Some people have asked me, and I have asked myself, why, as a liberal Christian, did I continue to “believe,” or at least to act as if I believed? I didn’t think Jesus was literally born of a virgin and I wasn’t sure if he was physically raised from the dead. I didn’t think that he existed before he came into the world, let alone that he had been God from eternity past. I didn’t think there was a hell and I didn’t know about heaven. I believed in the Big Bang and evolution, not in creation. I thought the Bible was filled with mistakes, historical inaccuracies, contradictions, and discrepancies, that its authors were fully human and were (simply) providing their views of this that or the other thing. So why did I go to church every week, say the creed, sing the hymns, say my prayers, confess my sins, take communion, teach adult education, and all the rest?
I’m not sure I’ve ever explained this to anyone before, though I certainly explained it to myself. The first thing to say is that I did not think – and still do not think – that I was being a hypocrite. I wasn’t pretending to believe things I didn’t believe. That wasn’t it at all. It was more complicated than that, which is probably why I have never explained it.
I should say by way of preface that the church I was going to at the time I am now thinking of was an Episcopal church in Chapel Hill, and my sense was that there was an enormous range of “believers” going there – some who were devout and others not so much, some who believed every word in the creed and others who took it with a massive grain of salt, some who were rather simply in their faith (not too many of those, actually) and a lot who were filled with doubts and uncertainties, but found in the church a place to root themselves. There were agnostics in their midst.
So most anything I personally believed would have been fine in that context. But why did I continue to go and participate in Christian worship?
It would help to point out that I was not at all missionary about my views. I had gotten beyond trying to convince anyone to think or believe what I did. To me it didn’t much matter what others believed or found useful to think. I didn’t think that I was so right about everything that everyone else needed to agree with me (as I had thought when I was a fundamentalist years before). I didn’t actually think that there *was* only one right thing to think or believe. What I thought and believed was for me, not for others.
But why continue to live as a Christian? For me it worked like this. I had come to think that there was no such thing as a person who existed in a vacuum, in a mental world of neutrality, where there were no assumptions made, no unprovable assertions affirmed, no completely novel ways of thinking and relating to the world around them. All of us participate in the broader world – not just the broader physical and social world, but also in the world of thought, belief, world view, perspective, and assumption. Of course each of us is unique, but in another sense none of us is. We all share things that we agree on, many of which cannot be established or proved – or at least that we ourselves are incapable of establishing or proving (think: theory of general relativity).
Everyone has mental/personal/emotional roots somewhere. And I chose my roots to be in the Christian church. That was the tradition I was raised in. That was the tradition I resonated with. That was the tradition I was comfortable in. That was the tradition I could relate to. That was the tradition that made sense to me. That was the tradition I understood. So that was the tradition I was in.
Yes, I could have left. But this is the key point: if I left I would have to go SOMEWHERE ELSE. And that somewhere else, in my view, was no better than the place I was leaving. You can’t go from something to nothing. You go from one thing to another thing. And why do that? Only because you can no longer stay where you are.
And so it made better sense to me to try to reinterpret the tradition I was standing within than to adopt an entirely new tradition. That’s why I never was (very) tempted to become Jewish. And not at all tempted to become Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or anything else.
But why be *anything*? The reality is that deciding to become *nothing* doesn’t work. We are all something or other. Someone may think that she or he is bold and brazen and a real pioneer to become an atheist. Really? That is bold, brazen, and pioneering??? As if no one else has done that? As if being an atheist doesn’t involve assumptions about the world, beliefs about where we came from, ideas about what it means to lead a good and fulfilling life? Really?
At the time I thought my tradition – when taken literally – was highly flawed. But so was every other tradition. Rather than adopt a new highly flawed tradition, it made better sense to me to stay within my own tradition and reconstrue it in ways that allowed me to see its deep and rich value while accepting it in a way that can appeal to a modern person who understands more about science, history, philosophy, ethics, and everything else that we as highly educated modern people understand.
