Hokulele - kurious_kathy Book Challenge

[temporalillusion]

Well I am taking it slowly but my first thoughts are just that I feel sorry for the guy as I do not think he could have walked away from Christianity if he had ever had true saving faith. What denomination did he say he was? And then he mentioned his wife is still a believer so I wonder how they are doing it in their marriage? Unequally yoked is not easy as it does cause problems in many households. But he does not mention much about his personal relationships in this book being affected by his walking away from his once professing faith.

The book isn't really about his life though, so none of this is really relevant.

Then I just see how he is dwelling on too much of the wrong stuff which everyone knows whatever you focus on will affect you. If all you are looking at is the pain and how aweful it is for people then it will bring you down to a negative outlook. I can see that God was using all these things in peoples lives. He is God and has to deal with sin whether we like to hear it or not. And it may be that sometimes the sins of others have affected us somehow too in a bad way but God did not want that necessarily to happen. Can we really know if someone is suffering because of God's rath? What if it's just natural consequences??

So what, you're supposed to ignore the suffering in the world just because you happen to be incredibly lucky and live somewhere where you have almost no suffering? That's great.

Tell me, how is God using hunger in a child's life when one starves to death every 5 seconds? You're saying that those children's sin is what's causing them to starve? If God is in control, he doesn't have to let one person's sin affect another's; Christians claim all the time that God is providing for them.

God feeds the birds of the air, how much more valuable are the 5 children that died while you were reading this post?

 

[ExMinister]

Well I am taking it slowly but my first thoughts are just that I feel sorry for the guy as I do not think he could have walked away from Christianity if he had ever had true saving faith. What denomination did he say he was? And then he mentioned his wife is still a believer so I wonder how they are doing it in their marriage? Unequally yoked is not easy as it does cause problems in many households. But he does not mention much about his personal relationships in this book being affected by his walking away from his once professing faith.

Then I just see how he is dwelling on too much of the wrong stuff which everyone knows whatever you focus on will affect you. If all you are looking at is the pain and how aweful it is for people then it will bring you down to a negative outlook. I can see that God was using all these things in peoples lives. He is God and has to deal with sin whether we like to hear it or not. And it may be that sometimes the sins of others have affected us somehow too in a bad way but God did not want that necessarily to happen. Can we really know if someone is suffering because of God's rath? What if it's just natural consequences??

Ehrman goes into this in his first chapter ("Suffering and a Crisis of Faith"). On the first page, in fact. He says "For most of my life I was a devout and committed Christian. I was baptized in a Congregational church and reared as an Episcopalian, becoming an altar boy when I was 12...Early in my high school days I started attending a Youth for Christ club and had a 'born-again' experience...When I became born again it was like ratcheting my religion up a notch. I became very serious about my faith and chose to go off to a fundamentalist Bible college - Moody Bible Institute in Chicago - where I began training for ministry."

Evidently he had "true saving faith" for quite a long time; in fact, his religion and love of the Bible shaped his entire career path, eventually leading him on to Princeton.

As far as what he now believes, he says (again in the first 2 pages) he eventually "came to realize that I could no longer believe in the God of my tradition, and acknowledged that I was an agnostic: I don't 'know' if there is a God; but I think that if there is one, he certainly isn't the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in the world." It wasn't the many contradictions in the Bible that did this to him, or even the understanding of Jesus as an apocalyptic figure preaching to his own time, predicting the coming of the kingdom of heaven 2000 years ago - it was the question of suffering that did it.

Another point he makes: "Some people think that they know the answers. Or they aren't bothered by the questions. I'm not one of those people. I have been thinking intensely about these questions for many, many years. I have heard the answers, and even though I once 'knew' and was satisfied with these answers, I am no longer satisfied." (p. 6)

It seems to me that he has struggled with these issues far longer than most people and with a great deal more knowledge on all the relevant issues.

Also, Ehrman describes his wife as a "brilliant intellectual - a distinguished professor of medieval English literature at Duke University - and a committed Christian, actively involved in the Episcopalian Church. For her the problems that I wrestle with are not problems." Kathy, I humbly submit that you can be well educated and religious, and a person should not have to stop thinking to be a good Christian. If anything, the more you are willing to explore the facts, and your religious views withstand the process, the better your arguments will be.

