(25 votes, average: 4.84 out of 5)
Loading...I’m getting much more mellow and much less feisty the older I get, but, well, I still have my moments. I’ve always loved a good argument and for most of my life I could get pretty intense when having one – even when it was about something that really was quite immaterial. These days, though, I pretty much have a live and let live attitude. In part I imagine that’s because I realize that all of us are probably wrong about lots of things (most?) and usually it doesn’t much really matter, as long as being wrong doesn’t do anyone much harm. Let the one without error be the first to cast a stone.
But I’ve had a couple of bad experiences in the past month on podcasts I’ve done, when I wasn’t my usual affable self and I’ve been trying to figure out what set me off, making me rather hyper-confrontational and – can you believe it? – possibly (probably) pretty rude.
As I’ve thought about it I’ve come to realize (or at least to think) that there are still a couple of things that really get under my skin and that bring out the beast in me. They involve two aspects of things I think about a lot: expertise and suffering. What really sets me off as a rule – and certainly in these encounters — is ignorance posing as expertise and (relatedlybut with respect to a particular topic) confident but completely pat answers to why so many people endure lives of misery.
I’ll say at the outset that I have NO objection at all, in principle, to people who are not experts or who think things that — from what I know from experts – simply are not right. As I said, I too am ignorant about most fields of study. What I object to is people using their ignorance in ways that hurt others (or themselves) and/or who try to convince others that they’ve made a huge breakthrough in some area of human knowledge when it becomes clear they don’t even understand the view they claim to be reforming.
As to pat answers to the question of suffering, I pretty much expect most people to find answers that work for them, either to help them throughout their own suffering or to try to explain the world to themselves. But I really, really don’t like “experts” setting out pat answers as if they’ve thought them up and want to introduce the world to them, when in fact their “solutions” are things I heard repeatedly when I was a teenager and after some serious thought realized are simply not adequate.
I had a podcast recently with a Muslim author who wanted to explain to me why
If you want to keep reading, it’s easy and inexpensive to join the blog. If you do, you’ll get five posts each and every week, with archives going back to 2012. It doesn’t cost much, you get tons, and all the money goes to charity! Click here for membership options
“Polytheists have it much easier: there are some nasty gods out there and you better watch your back.”
Or there’s one nasty God.
Yup! But then you’d have to explain all the good as well.
But if the purpose of human beings was not to glorify god, but rather to entertain god, than it all makes sense.
This is what got me out of Christianity, I can’t imagine saying “thank God for the child who was raped, thank you for the abducted women, thank you for the abortions, thank you for the people who die starved and died of natural disasters, after all something better will come “I just can’t.
Do you think that the emergence of apocalyptic theology within 2nd-temple Judaism, particularly cosmic dualism, helped with this answer?
Whilst Judaism at the time remained monotheistic, cosmic dualism provided the theological space for powerful divine (and malevolent) powers to act against God’s will and cause human suffering. So, just as polytheism could point to nasty gods, cosmic dualists could point to nasty Belial as the power behind the suffering of the righteous/innocent.
I suppose the weakness of this answer is that God is no longer almighty, as there are cosmic competitors who also hold power and might. Either that or almighty God has decided not to intervene (yet) in the cosmic struggle and is willing to allow the innocent to continue suffering. I suppose at this point, one would start to question the morality of this God.
It’s certainly a tough question to answer!
Yup, it’s one of the solutions, and teh one I held for many years, even as a non-evangelical. Anyone who fully subscribes to the apocalyptic view, though, still has to explain why God handed over the world to the powers of evil to creat such havoc, if he wsa going to assert himself again anyway…. In the end it’s hard to make sense of it.
Or God could be like you, a good person behaving badly (see title of your post) 🤔
Yeah, maybe so! But one would hope the Almighty would be a bit better than *me*!!
Or there’s no God and it’s our problem to solve.
And suffering isn’t restricted to children. I watched a person die very slowly from brain cancer at a sorta young yet sorta old age. Those images, stay with me daily which I may say is a form of suffering as well.
She never got to retire. She worked the drive thru at our local Wendy’s and later at a factory that made catheters.
Much of the suffering in the world concerning child starvation could be remedied by people with capacity to make good decisions in terms of child production.
I’ve always appreciated your take on documentation. I don’t think proof of the supernatural could hold up in any court of law based upon chain of custody documentation and that’s fascinating to me.
The problem of why a just god allows suffering goes beyond merely starving children, of course. Does god love all his creatures equally? If so, why so many mass extinction events in history? Why do most creatures feed off other creatures? Why parasites (h/t to Darwin on this one)?
Is suffering only a vehicle to teach humans humility and gratefulness? Only a sadistic god would design such a system.
Either god is responsible for all aspects of creation or he is not. In either case, I choose not to follow him.
Thank you for bringing up this point (animal suffering). Too many theological discussions of suffering are limited to HUMAN suffering, and all too often the theologian will say something glib about how human sin causes a great deal of the suffering we encounter (although tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. still have to be explained away). On a recent walk in a nature preserve, I watched a bald eagle eat a sea gull it had just captured. The seagull was still alive and struggling at the beginning of the process. The world as we encounter it — in which predators eat their sentient prey alive — gives no evidence of a kind, or merciful, or loving creator. Those who start off assuming such a creator should at least recognize these realities, but all too often they simply ignore animal suffering and talk about human “sin”.
The presence of suffering does not necessarily argue against the existence of a deity, but it certainly argues against the nature of said deity being a particular combination of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. (Also the idea of having a special kind of relationship with said deity, made worse with promises of ask and it shall be given unto thee.)
And that is exactly the stumbling block for so many fundamentalists. That image of a particular kind of guiding hand looking out for us is exactly what provides the comfort sought by most of what I like to call “lazy believers.” These are the people who accept a kind of spoon-fed set of half-considered notions and are perfectly happy to aim those notions at other people, and all without giving any consideration about those ideas or their consequences.
Suffering can make us stronger, providing some degree of improvement . . . and it can simply break us, providing none at all. I know of many situations where the people involved were simply broken, tragedy of all sorts with no redeeming qualities from the experience to be had (not to speak of those who did not even survive the experience).
(I hit the 200 word limit, which really should at least actually allow 200 words.)
Suffering, particularly of an extreme sort, is simply a serious problem . . . and I might note that those who believe in an inherently benevolent science (or technology in general) and humanists who believe that people are basically good don’t have the answer either.
Have you found yourself, with the rise of social media and the subsequent rise in the spread of misinformation by “influencers” (often spouting Dan Brown level or worse, mythicist level nonsense) having to have more conversations with self taught undergraduate experts in the classroom? This was certainly an annoyance during my time as an undergraduate.