And so rather than jettison my tradition, I had, gradually over time, decided to reinterpret my tradition. I wasn’t missionary about it. I didn’t insist that others do likewise. But it is what I did for myself. The Christian tradition is incredibly sophisticate and capacious. I grabbed on to what I thought was at the very heart of it and developed my views about it in ways that could coincide with what it all really meant. I didn’t think I was being dishonest in doing so – secretly altering the faith while pretending to hold on to it. As a scholar of the Bible and early Christianity, I knew that *everyone* in *every situation* reinterprets their tradition in light of their own lives and circumstances. That had always been the case for every single person in the Christian tradition, and always will be. I was simply being more self-conscious and intentional about it.
I believed that yes there was a God. But he was not going to send billions of people to be tortured for eternity. Belief in God, for me at the time, was a belief that ultimately there was a good divine being and that there is good in the world and that we have a place in it. Christ was a manifestation of God in that he was the one who showed us what God was really like, one who more than anything else loved others with all his being to the point of willing to die for the sake of others. Confessing sins meant realizing how far short I fall from those ideals in my everyday life. Prayer meant aligning myself with the purposes of God, the God of love. Taking communion meant committing myself to giving myself to others. The Bible was a collection of deeply moving spiritual reflections by people who had keen insights into the world and our place in it. This was my tradition, and I embraced it.
Until I could not do so any more. I eventually had to stop because the very basis of the entire tradition – the existence of a loving God – itself came under threat for me. I’ll explain that in subsequent posts.
This post is free for everyone to read, but most of the posts on the blog are for members only. If you become a member you get 5-6 posts every week, for very little money. And all proceeds go to help those in need. So JOIN!!!
I’ll always think it boils down to whether one’s early experiences in the religion they were raised in were positive or negative. Some *want* to coninue belonging to a “community”; others don’t. (Of course, another factor for some people is concern about an afterlife. I *think* I’d come to accept the likelihood of reincarnation by the time I rejected religion, but I wasn’t as sure of it as I am now.)
So if my father let me make mistakes, and pay the consequences for them, I didn’t have a loving father? Or mother?
You knew from the very start that there was pain and death. That these are inherent aspects of life, and that life really can’t exist without them. The alternative to a world without suffering is no world at all. We have been given the power to make things better. If we choose not to do so–or do so stupidly–that’s on us. Not God. (Definitely not if there is no God, but we’ll never know.)
As to what church anyone goes to, or doesn’t go to, that’s so far from the point. Many who believe deeply don’t go to church, and many who don’t believe in any real sense go regularly (I tend to believe that many if not most church-goers don’t even know what faith is, and don’t want to know). Faith isn’t digital, on or off, black or white, yes or no. Faith is analog. Faith is a process. Faith is about what you can’t touch, taste, see, hear, or prove.
I’ve had all the same thoughts as you, and I just can’t go the way you did. It’s a dead end.
If the alternative to suffering is to have no world at all — do you mean to say that heaven cannot exist?
I’m not actually big on the afterlife, Bart. I don’t rule it out, but the idea of an eternity of consciousness without a body does not appeal (and the idea of having a body in the afterlife is weird–though very popular, to this day). Not very Catholic of me, I suppose, but that’s why I’m lapsed. I think this life is our gift from God (however you define God), to do with as we please. An individual gift, and a collective one–meaning it’s not only up to us to make the most of the life we’ve been given individually, but to try as best we can to make mortal existence more equitable (which it certainly isn’t now).
Our opinions of God, I think we can agree, should stem from the world we see around us–the world God would have created. For reasons no mortal could possibly grasp. Honestly, even Genesis doesn’t try to answer that one.
We’re like spoiled children, in my view. We’ve been given something of incomparable beauty–this planet, the ability to rise above the daily scrum of evolutionary conflict via our evolved brains (God would have created evolution too). And we waste it. And then we look for somebody else to blame. God gave us the tools to make this world a paradise. Not God’s fault if we keep dropping the ball.
Duke Ellington said it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PlS8nuceA
No life without death, no joy without sadness (you saw Inside Out, right?), no pleasure without pain. When we can accept this, maybe we’ll finally be what we’re supposed to be.
Like Nadal serving an ace. Beautiful.
“The alternative to a world without suffering is no world at all.”
Depends on what you mean by “suffering”. If by suffering you mean pain- and misery-ridden, and by pain and misery you mean those feelings which a feeling creature would seek to avoid, then there’s no necessity for such a world to exist. The nature of the world we do live in, on the other hand, appears to be one of pain and misery, but also pleasure and happiness, in equal measure. What makes this universe suspect, however, is the seemingly random nature in which it bestows pain and misery on some feeling creatures and pleasure and happiness on others. As I often tell people who try to rationalize an omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator within a seemingly random universe: Do we just want to pretend everything happens for a reason, that we can appeal to a higher power who is truly in control because the idea that so much of life is both out of our control and random is terribly disconcerting and anxiety-inducing? That’s something everyone should seriously consider.
To be honest – this seems like an irrelevant philosophical speculation – more from an apologist – than anything meaningful related to human life or soul.
Appreciate these posts that fill in more details of your impressive journey. In your book “God’s Problem” (2008) you give a succinct description of “finally” becoming agnostic “about nine or ten years ago” in the first several pages. Couldn’t help but notice that numerical information. My “oldest” Bart Ehrman book is my rather lightly read copy of “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” (2nd edition). Maybe I should try to read it again!
This is so good, Dr. Ehrman.
Even though I’m an atheist Jew, I can appreciate the pull of tradition. I still go to Passover Seders. I still go to Erev Shabbat dinners. I’ll occasionally join my family at shul. I don’t believe any of it, but I still do it because, well, that’s what I’m used to doing! Growing up Jewish you’re taught that being Jewish is somehow special, exceptional — that you’re one of the “Chosen” people.
For a long time, even though I didn’t believe the dogma, I still accepted the possibility that Jews were somehow better than most. That we were the “good guys” in history. But that all changed when I read Josephus. That’s when I came to the uncomfortable realization that the Romans and Hellenized Jews weren’t necessarily the “bad guys,” and the Jewish zealots weren’t necessarily the “good guys”. In fact, the zealots at Masada didn’t seem so noble and righteous as they’re often portrayed. They were actually religious terrorists, no better than the Jewish version of ISIS or Al-Qaeda. That was a HUGE wake up call. I started to see men like Jesus not as freedom fighters fighting against the evil Roman occupiers, but, rather, religious charlatans and theocrats — no matter how well-meaning they were. And although Romans like Vespasian and Titus, who destroyed the Temple, were not necessarily saints themselves, they were actually preservers of civilization and politico-economic stability (cf. the “what did the Romans ever do for us?” scene in Life of Brian). But even after knowing the ugly side of Jewish history, I still do the traditional events, because it’s what I’m used to.
Oh well.
“Oh, roads, yes.. aqueducts”.. I also love that scene from the Life of Brian!
I didn’t care for “Life of Brian” even though I thought parts of it were clever and funny. I couldn’t get past the voice of whoever played Brian’s mother. It sounded like nails down a chalkboard to me. I thought the ending was depraved and found no humor in it at all.
I’m not much of a Monty Python fan to begin with.
Pattycake1974, I hope you will watch this program. John Cleese, Michael Palin, Malcolm Muggeridge and some stuffed-shirt Anglican bishop discuss the Life of Brian. It is clear that neither Muggeridge nor the bishop has a clue.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeKWVuye1YE
Muggeridge and the bishop were annoying for sure. Backlash for a film like that, especially back then, is to be expected. I agreed with the points Cleese made and was glad he didn’t like the depiction of the crucifixion either.
Possibly the saddest post I have ever read on Bart Ehrman’s blog.
Thanks for that, Bart. Very interesting.
Thank you.
Thanks for sharing your spiritual odyssey.
Mine was similar. Early indoctrination in the faith lasting nearly 15 years. Observant practitioner of the faith until my late 30s. Increasingly skeptical of my religious belief for the next 30 years. Becoming an unbeliever during the past 10 years.
I understand from reading your books that theodicy (the problem of evil in the world) was the root cause of your final break with the faith.
In my case the cause was different. I came to realize that our increasing knowledge and understanding of the natural world has made religious belief such as mine untenable. Both Darwinian evolution theory and, particularly, the progress in the science of particle physics in understanding the fundamental nature of physical reality, make the probability that humans possess invisible, immaterial, immortal souls that survive the death of the body essentially zero.
That being the case, the foundation of religious belief (I’m referring to the Abrahamic religions in particular) is undermined. This is a catastrophe for religious belief, such as I formerly held, since it demolishes the entire Christian belief structure in sin, redemption, resurrection, salvation, and an eternal afterlife with associated rewards and punishments. No human soul–therefore no need for redemption theory and for the hypothesis of an eternal afterlife.
So, while your odyssey led to rejection of the Christian God, mine lead to the rejection of the age old idea of cheating death by believing, without any evidence, in the existence of an immortal human soul and a supernatural afterlife.
FshrP: . “Both Darwinian evolution theory and, particularly, the progress in the science of particle physics in understanding the fundamental nature of physical reality, make the probability that humans possess invisible, immaterial, immortal souls that survive the death of the body essentially zero.”
Understanding that I FULLY agree with your conclusion, I’m curious about the evidence you seem to base it on. I agree that the more we learn about the physical world, the less we need a god to fill in the ‘gaps’, but that is different than what you seem to be claiming: that there is specific evidence in physical science that almost (or does) disproves a supernatural realm.
Is that what you are saying? If so, can you give a layman’ s summation of that evidence or point me to a resource that does? I’ve always been under the impression that it would be literally impossible to show that the supernatural doesn’t exist. I would welcome your insights. Thanks !
Belief in the existence of an invisible, immaterial, immortal human soul is one of those extraordinary beliefs that require extraordinary evidence. Particularly, such a believer has to provide convincing proof that such a disembodied blob of spirit stuff (the soul) can exist outside the body and can move, rearrange and otherwise change and control the atoms in our body.
After more than 100 years of research in the science of particle physics, we now know and understand all of the particles and forces that constitute the atoms in the observable universe, including the atoms in the human body. The particles are the electron, the up quark, the down quark and the electron neutrino. The forces are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity. These four forces and four particles are the only ones that can interact with sufficient strength to cause movement and change in the atoms of the observable universe and can affect the atoms in the human body in our everyday life. These particles and forces are completely natural. Scientists detect and measure them every day. There is nothing spiritual or supernatural about them at all.
All of this is spelled out in much more detail by Cal Tech particle physicist and cosmologist Sean M. Carroll in several YouTube videos. (Be advised that there is another Sean Carroll who posts YouTube videos, namely, Sean B. Carroll who is a geneticist at the U. of Wisconsin, Madison.)
One other thing. It’s useless to argue top-down about the non-existence of God since the concept of “God” is completely ill-defined. There are thousands of gods that have been dreamed up over the past 3000 years, all of which are nebulous and imaginary. Calling god an infinite this or that is a waste of time since human mind has only the vaguest idea of infinity. Claiming that you know the “mind of God” or that you “feel God’s presence” is ludicrous.
IMHO it’s more productive to argue bottom-up by starting with things we know with more or less certainty, namely from scientific understanding of the natural world. And our best understanding and most fully tested ideas of the basic foundation of the natural world is the Standard Model of Particle Physics. If an idea, such as the existence of an invisible, immaterial, immortal human soul, conflicts with the Standard Model, then that idea is very likely false.
How likely false? Well, with the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs particle on 4 July 2012 at CERN, the final piece of the Standard Model is in place. The existence of the Higgs at the time of announcement was known to at least the 5 sigma confidence level (1 part in 3 million), which is the criterion that physicists use to announce a discovery. In the time since then many more Higgs particles have been detected, increasing the confidence level in the Higgs and in the Standard Model to about 6 sigma (1 part in 500 million). So an idea, such the invisible, immaterial, immortal human soul, that conflicts with the Standard Model is falsified to at least the 6 sigma confidence level, i.e. the chance that the null hypothesis (“the human soul does NOT exist”) is wrong is less than 1 chance in a half billion.
Good stuff! Thanks!
fishrP
I am curious about what you faith was originally based…
Greg
Don’t understand your question.
fishrP
You originally had faith…. which you then discarded…. What was the basis – or supporting evidence that you used for your initial faith?
Greg
Thank you for sharing your religious past with us. It has led me to think more about my own religious past.
Thank you for a sharing your thought, Dr. Earhman.
This means a lot to me.
(I returned to church recently, too. but I feel I am changed in many way, thanks to you 🙂 )
As someone who once belonged to a church (and still believes) I have found your story absolutely absorbing and relatable. It clearly shows that an awareness of flaws in the Bible is not the reason why you lost your faith, and if anything, your explanations thus far has strengthened my own faith.
Just a question in relation to your beliefs at the time.
Did you also believe in a ‘bad’ divine being?
I continued to believe there were forces of evil in the world, if that’s what you mean. (I never entertained seriously the view that God himself could be evil; I never found that at all an appealing view)
Ah yes, it was a question about forces of evil in the world.
Thanks so much for sharing this. You should have written a whole autobiography on these posts long, long ago. I am glad that you are finally writing about putting it all together. Two questions:
1. Do you think the social contacts of the church kept you there? Did you lose these social contacts when you left? Were you shunned by church members when you left?
2. I don’t think I am so right about things that I should be a missionary about my views either, but don’t we have some obligation to try to change bad stuff? Probably the parting blow for me is when I discovered that churches, with their views about the oppression of gays, the oppression of women, the oppression of the teaching of evolution, the oppression of critical thinking and so on and so forth could do a lot of harm. That made it hard to keep attending and giving even while having quiet and quite liberal views. It’s hard to attend when the church is oppressing critical thinking, reason, and overwhelming evidence. I could be more accepting when I was convinced that churches were doing more good than harm even if they were historically wrong about many things.
1. See today’s post! 2. Yes, I completely agree. When I became less missionary religiously I became more missionary socially and politically. That’s probably not an accident!
Have thought that many times. I spent about 6 months as a liberal after leaving Fundamentalism. along with a liberal reinterpretation. It seemed disingenuous. If Christianity was not an actual historical reality in it’s central claims, then I was not interested in it for aesthetic purposes. I became very angry, not at God, as many will claim, but at being lied to and deceived. Of course I realise every one who taught me was sincere. But I felt I had wasted the best years of my life on a lie. But as the months have now turned into yes I am beginning to come back to appreciating Christianity. Not as true in its claims, but as s historical movement that has left an indelible mark on the history of the world.
Thank you for sharing this Bart. That’s a really interesting account of your time as liberal Christian.
Elsewhere (March 24th Mailbag) you explained that you later concluded the spiritual experiences you had as an evangelical Christian were of human origin as they “met an important psychological/emotional need at the time.”
I have friends who used to be evangelical Christians but left the faith and became atheists. Like you, they tell me they concluded their spiritual experiences were psychological or emotional and not spiritual. But, unlike you, they did so on the basis that they no longer believed that God exists and therefore the only rational explanation was that experiences they had were of human, rather than divine nature.
You have described above that when you were a liberal Christian you still believed in a divine God who you continued to pray to, so I would like to ask how you came to reject the divine / spiritual nature of these experiences, yet still maintained a belief that a divine / spiritual God existed?
Yes, I became an agnostic when I came to think God probably did not exist. I’ll explain why in later posts.
Ah! I think I follow. You became agnostic when you transitioned into a liberal Christian, but only left the faith later?
So, another way of putting it, when you ceased being an evangelical Christian, that was the point you became agnostic, but you remained within the Christian faith community (Church) whilst you were working things out?
No, when I was a liberal Christian I was still a Christian. I became an agnostic later. I’ll explain why and how in later posts soon.
I seem to remember seeing an interview of yours years ago in which you stated that one of the reasons you didn’t become an agnostic/atheist sooner was the fear of losing your moral compass, of becoming a worse person. Do I remember correctly?
That answer always puzzled me because you surely must have known for a long time that it was possible to be atheistic and upright. Did you have some antisocial tendencies that Christianity helped you to suppress? If so, how are you handling them now?
The second question may be a too personal. Feel free to answer it or not as you see fit.
See today’s post! Yes, I knew that non-believers could be moral. I just didn’t see that there was much of a reason for them to be. Silly me.
This is not at all related to this post, but it was a proud moment for me. I was transcribing a quote from an article about Jennifer Lopez in tabloid media (I’m taking a course about latinos in hollywood) and my quote skipped an entire line of the text because two lines in the quote both ended with the word “legacy.”
I immediately noted to myself, “that was parablepsis occaisioned by homoeoteleuton!”
I learned that from watching your lectures and debates. I thought you might be proud that something stuck!
Ha!!! That’s a good one!
Was there ever an element in your thinking at the time you continued to go to church that you hoped that you might be touched by some word in a sermon or the like which would bring you back into the fold and to the ‘security / certainty’ you once enjoyed?
Not really. Sermons were always a different experience for me than for most people, since I had a PhD in New Testament studies and new the biblical texts and scholarship on them far better than a pastor would. It was very difficult for me to “hear” sermons without “critiquing” them from a scholarly point of view. I tried, but didn’t always succeed….
I have the same problem since taking classes in a theology graduate school. I have thoughts like “but that’s not really Paul” or “I think the Johannine community had a too high Christology, I wonder why they picked that one for the canon? But if they hadn’t I would miss the Samaritan woman 🙁 ).
I really like preachers who take a piece of scripture and use it to riff on personal stories or observations, with the key idea of holding scripture lightly and the key thing being how we as individuals relate to the words today and in our experience.
This reminds me of a question I’ve had for a while for you:
During this transition period – between fundamentalism and agnosticism, and based on your expert scholarship of the Bible – did you ever mentally parse scriptures into ‘authoritative’ and ‘non-authoritative’? For example, if you were listening to a sermon and the preacher mentioned a verse from Titus, did you immediately think to yourself, ‘well, that is B.S.’ where as, on the other hand, if he quoted Romans, you held it in higher, maybe even near-Fundamentalist-level, regard?
Or, was it more the case that once you threw aside fundamentalism, then all of scripture held the same level of (diminished) authority?
Yes, I thought all Scripture was worth listening to, but since there were so many differences among the books, I did not think that all were equally authoritative concerning proper belief or ethics.
I think I’ve described my experience before, but I’ll do it again…
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic elementary school and high school (followed by two years in an atrociously bad Catholic women’s college, but *that* didn’t really affect me at all).
Initially, I believed all the things I was being taught about religion, because I thought they were such well-established fact that *no one* could doubt them. I didn’t find the practice of Catholicism *pleasant* in any way; it was just something everyone had to go along with.
In, I think, my senior year of high school, a priest gave us the supposed *reasons* for believing in Catholicism. He said you should start by assuming nothing, and consider reasons for believing in some kind of God. After you’d become convinced that God existed, you should consider all the major religions. And after you’d become sure Christianity was the only possible right one, you should consider all its forms, and you’d eventually conclude Catholicism was the only possible right one of *them*. At age 16, I thought all his arguments made sense.
A few years later, I was no longer convinced. (Though the only one of his actual arguments I remember was that Jesus couldn’t have been a great religious teacher, but not divine, because he’d *claimed* to be divine. So if he wasn’t, he was either a charlatan or crazy. Not a valid argument, of course, because it was Jesus’s *biased followers* who said he’d claimed to be divine.) But that priest had given me a pattern I could follow: start by assuming nothing, and consider *first* whether there was certainly a “God”! I *didn’t* become convinced that there was. So I didn’t even have to go on to consider the merits of specific religions.
And I’m thankful I was raised Catholic, for two reasons. Because the priest had, unwittingly, taught me “how to start” thinking about religion (though my conclusions were much different than his); and because I found Catholicism itself unpleasant, and didn’t regret leaving some “community” I’d cherished.
