Great Bart Erhman interview. Please listen to it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131

Enjoy

See reaction to interview on:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2286,Bart-Ehrman-Questioning-Religion-on-Why-We-Suffer,NPR

This is the reaction of a listen to the interview, taken from the richarddawkins.net site. It is NOT mind.

16. Comment #129978 by salon_1928 on February 19, 2008 at 8:46 pm

I've read three a Bart's books: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Lost Christianities and Misquoting Jesus. All three are excellent in their analysis of the new testament (and old testament to some degree) as an ancient document. The first in particular is superb. It's long (compared to many of Bart's other books) but it's thorough, and after reading it, you can pretty much declare yourself more knowledgeable about the new testament than the majority of faith-heads.

I'm actually a bit bummed by the fact that Bart has publicly declared his loss of faith. I had always assumed that he had but didn't know for sure. Maybe he has spoken about it before but I was never aware of it. I think the unfortunate implications are that his readership will be even more firmly rooted in the non-believer's camp.

On that note, a sort of funny anecdote "I once tried to get an evangelical friend of mine to read Bart's The New Testament. No way he said - at least not before he cleared it with his pastor (or whatever). I told him it was scholarly book and not meant to convert people one way or another and would most likely give him a deeper understanding of the very book that he was devoting a significant part of his life to. He absolutely wouldn't budge - and this was his reasoning - Satan is apparently active in the world and out to tempt him. He now relies on his pastor to make decisions for him as to what is appropriate to read, watch, listen to, etc. That's why I call religion a "surgical-less lobotomy."

Buy and read Bart's new book!

Peace and Cheers!

@therationa,

This is a very, very poor assessment of an equally important subject. Let me quote a section again:

therationa:

"He now relies on his pastor to make decisions for him as to what is appropriate to read, watch, listen to, etc. That's why I call religion a "surgical-less lobotomy."

This does not represent Christianity at all - and to rely on such a sorry frame of mind from just one person is to manifest an unintelligent attitude. First, let me remind you that there are far more many Christians who are not "automatons" as in the case described above. Second, even Richard Dawkins himself (whose site you posted as a link) does not take such anecdotes seriously - so why does this one supposedly appear on his website?

Just apply the same standard you favoured here to your group. Are there not many people who would rather not read books by Christian authors and thinkers? Just as the 'anecdote' you offered, I also know of some that have assumed an irrational bias against the NT even without first having read it! Why? They also have no rational bases for such a position and have become the same "automatons" to their atheistic highpriests who do the thinking for them.

If religion is the "surgical-less lobotomy" as you intone, perhaps you may help yourself with a bit more broader perspective to understand that often times, it is those 'atheistically' inclined thinkers as Richard Dawkins who are often too quick to shy away from discussing religion - please make a search, it is on record.

Thankfully, not every non-believer and atheist is as brash - I've had honest and friendly discussions with quite a few.

syrup:

@therationa,

This is a very, very poor assessment of an equally important subject. Let me quote a section again:

This does not represent Christianity at all - and to rely on such a sorry frame of mind from just one person is to manifest an unintelligent attitude. First, let me remind you that there are far more many Christians who are not "automatons" as in the case described above. Second, even Richard Dawkins himself (whose site you posted as a link) does not take such anecdotes seriously - so why does this one supposedly appear on his website?

Just apply the same standard you favoured here to your group. Are there not many people who would rather not read books by Christian authors and thinkers? Just as the 'anecdote' you offered, I also know of some that have assumed an irrational bias against the NT even without first having read it! Why? They also have no rational bases for such a position and have become the same "automatons" to their atheistic highpriests who do the thinking for them.

If religion is the "surgical-less lobotomy" as you intone, perhaps you may help yourself with a bit more broader perspective to understand that often times, it is those 'atheistically' inclined thinkers as Richard Dawkins who are often too quick to shy away from discussing religion - please make a search, it is on record.

Thankfully, not every non-believer and atheist is as brash - I've had honest and friendly discussions with quite a few.

For a start, I was simply relying what I thought was an interesting article about a certain community of christians. This guy is by no means unique. There are millions of Xians like him who would rather not read any thing that might "threaten" their faith. Have you forgotten the centuries when the Christians authorities ban the reading of the bible and other critical books. What did the authorities have to fear?