Not so much. The ones who are best educated and already know about the topics have been influenced by their upbringing and parents and church more than social media. They tend to use social media for other things…
I didn’t notice this last post, and I already commented this to a previous one, but this EPIC line “I’m so grateful those children are starving to death, because it just makes me really appreciate the fact that I’ve got a lot of food in my refrigerator” I think recapitulates your desperation over this fatuous and disrespectful approach.
It also brings to my mind another beloved quote, this time from Dostoyevsky, which said: ”Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded”.
It looks as if suffering in general is a result of the Laws of Nature. I have never seen this as a philosophical problem except that there is no way to understand why the laws are what they are. Humans tend to bring relief by means of an “extended flock instinct”, which itself is a development of principles of biological organisms.
The real problem then is what kind of god is compatible with these laws.
The fundamental Laws of Nature are the conservation laws of physics: Conservation of Linear Momentum, Conservation of Angular Momentum, Conservation of Energy, Conservation of Electric Charge, and several conservation laws in quantum theory.
The universe is governed by these laws. And the universe does not know that we exist. Natural processes all have randomness and randomness is as good an explanation for human suffering as any.
Well, you could see a psychiatrist to find out why you always become angry when your debate opponent expresses indifference to human suffering in the here and now, no doubt there is a prescription for that, some pills you could take. Or you could simply allow yourself to be angry. Personally, I don’t see a problem with the latter.
Dr. Ehrman
I saw the debate to which you refer. my take on it was that you were animated with in a good way and were fighting a zoom issue which the other guy did not have to do. Also his mannerism to me was kind of dull and uninspired and I think you caught flat footed.
2380—Would youind telling me where I can find this debate as I’m just becoming aware of it?
My dog got lost for several days last year. Fortunately he was found, although he was full of bruises and health problems. Now that he is in good health he is appreciating the good things of life.
Wrt suffering, one explanation given to me was in Genesis, Adam and Eve are told not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Part of the result of doing so leads to a troubling conscience especially if you are cast out of paradise. In some ways you could argue that this new awareness itself destroys paradise.
As a religious person, I finally tired of the “explanations” for good, evil, joy, and suffering. To use your word, the answers were facile. The changing ground for me was to abandon theist thinking and turn to science. I went for a graduate degree in anthropology. Humans behave just like any other animal striving to survive in a universe that can be said, at best, to follow mathematical rules interacting with such complexity they result in events as happenstantial as our existence and the explosions of stars. Those hominids who suffered over the last 299,000 were remarkable, not because of a god, but because of their ingenuity. They faced misery and danger and conquered it, at least on evolutionary terms, some of them surviving into the next generation. Putting human affairs and the health of the planet, philosophically, in the arms of a god is to insult those hundreds of thousands of years of reproductive success. If humanity, if this planet is to have any kind of future where we survive (much less prosper), we must come up with better solutions and better philosophical stances than offering prayers to an unknowable god and seeking to follow ancient texts.
Well said!
Despite all the human explanations and excuses for suffering, I don’t see any real explanation in the Bible. Just the reassurance that if you trust God He will eventually make it all right. At least for the minority that are saved. He better have a really good reason for creating a world in which most people suffer and die. I can’t imagine what it is.
I Guess the Bible sometimes “tries”, such as in Genesis 3 (free will), Prophets (divine punishment for sins), postponed reward (apocalypses) or being “philosophical” about it (Job, cry of dereliction). A problem is that these are not uniform or universal explanations by a long shot, as even free will is often disregarded (the Conquest) or tampered with (Pharao’s hardened heart).
I have a friend who insists that her salvation is secure because she has accepted Jesus. Help reduce suffering in the world, feed the poor, clothe the naked, fight for justice? Not her responsibility. Or anyone’s. Her responsibility is solely to her own well-being: to take best advantage of whatever traits God has assigned to her. She endures whatever God does to/for her because he is the authority. Hey, he’s God. And God’s understanding of “love” and “suffering” is not anything humans can comprehend. (And yet she understands God’s mind well enough to justify her egoist morality. Hmm.) It’s a strange combination of fatalism and narcissism.
If one is in a privileged position, then it’s easy to say that others’ suffering is justified to make us more grateful. It implies that the agony and tragedy of countless billions through the ages is only for our benefit. I can think of no more cruel perspective, nor a more malevolent image of a god. More relevantly, it shows the danger of pat answers that prevent people from actually thinking about their positions to see how ugly they really are.
Imagine saying to a friend who is suffering some horrible illness or injury that their suffering makes you grateful that God has chosen them to suffer instead of you. Would that friend admire your faith, or would they have something else to say about the you?
Why is the issue restricted to only human suffering? When did humans become nature’s favourite? If the cosmos came into existence as a process… and that process involves beginning and end… then why the angst at human death? Seems like we have been a species more concerned at prolonging life instead of just allowing ourselves to be part of the cosmic flow of existence and non existence. If we are just a result of cosmic particles uniting just like my cat is a result of cosmic particles uniting… then I would think that I can have the same attitude as my cat. “Eat, sleep and chase the other four legged furball that shares my space. That is why I am here. Oh yeah… cuddle those two legged creatures that feed me.” No one argued when I sat in the vet hospital holding my other cat and watching as the vet injected the juice that ended his life. But if he was my human child… I would be asked to endure his suffering instead of end it. Just my frustrating questions and observations… no answers or conclusions either.
Great post. We still tend to see ourselves (humans) as the height of creation and therefore somehow deserving of special consideration and treatment – a holdover, I think, from our religious past. Whatever the purpose behind suffering, if there is one, we share it with all other species on this planet.
It’s not a Christian (or Muslim) answer but those faiths that believe in reincarnation have a better handle on suffering insofar as they can argue that we all get to be millionaires, ordinary folk or have horrible lives over the course of our various existences so, therefore, we all get a bit of everything. However, I have always thought that human progress can mess up that thesis. For instance, those completing their cycle of incarnations now have more opportunities for the good life than in past centuries when even the elite had pretty rough lives by our standards, eg primitive health care etc. Yes it is a perplexing issue Dr Ehrman and one that has no obvious answers.
When I see all the suffering of children (especially related to a children’s hospital I know) I get especially tired of hearing “it’s part of God’s plan”. Oh, so it is deliberate???
Life on earth is extremely brief compared to eternity in heaven. If suffering is necessary to appreciate the good, don’t you wonder how people in heaven appreciate being there after eons? A caring and loving god that can create a heaven as described would have no problem creating a world that doesn’t require suffering. If heaven can work as described then so could life or at least just have one.
Yes, “It’s part of God’s plan” is the one that bugs me the most.
Once, a visiting priest talked during his sermon about how his sister died when he was young, and people told him that it was “all part of God’s plan.” He said that he decided then and there that he couldn’t accept a God like that. Unfortunately, he never elaborated on how he resolved the issue and became a priest. I’ve always wished that I could have spent some time talking to him afterwards to find out.
