Bart Ehrman: "Biblical Scholarship and the Right to Know"

by leavingwt 60 Replies latest jw friends

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    This entire article by Dr. Ehrman is worth a read. Here are a few selections from it.

    . . . I’m not opposed to religion and I don’t think that all religion is oppressive—far from it. I also think that people should be free to embrace whatever religious or non-religious views they choose whether they’re Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, agnostic, humanist, or atheist, so long as they don’t use their religious or non-religious views to silence, oppress, or harm others. Even though I’m not opposed to religion, I am opposed to strident ideology and to every kind of fundamentalism.

    . . .

    Now that I’m not a Christian in any sense, I see that my religious past, especially my fundamentalist past, was oppressive and harmful. I now think that it kept me at that time from being fully human, and it was used as a means of control. As a result, I’m no longer a believer who studies the Bible. I’m a historian who studies the Bible, and I study it because I think it’s so important for understanding our history and culture, and I think that as a scholar of the Bible, I can help other people who are also oppressed by religion. I try to make my research useful to others by making public what scholars have long been saying about the Bible. Most of my popular books that fundamentalists have found so offensive are books in which I simply lay out what scholars, even Christian scholars, have been saying for centuries.

    . . .

    In my part of the world, in the South, humanists are largely known as negative opponents of all things religious, strident protesters against values that people in my world hold near and dear. So forgive me if I’m being overly obvious, but in my opinion, for humanism to strive and to succeed in these places, it’s not enough to protest. Humanism must make a positive impact on people’s lives and be looked upon, even by outsiders, as a good and healthy phenomenon. Among other things, humanists need to provide social outlets that mirror what believers have in their churches. When someone leaves the womb of the church, they need to have somewhere else to go. They need warm, loving, welcoming, safe communities of like-minded people where they can establish social networks and find fellowship with people who share their world views, their loves, hates, concerns, passions, and obsessions. They need context within which they can discuss the big issues of life, not just politics but also life-and-death issues. They need places where they can celebrate what is good in life and where they can work to overcome what is bad.

    Humanist organizations need to become as recognizable as the Baptist church on the corner and the Episcopal church up the street. They need to be seen as the first responders when an earthquake hits Haiti, to be seen as major forces in the fight against poverty, homelessness, malaria, AIDS, and other epidemics. They need to be seen as vibrant and viable alternatives to the religions of the world, which often do so much harm while trying to do good. Whatever else we might say about organized religion, it cannot be denied that it is often the catalyst for much of what is good in the world. But it shouldn’t be the only catalyst, especially since so many people are silenced, oppressed, and harmed by religion. In other words, people must be liberated not only from something but also for something. That, in my opinion, should be the leading goal and objective of every humanist organization.

    . . .

    http://thehumanist.org/november-december-2011/biblical-scholarship-and-the-right-to-know/

  • Meeting Junkie No More
    Meeting Junkie No More

    WOW - well said - thanks for sharing - I will look up the link and read in its entirety.

  • designs
    designs

    Pick a Charity with a purpose of Feeding the Hungry, Taking and active roll in protecting the Environment etc..

    It is not enough simply to have left the Watchtower. Heed the call.

  • dgp
    dgp

    I may add that my only qualification of this great post is that humanists need to do all that good for the sake of that good only, and not to further the cause of Humanism.

    LeavingWT - Wonderful link. I just added their podcasts to my list.

  • Giordano
    Giordano

    The following observation is interesting to me because I think that many of us who are leaving the 'truth' or who have left often feel compelled to try to explain why. Its interesting to note that Ehrman has the same desire.

    "My view is that most fundamentalists migrate away from fundamentalism slowly over time based on tiny doubts that seep into their consciousness. One of my jobs as a public scholar is to find chinks in the armor—to show why the internally coherent system of religiosity people have is, in fact, flawed. That involves talking about discrepancies in the Bible, its contradictions and historical impossibilities, as well as talking about the problem of suffering, and so forth. I do this because I think it’s important to consider and confront the deep philosophical issues without settling for easy answers. I’m actually not interested in making everybody either an agnostic or an atheist. I am interested in getting people to think and become more intelligent about their views of the world, whatever their views are. And I’m interested in seeing people reject religion that is harmful and oppressive".

    This artical is a good presentation of his point of view. I was also suprised that he no longer considers himself a Christian............. I always felt he was conflicted.........I never thought I'd wind up a nonbeliever but it is often the only path that seems reasonable as well as sound.

    Ehrman's public statements points to another path ....being a humanist.

    When I left many decades ago I tired of the nit picking arguments and stopped getting involved. I came to a conclusion that I didn't have anything better to offer family and friends who were still in. Now I have to rethink that point of view.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Any person who has completely and devotedly committed their life to a "cause" or belief ends up clashing with reality.

    That clash can knock a new perspective into them.

    A moment of clarity is often just the sudden awareness that there is MORE to life than what you previously believed.

    What happens next is entirely dependant on intellectual honesty.

    If you just want to be told what to do by an Authority....you move on to the next collective "revealed" Truth broker and start serving the cause.

    If you decide that only EVIDENCE matters....you begin sorting out history from "his story" and let the chips fall where they may.

    Ehrman is reviled by Fundamentalists because he was one of their own. He has facts. He is not a radical. He is a scholar.

    Just as the G.B. of the Watchtower have to demonize we Apostates so that nobody will bother testing what is being said against factual truth....

    so too, Ehrman is blackened by the mainstream church.

    I would say my own journey from mental servitude and irrationality came from studying the works of four main authors.

    Mortimer J. Adler: Philosopher

    Karen Armstrong: historian

    Bart Ehrman: scholar

    Isaac Asimov: humanist

    The more I read factual accounts of religious traditions the more I become aware how many layers of intellectual dishonesty there are bonding Western

    society to the absurd notion there is one great TRUTH revealed by an Almighty God which is understood and administered by some religious group.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    I remember reading about when Bart was STILL and fundamentalist evangelical and how upset he was with his own mentor Metzger who was also an evangelical but did NOT hold to the inerrancy of scripture.

    Bart is quite correct that the issue is fundamentalisim, but NOT the kind he THINKS is the issue, itis the militants that are the issue.

    Are there any more fundamentalists than the Amish ( as an example)? and yet what danger are they to anyone? who do they try to opress and dicate too? NO ONE.

    The militant factions of ANY ideology are the danger.

    The only people in "mainstream religion" ( which does NOT include militants) that have issues with Bart are those that object to how he "over exagerrates" the biblical issues HE beleives to be crucial, beyond that I don't know of any mainstream christians that care that much about Bart one way or another and the vast majority of mainstream christians don't even KNOW who he is.

    His critiques of humanist groups is spot on, I personally don't knwo of any that are involved in anything, much like you don't see "atheists" groups involved in anything outside of attacking religion.

    I am SURE that there are humanist groups involved thought, I don' see why there wouldn't be.

    I think they just tend to support secular groups.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    PSacrmento: Bart had some very nice things to say about Metzger in this article.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Metzger opened his eyes as he has doen with so many others, myself included.

    I don't doubt that Bart holds him in very high esteem.

    Bart strikes me as the type of guy that appreciates an intellectual challenge and respects as desenting view if the desenter can justifi his position.

    I love Bart the scholar, but I don't care for Bart that "publicist", that's just me.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    PSacramento: What do you think of Bart's 'Right to Know' agenda?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit