(Part 2) Best christian bibles according to redditors

Jump to the top 20

We found 34,000 Reddit comments discussing the best christian bibles. We ranked the 11,418 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.

Next page

Subcategories:

Christian bibles
Christian biographies
Catholic books
Christian living books
Christian ministry & leadership books
Evangelism books
Protestantism books
Christian theology books
Christian worship & devotion books
Christian education books
Fiction books
Christian bible study & reference books
Books on Bible Covers
Christian denominations & sects books
Christian romance books
Books on Children's & Teens
Christian bible history books

Top Reddit comments about Christian Books & Bibles:

u/LordGrac · 524 pointsr/Christianity

After reading through your responses here, I feel the need to clarify for you exactly what an argument is and what it can do. You list examples like evolution and heliocentrism and ask how those might affect one's faith. In reality, these arguments do nothing to disprove God, and are in fact separate issues entirely.

The way you've been speaking so far, it seems like the arguments you're assuming are these:

  • The church believed the sun revolved around the earth
  • The earth in fact revolves around the sun
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    and

  • Some Christians say evolution is false
  • Evolution is not false
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    Do you see the leaps here? The statement "God does exist" is not a logically valid inference from these arguments. They, in fact, cannot say anything about whether or not God exists; such is simply not a possibility in the premises. What they really can do is this:

  • The church believed the sun revolved around the earth
  • The earth in fact revolves around the sun
  • Therefore, the church was wrong

    and

  • Some Christians believe evolution is false
  • Evolution is not false
  • Therefore, some Christians are wrong

    Now, does "the church was wrong [on this occasion]" and "some Christians are wrong" equate to "God does not exist?" No. It means that it is a logical possibility, yes, but it does mean that is certain or even probable.

    In addition, you'll find that these arguments are not conflicts at all for the vast majority of Christians, especially those who frequent r/Christianity. This is why:

  1. It is possible in our theology for the church to be wrong. The church is made up of human beings, and though those human beings have the power of the Holy Spirit, they are still humans and therefore quite capable of sin and being wrong.

  2. The "heliocentrism debate" centered around Galileo is often blown way out of proportion. The issue was how the Church was going to handle someone challenging their authority. Heliocentrism itself was almost a negligible issue, though it was indeed an issue. Additionally, Galileo's proof for heliocentrism was lacking for the science standards of his day (natual philosophy of this time was strongly influence by Aristotle and his deductive method - induction was not considered valid, and heliocentrism relies on induction). See this Catholic.com article on the issue.

    You should also be aware of the philosophical foundation for science. Science is inherently naturalistic, which means that it cannot interact in any way with things outside of nature (related: it is also incapable of 'proving' anything, only math and logic can do that; science can only disprove and assume that which is most probable given the evidence). This includes God, as he exists outside of the universe as we perceive it. Dealing with things outside of nature is the realm of metaphysics, and metaphysics is largely philosophy and logic, not science. Thus, any argument that claims "science has proven God does not exist" is an argument resetting entirely on false beliefs about what exactly science is. This is what others in this thread have been saying.

    Given all that, you'd do well to know exactly what arguments do set out to disprove God - and there are very few of them that do so in a valid way. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theogica, was in the habit of stating a point, giving three positions on this point, and then stating his view which was contrary to the three and then arguing against the three first points. In his section on "Whether God Exists?" he only lists two reasons; this is because very few of the arguments that claim to disprove God can actually logically do so. These are the arguments he lists:

  • God is an all-good, all-powerful being
  • An all-good, all-powerful being would be capable of eradicating evil
  • Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful being must eradicate evil
  • Evil exists
  • Therefore, God is either not all-good, not all-powerful, or does not exist
  • The God of the Bible is necessarily all-good and all-powerful, therefore the God of the Bible does not exist

    and

  • Things that were previously explained using God are now explained without God
  • Humanity will continue to find explanations for things now explained with God
  • Therefore, humanity has no need for God to exist
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    Note that these aren't the arguments exactly as he lists them; I've updated them slightly to better reflect how they are used today.

    The second argument is yet another argument making a logically invalid conclusion from the premises. Whether or not mankind needs God to exist is irrelevant to whether or not he actually exists. Thus this argument falls flat.

    The first argument is known as the Problem of Evil, and it has been a huge issue for theists for a very long time. It has not been answered in a way that most theists find existentially satisfying, meaning that no matter how the problem is answered, evil is always a big problem in everyone's life, and it's always hard to understand why God won't just take it away. That said, the Problem of Evil relies entirely on this premise:

  • Therefore, an all-good, all-powerful being must eradicate evil

    We have to ask is that really so? And the answer is, we have no idea if it is or not. It is logically possible that an all-good, all-poweful being could co-exist with evil, even if we don't know how that is possible. Ultimately, this argument is an argument from ignorance, meaning that it relies on the fact that we don't know something to make its claim (The "God of the gaps" argument does the same thing, by the way - it says "Look, we don't know how x or y happen, therefore God"). This is a logical fallacy, and as a result the problem of evil also cannot logically disprove God - though the answer does very little to comfort someone dealing with evil.

    I highly recommend you watch Tim Keller on the Problem of Evil at Google. Tim Keller is a big-name pastor in New York in addition to being a popular apologist (meaning one who defends an intellectual stance - in this case, Christianity).

    I feel it's worth mentioning what is probably the most common argument against theism, and especially Christianity, most especially on the internet. This is the argument:

  • Theists believe things that I find crazy
  • Therefore, God does not exist

    You should be able to tell by now that this argument is not a true argument at all. The conclusion has nothing at all to do with the premise. It sounds crazy to some people that Christians believe in life after death, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist. It sounds crazy to some people that some Christians believe that bread blessed by a priest becomes the body of Christ, but that does not mean it is false, and it certainly does not mean God does not exist (a lot of the popular arguments against evolution use this tactic, and are also invalid). This tactic is the one most commonly used by Richard Dawkins.

    Ultimately, that 'argument' fails because it relies entirely on the perception of the individual and has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It merely disguises itself as logic.

    Now, if you really want to read more about why people believe God can logically exist, you want to look into books on apologetics. There are a whole lot of those, as it has been a popular topic for hundreds of years now, but two that are quite accessible and quite strong are The Reason for God by Tim Keller, who I mentioned above, and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, of Narnia fame. These two books deal with how God can logically exist, but there are a wealth of books on other apologetic issues, like how we can trust the Bible to be accurate (Reinventing Jesus is a very good book for this issue).

    Edit: error corrections, some paranthetical statements.
u/YourFairyGodmother · 190 pointsr/atheism

Don't buy them a Dawkins book, as /u/Rugger01 suggests. Make it The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel in which Robert Price eviscerates Strobel.

>Leading New Testament scholar Robert M. Price has taken umbrage at the cavalier manner in which Rev. Lee Strobel has misrepresented the field of Bible scholarship in his book The Case for Christ. Price exposes and refutes Strobel's arguments chapter-by-chapter. In doing so he has occasion to wipe out the entire field of Christian apologetics as summarized by Strobel. This book is a must-read for anyone bewildered by the various books published by Rev. Strobel.

u/MrCompassion · 129 pointsr/books

Use of Weapons and, everything else by Iain M. Banks. Amazing stuff. Trust me.

The Blade Itself and the rest of that series by Joe Abercrombie.

Altered Carbon and the rest of that series as well as Thirteen and The Steel Remains, and it's sequel (still waiting on book 3) by Richard K. Morgan. He's pretty amazing.

That would keep you busy for a long time and are all pretty amazing. Seconding Dune, which is amazing, and the Name of the Wind which is great but very popcorn.

But really, if you were to read everything by Iain M. Banks you would be a better person.

Edit: The Sparrow

u/dustin_allan · 92 pointsr/atheism

I also recommend Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven.

It's primarily about a double murder committed by a Mormon splinter
cult, the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, in 1984. However, it also goes into detail of some of the really shitty things in the history of the Mormons.

It was a fascinating, frightening read.

u/Loshusquare · 82 pointsr/HumansBeingBros
u/TooManyInLitter · 81 pointsr/DebateReligion

How about the evolution of Yahweh/Allah as a second-tier God in a large henotheistic polytheism into a straight monotheism where there is only one God, where that God is Yahweh/Allah?

Here are some references on the growth of monotheistic Yahwehism from a historical polytheistic foundation to the development of the henotheism/monolatry, and then monotheism of early Biblical Israelites:

u/HSoup · 62 pointsr/skeptic

Hitchens wrote a wonderful book exposing many of these hypocrisies as well. The article mentions the documentary (available on YouTube), but I did't see the book referenced.

u/howardson1 · 54 pointsr/todayilearned

Except some of the greatest advancements in biology, astronomy, and physics were done by Catholic Priests. The creator of the big bang theory was a catholic priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists

The "middle ages were dark ages where chants were used to cure diseases and everybody was miserable" idea is a Protestant myth created during the anti Catholic hysteria of the 19th Century. It has been debunked by actual historians like Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Victory-Reason-Christianity-Capitalism/dp/0812972333

http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375813215&sr=1-2&keywords=thomas+woods

u/Pope-Urban-III · 53 pointsr/Catholicism

You would really enjoy reading Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott Hahn.

u/StGabriel5 · 51 pointsr/Catholicism

Boy, have I got a book for you.

u/duncantrustzerg · 50 pointsr/Harmontown

I did get the Socrates thing wrong along with many other things I said as comptroller!! I've gotten some pretty furious tweets over my butchering of facts on this episode of Harmontown and I think it's wonderful.

It does hurt to get harshly corrected by people who know more than you but it's exactly the kind of pain I like. And believe it or not I actually grow from that sort of critique. So thanks, assholes.

That being said I do think Santa represents the Amanita muscaria mushroom and I'm shocked that more people stood up for Santa not being a mushroom than for Socrates not being a pedophile.

Here's a link to the Santa/mushroom/Jesus book I got my info from:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276

Thanks for all the sweet comments and I hope that those of you infuriated by my fact butchering continue to rage against enthusiastic fools. It's inspiring and in some small way makes the world a much better place.






u/SIWOTI_Sniper · 45 pointsr/atheism

To Train Up A Child is fucking evil. You can imagine my suprise when we received it as a baby shower gift!

u/spinozasrobot · 39 pointsr/atheism

Well, there's this about Mother Theresa if you're truly interested.

u/wdr1 · 30 pointsr/todayilearned

> anyone who is bigoted towards islam almost certainly doesn't realize they are essentially the only reason we still have access to the knowledge of the greeks.

