Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith

Professor Ehrman wrote: "A large part of my movement away from the faith was driven by my concern for suffering.... To say that he eventually will make right all that is wrong seems to me, now, to be pure wishful thinking."

While I am acutely aware of suffering, both personally (having suffered tragedies in my own life - lost my father at age 11 and my sister about 12 years ago to the AIDS virus) and on a larger scale (having done evangelistic work in the 3rd world), I find this as a reason for rejecting God, and the God of the Bible, a flawed one.

Either the story of Jesus as the risen-from-the-dead Son of God (put forth by the NT documents) is true or it is not. Dr. Ehrman's textual issues fail to undermine the trustworthiness of these documents and their historical testimony is very solid for the resurrection. Certainly if one chooses not to believe that is one's choice. But, the historical testimony to the resurrection and the eyewitness accounts are strong evidence - sufficient for belief.

If what the NT documents say about Jesus is true, then, as we are wont to say, it is what it is! And, we have the promise that "the sufferings of this present world are not worthy to be compared to the glory that is to be revealed" - a promise based not on "wishful thinking" but on the resurrection from the dead.

Indeed his resurrection has practical implications for the teachings. But, it's more than climbing Mt. Everest. Climbing Everest, even before it had ever been done, was an attainable goal. Dying by being slaughtered on the Cross and then coming back to life - in perfection without pain - three days later is different. It is testimony to what he claimed for himself and what he accepted: that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. I would add to the "so what" just what Jesus indicated his resurrection meant and what his disciples indicated. After his resurrection, Jesus said, "all authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth" - his declarations are authoritative. And, the disciples viewed this to mean that he was and is now reigning as king in the midst of his enemies - that he is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:32-36).

The eyewitness testimony, particularly of the apostles but not exclusively so, to the resurrection was foundational for anyone choosing to come to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Human suffering will not be alleviated, nor prevented, by clinging to fairy tales, such as Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, etc. I say fairy tales, because, despite what was written above, there is no 3rd party confirmation of the "resurrection." All accounts of it were written long after the event, by people who were not witnesses, and who were Christian themselves, so had a vested interest in promoting the idea. No contemporary Jewish, Roman or other non-involved accounts have ever been found. There are Roman references, written 100 or so years later, to a "Chrestos," as having been the founder of a sect, but they refer to him as an executed slave. Nothing about him having gotten up again.

The reason I bring this up in this context is simply this: If Christianity is wrong about the most fundamental core of it's exsistance, how can it be so sure about the periphery? If it can pronounce the "reality" of the resurrection, which cannot at all be proven, then how can it be certain that it has it right on other, secondary topics, such as the "reason for suffering?" This lack of authority is what leads people like Mr. Ehrman and others to question the validity of Christian dogma.

If, in the end, it all depends on "faith," then people who look at religion one way, and those who look at it another, both are equally valid. 1+1=2; George Washington was our first President, the sun rises in the east-these are all provable facts which cannot be denied. Resurrection 2000 years ago, Allah bringing the Koran to Mohammed in a cave, Dionysus being shipwrecked, are all non-provable, so the person who chooses to believe is no better than the one who chooses not to.

The moment I hear the phrase "more sophisticated in my understanding," i've pretty much heard all I need for complete understanding.

Ehrman's problem is simple: He has the childish view that God should turn people into robots so that no one suffers. Actually, let me correct that. He believes God should turn OTHER people into robots, so that no one suffers. Ehrman, himself, of course, should be free to exercise his own choices without restriction.

Ehrman abandoned Christianity for some other reason than the existence of human suffering. That's just the excuse he uses. I'm sure if you actually read his entire book, he'll eventually tell you the real reason, and it is probably something along the lines of: God doesn't run the world the way I would.

Ehrman's problem is simple: He has the childish view that God should turn people into robots so that no one suffers.

I share Ehrman's opinion about suffering and god, but that's not it at all. Most of the things that Ehrman cites aren't caused by people at all. No human caused the tsunami in India. No laboratory created the malaria parasite. No president, not even George Bush, caused Katrina. God, assuming it exists, allowed or caused those things to happen.

I have no problem with the evil caused by humans, but the destruction caused by "acts of god" are far worse than what humans were capable of until a few decades ago.

God doesn't run the world the way I would.

That seems to be a perfectly valid reason to abandon belief in god. If I can see the injustice in killing thousands of Columbians in their sleep by drowning them in mud, why can't god?

