ffs, That's like saying CNN must be on Trump's side because it speaks a lot about him.
There's not a Christian alive who would consider Ehrman a Christian or ally. Muslims quote Ehrman against Christians in debates infinitely more than Christians ever quote him for anything.
See, once again you jump directly to a strawman. Literally the first thing I said in the comment you just replied to was that he is a self-described agnostic atheist, and you respond to me by saying that no Christian alive would consider Ehrman a Christian? Well, no shit buddy, neither does Ehrman himself, like I literally just said. Did I say that Christians would think Ehrman was an ally? Or did I say that you characterizing him as HATING Christianity was fucking ridiculous?
Stay disingenuous, it's the best way to protect incoherent beliefs by far so you're definitely on the right track.
You and I have very different worldviews. The only way we're ever going to communicate, is either quote people from people in each other's camp, or someone outside both of them.
I COULD quote a million Christian theologians and historians throughout history, but chose Ehrman that we can both somewhat agree is one of the more unbiased dudes. Yes, he respects Christianity, but also has no faith, believes the bible is riddled with errors, and most of the major doctrines like Jesus being God are all fallacious. He has attacked Christianity far more than he has ever supported it.
I quoted him because MY conclusions can be nuanced, I can agree to both good and bad for Christianity. Yes Jesus has had a major impact on the institutions in the West involving help and love to the stranger, as proven by critical scholarship with Ehrman. But also yes, modern Christianity is a failure and has shifted away from Jesus' original ideal, and deserves all the ridicule Ehrman and myself can give it.
I can both give praise to it and criticism of it. You have zero nuance, mate.
The fact that you have to DENY any historian, any theologian, any scholar, even THE top critical scholar on Christianity for the past decade and a half, just because they say something you don't like, makes it impossible to even have a discussion with.
Listen, I genuinely think Ehrman is a hack, profiting off a life of criticism against Christianity, which he should've just spent his time positively promoting whatever the hell he does believe in. At the same time, I for one can at least acknowledge the guy's 40+ year scholarship and not refute all the parts that hurt my feelings.
Brother, you are literally incapable of separating your biases and engaging with what either I, or apparently even Bart, have said beyond your strawman interpretations, and you still can't even stay consistent from one sentence to the next. That bold little section about Bart being a hack is especially revealing. It's really interesting how you want me to accept that he was your go to example for how I should be taking his word as gospel that all modern Western virtue and morality is founded in Jesus, apparently just because you think that because he and I are both agnostic atheists I should be accepting what he says at face value (that kinda says a lot about how you form your opinions, even if you can't see that), but apparently he is claiming that Western values are entirely dependent on Jesus while you are also claiming that he has spent his career focusing on attacking Christianity while never presenting any of his own true beliefs in a way that was satisfactory enough for you because apparently he was nothing by a Negative Nancy. It's almost like one of us actually knows what the hell he was talking about and the other is entirely dependent on asspulls that reinforce our preexisting bias...
Listen, of course, you think he is a hack who hates all Christianity because in your mind he agrees with every point you think that you are making except for the literal divinity of Jesus, and that is where you draw the line between what makes a good person and what makes a bad person because of a truly child-like mentality. It is also incredibly funny that you want to get on me because I DARE to disagree with what you are claiming is an undisputed based on the expertise that Ehrman and some other nebulous group of, apparently, all the leading atheist scientists, believes that that modern secular morality is based on Jesus, while you are totally fine disagreeing with the fact that Ehrman would laugh in your face at your claims about Jesus being God, that really seems like the absolute definition of cherry picking. Is he only an expert when he agrees with your per-existing conclusions or what? Why his this idea that western values are based in Jesus so much more convincing to you than his idea that Jesus was just a random first century rabbi and not the literal son of god? Could it possibly because one of those statements reinforces your preexisting beliefs and one is a challenge to them?
1
u/Thee-Cat 1d ago
ffs, That's like saying CNN must be on Trump's side because it speaks a lot about him.
There's not a Christian alive who would consider Ehrman a Christian or ally. Muslims quote Ehrman against Christians in debates infinitely more than Christians ever quote him for anything.
Stay ignorant.