Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question

[paul watts]

Professor Bart D. Ehrman who chairs the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has written a new book called 'Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer'.


The question of why there is so much suffering in the world and my inability to find any answers that made sense to me is one of the main reasons why I lost my faith.

Now this learned guy has written a whole book on the subject and it looks as if he reached the same conclusions as myself.

I will be putting this on my 'to read' list but will any Christians be considering the same?

[Someday]

There is a parable that sums up why we suffer in Genesis. Mankind chose experiencing the Knowledge of Good AND Evil. They already had the easy path without all this suffering. Mankind had the tree of life and could eat of it freely. Mankind chose the hard way. Now we are being refined by fire, as John penned so eloquently:
"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

Notice the bit about nakedness there, the shame Adam and Eve experienced when they first ate of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Is this too simple for this theologian to comprehend? Or is he purposely dodging the simplicity for some other reason?

No, I won't bother with this commentary. I can read and deduce for myself. Perhaps reading commentaries and theology books have led you away from the faith? As usual, I will urge everyone to throw out your commentaries. They confuse more than they explain, and their main objective is simply to convey their own deductions.

Blessings

[Grace]

Hi Paul...good to see you.

Isn't Bart Ehrman's journey, from fundamentalist to agnostic, interesting?

I am a Christian...considered "unorthodox" by those who consider themselves "orthodox"...so I view Erhman's "loss of faith" through a different lens, for sure!

Ehrman is indeed a learned man---very knowledgable in ancient languages, history, textual criticism, and linguistics....but, I'm of the opinion that his current view is quite tainted due to the fundamentalist teachings with which he'd been indoctrinated in his early teens.

I would wholeheartedly agree with Ehrman that many English translations of the bible contain errors in transcription and that there are passages that were quite likely added to the original NT texts at a later date by men.
The discovery of that would be especially damaging to one who has been led to believe fundamentalst doctrine! I have met many ex-fundamentalist's and ex-RCs who "lost their faith" due to seeking truth and finding that what they'd been taught to believe, by men, was in error.
I wonder....was their "faith" from God, or in the teachings of men?

I tried very hard to be a good fundamentalist when I was younger. I pretty much failed at it, and now I thank God for never allowing me to become comfortable in that role!

[Brad]

Originally Posted by paul watts

Professor Bart D. Ehrman who chairs the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has written a new book called 'Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer'.

The question of why there is so much suffering in the world and my inability to find any answers that made sense to me is one of the main reasons why I lost my faith.

Now this learned guy has written a whole book on the subject and it looks as if he reached the same conclusions as myself.

I will be putting this on my 'to read' list but will any Christians be considering the same?

I'm an atheist (for those who haven't read my earlier posts), but I can't see how that fact that there is suffering in the world leads to the decision that there cannot be a god.

The argument seems so trite. Can you only believe in a god if the world is something of a cross between a disney movie and some lambs-lying-with-the-lions utopia? Isn't misery allowed? Isn't pain allowed? (it's necessary, in fact).

Isn't the whole idea of a faith to overcome the trials and tribulations of an everyday existence? What's the point of being a martyr if everyone wants to be your friend?

My life is great (along with everyone elses), therefore there is a god. My life is in the toilet (along with everyone elses), therefore there isn't. I've never understood the logic in that.

[JM]

Originally Posted by paul watts

Professor Bart D. Ehrman who chairs the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has written a new book called 'Gods Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer'.


The question of why there is so much suffering in the world and my inability to find any answers that made sense to me is one of the main reasons why I lost my faith.

Now this learned guy has written a whole book on the subject and it looks as if he reached the same conclusions as myself.

I will be putting this on my 'to read' list but will any Christians be considering the same?

hi Paul.. I will be too.. I already have one of his books " Misquoting Jesus "...

I mentioned about this book on the blog.. should be an interesting read

[JM]

Originally Posted by Brad

I'm an atheist (for those who haven't read my earlier posts), but I can't see how that fact that there is suffering in the world leads to the decision that there cannot be a god.

The argument seems so trite. Can you only believe in a god if the world is something of a cross between a disney movie and some lambs-lying-with-the-lions utopia? Isn't misery allowed? Isn't pain allowed? (it's necessary, in fact).

Isn't the whole idea of a faith to overcome the trials and tribulations of an everyday existence? What's the point of being a martyr if everyone wants to be your friend?

My life is great (along with everyone elses), therefore there is a god. My life is in the toilet (along with everyone elses), therefore there isn't. I've never understood the logic in that.