The "problem of evil" is the reason I stopped believing so I'm interested in this dialog. I will say that if God exists the problem of evil means that God isn't good, otherwise God would have made things much worse that they are. It just indicates a limited God.

The abuse of free will is often brought up as a solution to the problem of evil. I think that falls short because natural evil is far deadlier than the human created kind.

The natural evils such as disease and disasters have killed more humans than all warfare. For example the 1918 flu pandemic alone killed at least 50 to 100 million people which exceeded the death toll from World War one by at least 10 million. The 2004 Tsunami killed more than 225,000 which exceeds the total death toll of the Iraq war.

A father buys a house as a gift,and signs over the ownership of the property to his son. The son is subsequently arrested and convicted of dealing drugs from the premises, and the house is duly confiscated. In this case, by placing complete trust in his son, the father has relinquished all legal right to the property, and is obliged to acknowledge his loss to the new owner. By analogy to Christian theory; God transferred ownership of the world to Adam, who subsequently "lost the farm." Meet the new boss - much worse than the old boss. In which case, the mystery is not God's apparent permission of continued evil and suffering in the world, but rather that He continues to allow any good to persist in the completely legal tenancy of an evil landlord, which, in observation of his own perfect ethical standard, God is obliged to acknowledge.

No Jim it's not that God does not retain ultimate power. It's just that the abuse of God's absolute trust in His delegate, Adam, had morally limited Gods power in the temporal frame to the same level as that of the temporal being who had sold him out. This compromise restored power to the other most-powerful created being who had previously sacrificed the stewardship of creation to his own ego, in exactly the same way Adam sold out his stewardship through mis-placed sympathy for his fatally-compromised alter-ego (Eve.) God will not reduce his standard of righteousness to indulge his own will, or for the sake of his own convenience. Legally compelled by his own moral discipline, God continues unwillingly to observe Satan's delegated ownership of the world, until the Evil enacted by Adam, and the subsequent reversal of that Evil enacted by Christ, reach their simultaneously self-canceling historical culmination in the person of Anti-christ.

I'm not over the hill yet, but I'm looking at the rise in front of my next few steps. My life has had some pure misery and and some incredible heartache. And much joy. I have read the Bible and many, many books that represent a religion. I was an atheist for much of my young life. I became a Christian, I lived the life. I spent time not living the kind of life a Christian should. I am still a Christian, even though I haven't written a book.

The God of the Bible is the authentic, real God of the universe no matter what I have done, good, bad or indifferent.

I'm not trying to make anyone a Christian like me, but they should believe in the Son of God on their own accord. Or, like Jesus said to His disciples . . ., they can reject the Gospel.

It's all about choices, weighed from experience.

I'm still a Christian.

Mamacaca: Humankind simply does not need "God" to be moral. I think that you miss the main point about suffering that Ehrman makes. Richard

life=suffering. buddhism=means to cope with suffering

I have been reading Mr. Ehrman's works for several years now and I must say I was relieved to hear that he was no longer a Christian.

My journey out of Christianity, while not entirely similar to his...certainly reflects a certain element of searching for answers that are just not there. It took me a long time to make the decision to leave because I knew how it would affect family and friends but when I finally made that last step, I understood true freedom for my life was established on my journey through Christianity and out of it. I however started where Mr. Ehrman ended. The suffering in my own life and in the lives of others impacted on me from an early age. Hell loomed after a life of suffering and it seemed totally incongruous with a god of love who wanted every person to find salvation but who was completely unable to make that happen (because of "free will"....the power to overcome god's grace and prolong our suffering for-ever?). So Hell for me was the first thing to go. Even so I remained faithful, but after that pillar fell, it was only a matter of time, under my sincere scrutiny, until I found no pillar for Christian belief to stand on.

Mr. Ehrman's books helped me answer a lot of those questions in the last few years of my life as a Christian and I began to wonder how he could know what he did and remain a Christian. He could, but the suffering issue forced him to face the truth of what he knew and I was happy to hear it. I know how hard it was for him to leave. Perhaps harder than it was for me since I was no longer that involved or known by anyone as the sincere Christian of my youth. But no one could read "God's Problem" and not relate to the problem that suffering presents to any reasoning person. The God of the bible is not god as I understand it.....to continue to accept the bible as definitive, for me, is impossible.

I'm pleased that Mr. Ehrman finally caught up with me and I thank him for all the help he gave (albeit unknowingly)to me along the way.

Andy,

Actually, I saw that show and it appeared to me that Dr. Ehrman is the one who came out on top in that interview. Colbert was surprised at how quick Ehrman responded and I believe, if memory serves, Ehrman made the interview even funnier because he bested Colbert with terrrific answers to his wacky questions!