In my experience, the majority of atheist and doubters of religions have been through the rigmarole of religion and already are familiar with most religious texts. The have found religions to be intellectually unsatisfying and find most religions material particularly unsatisfying too. (I tried reading Alistair McGrath's Dawkin's Delusion, but struggled to get past the first few pages.) Such is the intellectual vacuity of most religious material.

Censorship is always a sign that the 'authority' is scared. There are many 'christians' that need to be spoon fed by their pastors. It is just a personality trait. If you look closely you will see that that person before he became a christian was spoon fed by someone else whether it was family, Best friend, Favourite lecturer in university, Newsreaders, Rupert murdoch . . . . . .etc. If this wasn't a typically human trait for some then advertising and media would not be such a profitable profession.

I actually think that it is a particularly unchristian way of being.

@huxley, _{(forgive me, I didn't know you were therationa)}

huxley:

For a start, I was simply relying what I thought was an interesting article about a certain community of christians. This guy is by no means unique. There are millions of Xians like him who would rather not read any thing that might "threaten" their faith.

Nothing new - there are as many atheists who are too uncomfortable reading what might threaten their assumptions. That simply demonstrates that what you were applauding here was unhealthy and falls far below an intelligent manner of reasoning out issues.

huxley:

Have you forgotten the centuries when the Christians authorities ban the reading of the bible and other critical books. What did the authorities have to fear?

They did not have anything to fear other than that some misguided leaders acted outrightly contrary to what they claimed they were preaching. That much we can understand - but is that what the Bible taught them to do? I could as well remind you of so many incidents that are unpleasant among the behaviour of some atheists as well - would you justify those same incidents?

huxley:

In my experience, the majority of atheist and doubters of religions have been through the rigmarole of religion and already are familiar with most religious texts. The have found religions to be intellectually unsatisfying and find most religions material particularly unsatisfying too.

That is a personal assumption that I could as well turn on its head and give you direct quotes and references of atheists who remained non-believers but were sad to observe the implications of their arguments.

huxley:

(I tried reading Alistair McGrath's Dawkin's Delusion, but struggled to get past the first few pages.) Such is the intellectual vacuity of most religious material.

It is on record that Richard Dawkins himself in his early debates could not match the intelligence of those he had taken for granted as dullards. He was too assuming - a very foolish thing for a man of his learning! Thankfully, when he sat down in Oxford and discussed with Alistair McGrath, he could have the opportunity to understand that merely ranting against religion did not put him across as an intelligent man! (Incidentally, both profs are products of Oxford).

Try not assuming a default position against religion - you really have no clues if prejudice is the first aid you seek to apply to issues like this.

syrup:

@huxley, _{(forgive me, I didn't know you were therationa)}

Nothing new - there are as many atheists who are too uncomfortable reading what might threaten their assumptions. That simply demonstrates that what you were applauding here was unhealthy and falls far below an intelligent manner of reasoning out issues.

They did not have anything to fear other than that some misguided leaders acted outrightly contrary to what they claimed they were preaching. That much we can understand - but is that what the Bible taught them to do? I could as well remind you of so many incidents that are unpleasant among the behaviour of some atheists as well - would you justify those same incidents?

That is a personal assumption that I could as well turn on its head and give you direct quotes and references of atheists who remained non-believers but were sad to observe the implications of their arguments.

It is on record that Richard Dawkins himself in his early debates could not match the intelligence of those he had taken for granted as dullards. He was too assuming - a very foolish thing for a man of his learning! Thankfully, when he sat down in Oxford and discussed with Alistair McGrath, he could have the opportunity to understand that merely ranting against religion did not put him across as an intelligent man! (Incidentally, both profs are products of Oxford).

Try not assuming a default position against religion - you really have no clues if prejudice is the first aid you seek to apply to issues like this.

thanks for your responds. I cannot really respond now point-for-point as am working.

As you are new to the forum, you may want to know that me previous pseudonyms were therationa and tpaine.

I have resurrected some of my old threads, if you care to see my past record on this forum.

huxley:

As you are new to the forum, you may want to know that me previous pseudonyms were therationa and tpaine.

It's good to know - I would never have guessed as I've been a long while away from the Forum until just recently.