That's really, really reaching.

And at least give some credit to the Irish too.

u/AnneWH · 28 pointsr/blogsnark

Google Blanket Training. I bet Chelsea uses that technique and that's why the poor baby hid her hand.

ETA: Read the reviews. https://www.amazon.com/Train-Up-Child-Michael-Pearl/dp/1892112000

u/Anteater1138 · 27 pointsr/TrueAtheism

One that is quite popular in the culture of conservative Christianity (think Southern Baptists) is I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. I read portions of it years ago, and it seemed to largely be a regurgitation of common theist arguments, in what was admittedly a reasonably well-written, if not fallacious work.

Link for the lazy

u/fajitachimichanga · 27 pointsr/videos

For an incredible counter-argument from someone exponentially smarter than I am, I recommend CS Lewis' book The Problem of Pain. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Pain-C-Lewis/dp/0060652969

u/jony4real · 27 pointsr/badhistory

There's no kind of history I would never read or never put on my bookshelf, but I tend to be turned off by history that believes in Progress^TM or History^TM itself as more of a force within history rather than just a way to describe the past. Especially if it's dumbed down and aimed at the public, like that one book How the Irish Saved Civilization. That doesn't mean people who believe in Progress are stupid or even wrong, it's just personally I don't like hearing about it in my history. Why put your energy into learning about this vaguely-defined, self-centered idea when you could be learning tons of details about people and eras you'd never thought were important before, like in this book which I love?

u/elbowbrunch · 26 pointsr/Christianity

The question you're asking yourself is God moral? And if God is not moral then why should I serve him?

>The existence of suffering in a world created by a good and almighty God — "the problem of pain" — is a fundamental theological dilemma and perhaps the most serious objection to the Christian religion.

I recommend this book it'll answer your questions far better than I can. When it comes down to it and this for every person in any religion. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism.

>with fear and trembling your own salvation work out,


u/Joseph-Urbanek · 25 pointsr/Catholicism

I suggest the following books by former anti-Catholic Presbyterian Minister Catholic Convert Scott Hahn. Read them yourself then give them to your boyfriend and discuss them with him.

Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by Scott Hahn

And

Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God

u/starwarsgeek33 · 25 pointsr/Catholicism

Quick answers: No, you are not a hypocrite, and no, you're not horrible for letting the question of your career bother you.

As for what to do, I'm a lifelong Catholic, so I don't have a lot of experience that will help. However, I do know of other people who have been in similar situations. You may have heard of Dr. Scott Hahn...he's a prominent Catholic writer/speaker/professor of theology. He was a Presbyterian minister. I've never read his conversion story ("Rome Sweet Home"), so I'm not sure exactly how much he focuses on the difficulties of the situation, but this will probably help.

http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343621786&sr=8-1&keywords=rome+sweet+home


There's also Jeff Cavins. He left the Catholic faith and became a Methodist minister, but eventually returned. http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Rock-Returns-Catholic/dp/0965922839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343621960&sr=8-1&keywords=life+on+the+rock+jeff+cavins


Sorry I can't offer any direct assistance, but hopefully these will be of some help.

u/Aerothermal · 24 pointsr/humanism

It was the late Christopher Hitchens who first taught me about the inhumanity of Mother Teresa, though I'd watched a lot of clips of his I haven't read his book, The Missionary Position.

What does it mean to be a wretched person? Maybe it means to be someone who feels no greater joy than watching another suffer unto death, just to feel the satisfaction of being there, when in all their desperation and without basic respite, accepting your religion on their deathbed.

By her own accounts she watched nearly 30,000 people come through her doors, and with broken empathy managed to convince them that their suffering only brought them closer to god. I'd like to know how anyone came to the conclusion that this woman was worthy more than anybody else of earning a Nobel peace prize.

u/Jason_Lykan · 22 pointsr/Catholicism

If you want a book debunking the anti-Catholic myths about history of the Church. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History is one for you. It's written by an agnostic who hates bad history. And also How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, although he is Catholic, it's still informative. And there's The New Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in World and International History) by Thomas Madden, again an agnostic who refutes the baseless claim against the Crusade.

u/djork · 22 pointsr/worldnews

People can and do suggest such a thing about Christians. And in fact some Christians in America have beaten their kids to death[3] on the advice of people who advocate such "training up"[1] of children.

If you were to ask evangelicals, you would find that they do in fact believe that they have a religious basis for spanking. In fact, that survey[2] has been done and found:

> Our survey research reveals that, on average, evangelical parents spank their children considerably more often than their non-evangelical counterparts.

Having spent plenty of time in church, I would not hesitate for a second to suggest that Christians believe they can beat their kids, because I know they do.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/To-Train-Child-Michael-Pearl/dp/1892112000
[2]: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/parentingandevangelicals.html
[3]: http://www.examiner.com/article/another-child-s-death-linked-to-pearls-and-to-train-up-a-child

u/GOB_Farnsworth · 21 pointsr/latterdaysaints

The ancient Semitic pantheon (which included 70 sons of El, including Baal) was widely believed in across the region. What made Judaism unique was its eventual push toward monotheism, although traces of the old pantheon are still in the Hebrew Bible.

Mark Smith has put out some good scholarship on the topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X

Asherah was originally a wife of the father God El, although later Yahweh was brought in (possibly from contact with Edom) and El and Yahweh were eventually merged.

This interesting convergence tends to be brought up in apologetic literature but I haven't seen it from church leaders. The Deuteronomic Reforms removed "pagan" altars and gods from Hebrew worship, including the worship of Asherah. Is it the LDS position that those reforms were correct? Incorrect? Somewhere in between? There isn't an official position as far as I know, but if Asherah is to be associated with Heavenly Mother it might be necessary to take one.

It's an interesting area of LDS theology that hasn't really been explored much.

u/Im_just_saying · 20 pointsr/Christianity

Answers in Genesis is basically a young earth, six day creationist group. Their founder, Ken Ham, is a questionable fellow (just google him), but is unquestionably bad with science.

I would be hard pressed to promote anything from AIG. I don't envy your predicament.

Having said that, a book on the subject I really recommend folk read is Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One. Corny title, amazing book.

u/WastedP0tential · 20 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

You wanted to be part of the intelligentsia, but throughout your philosophical journey, you always based your convictions only on authority and tradition instead of on evidence and arguments. Don't you realize that this is the epitome of anti – intellectualism?

It is correct that the New Atheists aren't the pinnacle of atheistic thought and didn't contribute many new ideas to the academic debate of atheism vs. theism or religion. But this was never their goal, and it is also unnecessary, since the academic debate is already over for many decades. If you want to know why the arguments for theism are all complete nonsense and not taken seriously anymore, why Christianity is wrong just about everything and why apologists like Craig are dishonest charlatans who make a living out of fooling people, your reading list shouldn't be New Atheists, but rather something like this:

Colin Howson – Objecting to God

George H. Smith – Atheism: The Case Against God

Graham Oppy – Arguing about Gods

Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God

Herman Philipse – God in the Age of Science

J. L. Mackie – The Miracle of Theism

J. L. Schellenberg – The Wisdom to Doubt

Jordan Sobel – Logic and Theism

Nicholas Everitt – The Non-Existence of God

Richard Gale – On the Nature and Existence of God

Robin Le Poidevin – Arguing for Atheism

Stewart Elliott Guthrie – Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

Theodore Drange – Nonbelief & Evil



[Avigor Shinan – From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0827609086)

Bart Ehrman – The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Bart Ehrman – Jesus, Interrupted

Bart Ehrman – Misquoting Jesus

Burton L. Mack – Who Wrote the New Testament?

Helmut Koester – Ancient Christian Gospels

John Barton, John Muddiman – The Oxford Bible Commentary

John Dominic Crossan – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Karen Armstrong – A History of God

Mark Smith – The Early History of God

Randel McCraw Helms – Who Wrote the Gospels?

Richard Elliott Friedman – Who Wrote the Bible?

Robert Bellah – Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age

Robert Walter Funk – The Gospel of Jesus

u/scrutinizer80 · 19 pointsr/Anglicanism

There's "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch.

https://www.amazon.com/Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-Years/dp/0143118692

u/stirfrizzle · 18 pointsr/atheism
u/Shorts28 · 18 pointsr/AskAChristian

I believe in and subscribe to evolution. The science is undeniable.

You probably realize that there are good and strong Christians who take different positions about creation and evolution. There are 5 main positions:


  • Young Earth, 6-day creation: The Earth is only about 6,000-10,000 years old, and God created the universe and everything we see in 6 24-hr days.
  • Old Earth, 6-day creation: The universe is 13 billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and God created it all in 6 days 13 billion years ago.
  • Day-Age Theory: Each of the “days” of creation in Genesis aren’t literal days, but they represent long eras. For instance, the first “day” of creation (creation of light) could have been billions of years in the making. But each age follows the sequence as outlined in Genesis 1.
  • Gap Theory: Genesis 1.1, like the first phase of creation, happened billions of years ago. Then something cataclysmic happened, and it was all turned “formless and void,” and God started the second phase of creation in Genesis 1.2, which happened more recently.
  • Evolutionary Creationism: God created the universe and all that we see, but he used the processes of the Big Bang and evolution to created everything we see. If this is the position one takes, Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the universe to function (light functions to give us day, the Earth functions to bring forth vegetation, the heavenly bodies function to give us seasons, etc.), not about how He manufactured it. He certainly created (manufactured) it, but that’s not what Genesis 1 is about.

    At the same time, there are 6 different ways to define “evolution.” Only #6 is completely contrary to Christianity.


  • The ancient earth thesis, some 4.5 billion years old
  • The progress thesis: The claim that life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex forms. In the beginning there was relatively simple unicellular life. Then more complex unicellular life, then relatively simple multi-cellular life (seagoing worms, coral, jellyfish), then fish, then amphibia, then reptiles, birds, mammals, and human beings.
  • Descent with modification: The enormous diversity of the contemporary living world has come about by way of offspring differing, ordinarily in small and subtle ways, from their parents.
  • Common ancestry thesis: Life originated at only one place of earth, all subsequent life being related by descent to those original living creatures—the claim that, as Gould puts it, there is a “tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.” According to this theory, we are all cousins of each other—and indeed of all living things (horses, bats bacteria, oak trees, poison ivy, humans.
  • Darwinism: There is a naturalistic mechanism driving this process of descent with modification: the most popular candidate is natural selection operating on random genetic mutation, although some other processes are also sometimes proposed.
  • Naturalistic origins thesis: Life itself developed from non-living matter without any special creative activity of God but just by virtue of processed described by the ordinary laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.

