Thanks for the post, penworks! I have to agree, the book is excellent. I found his discussion of suffering to be quite enlightening and he had me thinking about the bible, spirituality and generally living life in ways I never had before.
I also enjoyed his discussions on how he came to be an agnostic. Perhaps not for everyone, but that is the path I have found myself on and I enjoyed reading about his experience.
wondering...can either you or jj summarize his answer (or find his summary online) to that age old question "if a loving God...why suffering?"
Sure Sir,
Basically he takes the position that the question is ultimately unanswerable. Not in the sense that God reproved Job for asking, but more along the lines of Ecclesiastes in that some things in this life are just plain vain and ultimately unknowable, so get on with living.
I'm not sure that is an entirely satisfactory answer, but I'm also not sure there is much of a better one out there.
As an overview, here are some other biblical causes of suffering noted in the book:
1) God's punishment for disobedience (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the fall of both OT kingdoms)
2) Consequences of people's sin (Cain murdering Abel, David murdering Uriah, the rich exploiting the poor)
3) Redemptive (Joseph sold into slavery but ultimately saves Israel; part of God's plan)
4) A test (Job, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac)
5) Apocalyptic (Cosmic enemies, like the devil. Jesus and Paul taught this; but things will be righted at a later time)
I would agree, Sir. But until something changes radically, well, God isn't talking and people are only guessing...
-JJ
i have to say that i cant bring my self to agree with these 3 points,
...but i'm also guessing it might be better for me to participate in a separate thread on the nature of suffering or something, as i havent read Ehrman's book
i have to say that i cant bring my self to agree with these 3 points,
...but i'm also guessing it might be better for me to participate in a separate thread on the nature of suffering or something, as i havent read Ehrman's book
I'm almost finished reading Ehrman's book and so far find his arguments compelling. One point in particular about his approach to the scriptures that is impressive is that he sticks with the context of each view found in each separate book written by each separate author. This enabled me to sort out the different views and why the writers had them. To me it's extrememly important to understand each book in its historical context. If you can, give this book as an objective a read as you can and think it over...
...but i'm also guessing it might be better for me to participate in a separate thread on the nature of suffering or something, as i havent read Ehrman's book
Jump in, Sir. I don't think penworks would mind. And the nature of suffering in the world isn't dependent on Bart Ehrman! :)
i would have to say that Ehrman would go much farther in his quest
if he were to at least examine and compare his preferred scriptures (and preferred interpretations)
with the scriptures and interpretations of other world traditions ("scriptures," philosophies, wisdoms, living teachers, etc..)
...or at least as many as he can comprehend
and i must also add
that he seems to be taking the natural necessary steps
in realizing the limits of a "mythic" worldview
and leaning into a more "rational" worldview
but a life-altering shift in worldviews is no small event for any of us
and i couldn't blame him for not immediately leaping into the worldview that i first suggested
because a worldview that would dare to compare all world scriptures with integrity
does not come until the limits of a rational worldview have been exhausted
and one cant skip worldviews in this way, anyway
as each worldview emerges from the failures of previous worldviews
essentially building on the failures of previous worldviews
(but hopefully including the positive aspects)
but it is only natural for a rational worldview to be highly concerned with finding the holes in the logic of previous mythic interpretations, as healthy skepticism, objectivity, and critical thinking are some of the beautiful hallmarks of rational thought.
but a very common mistake made by rational thinkers (as it seems Erhman is beginning to make)
is how, in debunking the myths of fundamentalist, or ethnocentric view of God
they tend to then dismiss ALL notions that use the word "God"...and Bibles
which includes worldviews about suffering that the newborn rationalist has not experienced
and ...please know that i am writing in a very simple general overview of my perspectives
and obviously leaving quite a bit of detail out
...
that said...
the rational worldview cannot find an answer to "if a loving God, why suffering?"
in part, because the answer is not merely an objective one
it is, at least, all at once...objective, interobjective, subjective and intersubjective
which is at least 3 times as much as a rational worldview can handle
and the mythic worldview can't answer it
in part, because the answer is not merely an intersubjective one
such as when a group agrees that "God" is a powerful entity that acts like they want humans to act
..they will always be disappointed...and forced to continue to modify the myth to deal with the outrageous contradictions
("why would a loving God (who acts like a perfect human) allow the billions of human infants to die tragically?")
eventually, one can see that the problem is not in the answer
but in the quality of the question
...
i, my self, would dare to say that suffering is the nature of the entire universe
and from "God's" perspective...suffering is good, true and beautiful
but only if suffering is truly universal...can it be so
when we are focused on merely human forms of suffering
or merely "why my human group suffers"
and "why their human group suffers"
...the integral question will continue to elude us...
the causes and effects of suffering (and therefore "blame")
can only be seen if an entire chain of being ("kingdom/s of God")
is included in one's contemplation of suffering
when we remember how the human form has only barely recently emerged from a very long history of suffering,
(big bangs...planet formation...flora and fauna finding a gazillion different ways to die...etc...)
when we are NOT relying on an anthropomorphic myth of God
(but on higher-wider-deeper meanings of "God" ...as known in the depths of most all traditions)
we may see that there is no guarantee of earned safety and bliss for any human ego...
and yet how "God" is always already also "there" to "save" the reality of who we are ...pure formless spirit
...
perhaps a way to help us view "suffering"
is to stop using the word "suffering" altogether (for awhile)
and find other words and phrases and descriptions
that more adequately describe what we are looking into..and why
such as...
to suffer is to exist
is to change...is to transform...
and to transform is to lose some thing...
and to suffer loss is to experience loss
and to experience transformation
because our experience is always changing...
our experience is as fluid as fire...
and "God" is an all-consuming fire
from which there is "no escape"
although using negative-seeming terminology to express inevitable forces
is also often mistaken for mere negativity
...
ok,
enough from me for now
its probably not hard to see why i hang out in the dungeon
feel free to contribute, comment, inquire, reflect, ignore, etc...
i would have to say that Ehrman would go much farther in his quest
if he were to at least examine and compare his preferred scriptures (and preferred interpretations)
with the scriptures and interpretations of other world traditions ("scriptures," philosophies, wisdoms, living teachers, etc..)
...or at least as many as he can comprehend
I suspect at a theoretical level you are right, but that wasn't the purpose of his book. He is specifically addessing God as 'defined' in the bible and the title pretty much says that. From where I sit, that next step would be mine to take. I am woefully undereducated in other world views but I think the effort would probably be rewarding. (Not that I'll be taking on that project any time soon!)
the rational worldview cannot find an answer to "if a loving God, why suffering?"
in part, because the answer is not merely an objective one
it is, at least, all at once...objective, interobjective, subjective and intersubjective
which is at least 3 times as much as a rational worldview can handle
and the mythic worldview can't answer it
in part, because the answer is not merely an intersubjective one
...
So, in the end you're saying there is no real answer to the question? at least not one we are currently equipped to answer?
i, my self, would dare to say that suffering is the nature of the entire universe
and from "God's" perspective...suffering is good, true and beautiful
but only if suffering is truly universal...can it be so
...
I would tend to agree that suffering is universal, at least here on this planet. From the plankton getting eaten in the sea to the overpopulation of dogs getting put down at the SPCA to the humans being born with cancer. It does seem built into the nature of things. "Good, true and beautiful" is, I think, debatable.
the causes and effects of suffering (and therefore "blame")
can only be seen if an entire chain of being ("kingdom/s of God")
is included in one's contemplation of suffering
Well, isn't that what we're talking about? That was the basis of Ehrman's book. And isn't that what the bible teaches? an omnipotent and omnipresent spiritual being who has his hands in human destiny (figuratively speaking).
perhaps a way to help us view "suffering"
is to stop using the word "suffering" altogether (for awhile)
and find other words and phrases and descriptions
that more adequately describe what we are looking into..and why
such as...
to suffer is to exist
is to change...is to transform...
and to transform is to lose some thing...
and to suffer loss is to experience loss
and to experience transformation
Hah! The first word you used was suffer. :)
I see what you're saying but I'm not sure it's a lot different than Ehrman's concept of 'redemptive' suffering. Somehow, in the end, all will be well. You changed some words but basically you're saying there is some kind of greater good that can be achieved / perceived / understood / ... through the suffering. Somewhere in the midst of it all, there is meaning to be found.
