tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post5798787922259420650..comments2024-03-25T21:14:49.666-04:00Comments on Joel Swagman (Reviews / TESOL): Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. EhrmanJoel Swagmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14948746083822200906noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-22993996747356823202013-06-27T00:05:05.451-04:002013-06-27T00:05:05.451-04:00I can respect that, and I suppose to a large exten...I can respect that, and I suppose to a large extent it's true of me as well. The world view of Hinduism or Buddhism is so completely alien to what was imprinted on my brain early on that I rarely spend much time wondering about the truth value of it. instead, to the extent I contemplate the possibility of the divine, it usually takes on the form of an omniscient sky Deity similar to traditional Christianity. The idea of cycles of death and rebirth never really occupy too much of my thoughts. So I'm a product of Western Christian thought as much as anyone else.Joel Swagmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948746083822200906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-33854739995518705532013-06-25T10:20:39.325-04:002013-06-25T10:20:39.325-04:00Yeah, a straightforward dialogue might not be poss...Yeah, a straightforward dialogue might not be possible.<br /><br />Every once in a while I wade into a site like <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/" rel="nofollow">Christianity Today</a>, just to take the temperature of the water and see how long I can stand it. My patience for these places and their ideas (and "calls to action") is growing increasingly thin, in part because interacting directly with their ideological platform is getting to be an almost insurmountable challenge.<br /><br />And yet, that's where I came from. I grew up and identified as an Evangelical up into my early 20s. I would have been completely on-board with everything on the CT site when I was 12, and probably until I was 16 or so. The Evangelical strain of Judeo-Christian values and cosmic presuppositions is what framed my understanding and informed every choice I made. Since that is what imprinted my consciousness, that is still what informs my choices, if (sometimes) in increasingly obscure and indirect fashion. To call myself something other than a "Christian" would be absurd. To the degree I can think, those thoughts will always be infused with and even directed by the Evangelical Mennonite Christian <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Bantam-Spectra-Book/dp/0553380958/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372167413&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">virus</a> that infected me as a child.<br /><br />I'm thinking of how Roger Ebert identified himself as "Catholic" right to his final days. Of course, he also identified himself as "agnostic," too. Your "Christian Agnostic" definition might be apt, although I find it too rigid for my own thought experiments. When someone like <a href="http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/roger-ebert/" rel="nofollow">this guy</a> asks, "Just how Catholic was Roger Ebert?" and answers that with, "Basically, he wasn't," I get a little peeved, even if, to be fair, he engaged Ebert with Ebert's own linguistic simplicity.<br /><br />I don't think of myself as Agnostic, but maybe I am. To my mind I'm probably more in line with Christian Pantheism, or maybe selective Christian Panentheism. That makes me a Heretic, but since that's also <a href="http://whiskyprajer.blogspot.ca/2013/03/fools-in-old-style-hats-coats-21st.html" rel="nofollow">an integral part</a> of my DNA, I'm quite fine with that. The larger mystery of how consciousness affects behavior, and vice versa, is (I still suspect) the launching point for most of these discussions.Whisky Prajerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14076228013022881173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-17154508654271059272013-06-25T01:24:26.678-04:002013-06-25T01:24:26.678-04:00Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman....I just got...Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman....I just got that now.Joel Swagmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948746083822200906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-78541724031673564052013-06-25T01:23:57.918-04:002013-06-25T01:23:57.918-04:00First of all, to be fair to Bart Ehrman, he goes o...First of all, to be fair to Bart Ehrman, he goes out of his way in his last chapter to explicitly make the point that all of the historical problems and internal contradictions he is raising about the Bible should not be a problem for faith (and for many of his scholarly friends are not a problem for faith.) <br />I'm the one who is arguing for a connection between the historical probability of what is recorded in the New Testament, and the possibility of faith.<br /><br />You, on the other hand, are obviously coming at this from a different perspective, and you're reading list looks like it's a lot different than mine. So we may struggle to find common ground here, but I'll do my best.<br /><br />If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that our actions are ultimately more important to the cosmos than our faith in certain intellectual doctrines. <br />I suspect that you are defining "Christianity" a lot differently than my background (or yours as well, from what I've gathered.)<br /><br />Part of the problem with having these discussions on faith or religion is that the very nebulousness of the subject makes it difficult to have a straightforward dialogue. I think I would have to learn a lot more about your perspective (and possibly read some or your recommendations) before I could even attempt to offer feedback on it. <br /><br />It may also be a problem of semantics. I sometimes get the impression that what some of my more liberal Christian friends are defining as "Christianity" is what I would consider more to be "hopeful agnosticism" or a kind of Deism that borrows some aspects from the Bible and disregards others.<br />I'm not opposed to this. I'm not an atheist. I believe there is definitely a possibility God exists, and that there is the possibility there is some divine truth hidden in the world's religions. I just think it's more honest to call this sort of belief agnosticism.Joel Swagmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948746083822200906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-20049198685284181562013-06-24T11:48:25.457-04:002013-06-24T11:48:25.457-04:00Hey, I just noticed how your byline reads, "J...Hey, I just noticed how your byline reads, "Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman" -- ha!Whisky Prajerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14076228013022881173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5940197.post-53868950762557416722013-06-24T11:44:53.472-04:002013-06-24T11:44:53.472-04:00I'm not sure why I feel compelled to comment, ...I'm not sure why I feel compelled to comment, except that I, too, "unashamedly call myself a Christian." The qualifier depends on the context, of course: there are plenty of shame-inducing occasions for anyone who calls herself a Christian. But that's the danger in any ideology one finally lays claim to, with the exception of the untested.<br /><br />The question, "Is faith still possible?" depends on the definition of faith, and the degree to which a person is willing to absorb cognitive dissonance. Those are theological questions, which I have little use for. Rabbis and Seminary profs are fond of saying, "The answer lies in further study." For some, that might indeed be the case.<br /><br />My knee-jerk retort: who says "faith" is what makes a person "Christian"?<br /><br />I have some sympathy for Ehrman's fallback position. <a href="http://whiskyprajer.blogspot.ca/2006/02/whoppers-take-2-optimistic-wrap-up-and.html" rel="nofollow">Robertson Davies</a> does a much subtler (and vastly more entertaining) job of exploring the nuances and possibilities, I'd say. In fact, I'm content with you ignoring every book recommendation I make if you only read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140147551/sr=1-1/qid=1138890723/ref=sr_1_1/102-9722247-3188966?_encoding=UTF8" rel="nofollow">The Deptford Trilogy</a>. <br /><br />To my mind the intersection of human consciousness and behavior is fundamentally more interesting (and problematic) than the technicalities that Ehrman obsesses over. Altho those technicalities often inspire unexpected behavior(s), individual and mass consciousness are informed by so much more -- assuming, of course, that there is individual consciousness. <a href="http://www.techgnosis.com/" rel="nofollow">Erik Davis</a> keeps the silt from settling in my own thoughts. So does <a href="http://www.hustonsmith.net/" rel="nofollow">Houston Smith</a>, to a lesser degree.<br /><br />Hm: word prompt, "erprote exorcist"Whisky Prajerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14076228013022881173noreply@blogger.com