    So how can the Bible and evolution go together? Very easily if we take Christian position #5 and evolutionary positions #1-5. As long as we keep God as the central and necessary sovereign intelligence, power, person, and morality in the process, I don’t see where it’s a problem.

    I subscribe to the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 laid out by Dr. John Walton in “The Lost World of Genesis 1” (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=john+walton&qid=1564575785&s=gateway&sr=8-2). Briefly reporting, in it he asserts that Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the cosmos to function, not how He manufactured it. Certainly God created the universe (as taught in other verses in the Bible), but that’s not what Genesis 1 is about.

    The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a *period* of light called day, and a *period* of light called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.


    Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)


    And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.


    In other words, it's a temple text, not an account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God ordered the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies." Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).


    You probably want to know about the seven days. In the ancient world ALL temple dedications were 7-day dedications, where what God had done to order his world was rehearsed, and on the 7th day God came to "rest" in his temple—to dwell with his people and engage with them as their God. That's what the seven days mean.


    Back to evolution. Therefore Gn 1-2 make no comment on *how* the material world came about, or how long it took. We need science to tell us that. We need Gn 1-2 to tell us what it's there for (God's temple) and how it is supposed to function (to provide a place of fellowship between God and humans, and to bring God glory as an adequate temple for his Majesty).


    Feel free to discuss this. For those who have never heard these ideas, it takes a little adjusting. But they make a whole lot of sense to me.
u/trolo-joe · 18 pointsr/Catholicism

>Is there anything else I have to do?

Pray! Fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending Mass every Sunday! Make special note of any feast days or Holy Days of Obligation on your calendar! Spend time in contemplation before Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament!

This is a very exciting time for you. You get to discover all of the things that we cradle-catholics often take for granted. Learn about the Church's devotions, Her saints, Her disciplines. Explore different liturgies at different parishes. If you can find a Church with a beautiful choir that sings the Latin propers for Mass, give that a shot, just to experience it! Later on, you may even want to explore the Extraordinary Form of the Mass as well.

And read! Get your hands on a Catechism! Check out "Theology for Beginners" by F.J. Sheed.

Also look at purchasing "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" by David Currie and "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. You won't be disappointed.

u/samreay · 17 pointsr/DebateReligion

Sure, so apart from a lack of reason to accept those extraordinary claims I listed before, I would also defend the statement that we have firm evidence that Christianity is a human invention, a simple product of human culture.

This should not be too outlandish a claim, as even Christians can probably agree that most of the worlds religions are creations of our changing society (after all, Christians probably would disagree that Hinduism, paganism, Nordic, Hellenistic, aboriginal religions were divinely inspired/authored).

By looking back into the origins of Christianity, and the origins of the Judaic system from which it is derived, we can very clearly see changes in religious deities and stories, as the religion began incorporating myths from surrounding areas and as general patterns of beliefs changed. From what we can currently understand, it appears the the origin of Christianity started as a polytheistic pantheon with at least Yahweh, El, Baal and Asherah. It then moved slowly from polytheism to henotheism to monaltry to monotheism, as was relatively common in the Axial Age.

All of this points to the religion not representative of singular divine inspiration, and instead being representative of being a product of human culture, changing along with society.

This is a rather large topic of course, and if you want further reading, I recommend:

u/sweetcaviar · 16 pointsr/Catholicism

Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn: A biographical account of how Dr. Scott Hahn, former Presbyterian minister, and his wife found their way into the Catholic Church, and why.

Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples: An apologetic defense of the Marian doctrine using Biblical and historical references.

Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn: Another defense of the Marian doctrine from Dr. Scott Hahn.

The Case for Catholicism by Trent Horn: A litany of apologetic responses to typical Protestant objections to and misunderstandings of Catholic teachings.

Catholic Answers Podcast: A weekday radio broadcast with various Catholic apologists and advocates for various Catholic issues.

Called to Communion radio podcast (with Dr. David Anders, available on EWTN's channel): A radio broadcast specifically oriented towards answering objections launched by Protestants. The host Dr. Anders is also a former Presbyterian seminarian.

u/blackdog6 · 16 pointsr/Documentaries

Hitchens did a book about her too if anyone is interested.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Missionary-Position-Mother-Practice/dp/1455523003

u/Venus100 · 15 pointsr/exchristian

This was what first made me start the process of deconversion. I had for a long time held that some form of theistic evolution must be true. I had read Francis Collins, and John Walton books, and thought my reasoning was logical.

The tiny seeds of my eventual deconversion were planted however in a discussion/debate with my mother-in-law. She is a staunch creationist, doesn't think anyone who believes in evolution can possibly be a christian. We had a long discussion about the issue, and she kind of came around to my point of view--or at least didn't think I was going straight to hell anymore. But in the course of this conversation, she off-handedly made some comment about evolution meaning there was always death. We didn't really talk about the subject any more than that.

But it kept popping into my mind over the coming days. And for some reason, I had never considered this idea before. Months later, after much research, reading and considering, I came to realize that I could find no acceptable explanation for what "the fall" was, if it was a merely symbolic event. If there was always sickness and pain and death from day one, then the world was always "fallen". And without a fall, my understanding of who Jesus was and what he did was on VERY shaky ground. So it was the beginning of the end for me.

u/mistiklest · 15 pointsr/Christianity

> I come from a very rural area of England but in my town alone we have an Anglican (High Church) church, a Catholic church, a Methodist church, a Baptist church, an Eastern Orthodox church, potentially some others I do not know about, and also there is a society of friends here.

Why not visit them all?

> However Works of Mercy are also an important part of the Catholic Church, so that point alone doesn't really help me decide, even though to me it's important that I am involved with a church which values Works of Mercy.

Works of Mercy should be something all Christians agree is important!

> The biggest issue in choosing which church to go to is that because I was not brought up religious at all and my family are so anti-religious I really don't know much about it, and have not explored my faith at all with anyone else so don't really know how I stand on a lot of the important divides between the denominations.

I suppose step one is learning what all these different groups teach, then. This is a surprisingly good introduction. For something more in depth, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is very good. If you really want to go in depth, A History of Doctrine (this is volume one of five) is pretty much comprehensive.

Of course, you shouldn't just sit in your house reading books. Get up and go visit all those churches you've mentioned. Speak with the priest/pastor/minister and ask them your questions about their church and it's teachings!

u/Praesentius · 15 pointsr/atheism

I also recommend the book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice by Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens is the one who actually played the literal Devils Advocate for the Vatican, providing evidence and argument against the sainthood of this woman.

Edit: Here's an article by him on the same subject.

u/eric_md · 15 pointsr/Christianity

I know that this might not be exactly what you were looking for, but here's my story, which I hope might help. I appreciate your open mind and willingness to seek answers, and your question is quite welcome here. (This response blossomed into quite a long post! I hope you'll read it anyhow.)

I was raised in a loosely Christian household by a working single mother who worked several jobs to support us, with grandparents who were Christian. I often went to a Methodist church, never learned much, but considered myself a 'believer'. When I was a teenager, as we all do, I began to rebel and question everything. The pivotal moment came when I approached our pastor and asked him a pointed question. I don't recall the exact wording, but I believe I asked something along the lines of "How do we know anything in the Bible is true, and not just some fairy tale made up by people hundreds of years ago?" His response, which at the time seemed terse, was essentially, "Because I said so." I stopped being a 'Christian' that day.

I spent about six or eight years after that, bouncing from one ideology to another. I was Wiccan, Buddhist, Taoist, Atheist/Agnostic, and probably a few I'm forgetting. I considered myself worldly, intelligent, and smart enough to figure it all out on my own. I didn't need a God, and I certainly didn't need any more pastors. I thought that people who had faith were somehow broken, inferior, and clinging to a fantasy to make up for their lackluster reality. I spent many many hours debating - antagonizing and belittling - a high school acquaintance, criticizing his beliefs and questioning his logic. Despite my obnoxious insistence, he never backed down, and always seemed to enjoy having discussions with me about faith and Christianity.

The Truth found me when I was 21. However, I have to preface this part of my story by conceding that I cannot - and do not - advocate this way of finding faith. I would probably question the validity of a person's faith if this was their story, but it is true none the less. About a year before I actually found Truth, God sent me an angel. She was cute, smart, and she enjoyed challenging me. I think the only reason we kept talking was to debate faith, but neither of us really expected to convince the other. She would later refer to this as evangelistic dating. Anyhow, I started to fall for her, and so for a while I pretended to agree with her faith. I figured, I could talk the talk and fake it for my whole life, if it meant I got to keep this hottie.

We had met, but we were dating long-distance for a while, and I even started going to church. I went back to a Methodist church, which appealed to me mostly for the music, as the hymns brought me back to happier times with my grandparents, and it felt great to walk right in and know all the songs. I even joined the choir. I still hadn't found Truth, but I kept up the act. Some unexpected life changes caused me to relocate, and soon I was living near my girlfriend, and we continued dating.

I will never forget the night that Truth found me, and not only because I felt the blessing of the Holy Spirit. It was October 31st, 2005 - Halloween. It started with a bit of a fight, because I just thought it was plain stupid that her mother wouldn't allow her siblings to trick-or-treat or do anything with Halloween, because it was of the devil or something like that. We were debating fiercely, and I don't even remember at which point it happened. I think I may even have been winning the argument, but the impact on me had very little to do with the actual discussion.

God touched my heart. I know that sounds silly, especially to those that haven't felt that, and it is hard to explain, but I felt the Holy Spirit within my body, and I knew with absolute certainty that Christ was real and with me. God reached inside me, grabbed onto my fears and doubts and ignorance, and freed me from them all. I was overwhelmed by it, and I began to sob. Now, I'm a big guy, and I don't cry. I mean, I just don't! I certainly don't weep spontaneously during an intellectual argument. This was a profound moment. I knew that Christ was the Truth which I had been searching for, and he found me.

From that moment forward, I opened my heart and my mind. I still consider myself a 'beginner' Christian, and I certainly don't know half the Bible, but God is in my heart and in my life. I have sought him intellectually for quite some time, and I will always be learning. I have found that you simply cannot convince someone of God's existence using strictly logical arguments. I can certainly talk to someone about the stories of the Bible, I can discuss historical facts, and I can tell people how I feel, but it takes faith to believe in God.