Unless, of course, you're the dead guy. It's hard to pursue meaning in that state.
I have to agree with you, world views definitely change over time and that aspect is one of the parts of the book that I really like. My path has basically been the same and its good to know I'm not alone.
the causes and effects of suffering (and therefore "blame")
can only be seen if an entire chain of being ("kingdom/s of God")
is included in one's contemplation of suffering
Well, isn't that what we're talking about? That was the basis of Ehrman's book. And isn't that what the bible teaches? an omnipotent and omnipresent spiritual being who has his hands in human destiny (figuratively speaking).
no...this is not what i am talking about
nor do i think this is what the bible is talking about
the "entire chain of being" includes EVERY level of existance into the equation
God is involved (and NOT-involved...as The Witness) in suffering at EVERY level of being...from mineral, to vegetable, to animal, to human animal, to machine ...
an anthropocentric view of God IS a hallmark of the mythic worldview...where we give God human parental features
which should not be too hard to understand, given that the mythic worldview first arises when we move out of selfishness and discover FAMILY for the first time (when we leave early childhood)
cultures experience the same stage of development...when they moved from the self-centered power gods (such as pharoahs)
and gathered as tribes around a greater mythic familial bond
in a mythic worldview...the suffering of our immediate human family is more important to us than any other suffering...our view of suffering (and response to suffering) is limited...partial...not whole
the rational worldview cannot find an answer to "if a loving God, why suffering?"
in part, because the answer is not merely an objective one
it is, at least, all at once...objective, interobjective, subjective and intersubjective
which is at least 3 times as much as a rational worldview can handle
and the mythic worldview can't answer it
in part, because the answer is not merely an intersubjective one
...
So, in the end you're saying there is no real answer to the question? at least not one we are currently equipped to answer?
no. i am saying what i wrote...
that the answer is, at least, all at once...objective, interobjective, subjective and intersubjective
and "we" can become equipped to answer as "we" open our "eyes" to each of these natural normal native perspectives
of course, not sure what you meant by "we," but i suppose i mean individually or collectively
Recommended Posts
JumpinJive
Thanks for the post, penworks! I have to agree, the book is excellent. I found his discussion of suffering to be quite enlightening and he had me thinking about the bible, spirituality and generally living life in ways I never had before.
I also enjoyed his discussions on how he came to be an agnostic. Perhaps not for everyone, but that is the path I have found myself on and I enjoyed reading about his experience.
A book well worth reading.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
interesting, penworks
at a glance, it seems to me that Ehrman has experienced the limits of a mythic worldview
and is living in the afterglow/math of a more rational agnosticism
wondering...can either you or jj summarize his answer (or find his summary online) to that age old question "if a loving God...why suffering?"
i havent listened through the entire 45-minute conversation
and i cant find his answer to his question anywhere else
thanks
+ODD
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Sure Sir,
Basically he takes the position that the question is ultimately unanswerable. Not in the sense that God reproved Job for asking, but more along the lines of Ecclesiastes in that some things in this life are just plain vain and ultimately unknowable, so get on with living.
I'm not sure that is an entirely satisfactory answer, but I'm also not sure there is much of a better one out there.
As an overview, here are some other biblical causes of suffering noted in the book:
1) God's punishment for disobedience (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the fall of both OT kingdoms)
2) Consequences of people's sin (Cain murdering Abel, David murdering Uriah, the rich exploiting the poor)
3) Redemptive (Joseph sold into slavery but ultimately saves Israel; part of God's plan)
4) A test (Job, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac)
5) Apocalyptic (Cosmic enemies, like the devil. Jesus and Paul taught this; but things will be righted at a later time)
Hope this helps some.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks jj
that does help
i'm not sure "unanswerable" is satisfactory either
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
I would agree, Sir. But until something changes radically, well, God isn't talking and people are only guessing...
