The Follies of the Polemicist: A Debate with Ehrman.

A quick word on why I don't take Ehrman seriously and a disagreement I had with him.

Debate with N.T. Wright.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/04/25/ehrman-vs-wright-...
The quoted section comes at the end of his second response I believe.

Courante in B flat major by Weiss
-Robert Barto.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bart Ehrman
• misquoting Jesus
• N.T. Wright
• problem of suffering
• Chapel Hill
• Ehrman
• Atheist
• Agnostic
• New Atheism
• Richard Dawkins
• Christopher Hitchens
• Sam Harris
• William Lane Craig
• Christianity
• Christian
• Theologica37.

[thunderbolt94]

Excellent video! I think that regardless of one's opinion on Bart Ehrman's as a New Testament scholar, his philosophical arguments in regards to the problem of evil are asinine.

[Theologica37]

@theowarner

Lol. This is the most childish comment you've ever made. 

[sirdelrio]

BIG AD HOMINEM

[theowarner]

@SetonsH4ll

It's been a while since we talked here... I have no loyalty to Bart Ehrman and no plan on defending him.

[SetonsH4ll]

@theowarner

So, to be clear: you "CAN'T DEFEND" Bart Ehrman.

[hippo11222]

For the thousanth time people. This was not an organized debate. It was just a conversation that he had with him. NOTHING MORE.

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy one last thing, the notion of objective morality violates the is/ought distinction. Like your e.g. bachelors are unmarried is an objective fact. "Murder is wrong" is an ought statement. Morality can't be objective. But, you can have objective justification by considering the things like time and place.

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy you seem very confused about the application of the is/ought distinction. Because ought implies can, there will always be associated facts with what we want out of the world. A FACT about all ought statements is that all their source is a mind that has natural urges, meaning morality is psycological. E.g. I ought to get a high paying job; engineering is a highpaying job; U of Toronto has a top tier engineering program; therefore, I ought to go to u of T to get my degree.

[aether9000]

@ToriesPolishBoy it would still be relative, e.g. jews don't except jesus as god, therefore can't follow his teachings. And your forgeting other monotheism's like hinduism and sikhism, where all the regular arguments for the existence of god are consistent with, but hold different values. God is very subjective. Incase your surprised, hinduism is not a polytheism like many think.

[MyContext]

@ToriesPolishBoy I agree - opinion/emotion is antithetical to appealing to some objective standard of right and wrong, however, the claim of God being good seems to demand a clarification as to what is being considered good. Which is a theological claim correct? The idea of anything being right or wrong appears to be an emotional question. Since, what would it matter if one didn't actually care - which, I equate as being an emotional stance.

[MyContext]

@ToriesPolishBoy Constructs such as mathematics, logic, morality, and numerous other conceptual notions are grounded in existence - each having a particular utility for our use in some fashion. Some such as mathematics & logic give a high degree of certainty - others such as feelings (->values->morality) are depictions of our experience and preferences.