One book that I enjoyed, which you might wish to read, is called I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler. I picked it up mostly because it sounded absurd, and I thought it would be a bit different from the dry rhetoric which is the norm. TL;DR: Geisler makes a case for God based upon simple logical concepts. Both Christians and scientists believe that the world appeared out of nowhere (the Big Bang), and it makes more sense that was the work of a creator rather than a meaningless 'something out of nothing'. The whole of Creation contains such infinite complexity, that to think that 'natural selection' and other phenomena could give rise to the current ecosystem of this planet requires more faith than to believe in a Creator. (A great example is The Queen of Trees, a PBS documentary about the African fig tree.) Also, evolutionary science is based on things like DNA similarities between creatures, which I believe to be the fingerprints of a single divine Creator. To believe that those similarities are due more to an incredible natural game of chance takes a lot of faith! If any of that interests you, I'd recommend picking up that book.

In the end, we all have faith. Either God exists, God does not exist, or it doesn't matter. It all starts there. I have sought the Truth with my heart and mind, and I have faith, and nothing else makes sense to me. I saw how wretched I was toward my 'friend' in high school, and I reached out to apologize, but I can't begrudge him for not embracing me. Instead I got a fairly lukewarm 'oh, good for you'. I lost track of that one pastor, but I know now that he was young and inexperienced (very new to our church), and he was unable or unwilling to provide a simple answer and thought that I would just accept his statements. I don't hold it against him either. We are all fallible and sinful, but we are one with Christ. Oh, and I married that girl. I question Christianity all the time, and I sometimes wonder if it is all a bunch of baloney, but every time I return to God with a stronger faith. Faith in Christ is a journey, a lifelong experience, and not a singular state of existence. I am a Christian.

u/davidjricardo · 15 pointsr/Reformed

Here's my reading list on Reformed Perspectives on Creation. I don't agree with everything written by all of the authors, but they are all worth reading. The also aren't all written from a Reformed perspective, but many of them are. If you are looking more for a Scientific perspective I'd particularly recommend Collins, Jelsma, and Haarsma since those are the ones written by scientists instead of theologians. If you didn't see it already, I also listed a number of other resources by Collins yesterday in the post about his AMA.

u/Ibrey · 14 pointsr/Christianity

Everyone is welcome to come and hear Mass. Apart from the Eucharist, you can participate to any degree you are comfortable with, including blessing yourself with holy water and kneeling. If you want a deeper understanding of what is going on, The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn is a helpful book on the significance of the rituals at Mass.

Always feel free to speak to a priest if you want to learn more about Catholic doctrine or explore joining the Church.

u/Elvis_von_Fonz · 14 pointsr/Catholicism

It's important to understand the Mass, and Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth is an excellent way to learn more about it.

u/oorraannggeess · 14 pointsr/Psychonaut

The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982556276/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_-z4EDbWFEQT1P

The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620555026/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_SA4EDb1CJH5WS

Astrotheology & Shamanism: Christianity's Pagan Roots. A Revolutionary Reinterpretation of the Evidence (Black & White Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439222428/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_bB4EDbW0ZGGTT

Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experiences https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231174063/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_rC4EDbZ2RWDBS

DMT and the Soul of Prophecy: A New Science of Spiritual Revelation in the Hebrew Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594773424/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_9C4EDb46EFXG4

❤️

u/philosofik · 13 pointsr/Catholicism

Welcome!

As for required reading, the Bible is a good start. On its own, though, it's tough to crack. Fortunately, the same body that put it together is still around to help you through it. For an easier read, I recommend Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. It's an excellent primer on what makes Catholicism unique and why it has a strong claim on being the true Church started by Jesus Christ nearly 2,000 years ago.

My best advice for you, in the meantime, is to go to Mass. Find the nearest Catholic Church and pop in for Mass on Sunday. Nearly every Catholic Church has a program called RCIA. It stands for Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. While the name sounds like you'll be committing to converting, the program is designed to answer your questions -- all of them -- before you get to that. Protestants believe in a "Come to Jesus" moment, a particular time when you just decide to become a Christian. Catholics hold that this isn't a moment, but a gradual process that requires full buy-in from both heart and mind. To that end, RCIA exists to answer questions and explore the many nuances, rhythms, lingo, gestures, postures, rubrics, and tenets of the faith. Only after your questions have been answered and you've come to understand what the Church teaches and why will you start thinking about the conversion process. We don't want people to come in and experience buyer's remorse. We believe that folks should know up-front what is involved with as much clarity as we can muster. Also, there is no set timeline. Some people stay in RCIA for years, inquiring and exploring the faith. Others may finish it in a single year's time. And in some cases, it can go faster than that still.

When Mass is over, hang around and speak to the priest. He'll be shaking hands with folks after Mass, most likely, so you can chat him up a bit when he's done. They don't get tired of hearing from folks like you! He might not have time to speak in-depth just then, but he can help you figure out how to start your journey, or set a time to meet later in the week.

We don't have different branches, per se. There are a few different rites, but on the whole, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church encompasses about a billion people worldwide, give or take. The Mass you'll hear is the same Mass you'd hear at most any other Catholic Church you could go to. The same readings, the same prayers, and so on. Sometimes it's in the vernacular, sometimes it's in Latin, but the Mass is the Mass. That's, to me, one of the coolest things about Catholicism. It really is a universal Church.

One last note would be, when you go to Mass, to refrain from receiving Communion. You can just stay in your seat. You won't be the only one by any stretch. And don't worry about saying the right responses or trying to follow along in the books in the back of the pews. Just listen and watch, and kneel, sit, or stand when other folks do.

Welcome again!

u/THE_DONALD_2016-2024 · 13 pointsr/The_Donald

I wonder if people realize that the world unanimously world over had never considered two individuals of the same sex as a permanent union to be equivalent to male and female relationship, and certainly not as a "mother" and "father." These are just the facts. Even in societies through history where anal sex was practiced between men, it wasn't the way we imagine a gay relationship today. See this comment in /r/history. It's only been a very recent phenomenon relative to human history (and only in "The West") for this to be accepted as equivalent to a as a monogamous married couple, and certainly as equivalent to a mother and father in child-rearing ability, both in biological impossibility to procure offspring and practical ability to be "mother" and "father," which by definition requires individuals of opposite sex.

There are even some African tribes where homosexuality and masturbation do not exist.

It should definitely not be surprising to anyone that Malik is opposed to this. It's highly likely that nearly all people surveyed in recent history would have been, especially those not living in "The West." Christianity itself, which built Western civilization, is opposed to homosexual sex and unions.

u/[deleted] · 13 pointsr/atheism

Francis Collins = guilty.

EDIT
For those downvoting. Google creationist. Now.

Fine. I'll do it for you:
"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being,"

And collins believes:

"God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within,"

So yes. Collins is a creationist. This is pretty cut and dried, and not really open to debate. Its true hes not young earth, but he is creationist. Definately.


furthermore, I invite you to read his book yourself as I've done. I think it qualifies at intellectually dishonest in many ways. I can go into details, but I feel it is loaded with straw-men and false equivalency fallacies.

In other word I was frequently reminded of this book. Particularly the chapter 'Why Do Smart People Believe Weird Things?' You can extract a lot of the information in that chapter here. Collins is clearly brilliant, and his defenses felt very much like those of C.S. Lewis, with whom I have a similar criticism.

Hes aware of science, logic and is very intelligent, and oddly that almost makes his take on theology more poisonous, as its harder to detect when he expresses clear logical fallacies, but nontheless they are there.


tl;dr
"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."


Edit 2:

For those unclear I am mainly replying to GPU_WHore's second flavor of creationist rather than the OP's imae which pokes fun at young earth creationists. I can see how there is a reasonable misunderstanding there, but make no mistake Collins is absolutely a 'creationist', and categorically I'd also say an apologist. It is also his deep understanding of science which I think qualified him so well as the 'type two' creationist. I appreciate the rebutting viewpoints, but I am having a hard time seeing why you would not categorize him as a creationist.

Also... he does have books for sale... Just sayin'

u/unsubinator · 13 pointsr/TrueChristian

>in the opinion of modern scholars

In the opinion of some modern scholars. The opinions to which you give voice are hardly universal and they're trending toward a minority among contemporary scholars. Such views were much more widely held at the beginning of the 20th Century, for instance, than they are today.

Among the scholars to which you can refer to good scholarship and a less Modernist point of view are N.T. Wright and Scott Hahn. Both are (as far as I know) well regarded scholars of the Bible. There are others but those are the two that spring to mind.

>the disciples didn't really believe Jesus was God (if he existed)

I think this is false on the face of it, and even Bart Ehrman concludes that it was their belief in the resurrection that convinced Jesus' disciples that Jesus was God in the years immediately following the crucifixion. See here for a radio interview with Ehrman about his book, How Jesus Became God.

Ehrman courted the disfavor of his atheist admirers in one of his other recent books, where he took aim at the Jesus mythicists, arguing that Jesus was definitely an historical character.

Again, I would refer you to N.T. Wright and his works on the historicity of the Bible.

> the Bible is a collage of stolen myths

Once again, this is just flatly false and is only believed by the most extreme "scholars" in the Jesus Mythicist camp (as far as I know).

>My second question: is there a term for someone who studies Biblical topics in general? As in one who studies ancient near-east cultures, comparative mythology, languages, Biblical source documents, Jewish literature, archaeology, and other "Biblical Humanities"? That's what I like.

I don't know about a "term", but check out Scott Hahn, the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, this book (if you can find it), and especially (for this question), I would recommend John Walton and his books, The Lost World of Genesis One and Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible.

u/bee_vo · 13 pointsr/exmormon

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities of Ancient Israel by Mark S. Smith is a fantastic book with (too many?) references that really paints the picture of Judeo-Christian God as just another iron age mythology, no different than any other.

Edit: link

u/Irish_Whiskey · 12 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Sorry, I'm being way too wordy here, and I'll try to keep future responses shorted. I divided the answers into "Biblical accuracy" and "Morality" for the sake of clarity. Thanks for the considered responses and the patience to read it.

>My Reasons to Believe in Christianity: As I mentioned before, this is not the time for me to respond to your comments regarding my reasons to believe (although I would really love to another time) lets stay focused.