Part of your blog’s audience seems to be academics and intense hobbyists who eagerly follow you deep into the historic weeds. And some simply may be eager for theological fights. But am I the only one who appreciates knowing more about the history of Scripture (especially the New Testament) and your broad strokes of historical accuracy, but are puzzled about how to talk about the scriptures with other laypersons (with awareness of general pitfalls but unsure how to apply that caution to any specific fact or saying). With that in mind, would you be interested in offering some general advice about how laypersons can approach reading or hearing verses of the Bible without one of your books or a scholarly research thesis at hand? Is there value in reading the Bible without reference books or a deep understanding of the scholarship about a particular verse?
I guess it’s a bit like reading Shakespeare. Most of us need some guidance; we can enjoy it OK without the guidance, but it can be tough sledding. Once you are shown some of the keys, it gets more and more interesting and over time you can start digging in on your own. There are a lot of “helps” that work well for biblical reading — you might start wiht ag good annotated edition, for example the Harper-Collins Study Bible. With that, you can get started and the more you do it the more meaningful it will be. But it’s a good idea. Maybe I should post on that.
So, Professor… I have to ask… you apparently can go verse by verse through the NT Gospels and identify each (at least in your opinion with accompanying argument) as historical vs scribal insertion vs … any number of forms of … legend. Do you have a master “crib sheet” or some such? If so have you considered publishing it (in English )?
Nope — it would take a lifetime to prepare! Each case would have to be argued at great length.
I appreciate your willingness to consider posting on this subject, but, if you do so, I hope you will not use the Shakespeare analogy. The questions an audience member has when Lady Macbeth decries the blood on her hands are not the same as those that a congregant has when the preacher describes Thomas fingering the wound in the risen Christ’s side.
I’m not sure I understand? The point of annotations would be to explain what the issues actually are in this context (as opposed to the ones that readers might bring to the text). (And of course Lady Macbeth plays quite a different role from Thomas!)
Perhaps our difference is your assumption that we’re talking about reading the Bible and I assumed I was talking about hearing the Bible quoted. Or perhaps it is the difference between someone studying the Bible and someone exposed to written and oral claims about what the Bible says, as in casual conversation or sermons based on detailed examination of specific Biblical verses. I realize that your blog is probably mainly attracting serious students of the Bible, but, as a layperson interested in accurately discussing Biblical “truths,” I appreciate your clear discussion about fundamental truths about how the Bible came into being. But I’m not sure how to apply this knowledge to specific passing claims of Biblical “truths.” Perhaps it’s simply not possible, but I was hoping for some general guidelines to how to discuss a particular claim of something Jesus said or did.
My sense is that most blog members are right there with you; I’d say there are very few experts on the Bible here — most want to hear about biblical scholarship because it is foreign territory for them. If you’re interested principally in knowing how to assess claims about Jesus’ life and teachings, then I’d suggest you read around a bit in some of the very fine books written about it, and after a few books you’ll have a pretty good idea yourself. I do, of course, talk about the historical Jesus a lot on the blog. Just look at the category Historical Jesus and you’ll see. For books, mine is Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. You might go from there to Dale Allison’s book on Jesus the Millenarian Prophet or E. P. Sanders (smaller) book on Jesus, and the book of Paula Fredriksen. Or if you want a shorter intro, maybe the chapters on Jesus in my New Testament: A Historical Introduction.
Once you set people’s focus on the “next world” and make that the be-all-and-end-all, you can get them to put up with almost anything.
Jesuit missionaries to the Indians in 17th century Canada advised their Huron converts that “escalating war and famine . . . [were] sent by God for the improvement and redemption of those he had elected to save” and that the Iroquois who were prospering while the Hurons suffered “would not enjoy the rewards of the next life.” (Blackburn, Carole. Harvest of Souls: The Jesuit Missions and Colonialism in North America, 1632-1650 (Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000), 116, 117.
Slaveholders in the US South initially resisted exposing their slaves to Christianity because it might give them the idea that they were just as good as white folks. Around 1842, a Southerner named Charles Jones argued that they should preach the gospel to slaves – because it would convince them to accept their suffering (he didn’t use that word). “Is not the discharge of duty more sure and faithful, and respect for authority strengthened by considerations drawn from the omniscience of God and the retributions of eternity?”
And so on.
Thanks dankoh, and I would add to your first paragraph “and get them to DO almost anything”. I am reminded of Voltaire’s comment about the connection between believing absurdities and committing atrocities.
What amazes me the most is people who use suffering and tragedy to support their faith. I’ll never forget a FB post a while back about a child being pulled from the rubble days after an earthquake in Nepal and the poster said “Now try to tell me there’s no God!”
Although if you actually ask, say, the prostitutes of Calcutta – they’re not that miserable. They are not as happy as people in good jobs in the West but we tend to overestimate the suffering of others. This was done by the psychologist Robert Biswas-Diener and wherever he goes, most people are more satisfied than dissatisfied with their lives. The one exception is homeless people. “While the poor of Calcultta do not lead enviable lives, they do lead meaningful lives. They capitalize on the non-material resources available to them and find satisfaction in many areas of their lives.” (From Jonathan Haidt’s “Happiness Hypothesis”).
One secret to happiness is to be content with what you have, and only to aspire to things that are reasonably possible for you to obtain. Of course, that presumes that you have something to start with. Nothing is quite as devastating to our sense of the basic goodness of life than unrealistic expectations. And yet this is still quite far from actual suffering.
My mother was born just after the onset of the Great Depression. Her father was a subsistence farmer and coal miner (who ultimately died from black lung). As she looks back, she realizes that they had a life with no frills, but they had what they mostly needed, and were not particularly aware of being so materially poor. My grandfather had built a very decent house (with the help of an extended and rather skilled family). My grandmother made most of their clothes. They were able to grow much of their own food, and to exchange some extras for more varied things grown by neighbors. They made much of their own entertainment (perhaps a little trickier as they were Southern Baptists and not allowed to dance or play cards).
The thing that I find infuriating about the problem of suffering is that the problem doesn’t merely call into question the omnipotence and all loving nature of God. It actually calls into question if God has enough power and concern as a human being to stop suffering when it occurs. Consider the case of child abuse. Most people would intervene to stop someone from abusing a child if they could (and the abuser’s “free will” be damned in such cases). But God (assuming God exists) doesn’t even intervene in cases of child abuse in which we would intervene if we had the opportunity. On the assumption God exists, that’s outrageous. God doesn’t even do as much as we do. While the problem of suffering calls into question God’s existence, it also calls into question God’s worthiness of our devotion even if he exists.
I have had the same reaction to facile explanations and justifications of suffering. My biggest problem has been with those who insist that God is (must be) in control of everything, while insisting that God is good. This idea of a God in absolute control has seemed particularly hard for Evangelicals (and maybe for ex-Evangelicals) to give up.
Why must we see God as in control of everything that happens? What if God does not work that way, but is more of a pull towards the good than a puppeteer?