I can certainly understand Ehrman's waking up and just not believing. As a graduate student, I'm required all the time to be responsible for my thoughts. Often, I find myself feeling like I know pretty well how the world works. Ehrman seems to have provided theodicy ex post facto as the reason for a long move away from his Christian faith. I would be curious to know if he experienced little moments of cognitive dissonance before his realization that his faith was lost.

My assumption from reading his conversion to rationalism in the New Yorker several years ago is that he was raised in the middle class. It strikes me as odd that so many that have so little personal contact with massive suffering on other continents see human suffering as the most substantive challenge to the Christian God. My several months in the waning days of the Soviet Union certainly shook my faith in humans, but I didn't find that massive suffering was illogical. It did make me think that sociological movements, and not just one or two individual decisions, can account adequately for human suffering. The faithful Christians I met there were the few that seemed to stand outside blind forces of history.

"No president, not even George Bush, caused Katrina."

True enough. But men, not God, decided to build and populate a major city in what amounts to a large, below-sea-level bowl, right next to a gulf already famous for hurricanes. You do the math.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I am a fan of Mr. Ehrman's work and recently cited him as a progressive thinker in my latest book, Crossing an Unseen Bridge. I also am a huge fan of common sense spirituality, so I am curious why I rarely encounter theological or scholastic debate that gives God the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Ehrman's scholarly works clearly demonstrate that what we know as scripture isn't flawless, so why would we draw any conclusions about what God is and what God does from this text? Or do we believe it's the gospel truth?

The fearsome God we met at church--the one that resorts to genocide and other inhumane acts to solve problems--is a poor caricature of the Almighty. That God inflicts pain and suffering, and demands that humans be put to death for infractions as innocuous as being a stranger who walks near a temple. The God in scripture is limited in ways that are distinctly anthromorphic: "He" has gender, frequently can only be in one place at a time, and doesn't know everything. Did the omniscient God really not know where in the world Adam and Eve were when "He" returned to the Garden?

Scripture tells us that God plays favorites, is diabolically controlling and can be violently angry and unforgiving. It makes sense that we would deduce that a God like that will impose or allow suffering. But is that really God?

As one of the ministers in my church says, "There's a lot of truth in the Bible, but everything in the Bible isn't true." Mr. Ehrman, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong and a number of other intelligent theologians have given us a wealth of evidence affirming this. Even casual readers can see that scripture claims that Jesus was born in different locations and died on different days. Noah and a conflicting number of wild animals queue up to get on the ark--AFTER they're already on the ark. And there's no mention of the bloated bodies of the entire human population and animal kingdom that polluted the world's water supply after a conflicting number of rainy days.

Why would we draw the conclusion that scripture has accurately portrayed the real God? My goodness, it says that God loved the smell of Noah's live sacrifice! Is that why that animal's life was spared?

If we know that the text is flawed, why don't we give God the benefit of the doubt? If God is Love, would Love do the things that we accuse God of doing? Can we consider the possibility that there are other causes of human suffering? It might be convenient to blame God for creating it or not stopping it, but is it logical?

We know so much more than the ancients; why do we still confine God to the Zeus mold? Can we consider the possibility that God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, rather than the petty, vindictive, misanthrope described in scripture? Can we defend God's divinity with as much vigor?

tanya,

This is a spiritual website, not a Christian one. Beliefnet has members from pretty much every religion I've ever heard of - and some I haven't - as well as atheists and agnostics.

I'm not Christian, and I bet some other people who have been commenting here aren't either.

Nakhash
--Jewish

Bart is a personable guy, and I saw his lecture in Lawrence, Kansas a couple of weeks ago.

Until someone crossses him with a tough question, then he gets visibly angry although he maintains a calm tone. This thing is, I simply don't believe the reasons he gives for "no longer" being a Christian.

Of course, this is just my opinion, but something is amiss here.

Prof. Ehrman,
In your introduction to your book, you spent a great deal of time expounding on your impressive credentials and education, and your practice of religion. It looks like you did all the "right things." I read all about you, but I read nothing about God, or your relationship with God during those same years. There was nothing about things that you learned from Him, changes He made in your life, challenges that you faced together, times where He revealed Himself or yourself to you, answers to prayer.... What about the relationship? Where was God in all those impressive achievements? What did HE do in your life?

(I inadvertantly made this comment "to" Mr. Wright's side of this debate, so I've copied it here.)

