/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

dont read his work if you want to remain christian

I don't know why he is getting so much attention. Nothing he says is new whatsoever. Mixing the conspiracy theories with hallucination theory doesn't make either one more viable in light of the evidence.

>>261298

Cute little concern trolling. His works are garbage. There are far more threatening works out there to someone's faith if they are unprepared.

>>261297

he's a subversive jew

>>261298

That's very ominous sounding.

I was reading a bit about him online, and he himself says he stopped being Christian because of the problem of evil, and not solely because of discrepancies in scripture.

>>261299

That's why I'm intending to read up on him, and Biblical criticism generally; contemporary apologists like Feser and WLC tend to give the impression that the Gospels are reliable enough, relative to other ancient texts, but maybe this isn't a real consensus in academia.

>>261301

Spoiler alert: there is not a single field which has absolute consensus on anything. Even in things which don't make any sense. There are people in philosophy departments which argue science is totally untenable (Hume) or impossible because we can't even know what we detect through our senses (the information itself is null, like a Solipsist). Even though 99% of the academic philosophy world rejects these as tenable positions to hold in terms of application. Even in my field, a hard science, there is still dispute over basic operating knowledge, even if it is small (I met a small network over in spain who believed some strange shit about physical constants, even though most of the theoretical physics world disputed their points violently).

Simply put, pure consensus just doesn't really exist (or at least, not in many fields in every case).

If you are under the impression that when WLC talks about a consensus, he doesn't mean a hard 100%. He simply means "of some factor of a majority". Which seems to be the case as I explore more people who believe the Gospels to not be authentic or reliable. They are increasingly come off as the outsiders in the last decade or so.

>>261301

>the problem of evil

"If God exists, then why don't I have a girlfriend?": the argument

>>261301

>problem of evil

If you want some hard, formal logic on it, Alvin Plantiga wrote something called God, Freedom, and Evil. Highly recommend you read it if you are worried.

>(((Ehrman)))

>>261301

>but maybe this isn't a real consensus in academia.

It really is. The biblical studies is very atheistic and a lot of the accepted consensus goes against the accepted Christian beliefs.

Not reading them would be the best outcome for you. I know many people to delved into academic scholarship only to become atheists or agnostics like Ehrman.

>>261297

I agree. Christian philosophy makes sense to me, but the bible is just not reliable.

I won't stop promoting Christianity though, it's a good religion with good values.

>>261354

What is with the concern trolling? This is entirely untrue.

>>261302

Since I've started practising, I've been trying to get a grounding in disciplines that are tangential to the faith (history, Biblical criticism, classical studies etc). Reading the contemporary apologists was important for me, but I'm trying to study the different aspects of the faith as dispassionately as possible.

However, there's such a lack of consensus in academia that's it's kind of unsettled me. I'm reading a paper on Socrates which refers to the controversy among classicists on whether or not to accept Aristotle as a source for the historical Socrates, and there's absolutely no consensus among hundreds of professors and academics worldwide.

Sometimes, I wish I could live in one of those third world countries where faith in Christ is assured by social convention.

>>261311

Thanks, I will look into that when I can.

>>261354

Damn. I assumed that to learn Yiddish or Aramaic just to read manuscripts you would want to be pretty devout. I had hoped Ehrman was the exception and not the rule.

>>261365

>actually believing >>261354

Are you fucking with me right now?

http://www.amazon.com/How-God-Became-Jesus-Nature-A/dp/0310519594

EHRMAN OWNED

(scholars unite to DESTROY Ehrman)

From what I understand Bart Ehrman is an emotional faggot. Some shit happened in his person life so he turned all "FUCK YOU DAD" toward God. It's what motivates all his criticisms, not his doctorates. Doctorates mean nothing to God. They also ultimately mean nothing in an atheistic reductive materialist worldview. I find Ehrman unimpressive. He's just the official counterpoint guy because the popular atheists like Richard Dawkins are a joke philosophically. So your choices are either jokes or the king of the unimpressive rage quitters.

>>261357

>Christian philosophy makes sense to me, but the bible is just not reliable.

This is statement an oxymoron. The Bible is Christian philosophy.

>>261456

*This statement is…

I should type slower

>>261383

I was going for Socratic irony tbqhwy.

>>261456

>Some shit happened in his person life so he turned all "FUCK YOU DAD" toward God.

No worse than that. Some shit happened in other people's life so he went fuck you dad while they kept their faith. How you can look at people persevering in their faith through hardship and find that to be a good reason to lose yours is beyond me

>>261456

>>261521

>Some shit happened in his person life so he turned all "FUCK YOU DAD" toward God.

You are both wrong. Ehrman talks about him becoming an agnostic in an interview, (couldn't find the link but its in his official channel)

More he studied the religion more he became less hardcore evangelists and began to have a more liberal-illeteral explaining. Later on as he continued to study he became an agnostic.

You can disagree with him all you like but don't label it as a "teenage rebellion" he went to Graduate studies as a Christian.

>>261528

>don't label it as a "teenage rebellion" he went to Graduate studies as a Christian.

Once again, his degrees don't mean squat. It's toilet paper. We're all children compared to God and rebelling against God is of the same spirit no matter what. There is no good reason to reject the truth. Philosophically, Ehrman has been torn to shreds many times and persists in the same faulty reasoning, even lying (like when he said all the Apostles and Disciples were illiterate), out of an emotional attachment to his rebellion. Like I said, it's FUCK YOU DAD.

>>261528

>Later on as he continued to study he became an agnostic.

Later on he met a family of survivors of the Cambodian purges and couldn't reconcile the idea that bad things can happen with that God exists and this was a major turning point on his road to perdition. He talks about this in his interviews too, he loves banging on about the supposed problem of suffering.