Dr. Ehrman,
Your paragraph about the range of believers in the Episcopal Church and even including agnostics makes me wonder something. Do you or are you aware of any studies that have been conducted in various denominations that studies such a range of beliefs and how many in those denominations are not even believers? Just curious.
I”m sure there are tons of studies out there about this, but I don’t know of them. Maybe someone else on the blog does?
I’ve looked at a bunch of surveys from folks like Pew and NORC and it’s fascinating how the questions, context and content of those surveyed have varied over the past 40-50 years. Some questions I find to be interesting are not asked any more (it’s pretty easy to sign up at NORC and see what questions they have asked over time). Anyway, this is one of the many ways you can slice and dice asking the question about God and different denominations. There’s probably something better out there.
Latin America http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/chapter-3-religious-beliefs/ (this one shows different denominations)
Pew also has Hispanics in the US I couldn’t find belief in God, but Figure 2.6 has belief in the Virgin Mary. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2007/04/hispanics-religion-07-final-mar08.pdf
Table I in this GSS report http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Religion_2014.pdf (it seems to be a summary and not the whole report).(it’s not by denomination)
These are all very interesting but not exactly what you are looking for..
I have been thinking about the letter from Jimmy Carter “Losing my religion for equality” lately. It turns out it may have been written as early as 2000 but keeps resurfacing as brand new. But my thought has been that if after 60 years he finally decides to leave the SBC (over discrimination against women etc.), perhaps after another 60 years he’ll finally decide to leave the Baptist church altogether. And if you don’t think him being age 152 is possible, read the scriptures. It happens all the time.
I can’t tell you Dr. Erhman how much you have helped me over the past few years as I have gone from life long fundamental Baptist to agnostic. I am amazed as I journey through this new phase of life ( I am 60 yrs old) at the response I get from many of my friends and family. When I explain that for me the idea that if “God can and does interact in the affairs of man, then he must not be all loving in allowing his children to suffer as they do” led me to non belief, I am shocked that their responses generally end up sounding like Stuart Smalley from SNL. They basically believe that “gosh darn it, I like me, I’m a good person and God must like me too”, of course in a humble, Christian way.
Right!
The impression I get from what I have read of your books and your blog posts is that, from the beginning, Christians have reinterpreted their stories and redefined their terms, in order to be able to continue calling themselves Christians. After about 14 years of calling myself an escaped Catholic with no desire to be religious, I decided to affiliate with a denomination that doesn’t ask what I do or don’t believe. Not everyone considers themselves to be Christian, or even a believer in God. For myself, I have chosen not to worry about questions of God — what is, is, and if that includes God, so be it. If not, so be it. My quest is the same — to live a spiritual life, redefining spirituality to have nothing to do with the supernatural (which I think is absurd — anything that is, including God, is of necessity natural). To me, spirituality is the total integration of one’s life, such that what one believes, says, and does are in perfect harmony. I take that definition from a (possibly apocryphal) quote from Jerry Rubin, who supposedly responded to a Hare Krishna or Jesus Freak who was trying to explain his belief system, “Don’t tell me what you believe. Show me how you live and I’ll tell you what you believe.”
Bart
I am significantly bothered by the term “liberal”. Why is an avid seeker of truth – why is a recognition of contradictions in the Bible “liberal”? In fact why are they not the conservative outlook – the more likely outlook. Or, more important, why are there any such labels – labels used those that really boil down to being neo-fascist that use such labels as whipping boys – often to profiteer – and then quickly to move into the political realm for the same feast by the same vermin.
Why are we allowing ourselves to be not only informed but identified by these caricatures of human beings??? We are simply buying into a foul paradigm – and thus have moved as it were from one religious paradigm to another….
I am NOT liberal – because I choose NOT to take that label. I recognize that the Bible is inerrant – simply because that is the FACTS.
