2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 52 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Freedom From Religion Foundation Lecture

On May 3 of this year I gave a lecture at a meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Raleigh NC.    The lecture is about what it is like to be an agnostic who writes about religion.  That’s an irony that I am constantly aware of and most of the lecture is about my experience as a non-religious person who is an expert in something he doesn’t believe in.

I also used  the lecture  to stress that being “free from religion” is not the same thing as “attacking religion.”  I absolutely agree with the founding principle of the FFRF that no religion (of any kind, Christian or otherwise) should be imposed on us by the state.  But I do not at *all* think that this is the same thing as being opposed to religion.  I am personally not opposed to religion or people who practice it (although I *am* quite definitely opposed to fundamenalist kinds of religion — whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever).  And I think organized agnostic/atheist/secular/humanist attacks on religion per se are wrong-headed and (just as important) counter-productive.   In any event, I get into all that in my lecture, found here.  (I hope you like the statue I was given for the Emperor Has No Clothes Award !):

 

Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition:


Suggested Donation for the Blog
Clarification!

123

Comments

  1. Avatar
    Steefen  August 30, 2014

    The second most important historical Jesus, after King Izates, is Emperor Vespasian.

    Christ Jesus can be understood as terms as opposed to a singular person. Christ would mean Messiah. Jesus would mean Savior or God Saves. Three historians claim Emperor Vespasian was Christ Jesus because he was the leader promised in the Star Prophecy. Those historians were Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus.

    The third most important historical Jesus after Emperor Vespasian is the Woe-Saying Jesus.

    Now, the problem I have with Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman and How Jesus became God by Bart Ehrman is that we have three ancient historians who claim Paul’s Christ Jesus = Messiah Savior of the Star Prophecy to be Vespasian. With Rome, the Victors, writing history and writing a non-militant, pro-Roman Jesus and a religion about Jesus through Paul, — Did Jesus Exist does not have an index but — these books need to confirm, not the three tenors but the three historians. Vespasian becomes deified within 20 years of Jesus becoming God.

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  August 31, 2014

      We don’t have any ancient historians who claim that Christ was Vespasian.

      • Avatar
        Steefen  September 1, 2014

        The “Star Prophecy” (or Star and Scepter prophecy) is a Messianic reading applied by radical Jews and early Christians to Numbers 24:17. The Star Prophecy was applied to the coming Messiah himself in contemporary radical Jewish documents, such as the apocalyptic War Scroll found at Qumran.

        Now for the Ancient Historians who claimed Christ was Vespasian, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus:

        [Vespasian] had not arrived at the government without Divine Providence, but a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power. Josephus War of the Jews 4, 10, 622
        But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle also found in their sacred writings, that ‘At about that time, one from their country would become ruler of the habitable world.’ This they took to mean one of their own people and many of the wise men were misled in their interpretaion. This oracle, however, in reality, signified the government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while in Judea. – Josephus Wars VI, 312-313.

        There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated for men coming from Judea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome–as afterwards appeared from the event–the people of Judea took to themselves. – Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 4-5

        The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth. – Tacitus, Histories, 5.13

        • Avatar
          Steefen  September 1, 2014

          Vespasian saved us from militant, zealous, messianic rebel Jews just as today we need to be saved from militant, zealous, rebels of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria committing genocide against Christians, beheading adults and children. (NPR transcript: http://wmra.org/post/spectacle-beheading-grisly-act-long-history )

          For people to miss the assignment of the Star Prophecy by three historians away from Jesus to Vespasian and Titus is to miss the historically accurate picture of Christianity in Antiquity. Jesus is assigned the title of Messiah as Roman propaganda to appease messiah loving zealots but corrupting the love for a militant messiah for a pacifist messiah. Josephus saw Vespasian and Titus as doing the work of the Messiah of God.

      • Avatar
        Steefen  September 4, 2014

        Wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? (Matthew Chapter 2) Rome was the kingdom over the Jews. Who did King Herod the Great listen to? He listened to the emperor of Rome. After Herod the Great, who appointed his sons in authority in the region? Rome. Afterwards, who appointed Pontius Pilate? Who appointed the high priests? The kingdom that was at hand, politically, was Rome.

        Dr. Ehrman, the crown of Christ was taken away from any Jewish man or proselyte and given to Roman men, father and son, Vespasian and Titus.

