










Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer2. Comment #129884 by Grantaire of JC on February 19, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Mr Erhman can at least take comfort that his educated sense of logic has brought him to this conclusion and if he is still concerned about the suffering of this world, he can actively participate to make a difference without god being a reason. I hope he encourages people to be active in eliminating suffering instead of being passive through prayer. If such an issue is important god's existence (or not) would be irrelevant and everyone involved would be better for it. I welcome him to our side of the argument and hope he understands that god has nothing to do with who he is. He can find comfort in that.3. Comment #129887 by Double Bass Atheist on February 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm
4. Comment #129899 by Zakie Chan on February 19, 2008 at 6:18 pm
5. Comment #129915 by HappyPrimate on February 19, 2008 at 6:38 pm
6. Comment #129921 by Double Bass Atheist on February 19, 2008 at 6:48 pm
7. Comment #129922 by Teratornis on February 19, 2008 at 6:51 pm
8. Comment #129924 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 6:56 pm
9. Comment #129927 by Radesq on February 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm
10. Comment #129939 by rod-the-farmer on February 19, 2008 at 7:33 pm
11. Comment #129941 by twilleyj on February 19, 2008 at 7:39 pm
12. Comment #129953 by sarah95 on February 19, 2008 at 8:08 pm
13. Comment #129954 by evaporated on February 19, 2008 at 8:08 pm
'New Testement Studies' doesn't imply anything about belief. The canonization of the NT is an important and valid area of research and, as Ehrman proves, doesn't necessitate Christian apologetics. Ehrman is a first-rate historian and scholar. His work and life confirm the validity of intellectually honest scholarship.14. Comment #129957 by dragonfirematrix on February 19, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Oh, how enlightenment corrects the beliefs of a person and saves the person from the lies of once believed in god(s).15. Comment #129972 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 8:36 pm
If there is a god, then why is this allowed?16. Comment #129978 by salon_1928 on February 19, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I've read three a Bart's books: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus. All three are excellent in their analysis of the new testament (and old testament to some degree) as an ancient document. The first in particular is superb. It's long (compared to many of Bart's other books) but it's thorough, and after reading it, you can pretty much declare yourself more knowledgeable about the new testament than the majority of faith-heads.17. Comment #129996 by MelM on February 19, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Comment #129978 by salon_1928,18. Comment #130011 by MikeV on February 19, 2008 at 10:33 pm
19. Comment #130019 by vesihiisi on February 19, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Ehrman at Youtube about Misquoting Jesus (10 parts)20. Comment #130020 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm
21. Comment #130021 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I find what he said about the book of Ecclesiastes quite interesting. Based on his description it almost sounds like an atheist manifesto.Who would have thought that it is a book in the Bible.22. Comment #130032 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:10 am
23. Comment #130034 by vesihiisi on February 20, 2008 at 12:16 am
If you remove all the god worship from the book of Ecclesiastes, thats pretty much something from buddhism. Intrestingly, at the same time BoE was written, greek philosophers were getting in touch with indian philosophers and starting new schools, as Alexander the Great invaded Asia.24. Comment #130048 by fatcitymax on February 20, 2008 at 1:25 am
So, it took 20 years for Ehrman to discover logic and common sense.25. Comment #130089 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 3:52 am
26. Comment #130090 by Newk on February 20, 2008 at 3:53 am
27. Comment #130110 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 20, 2008 at 5:25 am
Yes the question whether or not there is a benevolent God is certainly settled. No need to be tooth-fairy agnostics about omni-benevolence.28. Comment #130113 by Steve Zara on February 20, 2008 at 5:36 am
I find what he said about the book of Ecclesiastes quite interesting. Based on his description it almost sounds like an atheist manifesto.Who would have thought that it is a book in the Bible.
29. Comment #130115 by the great teapot on February 20, 2008 at 5:40 am
Chuckgoeke,30. Comment #130139 by Epinephrine on February 20, 2008 at 6:14 am
31. Comment #130142 by chuckgoecke on February 20, 2008 at 6:19 am
32. Comment #130155 by the great teapot on February 20, 2008 at 6:34 am
I see the entendres and I like a joke like the next man, but I dunno, sometimes humour crosses a thin line.33. Comment #130173 by ft77 on February 20, 2008 at 6:46 am
MP3 of the interview is at http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/13/19186602/npr_19186602.mp334. Comment #130212 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 7:14 am
35. Comment #130251 by dawgdoc2000 on February 20, 2008 at 7:43 am
36. Comment #130254 by pkruger on February 20, 2008 at 7:45 am
How wonderful to see someone seeing through all the obvious bullshit.37. Comment #130295 by PaulMauriceMartin on February 20, 2008 at 8:24 am
The two ideas are simply logically contradictory: on the one hand, an all-good, all-powerful Entity; on the other, the existence of pain and suffering. Every theodicy I've read is either an obfuscation or, as in process theology, a reconceptualization of God in a way that makes God less than all-powerful in the sense of a Magician who can do anything (S)he wants at any time.38. Comment #130318 by notsobad on February 20, 2008 at 9:43 am
39. Comment #130326 by quill on February 20, 2008 at 10:34 am
40. Comment #130327 by Quine on February 20, 2008 at 10:37 am
41. Comment #130341 by RickM on February 20, 2008 at 11:09 am
42. Comment #130347 by fatcitymax on February 20, 2008 at 11:38 am
The only thing 'double' about the t-shirt is that it's both crude and stupid. Typical of too much of American culture.43. Comment #130350 by Incredulous on February 20, 2008 at 11:47 am
It takes a proper bloke to admit he's wrong; and that is what he seems to be doing here. The misery and suffering angle is just one of many that the deluded need to be assisted in seeing through.44. Comment #130356 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Pain and suffering - "The Problem of Pain," as CS Lewis called it - is a major issue for religious believers, especially moderate, "social gospel" Christians. (As Ehrman says, some Christian apologists like Lewis try to "think around" this challenge, but it's hard to truly avoid for those who actually live it in their daily lives.)45. Comment #130360 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:15 pm
46. Comment #130379 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Actually the "tests" are more often like entrapments and the people who suffer the consequences of some people's "free will" are seldom the perpetrators but their victims. A PR firm which can only come up with such lame spins would have gone out of business long ago.47. Comment #130437 by cowalker on February 20, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Good for Ehrman. He had a LOT invested in belief. He would have been better off materially I'm sure, if he'd pretended to continue believing.48. Comment #130475 by notsobad on February 20, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Eric Blair:
On the other hand, others - notably Catholics - accept it as part of the "tragic" sense of life (and of "fallen mankind") that comes with their dogma, and deal with the conundrum by devoting their lives to helping relieve suffering. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
49. Comment #130492 by Eric Blair on February 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Notsobad:50. Comment #130516 by robotaholic on February 20, 2008 at 6:45 pm
1. Comment #129882 by chuckgoecke on February 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Chuck
Other Comments by chuckgoecke