This may be very simplistic in the words but if you really think about it why does the news only really report the bad in the world? Then again how much do you hear of the good in the world? What's the point?

If the bad is so bad that it gets front page I think there are more good things happening in our world that we don't hear about. God has saved the unborn, fed millions, built houses, healed diseases etc. Some suffering has been eased. Why some and not others? I don't know.

It's so typical for us to be drawn to the bad reports, bad weather, horrific crimes and what not. Isn't that what the dark side wants, to shake our faith?

Isn't it just what the people expected Jesus to do? Run through the streets yielding his sword and killing and reigning over everyone with an iron fist? That's what we would have done. Now that would have been news worthy right? Instead we got love. Not really news worthy is it? But then again......something has to overcome our sinful nature and so far in the history books, on the news and in most other places it's only Jesus.

Karen,

In case Dr. Ehrman is unable to respond, I would like to suggest a flaw in your logic. If Dr. Ehrman is now an agnostic, it doesn't make much sense to ask him how "God" did anything in his past. For him to have an answer you would find acceptable would represent quite a level of cognitive dissonance on his part.

Before we go further into a difficult debate we should ask if our premise that God is in control is the only alternative. Perhaps God was wading through the mess, aligning with Israel as a solution, until it became futile to continue. I suggest that we ask why we are so convinced that God is in control.

Address our assumptions.

Since Prof. Ehrman hasn't been able to answer, I guess the time has come to explain my questions about what part God had in his life. What I find in the introduction to his exploration of suffering is that the professor did a great many things during the time he claimed to be a Christian. I believe he did them all sincerely and that he believed he was doing them for all the right reasons.
While I'm sure he was sincere, etc., what Mark Westbrook and I both see from different angles is a strong likelihood that God was not involved in the professor's religion. This would place the professor in a group who are described in Scripture as saying, "Lord, didn't we . . . in Your name?" The Lord replied to them, ". . . I never knew you." Whatever the professor's religion, he seems to have missed the relationship that makes Christianity more than "Ianity."

what a shame for someone to throw away all that bible knowledge..its Mr.Erhman's problem,that is the fact he cannot understand basic bible...hello!!!! we live in a fallen world...we are waiting for Christ's return...read Revelation and of course the 4 gospels...either that or he's only in it for the money and money he has made...i wonder how much he has given or used to help ease the suffering in the world.John

As I have perused these comments, I once again realized why I no longer attend church.

That sounds an awful lot like out-thinking one's self by trusting too much in the understanding of man. I heard of a fellow once who spent his whole life studying all the great thinkers and religious men only to find that they each had a different idea on correctness and how to find God.

In the end, he was still confused. I think he must have become bitter and disallusioned because I don't think he ever found that inner peace these great thinkers and religious scholars said was there. I suppose he just thought he was the problem and that somehow God was never going to show him the way. I think he did everything everyone told him to do except the thing everybody said he should not do. That one thing that said that God would talk to him directly and provide a confirming witness if only he believed God would do it. And all he had to do was be sincere with child like faith and be willing to put into practice what God would reveal to him through the power of the Holy Ghost. It would be that still small voice that would confirm to him in the quiet yearning of his heart, if he just asked.

The Christian responses to Bart Ehrman’s post run the gamut of Christian apologetics. None pass the test of rationality.

From Jeff Young we are offered the proof of Jesus’ resurrection. What proof? What eyewitness testimony? Later, Jeff says that God left us alone to go our own way, but then He didn’t really leave us alone. Can’t God make up his mind?

Jestrfyl, if God is not going to fix anything, what is it good for?

Next we get the sensible answer from Jim Rigas that Jesus loves us so much that he is not going to do anything for us.

Frgough says Bart is a childish liar.

Paul says it is all our own faults. We have been thinking bad thoughts, and that makes her (God) angry.

David McCarthy agrees with Paul, showing in his parable (followed by additional gobbledygook) that evil is all our fault (beginning with Adam).

Then MAMACACA comes up with the classic canard that without God, morality is impossible.

To the person who is still a Christian, I’ll give you the opposite of the line Christians give me, “You were never a real atheist.”

Then Lisa assures us that suffering is part of God’s plan. I’ve never heard that before! lol

From B. Paul we get the classic accusation that we are angry with God; and we are asking the wrong question. I agree that we are asking the wrong question. Any question assuming the existence of a god is the wrong question.

From Tom Paine we get sympathy. Sigh.

Pat Arnold tells Bart that he has the wrong God. Is Pat a Muslim?