Greg
The term “conservative” is applied to people who are attempting to conserve the old views without changing them; “Liberal” is applied to those who are trying to escape the shackles of older views (from “liberate”). Whoever holds to inerrancy, is decidedly not a liberal!
Inerrancy is a ‘fact’? The ‘facts’ clearly demonstrate otherwise.
“Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” This was a book written by Bishop Spong a few years ago. I checked out his blog and two things caught my eye: 1) He is turning the blog over to his successors in the Progressive Church movement as he had a stroke and isn’t able to continue, and 2) He has a new book that went to press March 2017 and should be out soon if it isn’t already. It will be called “Charting the New Reformation.”
Dr. Ehrman once said that every phrase in the Nicene Creed was there for a reason. It dealt with the diverse views of who Jesus was? Human or Divine? Both. The new religion with its creed, canon, and clergy structure became very powerful and influenced Western Civilization. But it didn’t keep up with the times. It really does need to change. My PC(USA) denomination is in the Reformed Tradition–Reformed and Always Reforming. It has made progress slowly–women and LGBT can now be ordained for example. I would like to see them pronounce that Jesus is not the only way! I think there is probably a committee working on it. I fear that if all the forward-thinking scholars leave the churches, Christianity will become more and more fundamentalist and dangerous to the body politic.
Is 1 Thess. 2:14-16 interpolated? It’s not listed in Orthodox Corruption.
Do you think Josephus’ reference to James is interpolated?
I wasn’t dealing with interpolations in Orthodox Corruptions, only textual alterations made by scribes (i.e., not editors). And only textual alterations relating to Christological controversies (so not most alterations) . But no, I don’t think it is an interpolation. Nor Josephus’s reference to James.
As best I can determine, Bart, I never *became* an agnostic; I always, from the moment I first considered the question, was one.
I was raised in the church and had good experiences there. I remember being impressed, in my 7th grade Presbyterian confirmation class, by the seriousness inherent in the doctrine of double predestination. After my folks divorced when I was in 8th grade and my Mom took us to the neighborhood Methodist church, I was impressed by the social inclusiveness I found there: this was a nice group which would welcome *any* kid, even an uncool one. So, I liked the church, I respected the church, but I couldn’t see any reason to believe all the supernatural stuff that the church insisted it was necessary for me to believe. What could I do?
In high school, I had a girlfriend who told me about the Unitarians. That sounded great: a church that didn’t require belief. I went down and joined the Unitarians (much to my poor Dad’s dismay, lol). I gave the Unitarians a good long hard try, sticking with them through college, being active, even teaching a junior high Sunday school class for them one year when I was in college.
It was while I was teaching that junior high Sunday school class that I began to realize that, no, this wasn’t really working for me. The Unitarians were very nice folks and very good to me. But, I found that without a sprinkling of true believers, folks who really believed in the commonly propounded but implausible doctrines, it just didn’t do for me what a “real” church did. I think maybe it was that life or death *seriousness* that I was missing: I think I missed (before I had actually read him, lol) Augustine.
So, when my wife and I were expecting our first child, I returned to the Presbyterians and have been very happy to be back.
It was, I think, hypocritical of me to come back. I didn’t believe the Apostles’ Creed I rose to recite so regularly in worship. But, I liked the church, I respected the church, and I figured I’d give “real” church a good long hard try like I had the Unitarians, and see if I couldn’t find a solution to my belief difficulty.
I didn’t. Instead, I gradually became confirmed in and comfortable with my atheism.
The church, for its part, remained as welcoming as it had been when I had been an uncool eighth grader. No one pressed me about my true beliefs. Hypocrisy was easy.
And so, here I am, thirty-five years since my return. I *have* given “real” church a good long hard try (going so far as to read both the *Confessions* **and** *City of God*, lol). Church has been good to me. I feel that my life would have been immeasurably impoverished had I stayed outside the church. Church continues to be good to me. I feel that my life would still be impoverished were I to leave now. But, I never have believed any of the supernatural stuff.
And, I haven’t found a better solution to my difficulty than hypocrisy. 😐
I’m glad, Bart, that you found a better option for you! 🙂