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i have to say that i cant bring my self to agree with these 3 points,
...but i'm also guessing it might be better for me to participate in a separate thread on the nature of suffering or something, as i havent read Ehrman's book
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I'm almost finished reading Ehrman's book and so far find his arguments compelling. One point in particular about his approach to the scriptures that is impressive is that he sticks with the context of each view found in each separate book written by each separate author. This enabled me to sort out the different views and why the writers had them. To me it's extrememly important to understand each book in its historical context. If you can, give this book as an objective a read as you can and think it over...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Jump in, Sir. I don't think penworks would mind. And the nature of suffering in the world isn't dependent on Bart Ehrman! :)
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Agreed!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
a few things...
i would have to say that Ehrman would go much farther in his quest
if he were to at least examine and compare his preferred scriptures (and preferred interpretations)
with the scriptures and interpretations of other world traditions ("scriptures," philosophies, wisdoms, living teachers, etc..)
...or at least as many as he can comprehend
and i must also add
that he seems to be taking the natural necessary steps
in realizing the limits of a "mythic" worldview
and leaning into a more "rational" worldview
but a life-altering shift in worldviews is no small event for any of us
and i couldn't blame him for not immediately leaping into the worldview that i first suggested
because a worldview that would dare to compare all world scriptures with integrity
does not come until the limits of a rational worldview have been exhausted
and one cant skip worldviews in this way, anyway
as each worldview emerges from the failures of previous worldviews
essentially building on the failures of previous worldviews
(but hopefully including the positive aspects)
but it is only natural for a rational worldview to be highly concerned with finding the holes in the logic of previous mythic interpretations, as healthy skepticism, objectivity, and critical thinking are some of the beautiful hallmarks of rational thought.
but a very common mistake made by rational thinkers (as it seems Erhman is beginning to make)
is how, in debunking the myths of fundamentalist, or ethnocentric view of God
they tend to then dismiss ALL notions that use the word "God"...and Bibles
which includes worldviews about suffering that the newborn rationalist has not experienced
and ...please know that i am writing in a very simple general overview of my perspectives
and obviously leaving quite a bit of detail out
...
that said...
the rational worldview cannot find an answer to "if a loving God, why suffering?"
in part, because the answer is not merely an objective one
it is, at least, all at once...objective, interobjective, subjective and intersubjective
which is at least 3 times as much as a rational worldview can handle
and the mythic worldview can't answer it
in part, because the answer is not merely an intersubjective one
such as when a group agrees that "God" is a powerful entity that acts like they want humans to act
..they will always be disappointed...and forced to continue to modify the myth to deal with the outrageous contradictions
("why would a loving God (who acts like a perfect human) allow the billions of human infants to die tragically?")
eventually, one can see that the problem is not in the answer
but in the quality of the question
...
i, my self, would dare to say that suffering is the nature of the entire universe
and from "God's" perspective...suffering is good, true and beautiful
but only if suffering is truly universal...can it be so
when we are focused on merely human forms of suffering
or merely "why my human group suffers"
and "why their human group suffers"
...the integral question will continue to elude us...
the causes and effects of suffering (and therefore "blame")
can only be seen if an entire chain of being ("kingdom/s of God")
is included in one's contemplation of suffering
when we remember how the human form has only barely recently emerged from a very long history of suffering,
(big bangs...planet formation...flora and fauna finding a gazillion different ways to die...etc...)
when we are NOT relying on an anthropomorphic myth of God
(but on higher-wider-deeper meanings of "God" ...as known in the depths of most all traditions)
we may see that there is no guarantee of earned safety and bliss for any human ego...
and yet how "God" is always already also "there" to "save" the reality of who we are ...pure formless spirit
...