I should have earlier said something which is a standard caveat in theistic debates:

I care whether my beliefs are true. I accept that not everything I believe is true, and want to change accordingly. I do not wish to compromise knowledge of truth with that which is convenient, easy, or even may lead to otherwise positive outcomes. If any argument rests on favoring such factors over truth, it's not one I can accept.

In addition while I'm willing to not question further your reasons for believing that means any point you make which rests on assuming your belief, is essentially an empty noise, because I'm still ignorant as to why I should consider it true. I can understand your position, but without that knowledge I can't agree with it.

>If that were true that the core beliefs changed sure I would agree, I'll have to ask you for a source as well on this these claims

Sure, here's the wiki on Yahweh which, of course you shouldn't just assume true, but contains the relevant links for each statement, as well as books by Karen Armstrong, Mark Smith and others. Studying the history of the Hebrews show people who integrated stories from different cultures they assimilated with, ideas of gods changed over time, bits of which were then taken by later groups to be the only unchanging truth, even when we know that isn't the case.

That's the reason the God of the Old Testament is obsessed only with one tribe, fails in his goals repeatedly and has limited powers, why the earlier versions of the texts don't mention a Christian Satan or hell, and talks about not worshipping the lesser gods. Because while it was rewritten to conform to later beliefs, it was born from a polytheistic tradition.

>Again if you can prove significant changes to the texts of the Bible only then you would have a case here, if you cannot, identifying how it spread does not seem to have any relevance.

The story of casting the first stone isn't found in any earlier copies of the Bible, nor is handling snakes, as I said. Much of Mark's story of Jesus' death, and most of Paul's letters, were written by later scribes. The delineation of the trinity only shows up in one passage, and was discovered during the time of Erasmus, an admitted forger who said scripture and documentation should be based on providing 'medicine' for the people rather than truth, and who was called out as a fraud by fellow Christian historians of the time. It probably wasn't Erasmus himself who came up with it, but rather the faction of theologians pushing the trinity. Earlier scholars such as Origen mention nothing about it, even when discussing the concept. And then of course there's the King James Bible, a book written with flawed methods based on inaccurate sources with a political agenda in mind.

Also NaphtaliC is bang on. It's simply absurd to call any book translated between two languages 99.5% accurate that's longer than two pages. For several languages across many centuries? It's impossible and easily proven untrue by anyone whose read the earlier versions. If I pick up two copies of the Bible in the store today by different publishers, they aren't 99.5% accurate with each other, let alone ones from thousands of years ago in different languages.

>however the point remains that they are extremely accurate given the time span of its existence and given the comparison to the accuracy/# of copies of other ancient texts we have.

Right, hopefully you can step back for a moment before we get into details, and think about this as if the Bible weren't a book you believed in, and were trying to analyze objectively.

We have no originals, or copies of them. What originals did exist came only after decades of oral transmissions. Which means we could have 5 billion copies of first editions, and they would be reliable only as to their content, not as to reality.

This whole thing about 'given the time span' and 'in comparison' is completely irrelevant to the question. In a court you can't say "Well it's less hearsay than that hearsay" to make it reliable.

It is used because historians do often have to work with unreliable materials, and that's fine. But when we question the Bible more than other ancient works, it's not because there's a double-standard, it's because historians admit those other works are also not reliable, we just work with the best we have.

In addition the textual accuracy compared to other books ignores two key points:

  1. We can prove many parts of it aren't true. There are factual claims as to events and geographic details which are wrong, because they weren't written by people who were there. Textual accuracy is an indirect way of trying to prove what factual accuracy directly disproves.

  2. The nature of the writings impact reliability. Paul was a self-confessed lunatic and murderer who had visions and claimed to bring people back from the dead himself. The gospels of John and Matthew were a few among many competing political/religious factions of Christianity trying to define the growing religion. For any other religion, you'd agree it's obvious such sources can't be treated as reliable without independent confirmation. Yet for all the contemporary historians examining Judea in that time, there is no record of Jesus. Something which is plausible if he was a very minor figure, but not with the accounts of mass miracles and turnouts and political turmoil that the gospels claim of him.

    Every argument you've made for the Bible's accuracy better fits the Quran and the Book of Mormon. They were better recorded sooner in time from known sources. But they also aren't true.

    >Homer's Illiad is commonly cited as the next runner up in terms of this criteria and frankly does not hold up quite as well as the Bible did.

    Thanks for proving my point. Homer's Illiad isn't true. It's a story of gods, possibly inspired by real events, that was written after oral transmission. So even if we had a first edition signed by the author, 100% word accurate with our copies today, no one would pretend this made it accurate history, unless they were a Greek worshipper looking for justifications for belief, rather than a historian.

    >http://carm.org/is-the-bible-reliable

    Yeah, I knew Carm would be cited because they're the main source for this stuff. Carm is unapologetic about putting the Bible first, and facts seconds as needed to get people to believe the Bible. Their numbers have been examined, and it's all based on arbitrary standards as needed to manufacture impressive statistics. That there were thousands of references to Christianity in the mid-1st century proves Christianity existed, it's not at all the same as proving the stories from the time were accurate, or that those stories match the accounts we have now, except where we have surviving fragments from that time, of which we have very few.
u/RomanCatechist · 12 pointsr/Catholicism
u/dejoblue · 12 pointsr/atheism

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

Is a great book by - Christopher Hitchens

u/MyDogFanny · 12 pointsr/atheism

An interesting thing about Christopher Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa, The Missionary Position, is that the criticisms about it are not about the content. The content is too well documented for critics to attack. The criticsms are about Hitchens himself, or straw man arguments like the one shown by OP.

Christopher Hitchens book, The Missionary Position.

https://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/1455523003

u/Jeveran · 12 pointsr/atheism

Here and here.

u/AtTheEolian · 11 pointsr/TheDollop

If you want to read a good book about Mormon fundamentalists in the US, try John Krakaeur's book Under the Banner of Heaven - it's really interesting.

u/coprolite_hobbyist · 11 pointsr/DebateReligion

> Mother Teresa was a humanitarian, so your statement is obviously nothing but a troll.

Christopher Hitchens will be glad to explain to you why she was such a terrible person. He also wrote an entire book on it if you are really interested

I'm kind of surprised you aren't aware of the plentiful evidence of what an awful shit she was. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the conclusions, referring to it hardly makes one a troll. It's a well supported argument offered by one of the most famous modern atheists and many others.

u/tapeonyournose · 11 pointsr/Reformed

A book that has helped me with your same questions is "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller. His position is that there is much more reason to believe in God than there isn't. I appreciated how he doesn't come across saying, "This is what PROVES Christianity beyond a shadow of a doubt!" Instead, he goes through empirical, scientific, and rational evidence that points to a creator. Go check it out. https://smile.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522341268&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god+keller

u/likefenton · 11 pointsr/NoFapChristians

C.S. Lewis, a well known Christian author, was once an adamant atheist. He described himself as "the most reluctant convert to Christianity"

From http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/node/48:
"Once, before embarking on a long train ride, Lewis purchased a copy of George MacDonald's book Phantastes. He was surprised by what happened during his reading. Something came off the pages and "baptized his imagination." Although he couldn't put this quality into words at that time, he later came to describe it as holiness."

God does work in these ways to call those he wants to believe in him.

As a Christian who has struggled with atheistic / agnostic ideas in the past, I'd highly recommend Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God". It calmly and rationally shows that it isn't unreasonable to believe in the Christian God.

https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520121396&sr=8-1&keywords=reason+for+god

u/markevens · 11 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Mark Smith has some good texts on the topic.

This is a book of his written more for the layman

https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=la_B001H6IMK6_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481614235&sr=1-1

And this is a book of his written more for the serious student.

https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic-Background/dp/0195167686/ref=la_B001H6IMK6_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481614235&sr=1-2

I would highly recommend watching the semester of Yale videos on Intro to the Hebrew Bible with Christine Hayes

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi

u/rabinito · 11 pointsr/argentina

Ahora que anda el puerta a puerta te recomiendo esto.

u/neonoir · 11 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

Anyone who wants a fairly short, fun-to-read book about how the Church kept literacy and the written heritage of Greece and Rome alive during the Dark Ages should read "How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role From the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe". It's a tremendously inspiring and uplifting true story about people persevering as their world collapsed around them - great for these black-pilled times. There's an Audible version, too.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493

u/mikfay2010 · 11 pointsr/Catholicism

Here are some posts that have been shared on r/Catholicism before:

u/meatygopher · 11 pointsr/scifi
u/capitalchick · 11 pointsr/The100

Thanks so much for putting this together! So much great info came out of this con!!

*possible spoiler - do not click on link below if you don’t want to know a big picture possibility about where the show may be headed***

For those interested, a fan overheard the book that JRoth apparently gave to Bob for season 6 and it is this.

u/jimbotheconflictor · 10 pointsr/NetflixBestOf

One of my favorite animated movies. Folks who enjoy this might also enjoy Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization which explores the impact of Irish monastic traditions on the preservation of knowledge through the dark ages. You also get some cool background on St Patrick and his struggle with the cult of Crom Cruach a prominently featured character in The Secret of Kells.

How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role From the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe (The Hinges of History) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385418493/ref=cm_sw_r_other_awd_SGyQwb42Q7S0S

u/otterarch · 10 pointsr/books

I really liked The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It may not be what you're looking for because 1) the story involves humans making contact with aliens on their planet, rather than the other way 'round and 2) the outreach mission is run by the Jesuits, so the initial motivation for contact is religious as well as scientific, and so discussion of religious issues arises here and there.

All of that aside, it's a great book and it really gets at the assumptions we tend to make about alien life. The characters in the book make a lot of assumptions about the aliens, and the results are shocking and unexpected. It's more about change on individual level, rather than societal - but definitely worth a read.

The Catholic Church figures pretty heavily into the story, but doesn't come out looking all that great. It's not really a "pro-organized religion" sort of book.

u/ziddina · 10 pointsr/exjw

Might want to take a look at the "Names of God" bible, esp. the one on biblegateway:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32&version=NOG

>When Elyon gave nations their land,
when he divided the descendants of Adam,
he set up borders for the tribes
corresponding to the number of the sons of Israel.

>9 But Yahweh’s people were his property.
Jacob was his own possession.

El Elyon is a totally different deity from Yahweh.

From: http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

>Recent archaeological, biblical, and extrabiblical research has led scholars working in the area of the origins of Israelite religion to assert rather boldly and confidently that the original god of Israel was in fact the Canaanite deity El.1 Just exactly how has this come about you ask?