Randy, I wonder also about whether thinking of God as a person rather than a Force leads to that kind of thinking (what you call “puppeteer” thinking). I think personification of the Divine is like so many things, something to be held lightly, and alternatives considered. As Bart says, humility is a thing.
One of the reasons I could no longer believe in God was the moral repulsion I felt at the idea that the massive amount of gruesome and horrific suffering in our world was somehow acceptable to God so that God allowed it to start long ago and God lets it continue. And that God is dependent on such suffering in order to carry out his plan.
Professor Ehrman, the starving children point you make has me wondering how best you think God could solve the problem. Would He make it impossible for those who cannot provide for children to have children?
Or would it be better to touch the hearts of the 2.3 billion Christians in the world to provide for them? I know you do not believe in God but have you considered if there were a God and He made us in His image with the capability of being responsible, there would not be all those starving children in the first place?
You mentioned earthquakes. I live on a major fault and just last week there were three minor (2.4 magnitude)
quakes in a 3-day span. Should God make such areas uninhabitable to prevent people being involved in a serious earthquake? Dirty water may be caused by humans, not God. Many illnesses may be our very own fault, not God’s. Just look at the situation with covid!
Now I’m wishing I were a debater to make these points more effectively.
I think he would create a world where starvation was not humanly possible. My view of it is that in the Christian tradition God will provide a suffering-free world in the afterlife and people will still be indpendent beings with free will; that shows he can do it if he wants. How do we explain that he doesn’t do it now? (It can’t be because he is constrained by human free will, since that will still be available later; or that the “world” somehow requires it, since he’s above the world and is the one who made it this way.) I would completely agree that today we cause a lot of the problems (climate!); but that hasn’t always been the case. Homo sapiens have been on earth for about 300,000 years, and for about 299,900 of those they have simply had no way to stave off or protect themselves from massive suffering/starvation/disease/earthquakes/hurricanes/tsunamis/and so on. So even if we are better equipped now, it still wouldn’t explain why this world has been the way it has been since humans first showed up, if there’s been an almighty and loving God in control. Just my opinion!
I’ve always had a really difficult time wrapping my brain around the free will argument. You know that I don’t believe that we have free will (at least, in the traditional sense of the term, that is the possibility to have acted differently). But, even if we all agree that we do have free will. How does that work exactly??? It seems ludicrous to me. Take a 5year-old whose head got smashed onto an iron door by a German soldier in Auschwitz (true story, by the way, I’ve read this in a pertinent book with testimonies from victims). Where is this boy’s free will? Where is the free will of the 300 thousand people that died from the tsunami? I don’t know, it really upsets me to think this stuff.
What if there was a Creator of the Cosmos that wasn’t in control. Is it possible to imagine that the Universe exists because of a something or even a someone that isn’t in control of the outcome?
Artists or inventors take a risk in creating something and giving it or selling it… and then must give up the control of the outcome of that artwork or product. In the hands of a buyer… the artwork or product can get damaged, modified or destroyed… Is that the artist’s intent… I don’t believe so.
I would like to believe, but obviously have no proof… that the Cosmos happened and humanity happened because of something or someone capable of Love. What ever the artist is of the Universe… the product has been beautiful and able to love. For Millenia.. humans of all kinds have been trying to identify the Artist of the Universe… Maybe it is an unending journey to figure that out… but kudos on humanity for trying. I am just sad that the journey for so many has reaped anger instead of wonder.
I’d say it’s completely possible, one of the large number of possibilities. So what to believe? I myself try to find a reason to believe something, one way or the other — not “proof,” just some reason — i.e., why believe *this* thing instead of all these *other* things….
Hi Bart
This is off topic, but I’ve noticed this before:
disabledupes{dacc842bd5011e138564afceffdcd590}disabledupes
dupe=to trick or cheat somebody
Is there some special reason that this character string shows up in some of your replies?
(though it would be nice if it was so easy to disable duping of someone!)
I have no idea. It actually shows up every time I make a comment, and sometimes then it goes out as part of the comment!
Its that kind of logic that started my departure from what little belief I had retained from childhood…. It was with respect to sin… basically to believe that the triune God who is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all sent himself to earth as a human to suffer and die to atone for the sins of everyone else. Everyone else that he also created in forms that would sin, knowing they would sin (he’s omniscient) when, being omnipotent, he could have created them without sin. And, this was his plan all along to change his relationship with his creations and bring salvation to them from himself. Rather than just forgiving them for sinning, or forgiving himself for creating the sinners??
Bart, you just don’t see the whole picture. One other thing besides rebirth He gave us is forgetfulness. So we wouldn’t get confused when we married our previous child for example. We all make choices. They just all don’t have resolution in one lifetime. And, no. One doesn’t need a degree to makes sense of things. Or to see that Judas is Jesus’s ‘man who bears me.’ 😉
Study mysticism. It will do you good …
Bart, does the Christian explanation and understanding of “rebellion” in some way answer these questions?
As far as I understand the argument: would a god of love, a god who must be seeking or using our experience in some way, a god who bound itself within time and space, really take away *any* personality’s opportunity of free expression?.. That wouldn’t be love. That would be tyranny.
If the Christian tradition says that there will be no suffering in the next life, it’s wrong. No suffering means no growth, no achievement, no purpose, no personality.. Which means you and I will cease to exist because our personality or point of view would cease to exist.. But a loving god wouldn’t want us to not exist. A loving god wouldn’t want us to end. Wouldn’t want or allow our personality and point of view to end. A god of love is a god of human salvation.
Wouldn’t the allowance of free expression existing at all levels be the only loving and logical explanation of suffering? The only world where you and I and every other personality alive could truly experience freedom of expression? (the same experience, freedom, and love the “rebels” are granted)?
Appreciate you.
My sense is that in traditional Christian theology, the reason we appreciate and yearn for growth, achievement, and purpose in this life is because we are such hopelessly imperfect creatures, but in the afterlife we will be perfect, and so no need for any such things. BUt you’re right: others find this picture rather dull and uninteresting. The traditional response to that is that it’s because we are so hopelessly imperfect that we can’t imagine it….
I agree with Bart. These sort of rationalizations really give me the sh1ts. You can explain anything away by appealing to something that no one can prove and no one can see. Bar has seen this more times than I’ve had bad sushi. “What happens on earth is secondary to what happens in the afterlife, because if if you have faith, God will look after you after you die.” What an absolute load of shite. There are no technological limits to solving pretty much all global problems – the fact that there are starving children in the world is a complete fu$%ing disgrace – send them food !! Help them to grow crops !! How hard can it be ? This is one of many things that paints humanity in such a poor light. I find I’m moving the opposite way to Bart. As a young man, I was quite chilled and east going, but as an old guy, I’m starting to let fly like Mussolini from the tower.
Come on humans. Lift your bloody game !!