perhaps a way to help us view "suffering"
is to stop using the word "suffering" altogether (for awhile)
and find other words and phrases and descriptions
that more adequately describe what we are looking into..and why
such as...
to suffer is to exist
is to change...is to transform...
and to transform is to lose some thing...
and to suffer loss is to experience loss
and to experience transformation
because our experience is always changing...
our experience is as fluid as fire...
and "God" is an all-consuming fire
from which there is "no escape"
although using negative-seeming terminology to express inevitable forces
is also often mistaken for mere negativity
...
ok,
enough from me for now
its probably not hard to see why i hang out in the dungeon
feel free to contribute, comment, inquire, reflect, ignore, etc...
in all curiousity, kindness, and precision
+ODD
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
It's kind of funny how 'mythical' and 'rational' mean separate things to some people.
Till you add mythical 'world view', then it adds that "common" taboo and basic "I don't want anyone to think I'm crazy". But it ain't crazy.
And then the rational 'world view' which one can escape or hide or not have to deal with the "mythical".
Which is more REAL then the "rational world view" of which the rational can and does get rationalized to nothing.
Although both fall together so beautifully when it can be allowed to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Hi Sir!
I suspect at a theoretical level you are right, but that wasn't the purpose of his book. He is specifically addessing God as 'defined' in the bible and the title pretty much says that. From where I sit, that next step would be mine to take. I am woefully undereducated in other world views but I think the effort would probably be rewarding. (Not that I'll be taking on that project any time soon!)
So, in the end you're saying there is no real answer to the question? at least not one we are currently equipped to answer?
I would tend to agree that suffering is universal, at least here on this planet. From the plankton getting eaten in the sea to the overpopulation of dogs getting put down at the SPCA to the humans being born with cancer. It does seem built into the nature of things. "Good, true and beautiful" is, I think, debatable.
Well, isn't that what we're talking about? That was the basis of Ehrman's book. And isn't that what the bible teaches? an omnipotent and omnipresent spiritual being who has his hands in human destiny (figuratively speaking).
Hah! The first word you used was suffer. :)
I see what you're saying but I'm not sure it's a lot different than Ehrman's concept of 'redemptive' suffering. Somehow, in the end, all will be well. You changed some words but basically you're saying there is some kind of greater good that can be achieved / perceived / understood / ... through the suffering. Somewhere in the midst of it all, there is meaning to be found.
Unless, of course, you're the dead guy. It's hard to pursue meaning in that state.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi jj
thanks for being patient
mostly, i'm not sure how to respond
but i'm also currently unable to sit still and write very much
but i'll say this...
worldviews change many times in one's life
one of the things i like most about ehrman's book (from what i've gleaned of it)
is how he is writing of his experience of transformation
..
sorry to bail out on ya
Todd
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
No problem, Todd!!
I have to agree with you, world views definitely change over time and that aspect is one of the parts of the book that I really like. My path has basically been the same and its good to know I'm not alone.
Maybe when you have more time.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi jj
thought i'd attempt to comment on this
no...this is not what i am talking about
nor do i think this is what the bible is talking about
the "entire chain of being" includes EVERY level of existance into the equation
God is involved (and NOT-involved...as The Witness) in suffering at EVERY level of being...from mineral, to vegetable, to animal, to human animal, to machine ...
an anthropocentric view of God IS a hallmark of the mythic worldview...where we give God human parental features
which should not be too hard to understand, given that the mythic worldview first arises when we move out of selfishness and discover FAMILY for the first time (when we leave early childhood)
cultures experience the same stage of development...when they moved from the self-centered power gods (such as pharoahs)
and gathered as tribes around a greater mythic familial bond
in a mythic worldview...the suffering of our immediate human family is more important to us than any other suffering...our view of suffering (and response to suffering) is limited...partial...not whole
no. i am saying what i wrote...
that the answer is, at least, all at once...objective, interobjective, subjective and intersubjective
and "we" can become equipped to answer as "we" open our "eyes" to each of these natural normal native perspectives
of course, not sure what you meant by "we," but i suppose i mean individually or collectively
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.