Loading...This first paragraph is repeated from yesterday’s post: I have now finished with my final edits for my book How Jesus Became God. In the process of doing these final edits, I have cut out large sections of my Preface and the Introductions of four of my chapters and replaced them with other, hopefully better, sections. But I really like the old ones as well. So, since they won’t appear in print, I decided to post them here as a record of what almost was. The all involve anecdotes about my past. In most instances (the Introductions to the four chapters), these were narratives related to my “deconversion” from Christianity. My editor and I agreed that the reading public has heard enough about all that, and there’s only so much more that could still be interesting to them. And so I have replaced those anecdotes with other things. But I will present them here, anyway, for your reading pleasure or displeasure.
The following is drawn from my old chapter 8.
*****************************************************************************
It is always interesting to me to read what evangelical scholars say about my deconversion, away from the Christian faith. Frankly, why anyone would want to talk about it at all seems a bit puzzling, since this is a matter purely between me and my conscience. But there it is: some evangelical authors and speakers have felt a need to explain why it is I have left the faith and to show that my reasons were somewhere between inadequate and risible. Sometimes – I’ve read this in print! – evangelicals have claimed that I left the faith because I discovered that there were lots of differences among our surviving manuscripts of the New Testament – such as those I detail in my book Misquoting Jesus. That is a very strange claim: I knew all about the differences in our manuscripts when I was a fundamentalist, and they had zero impact on my faith at the time.
Log in as a member to read the complete post.
//Christians of the second, third, and fourth Christian centuries would not have considered me – with these views about the Christ myth – to be a Christian at all…// <<This reminded me of an interesting question (though not especially related to How Jesus Became God) about early Christian doctrine and what they deemed acceptable.
Would the early Christians of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries have considered today's "mythological/100% figurative" reading of Genesis to be an "okay" acceptable reading, or would they have said a person interpreting it as such was confused? It seems fashionable for Catholics and Protestants who accept evolution to say the early Christians did not interpret Genesis as literal history, but *only* interpreted it as some cosmic metaphor of a fallen race. This idea strikes me as fishy. [Perhaps this could be the subject of an upcoming blog post??]
Best,
Ben
Well, Christians then of course did not have the problem of seeing a conflict between religious and scientific views, and it is that conflict that has led to the move to “demythologize” the text. Ancient people would have accepted Genesis as religion, science, and history, all rolled into one — even if they did think there were figurative significances of the text beyond the literal meaning. (I.e., even when they thought so, they still subscribed, usually, to the literal meaning)
Ben, if you think that is “fishy”, check out Jonah!
Strange…I came to agnosticism by a very different route. And I now think a priest’s attempt to “prove” Catholicism set me on the right path, though definitely not in the way he intended!
Raised Catholic and (poorly) educated in Catholic schools, I *had* wondered, all along, *why* we students were expected to believe the teachings that were forced on us. I did the things a Catholic was supposed to do, “in case” it was all real.
But in the senior year of high school, a priest presented a course in “Apologetics.” Finally, the explanation of *why* we should believe! His approach was that one should start with no preconceptions. And then, a person could reason out why he or she should believe, first, in the existence of a Supreme Being; next, that Christianity is the One True Faith; and finally, that Catholicism is the true Christianity. Being only fifteen at the time, I initially accepted all his conclusions.
A few years later, I’d come to disagree with his line of reasoning. What he thought was “self-evident,” I did not. But I still use the same *approach*. I’m an agnostic because I don’t believe that (a) the only possible explanation for the existence of the Cosmos is that it owes its existence to an Uncaused Cause; and (b) that Cause can only be an omnipotent, omniscient, eternally existing Being, who intentionally created it. (What I *incline* to believe is that the Cosmos itself *is* an eternally existing Being.)
Given that you’re an expert on early Christianity, I would be interested to hear your general thoughts on the differences between the basic beliefs and practices of the “proto-orthodox church” and the evangelical church today (or at least how you experienced it when you were an evagelical). I know there was/is diversity in both, but would you say they are very closely related in belief or whether they’re vastly different. Many evagelicals (and many other different forms of Christianity for that matter) suggest that their form reflects earliest Christianity.
Yes, the proto-orthodox were enormously diverse. I think if any evangelical Christian reads Justin, Irenaeus, or Tertullian, s/he will at all see the theological beliefs, major emphases, and stands on social issues familiar from the current evangelical movement. But it’s an interesting question — it would be fun for someone to work out all the details. I haven’t done so — but I’ll put some thought into it…..
I was ten years old when I learned of the Holocaust. That shattered my belief in the all powerful benevolent God that I had been taught in Sunday school. As a scientist I have to believe that God does not alter her (Mother Nature’s) laws in order to directly intervene with things that happen on Earth. Still I feel a spiritual connection with other beings, revealed through the life and teachings of Jesus, that calls us act to act in order to try to eliminate suffering and to strive for justice for all. In that sense I consider myself a Christian. Evil exists on Earth as a result of free will and abounds because good men do not do enough to prevent it. Natural evil (disease and natural disasters) is a result of our failing to understand and respect the laws of Nature.
