wars fansite?Seriously?The right scholars would be unbiased and objective, but you obviously don't know what those words mean.