        Regarding God empowering General and Emperor Vespasian (the father) and General and Emperor Titus (the son)–Rome–Matthew 21: 42-44: “Did you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes’? Therefore, I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people (the Romans) that will produce its fruit. The one who falls on this stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.” The stone will crush anyone on whom it falls is a reference to a Roman weapon of victory over Jewish rebels used during the Roman Jewish War. The Roman military threw stones that crushed anyone on whom it fell. God has done this. By Roman victory over the Jews, the Kingdom of God/Righteousness/Heaven and its king/emperor was taken away from the Jews and given to Rome. Even the early Christianity of the Roman Church did better than the early Christianity of Jerusalem.

        Historians, Bible, History, Jesus, and Star Prophecy claim Vespasian as Christ, later deified by Rome’s Senate, the Senate of the Kingdom of God. Then the Senate of the Kingdom of God deified the son, Titus as Father and Son became God in the new covenant, Christianity. The network of the emperor cults in Asia Minor was a network used by Paul. Paul working through the network of Palestine isn’t how history unfolded.

        • Avatar
          Steefen  September 9, 2014

          At Church Sunday, we learned that the Roman Empire WAS seen as God’s Kingdom after Christianity was the religion of the Empire. The minister said people were only allowed to read the book of Revelation metaphorically and not literally, as Rome, at the time of its writing was the evil empire.

          But what is this about Rome being God’s Kingdom for the Son of Man within jesus’s present generation (at or within 40 years from Jesus crucifixion, or at or within 40 years of Jesus’s last year of preaching ministry).

          Well, when Josephus fell for Rome as a political alternative to Jerusalem, he fell hard. Seriously, he had reason to do so. Last night, I was doing some reading in Josephus and it stated that when the rebels were fighting among themselves (John, Simon, and Eleazar), John and Simon burned the stores of corn, which led to the starvation of Jews during the Jewish Revolt. It also led to cannibalism, for at least one adult who ate her male child. Josephus lamented the state of Jerusalem under these three rebels/bandits/what have you, that he felt a need for a Messiah/Savior/Kingdom. He saw that in Vespasian, Titus, and the Roman Empire.

          I felt there was a need to add more to the concept of how the ancient historian Josephus saw the Star of Bethlehem/Star Prophecy fulfilled in Vespasian.

  2. Avatar
    prestonp  August 30, 2014

    As intelligent and knowledgeable as most of Dr. Bart’s posters are, they shouldn’t need to be reminded of the vast gulf between those who use his name and those who try to live in his name.

  3. Avatar
    prestonp  August 31, 2014

    One of the key discoveries that led to Flew’s recognition
    of the existence of intelligence was what modern
    science has learned about DNA: “Biologists’ investigation
    of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable
    complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life,
    that intelligence must have been involved” (p. 123).

    Three main arguments compelled Flew to admit the
    need for an Intelligent Source: (1) the presence of
    detailed laws of nature, (2) the finely tuned universe
    that was perfectly receptive to life, and (3) the question
    of how and why life emerged from nothing (p. 89).

    There Is a God
    by
    Antony Flew
    with Roy Abraham Varghese
    HarperOne Reading and Discussion Guide for There Is a God

  4. SBrudney091941
    SBrudney091941  August 31, 2014

    Dr. Ehrman, overall, I am so appreciative of what you share in this lecture and of your your work generally. But there are some mistakes here, I think. First, I think you were quoting Mark: “Thou art my beloved Son….” This has nothing to do with miraculous birth virgin or otherwise or being the literal, much less the begotten, son of God as I think you were suggesting (at 68, however, my memory is slipping). And this RVS translation, in my view, cheats by capitalizing “son.” There is no divinity implied. But the other mistake that keeps getting perpetuated all around us every day is that of quoting John 10:30, “I and the Father are one,” as evidence that John taught Jesus was God. On the face of it, sure. But later in 17:11 Jesus prays to his Father that “they [the people or believers before him] may be one, even as we [you and I, Father] are one.” Jesus is not praying to his Father here that the people may become identical with one another. The oneness in 10:30, therefore, means something other than identity.

    • Bart Ehrman
      Bart Ehrman  August 31, 2014

      No, I don’t think that Mark understands Jesus to have been born of a virgin or to have pre-existed his birth (did I suggest this?). On John 10:30, I’m not so sure. If he wasn’t making a divine claim, why did his Jewish opponents take up stones to stone him?