 

[Moochie]

Heh. Take a look at my library and repeat that.

It's not how many books one has, but how many one has read.

F'rinstance, I have good many books, a good many of which I haven't read. It impresses the Christ out of believers.


M.

 

[tsig]

It's not how many books one has, but how many one has read.

F'rinstance, I have good many books, a good many of which I haven't read. It impresses the Christ out of believers.


M.

I had never thought of piling books on them to squash Christ out but whatever.

 

[Minarvia]

I had never thought of piling books on them to squash Christ out but whatever.

My brother once had a ganglion cyst on the back of his hand. The doctor said that in the old days the "doctor" would say a prayer then smash it with a bible. Of course, when about 5 of them reappeared a few months later it wasn't God's fault...

 

[CriticalSock]

Heh. Take a look at my library and repeat that.

I'd like to make a snide comment about quality over quantity, but I'm blown away! I didn't even know Orson S Card had written a book called Capitol!

Is that a cannister of fuel in one photo? So that you can destroy the evidence if necessary??

 

[Paulhoff]

I try again, watch this KK, and try and listen and maybe learn.



Paul

 

[JetLeg]

ETA: I have a challenge for you Kathy, I defy you to find a spiritually mature person who can read pages 13-15 of the thread about the offensiveness of the Gospels and conclude that you are helping Christianity.

Off-topic, possible derail :

Isn't your definition of spiritually mature circular, since any person that would conclude that Kathy helping Christianity would be considered immature by you?

 

[CriticalSock]

It's my perception that Hokulele has completed their side of the agreement and that Kurious Kathy has not.

Three cheers for Hokuleles honest treatment of the subject!

No cheers for Kurious Kathys disingenuous comments.



My conclusion from this thread is to be more sceptical of any face value comments made by christians.

 

[JetLeg]

My conclusion from this thread is to be more sceptical of any face value comments made by christians.

Why is that?

 

[joobz]

Why is that?

Well, based upon his post, It's because KK hasn't lived up to her end of the bargain. Certainly, she may still do so, but it is looking unlikely at this point.

The primary problem is that nearly all of the "questions" that KK had about Ehrman (what denomination, was he really a christian) was answered in the first chapter of the book. If she hasn't even made it past chapter 1 yet, it isn't very likely she'll read the book.

I could be wrong, and hope that I am.

 

[Ladewig]

Off-topic, possible derail :

Isn't your definition of spiritually mature circular, since any person that would conclude that Kathy helping Christianity would be considered immature by you?

I posted a response in the other thread.

 

[CriticalSock]

Why is that?

It's because this thread was a perfect opportunity for a meaningful discussion. I read it from the beginning thinking what a good idea it was: A sceptic and a christian, each reading and commenting on material provided by the other. I had high hopes of really learning something rather than just swirling around in the whirlwind of derailments and craziness that most threads devolve into (although that is fun too!).

Fact is I was let down in this hope by Kurious Kathy who has not fulfilled what they said they would do. I strained my relationship with my family to breaking point when I became an atheist, I can't discuss the subject with them without causing further problems. So just for once I hoped that I could read a decent discussion between a christian and a sceptic as all the arguments I have are one sided (they're in my head!).

 

[Hokulele]

It's because this thread was a perfect opportunity for a meaningful discussion. I read it from the beginning thinking what a good idea it was: A sceptic and a christian, each reading and commenting on material provided by the other. I had high hopes of really learning something rather than just swirling around in the whirlwind of derailments and craziness that most threads devolve into (although that is fun too!).

Well, I will give KK the benefit of the doubt and hope that she will follow through on her listening and post her thoughts here. I do hope she will post her own thoughts, and not simply what people in her church (or other apologists) have to say about Erhman's work.

Fact is I was let down in this hope by Kurious Kathy who has not fulfilled what they said they would do. I strained my relationship with my family to breaking point when I became an atheist, I can't discuss the subject with them without causing further problems. So just for once I hoped that I could read a decent discussion between a christian and a sceptic as all the arguments I have are one sided (they're in my head!).