I tend to hyper-humanist positivity on this issue. Suffering is on the decline. We can round up any number of measures to prove this. It is due to the germ theory of disease, effective medicine, green revolutions, capitalism and social democracy reaching some kind of synthesis, policies, sanitation, and education. You should be mad at pat answers to complex questions (a sure sign of intellectual mediocrity) that lean into theological justifications rather than ask better questions about how we can all contribute to further reducing those numbers of deaths, those experiences of deprivation and despair, and even the existential dread that leads to simplistic answers to essential matters of ethical engagement with our fellow human beings.
And though I tend to hyper-humanist positivity, I often get really annoyed at the state of the world and its many actors. So forgive yourself. The best I sometimes muster is that the friction is inevitable and yet so is progress.
I do agree there has been great human progress. For me that doesn’t solve the God-problem….
Fair enough. I’ve never had the God problem.
The God Problem was really the issue that we were discussing; I think the reality of suffering seriously calls into question whether there is a loving and powerful God in the world. He didn’t see why. But his own explanations didn’t make any sense to me.
I agree! I was frustrated listening to him dance around the issues. He would not “own” his own statements. I did not think you were hyper-confrontational rather quite restrained and appropriate.
Thanks! I need to hire you as my PR agent!
ExUnoPlura–HUMAN suffering may be on the decline (I’m not sure we can safely say that given what climate change has in store for us, but for the sake of argument, I’ll accept it). But the horrific suffering that is built into the animal world, with predators devouring sentient prey, wounded or injured animals dying slowly, and so on and on, isn’t diminishing at all. It can’t; death is an integral part of the system, and most natural deaths are painful for the sentient animal undergoing them. This is, to me, an unanswerable objection to the idea that this system was created by a good and merciful divinity. We are rightly horrified by pet owners who neglect or abuse or mistreat their animals; how can we be less horrified be a god who designed a system that inevitably requires animal torment? (Supposedly god is omnipotent, so he could have designed a system that did NOT rely on animal suffering. If he chose to create this one, then he is evil.)
There is a line in Dicaprio’s movie “Aviator” where one of Howard Hughes actress companions intervened while the character Howard Hughes was having one of his events. Her answer to him in dealing with his problems was “we do what we can”. Thank you for letting me be a part of your work.
On the subject of suffering I have little to bestow. On the subject of God vs suffering I am leaning to Deism. Humanism seems to be a possible answer, but if we all gave everything to the poor we will all be dumpster diving. I do not understand why the first century Christian ever considered communalism ie., communism. Jesus preached against it and it was an utter failure. Why did Jesus cure one leper when He had the power to wipe it off the face of the earth? Why did He resurrect one child when he could have ended child death (women had to have 6 children just to keep the population constant)? Suffering has been on this planet since Genesis 3 and I have no reason to believe it will ever stop. Like I told a Sunday school class studying Revelation, “no more death means everyone is dead”. A mama cat left me 5 kittens on the farm last year. After $500 on each and 7 months of daily care I was able to adopt them out. I guess I am lucky it was not 5 starving children.
#timcfix…. thank you for investing in the next generation of cats. There is so much emphasis on spaying and neutering cats… and rightly so… but I am thankful that some cats evade the fixing… because the species is still surviving and cats are still finding homes in which to pass along love. I know… I have been the recipient of so much cat love in my life. So thank you for investing in them when the other option could have been to end them.
Where does Jesus preach against communism? I believe this was an economic system he had no knowledge of.
If you are open to the possibility of an all-powerful God, it seems strange me that you would consider that this God could not retroactively do away with suffering, whenever occurring.
I’m not sure what you mean about retroactively doing away with suffering?
I *always* struggle with prayer. When someone is sick, pray for them. When there’s war, pray for an end. I’ve been dealing with some of my own medical troubles lately, and the death of my dear sister. People tell me they are praying for me. I honestly don’t know how to respond.
What I’ve finally convinced myself of is this: that prayer might serve some placebo affect for the one actually giving it. If I speak up and say, “don’t waste your time on prayer,” then I am taking something away from them.
It is almost entirely for the reasons you give that I let go of belief in a god a long time ago. I watched too many people close to me – including a couple of devout fundamentalists – die long and painful deaths instead of the quick ruptured aneurysm (for example) that will eventually take me. I saw too much alcoholism, too much drug abuse, too much mental illness. If I want to thank “god” for the good things, then I have to blame “god” for the bad things. That’s something I can do without.
Prof Ehrman,
I watched the video and equally shared in your sentiments. I questioned along the same lines you did. I particularly find it worrying how people justify their need for gratitude only because of the suffering of others. I am not saying people shouldn’t be grateful for their lives and the good in their lives. We are humans and expressing gratitude is such a great and important virtue. We are grateful for life, good health, food, shelter etc. I only quiz why one would express a sense of gratitude only because of the mishap or tragedy of another. Question is can people who express such gratitude in such a scenario possibly do so in the presence of suffering parties? If they can’t, then, its questionable. A situation that in some ways can be likened to the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14). Its also likens to a student being grateful to God for scoring 10 out of 10 and his reason for this gratitude isn’t because of intellect or good tutors, but that all his fellow students failed. Really? Grateful that others failed and you didn’t? How is that empathy? How is that an expression of Love? So I tend to take solace in the African spirit of ‘Ubuntu’ – that expresses in some ways as ‘I AM BECAUSE WE ARE’. We share in our joys in times of joy and share in our sorrows in times of sorrow, not joy or express gratitude because of the sorrow of another. Does this kind of reaction in your view go back to any particular Christian understanding or doctrine because its an unusually comfortable reaction and quite the usual?
Oh yes indeed — it’s a sentiment I agree with completely; it’s one of the great verses of the New Testament: “Rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15)
What is going on with “Q”? I’ve been reading that more and more people are thinking that the author of Luke had access to Matthew and that Q never existed. This POV apparently is more popular in Europe than over here.
I don’t really know how much things are shifting. Over here it seems to be mainly those influenced by (blog member!) Mark Goodacre, especially his students. But I haven’t looked into what’s happening in Europe. One problem with detecting shifting trends is that the people who disagree with a consensus tend to be the ones who write and talk about it the most, even if they are still a small minority; that was the case, say, 20 years ago when some scholars were saying that most no longer believed Jesus was an apocalypticist. It turns out that “most” was really most of those writign new books (since no one who agreed with what almost everyone thought considered it mportant to affirm what everyone thought) and their friends….
Bart, I too am an expert (albeit not on NT, obviously) and I too get irritated at folks who are not experts claiming knowledge. For example, climate modelers purport to know how farmers will be affected by climate change in 2050, without actually talking to crop scientists or farmers themselves and understanding their lives and constraints. Why do people listen to them when they can’t possibly know that? Why do structures (academic journals, religious institutions) support that?
