I have actually posted a new article on my Faith and Religion page. It references an article by Marcus Borg on different understandings of scripture. I think Borg was able to state his points clearly and concisely.
UPDATE: I modified the link to point to the entry which is now in my primary blog instead of the old reference to my separate Faith and Religion blog.
Posted by JoKeR at March 18, 2003 12:15 AM | TrackBackHere is an atheist perspective on this:
1. The contextualist perspective ignores the fact that not only does the Bible get it wrong on world-ethical issues like slavery, the Bible doesn't have a consistent description of the resurrection, which is a local Christian issue and the center of Christian beliefs.
See
http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html
for a thorough analysis. Clearly, at least one of the gospels is flat out wrong here regarding the resurrection. So the others could be too. So the resurrection itself might not have happened. (OK this is a slippery slope, but think about it. Your supposed God couldn't even inspire the NT writers to put down a consistent description of the frigging resurrection?)
2. It seems awfully expedient for theologians to convert to the contextual pov only after it became untenable to silence scientists (such as evolutionists and astronomers) through persecution. If there is indeed some holy spirit that guides Christians, how come it didn't bother to guide theologians to this pov before the Enlightentment? In fact, why didn't this omniscient spirit guide Christians to scientific truths before scientists themselves reached them?
Apologies for cross-posting,
Chris