Hey Brad.. yeah I am with you on that.. I dont think logically just because there is suffering in the world that equates there is no God. ...

As lets face it.. Good or Bad choice.. we cant control people to make them help others, so why would we think we could control God to interven either..

Though I will say im not sure that, that what this book will major in on.. I know it touches on suffering but I havent read anywhere, where bart says this gives people reason not to believe a God exists.

I will have to read it to see

[JM]

Originally Posted by Grace

Hi Paul...good to see you.

Isn't Bart Ehrman's journey, from fundamentalist to agnostic, interesting?

I am a Christian...considered "unorthodox" by those who consider themselves "orthodox"...so I view Erhman's "loss of faith" through a different lens, for sure!

Ehrman is indeed a learned man---very knowledgable in ancient languages, history, textual criticism, and linguistics....but, I'm of the opinion that his current view is quite tainted due to the fundamentalist teachings with which he'd been indoctrinated in his early teens.

I would wholeheartedly agree with Ehrman that many English translations of the bible contain errors in transcription and that there are passages that were quite likely added to the original NT texts at a later date by men.
The discovery of that would be especially damaging to one who has been led to believe fundamentalst doctrine! I have met many ex-fundamentalist's and ex-RCs who "lost their faith" due to seeking truth and finding that what they'd been taught to believe, by men, was in error.
I wonder....was their "faith" from God, or in the teachings of men?

I tried very hard to be a good fundamentalist when I was younger. I pretty much failed at it, and now I thank God for never allowing me to become comfortable in that role!

Hey i liked that Laurie..

[kmisho]

Originally Posted by Someday

There is a parable that sums up why we suffer in Genesis. Mankind chose experiencing the Knowledge of Good AND Evil. They already had the easy path without all this suffering. Mankind had the tree of life and could eat of it freely. Mankind chose the hard way. Now we are being refined by fire, as John penned so eloquently:
"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

Notice the bit about nakedness there, the shame Adam and Eve experienced when they first ate of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Is this too simple for this theologian to comprehend? Or is he purposely dodging the simplicity for some other reason?

No, I won't bother with this commentary. I can read and deduce for myself. Perhaps reading commentaries and theology books have led you away from the faith? As usual, I will urge everyone to throw out your commentaries. They confuse more than they explain, and their main objective is simply to convey their own deductions.

Blessings

This answer of course has its own problems. If Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil prior to eating from the tree, how could they have known it not good to exercize the freedom of eating from the tree?

He's not dodging. Your expalantion (the Bible's explanation) is contradictory.

[kmisho]

Originally Posted by Brad

I'm an atheist (for those who haven't read my earlier posts), but I can't see how that fact that there is suffering in the world leads to the decision that there cannot be a god.

The argument seems so trite. Can you only believe in a god if the world is something of a cross between a disney movie and some lambs-lying-with-the-lions utopia? Isn't misery allowed? Isn't pain allowed? (it's necessary, in fact).

Isn't the whole idea of a faith to overcome the trials and tribulations of an everyday existence? What's the point of being a martyr if everyone wants to be your friend?

My life is great (along with everyone elses), therefore there is a god. My life is in the toilet (along with everyone elses), therefore there isn't. I've never understood the logic in that.

The problem with this is the claim that god is a moral agent. A moral agent is expected to intervene to stop evil when he can. God, being God, could intereve EACH AND EVERY TIME evil was about to step in. The "problem of evil" implies, then, that either there is no god or that god is not moral, in which case you should not follow it even if it exists.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by kmisho

either there is no god or that god is not moral, in which case you should not follow it even if it exists.

I've seen that argument used many times by atheists, but it's not one that I subscribe to myself. However, to not use it means that you must accept the fact that, if there were to be a god, he has a tendancy to let us get on with things ourselves and to not interfere.

I guess if I did believe in god, that's the sort that would seem the more likely. You have to have a pretty big ego to believe that he keeps a check on each of us and is worried about your every problem.

There's an argument ad absurdem that would question exactly the level of pain, evil or suffering the world has to put up with before he intercedes. Taking a pen home from work or grand larceny? An ingrowing toenail or Aids? An argument with some idiot office colleague or the Rape of Nanking? It reminds me, ridiculously, of the Superman movies. He flies around and swoops down to prevent an armed robbery, but what about the dozens of rapes and murders going on elsewhere at that time.

I'm a big picture sort of person and I reckon your god would be, too. He'd be looking down on, for example, the horrors going on in Darfur right now, thinking: 'Good grief. When are these guys going to come to their senses?'.