In my last post I pointed out that Ehrman begged the question for his major argument as to why the apocalyptic argument didn’t help us answer why God allows suffering. In this post I will address his next two arguments. I titled this post, “Everything But the Kitchen Sink,” because, frankly, his arguments appear rather …
Ehrman’s Problem 20: Everything But the Kitchen Sink Read More »
Now we turn to Ehrman’s fuller critique of the apocalyptic solution. He writes, “For apocalypticists, cosmic forces of evil were loose in the world, and these evil forces were aligned against the righteous people of God, bringing pain and misery down upon their heads, making them suffer because they sided with God. But this state …
We come next to Ehrman’s chapter, “Does Suffering Make Sense?” In it he divides the book of Job into two separate answers and concludes, no surprise, that neither of them succeeds in answering our many questions. Ehrman even argues that the book of Job has two separate authors, but that’s just an assertion largely based …
Ehrman’s Problem 16: Cosmic Issues He Doesn’t Understand Read More »
Chapter five of Bart Ehrman’s book, God’s Problem, is entitled “The Mystery of the Greater Good: Redemptive Suffering.” In it Ehrman writes, “Sometimes, for some biblical authors, suffering has a positive aspect to it. Sometimes God brings good out of evil, a good that would not have been possible if the evil had not existed. …
Ehrman’s Problem 13—Spanking the Strawman… again Read More »
Next we come to one of the weirdest aspects of Ehrman’s problem project. Ehrman grouses (121-122): I don’t know if you’ve read any of the writings of the modern theodicists, but they are something to behold: precise, philosophically nuanced, deeply thought out, filled with esoteric terminology and finely reasoned explanations for why suffering does not …
Ehrman’s Problem 12: Our Answer too “Finely Reasoned” Read More »
Ehrman begins his fourth chapter, “The Consequences of Sin,” by detailing horrific things humans do to each other. Then he asks “How can human beings… treat other human beings in this way?” (96). Indeed, much suffering is the result of people hurting each other.
This is my last post on Ehrman’s errors regarding his understanding of the classical view of suffering—that God punishes people for their sins. Here I will focus on what he calls “unfortunate historical realities.” Ehrman complains that the “predictions of future success and happiness” promised Israel if they obeyed “never did come to fulfillment” (89). …
My first two posts on Ehrman’s discussion of the “classical view” of suffering—that God punishes people for their sins—were mostly about clearing up ambiguities and misapplications. In this blog we come to some unambiguous examples of God punishing people for their sins which Ehrman protests. For example, Ehrman is dismayed about the destruction of the …
Ehrman’s Problem 9: He Minimizes the Horror of Sin Read More »
Ehrman points out that the “classical view” of suffering—that God is punishing people for their sins—does have some merit: “The prophets, in short, were concerned about issues of real life—poverty, homelessness, injustice, oppression, the uneven distribution of wealth, the apathetic attitudes of those who have it good toward those who are poor, helpless, and outcast. …
In my first series on Ehrman’s book God’s Problem, I reviewed some of his random ramble through the free will defense (there’s more to come). Now in his chapters two and three we turn to an even longer ramble spanning 69 pages!—of what he calls “the classical view of suffering”: that sometimes people suffer because …
Ehrman’s Problem 7: The “Classical View” & the Holocaust Read More »