As for me, one of my spirit guides (who shows up as a cartoon character) tells me “the answer to the problem of suffering is on a “need to know” basis.. and you don’t need to know.” I think the world would be a better place, and experts of all kinds, more trusted, if we just said “we don’t know” and were humble and honest.
My sense is that scientists who make claims do so on the basis of substantial data and that the rest of us simply read the 1% of what they know and say, since we don’t have the wherewithal or interest in digging into the actual research. That makes me disinclined to write them off for not having any way of knowing. I can’t answer the actual questioin you’re asking, except to say that here are many tons of data that are driving the claims.
My point was that people who claim to know what can’t be known when you actually know more about the physical/biological/historical realities than they do, can be are irritating. And not to get overly epistemological but model projections based on assumptions are not “data”.
Jesus “looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said….” [Mk 3:5]
“He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves….” [Mtt 21:12]
“I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.”
[Amos 5:21]
Righteous wrath puts you in pretty good company
Ha! Good point.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
During the period before you became an atheist (your more liberal period as opposed to your time at Moody to be specific) did you see Jesus as divine when you still called yourself a Christian?
Thanks!
Yes, but I meant different things about it at different times. E.g., Jesus could be divine in the sense that he reveals the true characgter of God, without necessarily pre-existing etc.
These posts on suffering always bring everyone and their kid brother out of the woodwork, it seems. I think a large piece of the “problem” is due to the way our human brains work. Homo Sapiens thinks and experiences the world largely through words and symbols, so we attach names to concepts like good, bad, pleasure, suffering, etc. So suffering, for example, gets abstracted out of the present moment and given a name and a definition. It thereby takes on the status of a sort of platonic form existing somewhere outside or above our daily reality. I’m not at all minimizing the significance of suffering for us humans, but for (many?, most?) of our animal brethren, what they experience is simply what they experience in the moment, without attaching a label to it. I think this is one possible “solution” to our philosophical dilemma. I’ll post another possible scenario anon.
Hey Bart, It seems to me that suffering and pleasure maybe inevitable consequences of consciousness? Thoughts: 1. Suffering is very much in the eye of the beholder. Some of the examples you cite may not be suffering as much as you think they are, whereas some people who seem to have a very nice life suffer from the most horrendous depression. So suffering can’t be measured and is very personal and private. 2. if there was no suffering, there could be no kindness, empathy, help, healing, comfort and compassion. There would be no incentive to change things to do good. 3. Suffering is an aspect of struggle and struggle is an aspect of effort, work, overcoming, courage, faith, self-sacrifice. One could ask the question: if doing good was easy and without suffering, would it be really be doing good? Would it be worth anything? Would it be worthy of praise? 4, If there was no suffering, could we really value anything ? 5. Is it really possible to have pleasure or joy without suffering? I don’t know but I do wonder whether The two opposites are part of the same entity?
If the suffering involved something like mental struggle, I’d agree. But I really can’t take suffering in extremis lightly and say that it can be justified because someone gets somethig good out of it, or because it brings out the best in others. People who are in massive physical agony for months or years and then die don’t take this view, and I certainly have never heard any one who came out of the Holocaust or the Killing Fields say anything like it.
really enjoyed this post(since i heartily agree with subject) and the comments tend to be very interesting. i really do not understand anyone who read almost any of the old testament who can come away thinking anything other than the christian god is a complete monster purposefully, not counting all of the natural disasters outside the bounds of human cruelty. it is really easy for us here in america to “not really see” the horrors of much of the remainder of the world. we can barely see the children of st judes or shriners hospitals or smile train. if one pays any attention to even us news they could easily get their fill of human cruelty to children and animals. so much evil lives while so many innocents suffer and perish. in so many accident stories it is inevitably the innocents die while the guilty are virtually unscathed. the only conclusion i can draw is that so many desperately want to believe in that happy ending. i believe they have been seriously deluded, most (not all) when they were brainwashed very early in life and so many know so little about the religion they hold so dear..
Off topic:
Do we have any idea how many Christians were killed in the Neronian persecution? Less than 100?
Thanks!
OUr main source, Tacitus, doesn’t tell us, but if it were over a hundred you’d think he’s say even more. He does indicate several forms of grisly execution, and presumably each one had some poor folk who endured them. I”ve always imagines a few dozen at most.
I came from an Orthodox Christian tradition that more-or-less exaults suffering as something to be thankful for. The basic premise that this world is a crucible designed to ‘ripen’ us as intended. We should be grateful to be deemed worthy to have bestowed on us more suffering, that just means we got selected to play on ‘hard mode’. This life is an obstacle course to be completed to make us god-like, purified in the refiner’s fire. Those that get knocked off early in the chaos are blessed that they don’t have to complete the whole course to pass. It only seems tough because we’re ‘young’ beings who complain about trivialities, lacking the perspective of illumination; like children who think parents are unreasonable for teaching us to enjoy personal challenges.
This was always satisfactory to me, but left me convinced that ‘Heaven’ is not going to be a utopia if this is the training.
Not believing in an afterlife now means I can’t rationalize the suffering of others. It forces engagement/existential-action/youthful&idealistic-zeal instead of romanticized passive acceptance/submission to embrace fate as ‘maturity’.
I’m interested to hear if others have experienced the perspective of suffering-as-blessing, and if wearied/submissive/’mature’ souls are enviable or pittiable.
Jedibart,
I read a book about Italian Catholics in the 50’s.. a first person book, that described the author’s experiences of the same view of suffering as you describe. At one time I thought it was a Peter Occhiogrosso book but I tried to find it and couldn’t . I remember a part about a disabled person. I really wanted to recommend this book to an (Italian -American) friend who was interested, but couldn’t find it again. Maybe someone else on the blog can help?
Ah! This completely explains why you admire the chapter ‘Rebellion’ in ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ that I mentioned in another post. Yes, this problem agonised Dostoevsky despite his faith. His empathy for suffering has had a profound effect on me personally.
The prophets said ‘ we are refined in the furnace of suffering’.Transformative change requires a lot of prolonged suffering otherwise we would quickly revert back to the status quo.
God has given us free choice and we have chosen to dance with the devil because he is perceived to be more fun.
God is love but He also told us it is a jealous love and if we hope to relieve suffering we have to stop dancing with the devil and appeal to God for reconciliation through humble repentant prayer and action. Paul quoted the prophet Isaiah when he said, “Every knee shall bend”. We can do it the easy way or the hard way but human nature being what it is we will probably choose the stubborn hard way.
I must confess I don’t believe that we have all been reconciled back to God through Jesus’ death on the cross. For me the cross was the devil trying to get Jesus to bow down and worship him. It was not God’s ‘will’ that Jesus suffer like that. It was God’s will that He remain faithful and not surrender to the devil. Jesus won the victory-let every knee bend!
An unrelated question:
Did the historical Jesus probably think he had to die (being the lamb) as described in the gospels? If not, why not?