Wow! Maybe your best blog yet and I have read all of them. Thanks for sharing this. I am sorry you won’t be including this in your book
Recently, I have been outlining all of the times in the Bible where God either kills humans or orders the killing of humans for what seem to be rather small crimes or reasons. The list is quite long. I am also making a shorter list of instances in the Gospels where Jesus seems less than kind such as with his suggestion in the 19th chapter of Matthew implying that men should castrate themselves. Do you think that Origen of Alexandria actually castrated himself?
With regard to blogs and writings about you, I was particularly affected by the 6/13/13 article written by Robin Schumacher entitled “The Gospel According to Bart Ehrman” in the Christian Post. He tries to be balanced and does say some good things about you. He also writes with sincerity and passion. He has also suffered sadness with the loss of his wife. On the negative side, he seems to imply that the theodicy problem is solved, but does not explain how it is solved. He also encourages others to pray for you. He also never considers the possibility that he could be wrong about some things.
My view is that Origen’s enemies said he castrated himself; but I seriously doubt it.
I appreciate you sharing such personal experiences and thoughts; I too have run into this from time to time, as my vast intellectual curiosity (this is why I became a librarian) doesn’t dovetail with what others think of as “Christianity”. But, like you, I figure it’s none of their business. The times I get real upset are when they try to tell someone else that they are not a Christian; I find that wildly offensive. But if folks in the 2nd century were doing it, I suppose it is here to stay {sigh}.
I would like to know more about your personal beliefs regarding the god issue and human suffering in all of it’s forms…all forms…war, poverty, governmental responsibility in suffering, population explosion, church persecutions and tortures…everything.
I’m not just referring to your book on the history of the problem of suffering (God’s Problem) but your personal thoughts about it and how you are involved to help alleviate suffering and what you think the future of humanity is since there seems to be no stop to suffering.
I truly appreciated your personal thoughts expressed in your posts here and would like to hear more in your blog.
Suffering (not just people but animals) is of great concern to me and I see no solution…ever.
OK, I’ll add it to my (rather long) list of things to talk about!
Your deconversion sounds similar to my own, something we share in common with other former fundamentalist Christians. What I wonder is how this change of heart (and mind) impacted your life thereafter, and how it affected your relationship with family (wife, kids, parents, etc.) and close friends (whether atheists, agnostics or Christians). Thanks.
As always , Bart , thank you so much for your honest sharing of your struggles along the way of your search for truth . These issues are so profoundly important ( e.g. Why am I here ? How am I to act in relation to those around me ? What is my purpose in life ? ) that anyone who says he/she has not pondered them at some point i his/her life is either not being frank or is a very dim bulb indeed .I had 12 years of Catholic education , all of it by priests and nuns to whom I will be eternally grateful for their having devoted their lives to the improvement of mine . I never saw or heard of any ” abuse ” by these self-sacrificing individuals ( this was in the 1950s and very early 1960s ) . Ironically enough , the ” deal breaker ” for me was provided by these same very good and devout folks . From the First Grade through Senior year in High School , the Catholic moral teaching that Mortal Sin unrepented would result in eternal torment in Hell was ” defanged ” by teaching ” that it is virtually impossible for any human being to actually make fully the decision to reject eternally Gods grace ( which was the ultimate definition of Mortal Sin we were taught ) and/or while we were obliged to believe that Hell ( after all , Jesus mentioned it ) we were not obliged to believe that there was anyone in it ! Now I am far from being the sharpest tool in the shed , but I could see from a very early age that what was going on with these gymnastics was that my teachers , fine people that they were , simply could not reconcile the Source of all that is Good and True with the idea of Hell – nor could I .A spirituality based on Fear ( Hell ) and Greed ( Heavenly Paradise ) seemed somehow repugnant . It was the beginning of a life long quest that still continues . Your story of terror in that sauna because you feared eternal Divine wrath for using the brain your Creator gifted you with is an atrocity and so very poignant .
I’m very interested to read your personal story. I had my own crisis of faith like yours. It seemed like I had nothing left, but in being honest, I did not feel the certainty to go either way. But I came out with a new kind of faith—one that accepted the Bible often literally, but with eyes wide open, acknowledging all the problems that presents. I understand and respect your conclusions, even if I disagree with them. I know the feeling of isolation, being caught between those who accept unquestioningly, and those who reject unquestioningly. It looks like what happened with you is consistent with what I’ve experienced and observed. We make our decisions about faith based on feelings—how we react on an emotional level. Our choice cannot come from the rational mind because we do not have enough information, and there are too many possibilities. Logic and reason, by themselves, don’t lead to faith, nor do they delete faith; we use them to justify our position (based on feeling) to ourselves and others. Anyone willing to be honest would have to say “I don’t know”—not in the way we know things in our world. Yet we make our choices, and we base them on something as subjective as personal feelings, whether consciously or unconsciously.
back in your fundamentalist days, was your literalness so exact that you literally equated physical heat in the sauna with the potential experience of afterlife in Hell?
Yup!