      • Avatar
        prestonp  September 9, 2014

        But Dr., you don’t believe any of the words in john are those of jesus.

        • Bart Ehrman
          Bart Ehrman  September 9, 2014

          There may be some authentic words of Jesus in John, just as there are in other Gospels. The question is always *which* words are authentic.

          • Avatar
            prestonp  September 10, 2014

            Dr., there is rejoicing sweeping across the land of my heart tonight! Do you realize what just happened?
            An earthquake shook the Northern Hemisphere! Dr. Bart acknowledged we may have the actual words spoken by Christ in the gospels! Just teasing ya.

            Why would Christ celebrate a last supper if he was unaware of his fate?

          • Bart Ehrman
            Bart Ehrman  September 10, 2014

            Yes, I’ve written an entire book indicating what in the Gospels actually goes back to Jesus, so it’s not a surprise that I think some things do!

            I never said Christ celebrated the last supper. I said he *had* a last supper. I.e., there was a final meal he had, probably with his disciples, probably a Passover meal. What he said and did then is up to debate.

          • Avatar
            prestonp  September 11, 2014

            How did he know it would be his last supper?

          • Bart Ehrman
            Bart Ehrman  September 11, 2014

            I’m not sure he did.

    • Avatar
      prestonp  September 1, 2014

      Read on. 31 “Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

    • Avatar
      prestonp  September 1, 2014

      Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”

      Who is this guy? Who does he think he is? And, how does he know what will happen to people eternally if they put him and his mission above all? Why does he think he is so important that he can offer those who follow him abundance in this life and in eternity? And where the heck is he going, anyway, that people should follow him?

      • Avatar
        prestonp  September 10, 2014

        Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”

        Dr., who else could have said the above? Who in his right mind would make up such promises for Christ to make? I just can’t imagine how it could happen. Why would anyone dream up stuff like that? What could its “creator” derive from making such claims? It doesn’t make any sense to me. I think they are his words.

        • Bart Ehrman
          Bart Ehrman  September 10, 2014

          Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?

          • Avatar
            prestonp  September 11, 2014

            Dr., would you quote someone else who spoke words like those, please?

          • Bart Ehrman
            Bart Ehrman  September 11, 2014

            I’d suggest youread the non-canonical Gospels.

          • Avatar
            prestonp  September 12, 2014

            “After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.

            V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness. 2 And they that saw it were sore afraid and perplexed…”

            You are right. Anyone could have written this. It in no way compares with Christ’s words. No one has spoken like he did, imo. Do you believe, whoever wrote what is in Thomas, was on the same level with the canonical gospels?

          • Bart Ehrman
            Bart Ehrman  September 12, 2014

            Sorry — I was referring to the sayings in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, not the stories of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

          • Avatar
            prestonp  September 12, 2014

            Do you have others you could reference whom you find to be similar to Christ’s phraseology?

          • Bart Ehrman
            Bart Ehrman  September 12, 2014

            I’d suggest you look at the book my colleague Zlatko Plese and I produced, The Other Gospels.

          • Avatar
            prestonp  September 20, 2014

            “Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?” Dr. Bart

            1. No one has.
            2. Good question. They are not god.
            3. No. The words in Thomas are nothing like christ’s words.

  5. Avatar
    prestonp  September 12, 2014

    “Lots of people could have said or written that. Why couldn’t they? What would have stopped them? Do you think the words of Jesus in, say, the Gospel of Thomas must necessarily go back to him because they are so astounding and unlike what people normally say?”

    Wesley Center Online
    Gospel Of Thomas Greek Text A

    From “The Apocryphal New Testament” M.R. James-Translation and Notes Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924
    Introduction
    The older testimonies about this book have been given already. I now present the three principal forms of it, as given by Tischendorf: two Greek texts, A and B, and one Latin.

    The few Greek manuscripts are all late. The earliest authorities are a much abbreviated Syriac version of which the manuscript is of the sixth century, and a Latin palimpsest at Vienna of the fifth or sixth century, which has never been deciphered in full.

    The Latin version translated here is found in more manuscripts than the Greek; none of them, I think, is earlier than the thirteenth century.

    The stories of Thomas the Israelite, the Philosopher, concerning the works of the Childhood of the Lord.