I personally think not, definitely not. ARe you asking why he didn’t think this? Because he didn’t know he was going to die. Or are you asking why I think he didn’t think this? That’s a bit more complicated. It’s because he apparently thought he would be made the king of the coming kingdom when God intervened and destroyed the forces of evil in the near future.
Another unrelated question: when Jesus called Peter Satan, was it probably meant as saying that peter was acting like an adversary (like the original meaning of the word satan)?
Or was it meant to point out that Jesus thought that Peters’ words there came from the devil?
Possibly both. But I don’t think Jesus meant “adversary” in a general sense; he probably did mean “Satan.”
The (very) few times I’ve tried to address the problem of evil with believers I was completely confounded by the apparent lack of any real feeling for the victims of horrendous suffering. This lack of real empathy was much more disturbing to me than the lack of logical rigor in their arguments.
Dr Ehrman,
When the author of Colossians uses Wisdom terminology in Col 1:15-20, is he equating Christ with Wisdom (claiming that Christ is literally the Wisdom of God)? or is he saying that Christ is all those things because he possesses the Wisdom of God?
It’s an unusually intriguing and much discussed passage, with considerable intricacies. It does not indicate what Jesus possesses, but what he *is*. He is not called “Wisdom” here, of course (a feminine word), but attributes of Sophia are clearly assigned to him.
Do we know why Jewish Christians of the first century started ascribing features of Sophia and Logos to Jesus?
We don’t know for sure. My hunch is that it started with the view that Jesus spoke the word and wisdom of God; then it came to be thought that his life reflected the character of God; and from their the connection to Wisdom made sense; and since he was male, not femail, and since Logos thinking was widely spread, the idea that he was actually God’s own Logos took yold. That’s an overly simplified answer to a very complicated questrion, of course. Paul does call Jesus the Wisdom of God, but the first real suggestoin of a Logos theology is in the prologue of John.
Dr Ehrman,
Do we know how common the reverence of Wisdom was in 1st Century Judaism?
I don’t think we have any way to gauge how widespread the reverence was, but there are clear evidences of it in places. Check out, e.g., Wisdom of Solomon chapter 7-9.
In my experience there is something about human psychology that makes people more likely to reject watertight deductive syllogistic argument, which is the kind you are trying to make, as opposed to other kinds of arguments, e.g. inductive. It’s unfortunate, because syllogism guarantees that the conclusion is true if the premises are true. I’m always amazed by the mental gymnastics that can occur when a person agrees with the premises but disagrees with the conclusion.
For what it’s worth I watched this discussion and think it’s the other guy who behaved badly, not you.
1. He mocked nonbelievers with his “Uh Uh Uh” comment. Totally unnecessary and it betrayed his ignorance of the argument or dishonesty. Either way, a bad look.
2. He repeatedly changed his argument instead of responding to your response to his without acknowledging his initial argument’s failure. This is difficult to do publicly but if one can do it, shows integrity.
If you read some of the comments it becomes clear that many of the observers were not following the arguments, so I wouldn’t give their opinions much weight.
You don’t need to respond, just wanted to share my own observations.
Intriguing posts, all, and lots of very deep and nuanced thoughts and suggestions here! When dealing with a topic this profound, I like to try to approach it from first principles, as much as our puny human brains are capable of, anyway. When asking the question why does suffering exist, ultimately what we’re asking is why does anything – good, bad, or indifferent – exist? When it comes to something as profound and existential as the existence of suffering, we want, even need, it to make sense. There are philosophers and cosmologists these days who take seriously the idea that we might be living inside a simulation – ala The Matrix. That once a civilization’s technology and computational power reach a certain threshold, they won’t be able to resist the urge to “play God” by creating their own universes “in a test-tube” and watching what transpires. This sci-fi scenario would, of course, lead to all conceivable manner of wonders and horrors – not unlike, some would suggest, the very universe we inhabit. If Bart’s “blog-matrix” will let me, I’ll post some additional thoughts later.
I like this explanation because it leaves out god(s) but leaves in the possibility of non material. Also, it provides a possibility that not all suffering outside ourselves is necessarily real, but instead exists only within our own perspective. The suffering of others could be limited to only our own suffering in perceiving the suffering of others. It would initially seem that this callously dismisses the suffering of others but if you think about it, it also removes the suffering altogether which would be a good thing.
I agree.
I’ve very long thought the idea that other people’s extreme and gratuitous suffering are to be as tools for our own gratitude to be one of the most inhumane and horrifying views any human could ever have dreamt up.
You know I read a book last year called East West Street about the development at the Nuremburg trials of the legal concepts of crimes of humanity and the crime of genocide. I remember part of the book talking about where one nazi had written in a document some rather comment about how *dumb* the jewish were because in all their suffering they still were able to laugh and enjoy each others’ company. My point being so banal I guess, but the first commandment is to “love”. Maybe that is the problem with suffering. Lack of human compassion. Still loving through our suffering is indeed noble, like Job.
But also, even when nations try to help other nations say with food droppings and the like, there still are forces who will try to prevent those needing the rations sent from getting them, which you know is free will…on and on.
beg pardon, crimes against humanity
This is not a deep philosphical point, but seems a practical solution to the dilemma of Drano or shampoo. Without the shampoo, you wouldn’t wash your hair, not washing your hair would not get hair in the drain. No hair clog in the drain, you don’t need the Drano. Buy a book instead.
Yeah, that’s probably what I did…
I became an atheist after the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami. Long story short, I am a believer in God now although not in the Christian sense.
Continuing my attempt at speculating from first principles, the mere existence of our universe (which allows for things like suffering) I believe needs to be placed front and center in any discussion. At least since the early 20th century, it has been known that the fundamental core of reality is the quantum realm, which is governed by probabilities or potentialities. Leaving aside the speculation that ours is a “designer universe” set in motion by some hyper-advanced progenitor civilization uncounted aeons past, that still leaves the question why does this universe exist at all. There has been no dearth of ink spilled on this topic over the centuries, but I think the question has taken on a new and more urgent significance since the 20th century, when physicists realized just how improbably balanced the basic constants of physics are in our universe. Long story short, it really is impossible to explain the universe we inhabit without positing the existence of an infinitude of others (the famous Anthropic argument). This either implies a designer of some sort, or the preexistence of the quantum (statistical) laws. There are no alternatives.
Yes, the moment the theist includes “all loving” in the God definition, justification for suffering is untenable. But, limiting the God definition to just “all knowing, all powerful” gives the theist wiggle room.
Listened to the podcast. Your two Muslim “colleagues” were absolutely insufferable. Is there any way you can extricate yourself from these silly, seemingly fruitless discussions? I wasted an hour, hoping that they would make a point and teach me something. Instead, it was a parade of cliches and simplistic answers. Your frustration was obvious. It was Sandy Koufax facing a slow pitch team. What a major waste of time. (I did read some of the comments to the “discussion” and was surprised to hear that Bart lost the debate because he was too emotional. As he would say: “Hah!”)