To be fair, it is pretty easy to have rational discussions with adherents of many different religions. There are two main things to keep in mind when doing so:

1) Make sure both parties understand that discussions of conversion are right off the table. "I won't try to make you become an atheist if you don't try to make me become a <fill in the blank>." The point of the conversation should be understanding each other's position rather than trying to convince someone you are right.

2) Never ever ever ever try this with someone who has emotional investment in the outcome of the discussion (such as you with your family).

If those tenets are agreed upon in advance, civil discussion is easey peasey.

 

[JetLeg]

1) Make sure both parties understand that discussions of conversion are right off the table. "I won't try to make you become an atheist if you don't try to make me become a <fill in the blank>." The point of the conversation should be understanding each other's position rather than trying to convince someone you are right.

But this is weird. Very often the point of conversations we hold _is_ to convince someone that we are right. What an absurd world it would be, if we didn't do this. Why, if we think that something is true (for rational reasons), we aren't allowed to convince others?

If I think global warming doesn't happen, then the only way to lead a civil discussion is if you don't try to convince me? Scientists have civil discussions, and they do not just "try to understand each other's position", but actually try to convince the other person (by rational argument).

This problem only happens with religions, when people don't have rational reasons, and this there is no sense to pretend there is.

What makes a discussion civil is whether it is grounded in reason, and not at all whether one doesn't try to make the other agree with him.

2) Never ever ever ever try this with someone who has emotional investment in the outcome of the discussion (such as you with your family).

That's a good point. But many believers have an emotional investment in the outcome of the discussion. For example, they want to convert you. And even if they don't, faith is an emotional investment in itself.

 

[Hokulele]

But this is weird. Very often the point of conversations we hold _is_ to convince someone that we are right. What an absurd world it would be, if we didn't do this. Why, if we think that something is true (for rational reasons), we aren't allowed to convince others?

Because there are many topics where all participants can be right, and all participants can be wrong. Many times a discussion is simply about having someone else accept that there can be other viewpoints. For example, if I were to start a thread called "What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?", it would be rather asinine rather than logical to asume that anyone who liked flavors other than my own personal favorite to be wrong.

If I think global warming doesn't happen, then the only way to lead a civil discussion is if you don't try to convince me? Scientists have civil discussions, and they do not just "try to understand each other's position", but actually try to convince the other person (by rational argument).

I wouldn't expect a discussion on culture or beliefs to have the same purpose as a scientific discussion. Please note the use of the word discussion, meaning an exploration of ideas, as opposed to a debate, where someone is expected to "win".

This problem only happens with religions, when people don't have rational reasons, and this there is no sense to pretend there is.

I strongly disagree. There are a multitude of things beyond that people hold positions on without rational reasons. Ever try to have a strictly rational discussion on the topic of love? Libertarianism?

What makes a discussion civil is whether it is grounded in reason, and not at all whether one doesn't try to make the other agree with him.

Heh, try that over in the Politics sub-forum.

That's a good point. But many believers have an emotional investment in the outcome of the discussion. For example, they want to convert you. And even if they don't, faith is an emotional investment in itself.

I have met more believers who do not want to convert me than who do. Similarly, I have met more atheists who aren't interested in converting believers than those who are. Do not make the mistake of underestimating the silent majority. Do not also make the mistake of assuming what you see in this one sub-forum represents the real world, or even the larger forum as a whole.

 

[JetLeg]

Because there are many topics where all participants can be right, and all participants can be wrong. Many times a discussion is simply about having someone else accept that there can be other viewpoints. For example, if I were to start a thread called "What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?", it would be rather asinine rather than logical to asume that anyone who liked flavors other than my own personal favorite to be wrong.

I wouldn't expect a discussion on culture or beliefs to have the same purpose as a scientific discussion. Please note the use of the word discussion, meaning an exploration of ideas, as opposed to a debate, where someone is expected to "win".

Yes, but do religious people agree that they ideas are similar to a favorite flavor of ice cream?

As far as I understand religion, religion claim that there _really_ is a god, that god is part of the _real_ world. And thus, it is open to evidence, and reason.
"God exists" isn't a value claim...