From Tanya we get the most prevalent Christian response, anger that anyone would question the existence of her God.

Sam Nicolosi gives us the liberal Christian response.

Bertram Cabot, Jr. calls Bart a liar.

Karen Keil gives another vote for, “You were never a real Christian.”

Another classic response from Mark, “Don’t ask questions, just believe!”

Diane tells us to just ignore the bad stuff and everything will be ok.

Eric De Telder, if I were God, I would cure your suffering, but I do not have the power of God. What’s God’s excuse?

John’s post is a case of the blind leading the sighted.

OfficialPro uses the time-tested Christian approach of arrogant mockery. How much real third-world type pain have you suffered OfficialPro?

At the last comes the best from JLFuller, the deliberate ignorance approach. Ignorance is bliss.

There you have them, brief summaries of most of the Christian explanations for evil in the world and how to deal with evil. None of them make a lick of sense, but they have become accepted Truth by constant repetition.

I think that it is really tough for people to understand how God can be both good and omnipotent, yet pain and suffering continue unabated. Part of the problem is that we are not content that God should know some things that we don't know. The Bible reveals that we currently live in a fallen world. This "falleness" is due to sin. Paul states that the whole world is "in labor, groaning". As Christians, we hope and pray that when Christ comes back, He'll straighten everything out as He promised. God has given a plausible outline as to 1) why the world is currently in labor, groaning,2) promises of comfort and power in this present evil age and 3)hope that He will totally restore that which was lost when sin entered the world.

NGreer,
You protest that you aren't appealing to pity, then you trotted out the same old argument that artificially limits the possibile answers. There can be (you claim) only two answers to why God allows evil. Either He is uncaring or He is incapable - period. That, too is a logic fault. Even the professor adds the possibility of punishment. Try justice. Try wisdom. Try love. Consider how cruel the best parents are to their children, or the best teachers are to their students, or the best drill instructors are to their recruits, or even the best writers are to their readers, or the best trainers are to their athletes. If such a variety of humans can allow suffering for good purposes, it's possible that there is at least one more reason for suffering. Doctors inflict suffering. So do police officers and judges. Are they universally uncaring or incapable?
As for implied threats and glee - why would I be gleeful at the professors relegation to Hell? I'm not his enemy and I'm not the one who chose his direction or destination. I certainly don't benefit from it and I happen to believe that I'd benefit far more if his chosen destination was heaven. For the professor, the far greater threat is heaven, where he'd have to endure with the presence of the God he's currently rejecting.

NGreer,
As for your first paragraph, I didn't intend to ignore it - I temporarily took the point of view that YOU were accurate in YOUR claims that YOU don't use appeal to pity. I blame the hour at which I tend to visit the blog for that lapse.
I maintain, however, that whether or not you intend it to be an appeal to pity it is, in fact, an appeal to pity because the argument centers on "bad things" happening to "good people," as the professor makes apparent in his book. In fact, he seems nearly to boast about how he opened the eyes of his students to the extent of the "bad things."
(As yet another aside, I fail to see any real difference between the exploitation of children in various states of undress and the exploitation of the victims in his book beyond the minor point of medium of communication. The intent is still the same - to profit/gain/"win" from their display.)
If the argument (whether or not it is your intent) is not an appeal to pity, why use emotionally-laden language? "Evil," "suffering," "malevolent" "bad" and "good" are not emotionally neutral. The very wording (whether or not you intend it to be) evokes emotional responses. The question is never "Why does God allow things to happen to people?" The whole weight of the argument falls on "bad" things happening to "good" people. If someone rejects the adjectives - her morals (most often) and/or intellect (less often, by better debaters) are questioned. In either case, it is the emotions to which the appeal is ultimately made, your intent not-withstanding.
There are other difficulties inherent in your philosophical quote, but again due to the hour, I'll have to postpone their discussion.