>First, the name Israel is not a Yahwistic name. El is the name of the deity invoked in the name Israel, which translates: “May El persevere.”2 This suggests that El was seen as the chief god in the formative years of Israel’s religious practices. In fact, the etiological story explaining the origin of the name Israel occurs in Genesis 35:9-15, where Jacob obtains this name through the blessing of El Shaddai, that is “El of the Mountain.”

From: http://www.evolutionofgod.net/question_israelite

>...Some scholars who have used the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint to reconstruct the authentic version of the verse say that “children of Israel” was stuck in as a replacement for “sons of El.” With that lost phrase restored, a verse that was cryptic suddenly makes sense: El—the most high god, Elyon—divided the world’s people into ethnic groups and gave one group to each of his sons. And Yahweh, one of those sons, was given the people of Jacob. Apparently at this point in Israelite history (and there’s no telling how long ago this story originated) Yahweh isn’t God, but just a god—and a son of God, one among many.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)#Hebrew_Bible

>Before El's revelation with the name of Yahweh, it is said in Genesis 14:18–20 that Abraham accepted the blessing of El, when Melchizedek, the king of Salem and high priest of its deity El Elyon blessed him.[24] One scholarly position is that the identification of Yahweh with Ēl is late, that Yahweh was earlier thought of as only one of many gods, and not normally identified with Ēl. Another is that in much of the Hebrew Bible the name El is an alternate name for Yahweh, but in the Elohist and Priestly traditions it is conceived as an earlier name than Yahweh...

>In some places, especially in Psalm 29, Yahweh is clearly envisioned as a storm god, something not true of Ēl so far as we know (although true of his son, Ba'al Hadad)....

>According to The Oxford Companion to World Mythology,

>It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'... If El was the high God of Abraham—Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh—Asherah was his wife, and there are archaeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE.

You might want to read:

https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X

I found that book to be well-written, & prefer it over Armstrong's "A History of God" - she incorrectly refers to the history of Judaism as being 4,000 years old (in the title), whereas the oldest bit of the bible in existence is only around 3,000 years old.

[edit to toss in links to a few relevant, older comments]

https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/40zvle/living_between_worlds_between_the_world_of/cz2co52

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/3kibqx/manipulative_wording_in_new_bible/cuy5ec7

u/Nibble_on_this · 10 pointsr/politics

This is such a great short summary. You have a gift.

Another great book about the LDS sect is Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, by Jon Krakauer (of Into the Wild and Into Thin Air fame). Excellent reporting and harrowing as fuck.

Fun fact: the mormon power structure hated that book so much they tried to have it removed from shelves in many Utah and Idaho bookstores.

u/InhLaba · 10 pointsr/booksuggestions

Unclean by Richard Beck

The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins

The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton

Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making by Paul D. Simmons

The Authenticity of Faith by Richard Beck

Beyond The Firmament by Gordon J. Glover

All of these were required reads for me as I pursued a biology degree at a Christian university. I hope these help, and I wish you the best! If you have any questions about any of the books, please feel free to ask!!

u/bb1432 · 10 pointsr/Catholicism

Personally, I think there's a lot of garbage, namby-pamby advice in this thread.

As Venerable Fulton Sheen said, "There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."

If you believe the Catholic Faith is true, then presumably your end goal is their conversion. If it's not, it should be.

Perhaps the initial explanation won't go well. That's fine. Whatever happens, don't burn any bridges. Unfortunately, since it's today there's not much more prep you can do.

The best advice I can give is to come armed with what they think they know. Beyond the initial, emotional reaction, they will have arguments. Maybe not today, but they'll come. They already know what they're going to say. They already have their "Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon Talking Points" on a 3x5 index card (even if it's just a mental index card.) So what do you do? Surprise them. Steal their lines. Ask questions that they aren't expecting. Since you already know all of the anti-Catholic talking points, you are (hopefully) well prepared to counter them with clarity and charity, using Holy Scripture as your guide.

Also, remember you're not alone in this. LOTS of fantastic people have made this conversion. Here are a few book recs that are relevant.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism

Rome Sweet Home

Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic

Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church

I haven't read this one yet, but it also looks awesome. Dr. Brant Pitre also writes on this topic:

The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross

u/paul_brown · 10 pointsr/Catholicism

If you are in college, seek out your Catholic Campus Ministries program, if you have one, and speak to the representative about RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults).

If the college has no CCM (or its equal), then seek out the local parish in your area and speak directly to the pastor about converting to the faith.

Before all of this, though, pray.

If the pastor you go to makes you feel like you have to run the gauntlet to join the Roman Church - this is a good thing. We have too many lukewarm Catholics who do not practice what the Church teaches. If you're going to join, we want you to be all-in.

Next, study. Do your own research with the Scriptures, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Canon Law to be your guide.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them here (or with your local pastor).

Edit Recommended Reading

u/crystal__math · 10 pointsr/Christianity

> I cannot reconcile it with realistic interpretations of scripture

John Walton is a very well known Old Testament scholar who has written two books on why the literalistic interpretation of Genesis is incorrect and dishonest as the proper way to read Genesis (that is, the way that the ancient Israelites would have read Genesis). Surprisingly, he also criticizes the way that scientific minded Christians have forced a reading of Genesis to automatically fit with the evolution narrative. He doesn't touch on any science at all in his exposition and sticks to the text, so I would highly recommend checking it out.

u/ratthing · 10 pointsr/Catholic

One of the best summaries of our Church's contribution to all of Western civilization is How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization

I'm a member of the Society of Catholic Scientists, and hopefully soon we'll publish the results of annual conferences.

u/mr_pleco · 10 pointsr/atheism

To Train Up A Child is the go-to source for biblically approved methods of child abuse.

Here's a great article about the chapter in the book that discusses "disciplining" your infant to sleep: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/02/ttuac-spank-your-baby-to-sleep.html

u/Jim-Jones · 9 pointsr/atheism

[To Train Up a Child] (http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1892112000).


> As a child that grew up in an abusive household, this book makes my stomach turn and heart ache. I truly wish child protective services would track down those raving about beating their children into submission by beating them with rods and take them away. I have a 4 month old, and in this book they advocate beating them on the back of the legs with a switch at 4 months old. I began crying once I read that for that poor defenseless newborn baby who was being beaten. This book is pure evil. It is not the word of the God I know or any God I would ever pray to. This is not Christianity. This is Child Abuse. This is Evil, and illegal. Those who apply these practices will get judged by God for their sins.

u/TronXD · 9 pointsr/reddit.com

In actual fact, I submitted it because the headline is absolutely jaw-dropping.

I assume you think I submitted it because I wanted to score a point against religion. But that's ridiculous, since philosophers deal with the Problem of Pain all the time - it's nothing new.

What I'm really perplexed by is the fact that you seem quite threatened by this, as if you really think it is a point against you. What are you afraid of? Terrible things happen by the Will of the Almighty God all the time, and it's never bothered you before.

On the other hand, billions of human beings believe your religion is the direct path to Hell, and God has struck down five innocent adherents via its ultimate symbol. Perhaps I can understand your concern.

u/rainer511 · 9 pointsr/Christianity

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch. Content wise I think this is more or less what you're looking for, but it is a bit dry.

Alternatively, The Teaching Company offers a variety of lectures by Bart Ehrman. This one, "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity", is particularly good. They're easy to digest, but it's a bit pricey. If you search around online you may be able to find places to access it for free.

u/derDrache · 9 pointsr/Christianity

I remember really liking Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch. I've only read through the Reformation (which isn't even halfway, somehow), but that could have been a book on its own. He does a reasonably good job of talking about Christianity everywhere, not just in the former Western Roman empire, which was one of my disappointments with the much-touted Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez, who spends a rather meager chapter on Eastern Christianity in the first volume (Early Church to Reformation).

Eventually, I really want to read The Church in History, a series on Church History written from the Eastern perspective.

u/JustinJamm · 9 pointsr/dadjokes

Also low literacy rates across Europa in general.

Irish monk missionaries going back through Europe establishing monasteries to teach people to read is basically what got Europe back out of that.

Here's how the Irish saved civilization.

u/GoAskAlice · 9 pointsr/fatpeoplestories

I seriously went to my actual computer to look this up, you beat me to posting the link.

It kind of makes sense, but if you're gonna believe shit like that, then why not go one step further and realize that dating systems are all arbitrary to begin with? The current year is based off some bullshit from the Nicean Council, who had no idea when Christ was born. The Chinese have a different system entirely.

To say that centuries just didn't happen, how ridiculous. I want to whack Meatball upside the head with a copy of "How the Irish Saved Civilization".

u/kindofageek · 9 pointsr/secretsanta

First off, I got what looks to be some great books from my match. I got Perdido Street Station, Hyperion, The Sparrow, The Little Country, and American Gods. I have never read nor heard of these titles, but I'm excited to start reading them.

Now for the best part. My match sent me an original manuscript for a novel they wrote. How awesome is that? They also included a short story (a side story to the novel) that includes me as a character. I can honestly say that this is one of the best things I've ever received! I think I'll start with the novel first.

http://imgur.com/xVFbm

*update: Thanks for all of the encouraging posts! It seems that I really struck gold on this exchange. I sent a little reddit gold love to my SS for the wonderful gift. It's such a great collection that I feel like the books I sent to my match are woefully inadequate.

u/BigScarySmokeMonster · 9 pointsr/pics

No, there aren't. Here's a very good history book about the subject.

Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven has a lot of horrible facts about Mormon polygamy in it. Obviously you haven't read that.

Here's a piece about Elizabeth Smart as more evidence.

Wikipedia entry about the FLDS, whose president Warren Jeffs was just this year sentenced to life + 20 for fucking little girls.

You may choose to believe that Mormons don't practice plural marriage, but it's absolutely not true.

u/Deucer22 · 9 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

You are unfortunately wrong. Read Under the Banner of Heaven.