After all, when a person prays, doesn't he assume that god _really_ exists?

I have met more believers who do not want to convert me than who do. Similarly, I have met more atheists who aren't interested in converting believers than those who are. Do not make the mistake of underestimating the silent majority. Do not also make the mistake of assuming what you see in this one sub-forum represents the real world, or even the larger forum as a whole.

Point taken.

Though I cannot understand how a person that believes you will be in hell if you disbelieve wouldn't wish to convert you... Unless he really doesn't care about you at all.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, but do religious people agree that they ideas are similar to a favorite flavor of ice cream?

As far as I understand religion, religion claim that there _really_ is a god, that god is part of the _real_ world. And thus, it is open to evidence, and reason.
"God exists" isn't a value claim...

After all, when a person prays, doesn't he assume that god _really_ exists?

There is much more to a discussion of religion than "god exists". In case you haven't read the book I referred to KK and the website she referred to me, the question under discussion isn't simply "Does god exist?" but "Why is there suffering?" Explorations of morality, altruism, the meaning of life, the reduction of personal suffering, and other aspects of human existence all tend to touch on various aspects of what is commonly known as religion. I know you posted a poll on this earlier, but I see separating philosophy from religion as being a bit of a Loki's Wager problem. There is no clear, bright line between them.

Which is why I like to discuss things with people of various faiths. YMMV.

Point taken.

Though I cannot understand how a person that believes you will be in hell if you disbelieve wouldn't wish to convert you... Unless he really doesn't care about you at all.

Most religious people I know don't think I will be going to hell. Note, only Christians have this belief, and even then it isn't universal. Christianity really isn't the heaven/hell dichotomy KK is presenting here. In most standard interpretations of the New Testament, good Christians go to heaven, evil-doers go to hell, non-evil non-Christians just up and die with no participation in any sort of an afterlife. A few non-mainstream interpretations indicate that non-evil non-Christians go to some sort of Purgatory where they can earn a trip to heaven, and some have hell as a non-permanent destination.

By focusing on the heaven/hell question, you are completely ignoring all of the world's religions that do not hold similar beliefs.

 

[JetLeg]

There is much more to a discussion of religion than "god exists". In case you haven't read the book I referred to KK and the website she referred to me, the question under discussion isn't simply "Does god exist?" but "Why is there suffering?" Explorations of morality, altruism, the meaning of life, the reduction of personal suffering, and other aspects of human existence all tend to touch on various aspects of what is commonly known as religion. I know you posted a poll on this earlier, but I see separating philosophy from religion as being a bit of a Loki's Wager problem. There is no clear, bright line between them.

Which is why I like to discuss things with people of various faiths. YMMV.

Hm...


Well, there is more to religion than the existance of god, but isn't the existance of god absolutely necessary for the three monotheistic religions.

If there is no god (and the existance of god can be discussed with attempts of convincing, it isn't just a value question), then don't they all fall?

Most religious people I know don't think I will be going to hell. Note, only Christians have this belief, and even then it isn't universal. Christianity really isn't the heaven/hell dichotomy KK is presenting here. In most standard interpretations of the New Testament, good Christians go to heaven, evil-doers go to hell, non-evil non-Christians just up and die with no participation in any sort of an afterlife. A few non-mainstream interpretations indicate that non-evil non-Christians go to some sort of Purgatory where they can earn a trip to heaven, and some have hell as a non-permanent destination.

By focusing on the heaven/hell question, you are completely ignoring all of the world's religions that do not hold similar beliefs.

Okay.

 

[Hokulele]

Hm...


Well, there is more to religion than the existance of god, but isn't the existance of god absolutely necessary for the three monotheistic religions.

If there is no god (and the existance of god can be discussed with attempts of convincing, it isn't just a value question), then don't they all fall?

Sure, but why be a one-note Charlie? It would be like discussing baseball and restricting the conversation to debates on the starting pitcher. There are almost as many differences between the three Abrahamic religions than there are similarities.

Okay.

I noticed that in the first half this post, you are once again focusing solely on the Abrahamic religions. This question is not meant to be snarky, but do you have any experience with other religions? I am honestly curious.

(And not with a "k", damn it!)