NGreer,
Your "not seeing" what pity has to do with your argument does not mean that pity has nothing to do with your argument - it just speaks to your own limitations, which I will grant at this point and move on to something you may better understand.
Just as you ascribe vindictive maliciousness to me with regard to the professor without being personally acquainted to me, you ascribe maliciousness to God without being personally acquainted with Him. In your mind, apparently the possible reasons why God might choose to allow evil come down to two: incompetence or maliciousness. Are those the only reasons why you would allow anything to happen to - for instance - your children? Consider the maliciousness of so-called "good" parents. They move away from their child, promising some manner of prize (themselves, a toy, a treat - whatever) but only if the child moves in a manner that is beyond its skill - otherwise known as walking. They similarly withhold some promised reward until the child makes some specific noise, whether "Mama" or "Dada" or the noise that approximates tha name of the thing desired. As soon as that task is performed, the parent demands more advanced performance - the addition of "the magic word," the addition of the same magic word at the end of something resembling a sentence - and then at the end of a grammatically correct request. Not long after that, the poor child is required to begin to put its requests in writing to someone the child has heard about but never seen - someone described by the parents as bringing toys only as a reward for having been a "very, very, very good" boy or girl.
Now, does this mean that parents are either malicious or incompetent, with no other possible explanation of their behavior?
Put another way - on what basis are you claiming to know that the only possible reasons for God to allow evil? Could this not once again represent a failure to see on your part, rather than a failure on God's part? Or - is your knowledge so perfect?
Cutting someone causes him to suffer. Breaking into someone's home causes her to suffer. Restricting someone's freedom causes suffering. Why is it, then, that we praise surgeons, firefighters and police officers when they perform surgery, break into somone's home to rescue a child (or even a pet) or arrest a criminal? Why don't we punish parents who strap children into strollers, but leashes on them or even hold their hands? After all, they're restricting the children's freedom - malicious creatures that they are. Why would we even think to put locks on cupboard doors to keep kids from eating the stuff under the sink?
Have you ever chosen to so something because you "knew" it to be the "right" thing to do but also knowing that someone (usually, but not always a teenager) would be offended and text everyone they know to broadcast just how terribly cruel and/or stupid you are?
Further - on what basis do you claim to know that your definitions of "good," "evil," "suffering," or even "omnipotent" matches God's definition (or even mine)?

Are we not examining misfortune from our experiential perspectives?

Let us think out of the box. Suppose it is God's goal, as Jesus articulated, to love God and mankind. Perhaps this achievement would be needed in paradise.

What better opportunity to learn the importance and value of others than to be put into a cauldrin of difficulty and struggle. Perhaps real, meaningful learning comes through experience, as painful as that can be.

Moreover, with stubborn people like me, with too much blindness of heart, such an endeavor through several lifetimes might indicated.

Hurricanes and stormes, and earthquakes are an intrinsic part of our world. In our world, many animals eat animal food. The meal of one means death and pain to the other. When it is your turn to design the world perhaps you can find an alternative that lets both creatures prosper -- but for how long. Would their death then be an intolerable evil?

It appears that NGreer has left the field of battle, so I will return to questions for the professor:
The professor now claims that God is a figment, not of the his own, but of someone else's imagination. Should the professor and those who hold the same opinion not then apologize to former presidential candidate Dan Quayle? After all, Mr. Quayle was ridiculed - and his political career was effectively ruined - because he stood in moral judgment over the figment of someone else's imagination - a figment named "Murphy Brown." How is what the professor is doing effectively any different - other than the professor's choice of victim bringing a guaranteed profit?

Andy

"I immediately go to Ehrman's appearance on "The Colbert Report", in which Colbert threw Ehrman well off-stride by asking him, "Isn't an agnostic just an atheist without balls?"

No, an agnostic is an honest atheist.

I'm a philosophical agnostic. I call myself that because I've thought through the problem of what limited human beings can know and decided we can't possibly know anything that might lie beyond the universe. We are all agnostics when we are honest about our own limits.

Bart/Sally
I believe there are many different types for suffering and to lump
all suffering together and ask why? is overbearing and does not give
justice to the dynamics of human beings and the world we live in. Be
it through natural disasters(god formed the earth and that too needs
to go through its creation cycle), suffering caused by evil (forces
working contrary to god), suffering caused by man( mans freewill and
man making the wrong choice). I believe that all of these has its own root.

Suffering is a byproduct of life on earth. Either you are the one
suffering or are a witness to suffering. The individual that is
suffering has a personal choice in how they deal with that suffering
(i.e. faith, science, etc.). On individual suffering, I personally
would rather recognize an all powerful being supporting me through my
suffering than to go it alone.

If you are a witness to suffering, than I think its important to focus on what we as human beings can do about others suffering. In this regard, if you believe in an all powerful creator that is going to judge the lives of men at the end of their time on earth, than I think the actions of individuals or lack there of would be significant. In other words an all powerful creator would be interested to know what is in the hearts of the beings he created that have witnessed suffering and have the ability to help.

Take Suffering from natural disaster. When a Tsunami hits and you are just out of harms way, what will be in your heart? Will you worry about yourself only? Will you risk your life to save others?

