3:45 PM
@JackDouglas Yes, that is my point. There are many people (on both sides) that claim neutrality, but are self-deluded if they believe they have achieved it. One can get "closer" to neutral by examining from various sides of the issue, but as your link notes, cannot get to a neutral point.
@WadCheber You seem to be missing my point. A Christian could not correctly interpret Hindu texts if the Christian either (a) disbelieved Hindus even exist, or (b) believed Hindus exist, but disbelieved they authored the texts. This is because they are starting from a frame of reference that is untrue about the author, which means they would have a wrong contextual reference for the writing. In such a case, the Christian may still know what was written but not what was meant.
@WadCheber Agree, but now parallel to Scripture. If approached atheistically, one has already ruled out at the very least God's influence upon the authorship of the text, and certainly any idea of dual authorship as expounded by many Christians. In either case, a potentially wrong (if in fact God does exist and did influence the text) contextual frame of reference is the starting point, based on one's prior belief.
This will bring about a misinterpretation of what is meant (not necessarily what was written).
This, of course, can be flipped. If there is in fact no God, then a Christian (or Jew for the Tanak) has a wrong frame of reference for the context of Scripture's writing.
In either case, what one believes about the authoring and context of the writing of the text itself is going to influence one's interpretation of it.
Your recent discussion with @ThaddeusB highlights this point.
@WadCheber You see the author of John one way, influencing your interpretation of the meaning of the text itself.
@ThaddeusB sees the authorship differently. This difference in interpretation is driven by each of the two views on authorship. Both of you are acknowledging what the text "says," but you are differing on what the text "means" to the original author, because of your differing views about the nature and character of that author. Neither of you are approaching it from a "neutral" stance, because you cannot.
At best, one can look at the text from both views of John being or not being anti-Semite, but where one actually ends up for the answer to that is going to depend not on purely what was stated in the text, but what one understands of the author of the text itself from decisions made outside the text; i.e. who wrote John, when was it really written, what was its purpose, was it divinely inspired or not, etc.