I would have to say the suffering occurs and we see it because we set ourselves apart from the world. Or said another way we live by death. We eat life be it seed or steak so that we might die. We possess, and that warps our view of a world that lives to die. Death does not come easily, the will to live is a strong one, but death does come. My sister suffered because she died from a disease that consumed her and that denied her existence. I suffered because she died and that denied my existence. By extension no one should suffer. By reality we must all suffer.
Obligatory bible verse, Jobe 38
No, it reads badly. Can’t say it correctly you should delete this one. My apologies.
Setting to one side all my previous speculations, in the final analysis what still commands my thoughts and attention are the unintended and unforeseeable effects of suffering. Perhaps this is just our attempt to find some value in it after the fact, but I don’t think it can be doubted that suffering forces us to look deeply into ourselves – to *feel* deeply within ourselves. The Greeks had a term for it – Pathos. It forces us to grow stronger and perhaps develop into a more mature “soul”. I realize this “explanation” does not answer the question of what about all the people who suffer, seemingly for no purpose, only to die in misery. What benefit do they get out of it? Seemingly none, yet I still can’t help but feel that as humans we are seeing only a small sliver of reality, and that the deep ocean of information, meaning, and understanding that gives rise to it lies far below and far beyond our everyday logic.
Bart behaving humanly. And in the background, Bart behaving humanely. I admit to getting more n more irritated with apologists at the pathetic, groveling excuse-making for their ALMIGHTY being. Pah! What we have to do is not stand silently by. We have to help, as subscribing to this blog does. And do stuff locally where you are – real stuff. “Prayer” doesn’t count.
Many things influenced my journey from fundamental christian to atheist/agnostic. One that is relevant to this post has to do with my “Guardian Angel.” I was told from childhood that I had a Guardian Angel who would always be with me protecting me from harm (the 23 Psalm and Psalms 91:11). As I got older and began to realize that horrible things happened to the youngest and most innocent among us, I wondered what happened to their Guardian Angel? Was s/he off duty? Would mine be off duty at that critical moment when I was in need? As I got older and understood just how terribly people in this world suffered, the explanations I was given were not only inadequate but failed to even make sense. Interestingly, I have heard the same “explanations” recycled over the years as if they were new and revelatory. It is impossible for me to believe that there is a divine being overseeing all of the horrible suffering in the world yet does nothing to stop it.
There is still amongst religions today the idea of persons transgressing against themselves, other humans and the environment, and/or against God (the Trinity, or like Allaha or in India, Brahma.) And the age old revolving question why do ‘bad’ things happen to ‘good’ people? Like a philosopher’s questions, empirically stated, the horror comes back in every generation I think….maybe people in their 20’s…..when we see what we never imagined happening to others or ourselves. Like hardworking people farming, but lo and behold the dam breaks, the whole village is destroyed, some good people died rescuing others. Or one brave soul becomes the “last man standing,” giving up his all, but doing right by everyone. The toughest thing I have imagined is facing up to realizing and accepting that I did something that really either hurt someone or turned their life toward ill. Fortunately for my psyche it is never cut and dried, but advice given sometimes can backfire. Also terrible if we turn away from alleviating something wrong, but have to personally “go.” (There was that tragic Astroworld event recently…a man’s dear son fell off his neck & then soon died.)
.
In John 9:2-3, Jesus’ disciples seem to approach the blind man through the filter of theology (i.e. is this because of his sins or the sins of his parents?). Their pat responses at the time – like with many of us today – kept them from experiencing the situation as it was, from touching a disturbing reality without barriers, from developing empathy, and from taking action. Jesus seemed to simply brush these filters aside, to dismiss them, and then equate doing something to help him with the “works of God”. Maybe this is just my reading of it. I’m also not sure if that’s what’s meant with, “This happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him”.
Bart Behaving Badly? Or Not Badly Enough?
I fully acknowledge bias and believe that Dr. Lawrence was trounced in the “discussion” – as his arguments ranged from bad to laughable. That aside, something else bothered me about the “discussion”. Was this game being played with loaded dice or on a tilted table?
It seemed that Dr. Brown was getting far more time in the foreground than Dr. Ehrman. Moreover, Bart was, at times, having respond to the moderator and to Dr. Brown. Was I imagining it?
So I went through the entire discussion logging in Excel the time of foreground time vs background time for each participant.
The result: (approximate because Excel seems to have some rounding problems when adding seconds)
Ehrman had 29 minutes 14 seconds vs. Brown with 54 minutes 45 seconds of time in the foreground.
Even accounting for an accumulation of rounding errors, the foreground time afforded to Bart was wildly disparate. Additionally, the moderator interrupted Bart multiple times supporting Brown – even reiterating his points. I did note that from 40:28 to 40:59 Bart was holding his neck. Was Brown a literal pain in Bart’s neck?
Ha! Interesing statistics and observations….
Dr Bart Ehmram
I understand why people have such views. In my case i believe that God created all that exists, and than left the universe in auto-pilot and even not being a budist i agree with a statement from the Delai Lama saying that we need to stop all violence and not pray to God to be Him to end it because it’s our responsibility all the wars and suffering in the world, so, it’s up to us humans to end with all the suffering and wars and not God. Like you said, a lot of children dies everyday from starvation, shouldn’t we blame the parents of those children that acknowledge the situation of starvation on their countries, they keep having kids without having conditions for them to grow?
Parents starve too. In almost every instance there’s no way to avoid it. ANd it’s been that way for almost the entire 300,000 years homo sapiens are on earth. So I don’t think you can blame humans for it.
“Who did sin, this [blind] man or his parents?” asked the disciples (Jhn9). Why does 2+2≠5? A wrong question! But “Parents starve too.”(Bart). “Where is thy God?” (Psm42:3).
Bart’s noble issue in this thread is best answered, for me, in Psm139: “If I make my bed in hell, behold He is there.” I’d rather have a “fictional god” with me, than nothing! Many in this forum live charmed lives, especially me (and apparently Bart). Would I exchange places with a parent in a refugee camp? No. Read: We Are the Pharisees, by a woman who went there.
“God with us” is what Jesus came to teach. “Being in God” is what Spinoza deduced. (See Spinoza’s Religion, by Clare Carlisle.) Can there be a substitutional atonement? No. Jesus did not come to do my homework for me. He illustrated an inspiring approach, to show me how to do my own. ~MeridaGOround dot com.
My wife and I listened to this podcast they other day. It left both of us with a bad taste. It made both out us realize that fundamentalist are pretty much the same which ever prophet they follow. I think your opponent frustrated me because I used to be a lot like that. My path had been a lot like yours. I appreciate your work.
Which podcast is it, so we can listen?
It was another one for Blogging THeology with Paul Williams.