Every hour 700 people die of malaria. Where is God in all this? my
answer to this is Where are all the human beings that god created that can provide a cure in all this. We as human beings are clouded in judgment. Each year 2,000 to 2,500 people return to Britain with
malaria, which they have contracted abroad, and, of these, an average
of 12 die. God already gave us the technology to cure Malaria but yet
people are still dying of Malaria. Why should god do what he has given man the capability in doing. This is our fault as human beings and not gods fault. We can pray for a cure for AIDs too. Why shoud god give a cure for aids when people are still dying of Malaria. "He who has little, More be given".

The example that Christ set through his own suffering is all I need to accept that in this imperfect world we will all have to endure
suffering. The regenerative process that Christ offers to society and individuals through his life,death and resurrection is the solution to suffering. Even if you thought that Christ was just a man take Mahatma Gandhi quote concerning Christ, "A man who was
completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of
others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It
was a perfect act." I can not think of a better example of how to
treat others and deal with suffering than the life and teachings of
Jesus.

Furthermore, you can not find a better system that offers hope to the
poor, dark in spirit, and suffering people, than the system created by god through christ. And the beauty of following his example is that weather you are rich or poor, it offers the same benefits regardless of how much money you have. Id like to see you come up with another social system that is as comforting to the human soul and does not cost anything except an open heart.

My question to agnostics who have reached "self enlightenment" is...
What hope do you bring to the world through your point of view? Are
people going to be better off from following your philosophy? Does
your philosophy have the power to convert sinners to righteousness, to allow individuals to overcome incredible adversity, give purpose to peoples lives, motivate people to help others?

"My question to agnostics who have reached 'self enlightenmen' is...
What hope do you bring to the world through your point of view?"

Agnostics tend to argue that theirs is the most logical and sensible path and thus most convincing. The fact many agnostics do good in the world and our guides for others suggests yes, they can "allow individuals to overcome incredible adversity" etc.

As to having an all powerful being supporting you, this is your call, but the agnostic would wonder how much "support" will be provided given that said being put you (and your suffering) here to begin with. It is akin to me breaking your leg and helping you during recovery. Or, to be more crass, a wife beater being there supporting the woman harmed, and likely somewhere down the line to set up another chance for her to get hurt. And, supply support. etc.

This to some agnostics is of limited benefit.

Absent from your journey that you delineate is the empowering of the Holy Spirit in your life. You have suffered through a long process that many have taken that has ended in disappointment. Thinking that through much study and adhering to the method by which all subjects are mastered you could have your questions concerning Christ answered. What a royal waste of effort. For it is not by anyone’s excretions that one receives the Spirit. Being a little christ is being endowed with the same Spirit which came upon those at Pentecost. Learning every fact and nuance that the world may contain does nothing towards one being a Christian. Knowing about Jesus is not knowing Jesus. Those who are His know Him and know that they know Him. Their spirit and His Spirit are of one accord. You can justify your actions with whatever charge you wish to level at Him. Yet I tell you, on your last day your charge will be without merit. Repent now! Pray Jesus will send His Spirit upon you that you may be given sight and your blindness healed.

John

The problem with evil is IMHO a subset of a much more serious theological problem: The asymmetrical relationship between Big God/little man.

Under the theological construct of the universe offered by Christians for our consideration, God makes all and controls all, and yet human beings are always to blame for the snafu. On a much smaller scale, that's akin to the boss who has dictatorial control over his employees always blaming them for lost sales, shoddy products, etc.

I've read theologians comments on this, saying such things as "God didn't want to create robots, so he gave us free will."

Unfortunately, that solves nothing. A maker always has responsibility for the doings of his creatures, robots or not. I personally solved the problem by mentally modeling the universe as a freely evolving process, not as some artifact, dumping the theological mental model in the process, problem of evil and all.

I use two classic science fiction stories to illustrate this mismatch in power. Check out my essay, "The Star, the Star Maker, and the Scripted Universe" at scribd.com.

I don't believe that Professor Ehrman turned away from God due to his questions about suffering. I have no idea why God permits suffering to occur, but I do know he has given us the capacity to help others. Events such as hurricane Katrina, tsunamis, mudslides, malaria, and HIV necessitate a human response. We all have the capacity to act as living vessels of Divine mercy and love, and we perhaps we have fallen short of our duties to work as God's agents to bring love and healing to others. If Professor Ehrman was so concerned about suffering, one would think that he should be seen more prominently offering aide at such tragedies, rather than driving around an expensive car, and living in an expensive home .... I say this as a physician who works with the poor, uninsured, and underserved.