    I. I, Thomas the Israelite, tell unto you, even all the brethren that are of the Gentiles, to make known unto you the works of the childhood of our Lord Jesus Christ and his mighty deeds, even all that he did when he was born in our land: whereof the beginning is thus:
    etc., etc

    Adam Clarke unequivocally affirmed the full trustworthiness
    or inerrancy of Scripture. In his article on “The
    Principles of the Christian Religion,” he stated, “The
    Bible . . . is a revelation from God himself, and declares
    his will relative to the salvation of men….men
    may err, but the Scriptures cannot; for it is the Word
    of God himself, who can neither mistake, deceive,
    nor be deceived” [Works, 12:132]. He frequently and
    approvingly quoted the saying concerning Scriptures
    that they have “God for their Author, salvation for
    their end, and truth, without mixture of error, for their
    matter” [Works,11:406]. In his Commentary he categorically
    stated that “The apostles were assisted and
    preserved from error by the Spirit of God; and therefore
    were enabled to deliver to us an unerring rule of
    faith.” The Holy Spirit did not permit them “to err in
    the delivery of what was thus indited in his name or
    which they had written as apostles of God the Father,
    and our Lord Jesus Christ” [Commentary, 5:9, 11].
    Clarke took inerrancy of Scripture as meaning that it
    is without error in all it affirms as fact, and not
    inerrant in what it does not affirm. For instance, the
    chronological sequence of recorded events may not
    be necessarily reflected in historical accounts, such
    as in the Gospels, unless the sequence is specifically
    affirmed. Furthermore, in the recording of conversations
    it is not necessary to have “the very words” but
    the “true intent and meaning” of the exact words.
    However, he believed that John 14:20 does promise
    exactness in the recording of Jesus’ exact words
    [Commentary, 5:10].
    Clarke stoutly defended the canonicity and textual
    purity of the Scriptures. The canon as we have it is
    complete and authentic. The Scriptures have been
    transmitted to us “without addition, defalcation, or
    willful corruption of any kind.” He refers to 2 Timothy
    3:16-17 in support of this. In Clarke’s opinion,
    the textual variants are not significant enough to lead
    to any doctrinal error or obscurity or confusion in
    moral practice. “All is safe and sound—all pure and
    holy, it is . . . the unadulterated gospel of Jesus
    Christ.” With regard to particular textual variants,
    such as 1 John 5:7, he honestly admits that he did not
    believe that was yet fully settled. He did believe
    however, that the Joshua 21:35-36 problem is solved
    by 1 Chronicles 6:78-79 [Works, 6:388, 415].
    Adam Clarke on the Use of Scripture
    Clarke believed in the eternal applicability of God’s
    Word. In his practical suggestions on how to read the
    Bible he advised Christians to read it as the very
    word of God Himself because God “considers it as
    much his word now as he did when he first spoke it”
    [Works, 11:416].
    THE ARMINIAN

  6. Avatar
    prestonp  September 13, 2014

    “…many biblical scholars who are deeply committed Christians would agree with Bart Ehrman that Jesus makes no explicit claims to be God in the Synoptics, and would also agree that the words of Jesus in the Gospel of John are not to be taken as actual quotes of Jesus but as theological meditations or discourse…”

    If every bible scholar believed that, it still would have no bearing on his divinity. 2,000 years after he was here, he remains the central figure in human history.

    “No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is GoDr. Bart
    d.” From a brilliant agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. When people have a born again experience , as I am sure you know, there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hype at that moment

    “They are theologically sophisticated people who realize that Jesus could be God even if he never said so…”

    When did he fail to make his divinity known?

    No one mistook him for bozo. He wasn’t accused of being a circus clown. He wasn’t exactly concealing his miracles or denying his equality with god. He wasn’t murdered for being a nut job, was he? He wasn’t despised for being a hypocritical get-rich quit, smooth talking, slick, greedy preacher boy, right?

    “I AM” signaled nothing significant in those who heard him he say that?

    Even the demoniac recognized him immediately and was scared to death.
    ولدت من جديد

    tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
    hwl said, “Religious people do what they think makes sense to them. I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview…”
    shakespeare66 August 26, 2014
    said, “It appears to be the one you are holding.”

    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    by Rich Deem https://plus.google.com/105440427757499026037/posts?hl=en
    atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that “onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist.”1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
    “It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”3
    In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”4 According to Flew, “…it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.”2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology.