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806

u/Dargo200 · 9 pointsr/atheism

I would recommend Christopher Hitchens Book The Missionary Position

u/im_mistermanager · 9 pointsr/Christianity
u/BeringStraitNephite · 9 pointsr/philosophy

I was trapped in a cult called Mormonism. This magazine taught me much about critical thinking and I escaped :

https://www.csicop.org/si

And this :

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805070893/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_XHXIAbHYPT1YR

And this:

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345409469/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_7JXIAbH1KZTJH

u/Why_are_potatoes_ · 9 pointsr/Catholicism

His book [Rome Sweet Home] (https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782) is good if anybody wants a book format.

u/witchdoc86 · 8 pointsr/exchristian

Mark S Smith - The Early History of God
(warning - a bit more scholarly than the other more populist books below)

https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X

Avigdor Shinan - From Gods to God

https://www.amazon.com/Gods-God-Debunked-Suppressed-Changed/dp/0827609086

The Bible Unearthed - Israel Finkelstein

https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136

Who Wrote the Bible, and The Exodus - Richard Friedman

https://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

https://www.amazon.com/Exodus-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0062565249

u/Lanlosa · 8 pointsr/Christianity

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

Very thorough, written from a secular perspective, but with respect for Christianity.

u/mdc124 · 8 pointsr/printSF

Lilith's Brood, by Octavia Butler, previously published as The Xenogenesis Trilogy. Excellent sf!

ETA: The Sparrow and its sequel Children of God, by Mary Doria Russell. I know I keep mentioning this book, but it's that good!

u/godzillaguy9870 · 8 pointsr/Christianity

They literally use the "Orthodox Bible". This is an Orthodox study Bible that I really like. All New Testament books are the same. They differ only in Old Testament books. Here is a table comparing the Biblical canons of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, 3 of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, 4 of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the east.

u/HopDavid · 8 pointsr/Catholicism

The Catholic Church copied and preserved books, taught literacy, built schools, hospitals, libraries, observatories and universities.

Galileo was taught the 3 R's by Catholic Priests. He attended and worked at a university built by a pope. He did some of his most important work while under house arrest (basically a paid vacation).

Without the Catholic Church there would have been no Galileo.

A good book is Thomas Woods' How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Granted Woods may have some preconceived notions. But then so do the New Atheists who have been dropping so many steaming piles of bad history.

Speaking of Tyson... His cautionary tales against religion are based on invented history. Examples:

Tyson claims the Islamic Golden Age came to a halt when cleric Hamid al Ghazali wrote that math was the work of the devil. Except that Ghazali never wrote that. Nor did Islamic innovation end with Ghazali. For example the father of symbolic algebra was born 300 years after Ghazali's death. More here

Another cautionary tale based on fiction: Tyson claims Newton could have easily done Laplace's perturbation theory in an afternoon but he was paralyzed by his belief in the God of the Gaps. After all it was Newton who invented calculus on a dare. In two months! Before he turned 26!

Well the "dare" Tyson speaks of is Edmund Halley's famous query. Halley asked his question in 1684 when Newton was 41. Just about everything Tyson says about Newton is addled bull shit. See Thony Christie disembowel Tyson's bad history. I also write about Tyson's addled history on Newton here

u/pajam · 8 pointsr/atheism

My folks didn't need to send me to no school. They learned me good the right way through what they read in To Train Up a Child.

u/pjamberger · 8 pointsr/Reformed

I can't say one single piece of evidence (or a single study) convinced me, but I can summarize the various pieces of evidence as biogeography - the fact that we see similar (related) creatures living in the same geographic area and even some creatures on different continents with similar features in places where plate tectonics would lead us to expect similarities - and genetics, most notably the human vitamin c gene, which is defective.


The evidence for evolution is not measured in single studies, but in the weight of the collective evidence. For an overview of the collective evidence across many fields, this book by Jerry Coyne lays out the general case for the factuality of evolution. If you read it you do need to be ready for some Dawkins-esque posturing - he wrote a book on why faith and science are incompatible, but the information in the book is very good. For a basic summary, this Khan Academy page does a good job.

Finally, institutions like the Biologos institute convinced me that it's Biblically okay to believe in Theistic Evolution (Evolutionary Creation? Whichever one posits God's active involvement in creation via evolution.). The final "nail in the coffin" was The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton.

u/gallicus · 8 pointsr/Catholicism

Rome Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn

u/2518899 · 8 pointsr/education

What an interesting question! Having taught books like MAUS and Night to multiple English classes, I can offer my perspective.

>It had a profound but negative impact on me, because I learned about this at the age of 13 and 15 and I was traumatized by the hate I learned the world has.

Me too. I learned about the holocaust at synagogue ("Saturday School"). We all took the course in 7th grade, which is also when most of us were going through the process of bar and bat mitzvah. Unlike the times I learned about it in my secular, public high school, this course was "no holds barred," meaning that we saw graphic pictures and films, read graphic accounts, learned horrifying facts, and spoke with many survivors. I had many bad dreams. As a Jew, even in America, knowing about the holocaust has made me live with a degree of fear that this could happen again, not just to Jews, but to any marginalized people. It contributed in a huge way to my urges towards social justice and a sensitivity to the suffering of others, both in history and today, whether they be in Rwanda or Syria. It taught me that part of becoming an adult is understanding that humanity has a deep evil. It also taught me about the efforts of many brave and heroic people, however, like those in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the "Defiant" story of the Bielski brothers, and many non-Jews like those in Denmark, Sweden, and England.

So to answer your question:

>Is this really the time to learn about all the violence and atrocities and give so much focus on that particular subject?

Yes, this is the time.

And as /u/itsacalamity pointed out, your comparisons to Mother Theresa and Gandhi are not appropriate. Mainly, the story of the holocaust is the story of Europe in the 20th century, not just one or a few individuals. The holocaust happened not just because of Hitler and the Nazis but because a so-called "advanced" civilization allowed it to happen (and continues to either perpetrate or stand by similar horrors). And by all means, study these people! Yes, you should definitely study Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela and Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Addams and so on, but also the traditions that informed them, like Christian charity, Ubuntu, and American pragmatism.

>The adolescent age is a time where we are our most vulnerable emotionally and we are still trying to form our identities.

Hopefully learning about the suffering of others and the perpetrators of evil will form a part of your identity that will not see yourself as exempt from suffering and will prompt you to take part in the diminishing of the suffering of others as an antidote.

u/roambeans · 7 pointsr/atheism

This might be a good follow up book:

The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel by Robert Price

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058

u/Frankfusion · 7 pointsr/Christianity

Currently:

Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen

The Reason for God by Tim Keller

Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology by Scott Oliphint

The Defense of the Faith by Cornelius Van Til

Contending with Christianities Critics by Paul Copan, William Lane Craig et al.

Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture's Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ by Darell Bock and David Wallace

u/sitNspin · 7 pointsr/Christianity

I'm a Presbyterian(PCA) and I would strongly recommend Timothy Keller. I think that you would find him very insightful. You can go here and there are some free sermons. He seems to me to be one of the most rational and intelligent theologians out there, but yea I would strongly advise him. He has also written some books and you can find them on Amazon. The books I would suggest by him are Reason for God, Counterfeit Gods, and the Prodigal God.

u/prudecru · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

>I feel empty
>
>lack of God’s presence in my heart

Don't take this the wrong way, but feelings are irrelevant. Jesus asks you to assent to and accept the gospel and the beliefs of the Church; he doesn't ask you to feel anything. You don't need to emote anything to be saved.

Sometimes we go through spiritual deserts where we feel nothing and it seems - it seems - we pray into the void and labor in our duties under an empty sky. We still pray and do our duty.

>If the devil was responsible for my depression, then why didn’t an all-powerful God save me from it in my prayers?

This is a trial for you. The command to take up your cross is absolutely real. No one said it was going to be easy.

Regarding why God would do this to you, I would suggest reading The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis.

I would continue therapy. Continue to pray as you have. It's possible you may use medication temporarily or permanently. It's possible your life situation may change - I went through a phase like this at this age, and then later I got married and had children and it passed. But I stopped going to Mass at the time and it would have been better if I had continued.

Edited to add: I've been meaning to read this other book as well: The Catholic Guide to Depression by Aaron Kheriarty.

Read and pray some of the Psalms, such as Psalm 22: O my God, I cry by day, but thou dost not answer; and by night, but find no rest etc.

u/Trexdacy · 7 pointsr/history

How the Irish Saved Civilization is a good read for a look at Ireland from roughly the fall of the Western Roman Empire through the so-called "Dark Ages".

The Tain (or Tain Bo Cualnge) is an ancient Irish myth about a battle that came about as a result of a cattle raid. It's talked about a fair amount in How the Irish Saved Civilization.

One side note: I've read How the Irish Saved Civilization, but I have not read the linked version of The Tain.

u/KatzeAusElysium · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

I'd recommend learning more before you consider converting- you've got time. Some books I'd recommend are:

u/ThaneToblerone · 7 pointsr/Christianity

Scott Hahn has an interesting book in which he looks at Revelation as an allegorical representation of the Mass.

u/ciaoshescu · 7 pointsr/science

You should read The Sparrow by M.D. Russel. The book makes you think about self preservation of an ecosystem, not just a type of animal or plant.

u/HotBedForHobos · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

I know that there are sci-fi novels that deal with this, but I can't recall any at the moment except for The Sparrow.

EDIT: formatting and fixed link

u/aletheia · 7 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

Regarding the eternal state of those outside the Church: We can say nothing about the eternal state of anyone, except that we believe the saints are in heaven praying for us. We must ask for mercy on all people: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, heretic, Muslim, atheist, etc. alike.

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/the-geography-of-heaven-and-hell/

>'Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody

>burning in hell-fire — would you feel happy?'

>'It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,' said the hermit.

>The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:

>'Love could not bear that,' St. Silouan said. 'We must pray for all.'

We also don't think God is trapped in our altars. He can certainly worth other places, and even in other faiths if he so chooses. We believe ourselves to be the full expression of the Christian faith, but we acknowledge that other Christians have 'this or that' things correct as well. For example, most Christians can faithfully say they believe the Creed, with perhaps (what we regard as) a faulty understanding of what the 'One, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church', or the addition of the filioque which regard as an improper insertion.

>The only way I can see to confirm any existing denomination is via the Bible, which seems kind of a backwards approach if we're not supposed to interpret the Bible and the Bible itself originates from these traditions. The Bible has earned my trust, but it has done so through reading and interpretation, which is apparently something I wasn't supposed to do.

This might be apropos to your thoughts here: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/is-the-bible-true-2/

>how would one distinguish if someone in the Church is going against the Church if the Church itself is, in the first place, what they're supposed to listen to.

The teaching of the Church is not simply what is taught in this moment in history: We can look back on the census of the Church through the ages. That consensus is what we are to learn from.