"Either the story of Jesus as the risen-from-the-dead Son of God (put forth by the NT documents) is true or it is not. Dr. Ehrman's textual issues fail to undermine the trustworthiness of these documents and their historical testimony is very solid for the resurrection."

What eyewitness accounts do you refer to, Jeff Young? Are they written in the first person?

I am glad to have read comments like that one by Marilyn and Eric de Telder. I can hardly suffer those others that insist on the story of a fallen world where people are basically evil, those who rely on "Satan" as a supposed adversary of God etc. I haven't gotten to the point where Dr. Ehrman is, of leaving the faith behind and becoming an agnostic, but certainly any sensible understanding of God has to surpass the nonsense of the fear-mongering literalists that abound in these forums.

I think Bart's specialty is raising good questions. His ability to come at these hard and difficult questions from within a christian framework (as he used to be a believer/pastor/evangelical) is unique I think in the world of higher criticism.

However, after listening to the audio of this debate between Bart and Tom, I am struck at how pedantic and trivial Bart's rants on suffering seem to be (though, not to minimize his own experience of it). Listening to Bishop Wright, I feel as though I am watching a master artist brush into existence a magnificent work of art that is substantial and meaningful. Bart on the other hand comes across with a sort of paint by the numbers approach (at least on this subject - which seems out of his range frankly).

On the other hand, this doesn't mean that Bart does not raise excellent questions or issues. And I do appreciate his honesty when he states "I have answers. But, their not very good ones..." The problem is, that he isn't methodologically agnostic, that is to say he doesn't appear to have a crisis of faith that good could not possibly be the result of a good God, just that evil cannot be. That particular commitment seems to me to falsify a truly agnostic method, which is why I am so puzzled that he ends up at an "I don't know" destination. On his worldview, I think that he ought to be arguing that there is no God, and that if there is a God - he must then be a capricious and malevolent being who uses us as pawns in his cosmic game. I am surprised that he is so civil, and still trying to hang on to objectivity in his conclusions. I would think he would be coauthoring the sequel to "The God Delusion" with Dawkins, but it is precisely that he is not that intrigues me about him.

Thanks to NT Wright for a bigger canvas and a better explanation of the already but not yet tension that we live in today.

A Christian, I too am troubled by the problem of suffering. But when you quoted the statistics about children dying every 5 seconds of starvation, the answer came to me, perhaps too quickly to be a real answer, but it's something at least to chew on. I say this knowing that my answer is more theoretical than practical, and that in the midst of pain, I too might, like Job or Solomon, shake my fist at the sky and demand to know why. But I also say it having lived in Nigeria, a great nation disentegrating, a rich nation mired in poverty. There is so much suffering, and yet there is also joy.

When we quote statistics about HIV, about poverty, about the "third world" vs the "first world," all seems dark. But when you know human faces, hear the jokes that spring out of the most morbid situations, find yourself shaking with laughter under a table as an armed robber roams by you with a gun, see the way people comfort each other in silence and with singing when yet another young person has died without warning after a "brief illness." There is so much pain. It beats you down. But the hope, the laughter, the spirit in our eyes, where does it come from?

I don't understand why suffering occurs. I think it superscedes all the theodicies we come up with to soothe our need for logical explanations. But I find comfort, oddly, in reading Job and Ecclesiastes, in seeing how, in the midst of our questions and our disbelief and in the impossibility of finding an answer, there is a breath of something that warms us, a brief waft of fragrance, hints of something we cannot yet grasp or see, but yet IS. This is my hope. Maybe someday I will not find it sufficient. But it's what has kept me going this far despite all the ambiguity... May you find what you are seeking. There is truth in it.

Far too much focus on human suffering. The world is based on suffering.

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins

I can't agree, and do not like the Richard Dawkins quote...n a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

No, what we would expect to see in a world saturated with sin, where man is a fallen being, is exactly what we have...A perfect and righteous God with a fallen creation taking a hands off approach...he is perfect and can not, or will not intervene for whatever reason which I believe is out of our human capacity to contemplate...God does not create suffering, we as humans do in alliance with our sin nature. God allows it, because when we 1st sinned he took the back seat and let us have our free will...This is a big struggle for myself as well because for all the harmony in the world and beauty, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for any of it. This hands off approach is the only way I can make logical sense of it...thoughts?

who said believing in God is for the weak and fragile...Quite contrary