AvocadoJake: Thank you for those recommendations. I was unfamiliar with them.
Bart Ehrman: "Biblical Scholarship and the Right to Know"
by leavingwt 60 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Terry
We have dealt with BE's use of "Fake" and "deceive" on other threads, suffice to say he really should qualify exactly what he means,
Bart Ehrman DOES go to great effort to explain EXACTLY how he uses his terms and why.
What makes you think he does not? Could it be you spot read or cherry pick? I'm wondering...
-
Giordano
PSAC sited the Amish as an example of a kind and gentle religion? "Are there any more fundamentalists than the Amish ( as an example)? and yet what danger are they to anyone? who do they try to oppress and dictate too? NO ONE." Sorry dude....... if you agree that shunning is a form of oppression then take a look at the Amish: "Shunning, or meidung means expulsion from the Amish community for breaching religious guidelines -- including marrying outside the faith. The practice of shunning is the main reason that the Amish broke away from the Mennonites in 1693. When an individual is subject to meidung, it means they have to leave their friends, family and lives behind. All communication and contact is cut off, even among family members. Shunning is serious, and usually considered a last resort after repeated warnings." So the Amish dictate what to believe................And if you don't want to believe you are oppressed by being shunned. What danger are they to anyone? Mostly they are a danger to themselves. Their religious beliefs dictates that their mode of transportation is A horse and buggy. So it's common to see adults and children exposed to faster moving cars and trucks. Death by buggy is a reality.
Most religions are dangerous to their believers. I think that's in part what "right to know" means. -
leavingwt
Here's an article about an apologist who doesn't like the fact that more information is now easily available.
. . .
“The Internet has given atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have... whether you like it or not,” said McDowell, who is author of two books on Christian apologetics, More than a Carpenter and New Evidence that Demands Verdict.
. . .
“Now here is the problem,” said McDowell, “going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics].”
McDowell, who lives in southern California with his wife Dottie and four children, said atheists, agnostics and skeptics didn’t have access to kids earlier. “If they wrote books, not many people read it. If they gave a talk, not many people went. They would normally get to kids maybe in the last couple of years of the university.” But that has changed now.
. . .
-
designs
All Christian Apologists and Theologians who write on Christianity should have an opening statement in their Books:
Forward
On behalf of Jesus Christ, who claimed Divinity, and his devoted followers I would like to apologize to the Human Race for his divisive teachings and ideas and the conduct of his followers for carrying out those ideas and teachings. We apologize to the Jewish race for your near extinction. We apologize for the extinction of thousands of tribes and cultures. We apologize for the extermination, subjugation and enslavement of the peoples of Africa, Europe, the Mid-East, Asia, the Pacific Islands, North and South America.
-
PSacramento
I think we've become side-tracked. The article is very positive, IMHO. Notice that Ehrman objects to both believers and unbelievers, if they want to:
silence, oppress, or harm others
You're right, sorry about that.
Bart is, of course, 100% correct.
I personally don't have any issues about the "issues" of the bible being discussed and made know to people, why not?
No one's faith should be based on any book anyways.
That said it is also correct to make note, when pointing out the issues, how those issues have been either resolved or answered and then one must allow for people to decide for themselves.
That is how Bart's mentor did it, he stated his case, the evidence for it and would state the rebuttal ( if there was one) and allow for the reader to decide for themselves.
That is the right way to do it IMHO.
-
Band on the Run
Freedom should mean freedom for everyone. Once you establish that only a certain viewpoint is permissible, freedom disappears. This was the experience in England that led many American colonies to be formed. Viewpoint discrimination is impermissible. Fundamentalism should stand in the marketplace of ideas to thrive or fail. No one discusses a process by which fundamentalism would be chanelled. It reeks of the Star Chamber and the slaughter of the Hugenots.
Ideas compete with each other. I see that so many religious beliefs are regional. Manhattan has few anglo fundamentalists. The South has many. Something is happening beyond mere belief. Culture and tradition play a role.
My dispute with Ehrman is that he offers no proof for the leap from people using the name of a recongized apostle to highlight their work. Such usage could merely indicate that the author preferred the teachings or traditions of one apostle over another. Reading wikipedia, it seems that legends indicate that the apostles split up and evangelized to different regions. Thomas went into India by legend. Others were claimed to go to different regions. Calling upon a local tradition or indicating affinity does not equal forgery or deceit.
Jesus was not dead that long. Locals could do simple arithmetic. A lifespan is only so long. Ehrman should cite hard sources showing intent to deceive. IMO, he is too rooted in our view of the gospels as one big mish mash. OUr concept of time is vague. I know my parents lived through WWII. Unlike them, I grew up in the Cold War. If someone said Saturday Night Fever referred to the Great Depression, I would know it was utter bunk. Of course, forgery sells. Forgery triggers people. Scholars should not make such broad statements.
-
botchtowersociety
When you tolerate intolerance you don't end up with tolerance, but rather its opposite.
-
Band on the Run
No, when you follow the Englishment beliefs of liberty interests, tolerance allows all groups to be free. Imagine the US government as being a branch of any denomination. Taxes going to support a group you hate. James Madison, Remonstrance, makes complete sense to me.
Of course, I am talking about groups that are lawful and have a degree of civic mindedness. Society could not tolerate criminals posing as a religion. Again, if you disagree with me, please put forth your system for channeling religous dissent. How does the normative group become established? This country was founded by Protestants who could not stand the thought of Roman Catholics or Jews holding office. Do we base our views on the mindset of 1789 or current day when Catholics are prob. the largest single denomination. How are these gradations determined? What about the First Amendment guarantees?
Where would you stop drawing lines in the sand? What makes a religion acceptable? How is harm to society proved? The French Hugenots, the English translator the Bible, were all slaughtered by people fervently believing in good will that they posed an imminent harm to the very foundations of society.
I don't mean the above as simply rhetoric. How would you address these obvious and historical issues? What is wrong with the individual conscience choosing?
-
AvocadoJake
Dr. Bart Erhman is very enjoyable to listen to,on the radio interviews. He is articulate, calm and not a rabid man who attacks those who don't agree with him. Richard Dawkins and some other religious groups are willing to call you, "wicked, utterly evil or outright stupid, mentally diseased, insane, out of their gourd." for having faith in God or not agreeing with the interpretation of a few monks at the WTS monastary.