    “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
    I don’t think Jesus ever claimed to be God. (There is nothing, nothing, that is more obvious, more clear, more certain, anywhere, about anything, than that Christ claimed to be divine. It is unmistakable. It is not possible for a healthy, rational, adult human being- one who is not impaired intellectually-to miss that reality as portrayed in the n.t. )

    You really should read my book How Jesus Became God.

    I am reading your extensive work and so far, I have found nothing that challenges his reality in a substantive fashion.

    But there have been lots and lots of people who *have* claimed to be God, as you surely know.

    Not one is anything like this guy. Not close, Dr. Bart.

    Some things are so true and real and alive and touching and life-giving and penetrating and sweet and powerful and special, that an explanation or words of any kind, and all arguments lay silent. The most beautiful piece of music, the most glorious sunset, the prettiest poem, the deepest feeling of love, the rapture of being born from above, cannot be defined, added to, subtracted from or enhanced. They are life itself.

    “I don’t think psychology is a matter of being tricked into ruses. The psychology of religion is a profound and complicated field. Again, I’d suggest you do some reading to help inform your opinions.” Dr. Bart

    What you experienced during your religious conversion, whatever else it was, it was not based on any facts and evidence that proved jesus was in fact god, because he wasn’t, in your opinion. “Jesus” never became real to you because he’s not real, period; he was not god and is not god. Whatever you experienced, by your definition, was not jesus.

  7. Avatar
    prestonp  October 28, 2014

    I like what you have said about the different types of god, Bart . I have come to learn that religion is mostly a hoax- maybe a well meaning hoax but non-the-less a hoax.

    Far from being the only ones to hold the “traditional” view of God, the view held by fundamentalists is a recent development and theologically unsophisticated compared to many older views of God.

    The more we debate the existence of God, the more people will change their definition of God in order to fit a round peg into a square hole

    Can the historical and current racism against the Jewish people be linked to Christianity in general and specifically the Gospel of John? If so, I am in fact horrified.

    Not just to John, but in my view there was no such thing as anti-Judaism per se until Christainity arose.

    Reading your affirmation literally gave me chills right now … how horrific. Then this is one of the worst examples of Religious imperialism.

    I am often stunned by how flippant fundamentalists are about the work of a scholar ( as my fundamentalist preacher “friend” casts you off like you are nobody).

    What Christians lack (too often) is a willingness to investigate the knowledge that is out there about a variety of things. How stunning is it that 64% of Christians in this country deny evolution? I think that is beyond stunning. It is mind boggling. Try reading Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. Oh, I’m sorry. People like you don’t read stuff like that because you can find all the answers in the Bible so you don’t need to read anything else. And even if you DID read it, you would still deny it it true and say it is a hoax or a conspiracy or some such nonsense. It is OKAY for you to live in your fantasy world. We don’t begrudge you living there, but please son’t step on my understanding of the world, of Jesus Christ, of evolution, of being gay, of anything that your “perfect” little moral Bible tells you is right about proper decorum for the world. Christians should be stunned at how flippant we can be about the life of Christ. I have read the 15 or so books that Dr. Ehrman has written on the subject because I wanted to know what scholars are saying about this subject. No one wants to take away your belief or your faith. Just leave those who don’t care for it alone. Instead of quoting me, ask a pertinent question—you might learn something for once in your life.

    Your words are so important to me as I have lost my 22 year old son to a very religious, Christian Fundamentalist Cult … Religion has destroyed my family and yet I am trying to “compromise” and attend church, go through the motions yet I feel like an imposter. Our son no longer is allowed contact with us as we are “apostate” and this was even before I lost my faith…..how do you have a relationship with your spouse when you don’t believe the same things anymore….thank you for all your help in this time of despair.

    (No one can prevent a 22 year old son from contacting his parents, legally. No one responded when asked what denomination this is or if she’d like help. I know of no CFC in the world that forbids a 22 year old man from contacting whomever he wants.)

    Racism. Anti-Christian accusations are inappropriate. Anti-Christian rhetoric is the “New Racism.” It flows freely, gleefully, and it is wrong.

  8. Epicurus13
    Epicurus13  July 6, 2015

    I dig this talk so much I have watched it twice on Youtube and once here. Dr Ehrmans explanation on being agnostic / atheist is so cool and how I feel I use it to describe myself to others and always get a great response.

You must be logged in to post a comment.