>Specifically, the hierarchical clergy, as if someone is better than someone else.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this system has existed even from the New Testament where Paul lays out the qualifications for an elder. Even most protestant groups have a similar structure.

No clergyman should think of himself as better than you. It does happen, but then, we are all sinful. The struggle for humility is one of the great battles of being a Christian. Even with the things that can go wrong though, we need these people to help guide us in our faith and growth so that we do not stumble off back into darkness.

>I dislike the whole "if you do X, we excommunicate you" approach

Excommunication is fixable through repentance. The reason excommunication exists is twofold. One is to distinguish who is 'not us' (although, properly, that's being declared anathema -- reserved for those teaching things contrary to the faith of the Church). The other is that it is a pastoral tool to help us. We believe communion to be the real body and blood of Christ, and to take communion with certain rots and attitudes in our hearts is harmful to us. Certain things need to be taken to confession and worked on so that we do not hurt ourselves. The desire for communion, since we regard it as the greatest expression of our faith, when it is denied to us can be a powerful incentive to mend our ways.

>Then, the icons, which I find difficult to reconcile with the commandment of "do not make any graven image of anything above or below".

I will be posting a lecture video in this sub on icons that was given at a university. In the mean time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon#Eastern_Orthodox_teaching | http://orthodoxwiki.org/Icon

>I feel like we should be humble instead of showing off with pretty things, before we start worshiping said pretty things.

We're not showing anything off. We have simply included beauty in our worship to remind us of the beauty we will encounter in heaven. If we worship the things then we are Doing It Wrong. I have seen plenty of Orthodox Churches that are decidedly ugly on the exterior, but still functioning and containing beautiful icons of Christ in the form of their people.

>Is there anything I need to know before going to an EO church as a non-baptized Christian who knows approximately nothing?

http://www.frederica.com/12-things/

>Is there such a thing as an EO Bible?

In English we have a study bible. I don't know much about the Russian bible market. The only difference is the inclusion of the deuterocanon, and we base our OT off the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text.

u/Dr-Wonderful · 7 pointsr/Reformed

Any standard work on the subject, whether literary or archeological, would point away from the basic framework of your interpretation. (The best evidence, of course, is always the Bible, properly interpreted in its context, itself).

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195167686/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_TbmWBbGQ5HYF1


The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (The Biblical Resource Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/080283972X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_9dmWBbD268FCN

Stories from Ancient Canaan, Second Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0664232426/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_BemWBb5ADVYJF

The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures https://www.amazon.com/dp/019060865X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_5fmWBb77Z4SP3

The Oxford Handbook of the Abrahamic Religions (Oxford Handbooks) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198783019/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_KgmWBb7AE7EC5

History of Religious Ideas, Volume 1: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226204014/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ahmWBb97P6K64

Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide (Harvard University Press Reference Library) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674015177/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_.hmWBbFMA52Z7

None of these propose an exact duplicate of this simplistic model, but they triangulate to something very similar.

u/Samantha_Cruz · 7 pointsr/atheism

You can get a decent high level overview from [the article on the Ancient Canaanite religion from wikipedia] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Canaanite_religion)

An extensive review of the Canaanite religion is available in "Canaanite Myths and Legends"

a shorter review of the topic is available in "The Ancient Canaanites: A Captivating Guide to the Canaanite Civilization That Dominated the Land of Canaan Before the Ancient Israelites"

another good (and extensive) overview of how the Canaanite religion shaped early Judaism "The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel"

u/JackGetsIt · 7 pointsr/asktrp

Money: Watch this over and over, take notes and internalize the information. Read this. Live within your means.

Social Contacts: Fnordsnord covered it. Also read "How to Win Friends and Influence People." Actually take notes, practice what you read and reread. Read this blog post.

Women: You're already on redpill so you're probably pretty set on knowledge there. Read this, this, and this anyway. Internalize, practice, reread.

Life: Two suggestions, 1) Your first reaction to things isn't always the right reaction. 2) Prepare to fail. Skipped a gym visit or missed a lift? Chump = give up. Man = you were prepared for this it doesn't phase you. You're back at it tomorrow. Narrow your life to a few important things and work daily on them. Don't overdo it just plod along. All the greatest achievements in life are done with steady hard work. Read this

Career: Every two-four weeks or so update your resume (keep two versions of your resume, a super long form with absolutely every reference, accomplishments, phone number, address, date, etc and a super short form single page one with all the highlights, make it pretty) and glance for either a higher paying job within your field or a higher status job. Always secure a new job before leaving an old one. If you're still in college or decide to go back, pick a career field that will be in demand when you graduate. Start applying while you are still in school. Read this.

Organization: buy a simple small 2 drawer filing cabinet and manilla folders, put important docs in there. Digitize super important docs. Clean it out every once in a while. Watch this.

Study habits/learning habits: I don't really have time to go into this in any detail but go to everyclass. Take comprehensive notes, ask a shit ton of questions, bounce new things you're learning off people and discuss it as much as possible. Find people that know the material better than you and spend time with them. Take those notes you wrote and get a piece of paper. Draw three columns. Right column is most important info that might be on test/eval, center column is that same info in short hand, left column is a visual representation of the information that might help you daisy chain memorize it. This is my own technique so PM if you'd like more clarification. Turn every assignment in no matter how poor the quality. Last but not least one more time prepare to fail. Talk to your boss or professor if you're slipping; our first impulse is to turn inward and blame yourself and not seek others to help because it looks weak. Like I said your first reaction/feeling isn't always the right one. Prepare to fail. Be antifragile. Good luck; you don't need it if you apply yourself, plan, and work diligently.

Edit: One last thing. Statistically you will live a long time. Think with your future self in mind everyday.

u/picado · 7 pointsr/atheism

This is satire, but the idea of beating your kids for Jesus is horribly real. The bible really does say those things, and some follow them. You've got books like To Train Up a Child, parents who follow it and kill their kids and even an entire Christian community practicing non-stop, indiscriminant child beating.

u/CatholicWotD · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

I'm gonna put in a shameless self-promotion for Catholic Word of the Day to get you up-to-speed on some of our vocabulary (along with some trivia).

But also check out Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers for some basic stuff. Bishop Robert Barron also produces good content, as does Fr. Roderick Vonhogen.

Also, check out Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Hahn and Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.

But also, ask us around here your specific questions! We love answering questions from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

u/digifork · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

Welcome Home!

I suggest you read Rome Sweet Home or The Catholic Church Saved My Marriage. They are both written by people who converted to Catholicism when their spouse was not on board.

u/Jestersage · 7 pointsr/Christianity

Very different.

Instead of pulling things using words I am not good with, I will throw these one in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJCbCs-y1_k

Also, from the point of view of Catholicism, other faith is incomplete at best and erogenous at worse. Church is more than just structure, or how things is run -- Presbyterian as a whole also have their own issues, though the local church, of course, is fine -- just like how a local catholic church is fine.

For what it's worth, by all means tell your mom you do not find any difference between Prebysterian and catholic. when people ignore the doctrine as passed down by apostles and make up what they think Catholicism is, or how it should change, of course there is no differences. Hopefully this will deepen the faith of your mother.

I will also recommend the Rome Sweet Rome Book

u/Cordelia_Fitzgerald · 7 pointsr/Catholicism

I third Rome Sweet Home. Totally worth the $10, or you can see if you local library can get it for you (that's how I read it).

u/911bodysnatchers322 · 7 pointsr/conspiracy

This is a gem. I've listened to hundreds of hours of TM and never came across this one before. It must be part of a larger talk.

Allegro wrote this very controversial book "The Mushroom and the Cross", which was lambasted and ridiculed by catholic/jewish scholars. Allegro's stellar, leading scholarly reputation was immedially destroyed by his contemporaries after the critical review, and although he published some more, he was blackballed and his work forever tainted. No one wanted to collaborate with him again.

So if his stuff was so worthless, then why did he get so completely destroyed by his work in that book? Why were the scrolls he wrote about sealed and still to this day, not released for peer review? Anyway, I've read this book and it's extremely difficult to read but it's also convincing. Some parts of it were really great.


u/TheManshack · 7 pointsr/atheism

The makers of the bible copied a lot from literature around that time. They did so in the "category", or theme, of most writings of the time: hiding the true meaning of their writings within the text using puns and other literary tools as cryptography. I recommend a great book called "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" by John Allegro, a linguist who studied the dead sea scrolls, among other writings of that time, who put together probably the best understanding of the bible that we can, or ever will, have.

u/NonfatNoWaterChai · 7 pointsr/pics

Chapters 13 and 14 of Why People Believe Weird Things discuss why people believe the Holocaust was a hoax and then why we know it is a historical fact.

u/Repentant_Revenant · 6 pointsr/Reformed

When folks discuss the gospels as eyewitness testimony, they're not saying that they were written by eyewitnesses, merely that eyewitnesses were the sources of the information (rather than a game of telephone.)

Have you read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?

u/onandagusthewhite · 6 pointsr/exmormon

Take a look at Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things There's a chapter in there titled 'Why Smart People Believe Weird Things'

u/RealityApologist · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science, Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things and Massimo Pigliucci's Nonsense on Stilts are all great reads on this topic. I also highly recommend Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's Merchants of Doubt as an examination of how scientific language can be abused to stymie public policy progress on certain issues.

This is certainly part of the philosophy of science. The problem of how to separate genuine science from pseudoscience is called the demarcation problem, and there's not really any generally accepted criteria that apply to all cases. Some people reject the idea that we ought to draw that kind of principled distinction in the first place. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir has a great talk advocating for a notion of "pathological science" rather than pseduoscience that's worth reading through.

u/TacitTree · 6 pointsr/politics

She has this Bermuda Triangle thing going on. Everyone loves to post the stories about how someone mysteriously disappears in the Bermuda Triangle. I think I read it in this book, but basically some guy started collecting all of these stories about people sailing in the Bermuda Triangle region and getting lost mysteriously. Newspapers would print up all these stories about the mysterious circumstances and how no one knows where these people are. The guy in the book basically called around to look for the people that went missing and found out that almost all of them were eventually found. He called the newspaper to ask them why they didn't print a correction to the original story and they basically said "corrections don't sell newspapers".

u/Warbane · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark S. Smith is a good resource. Densely references primary sources but still accessible to an interested non-academic audience.

u/Ike_hike · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

If you want to read extra-biblical sources, you can start with something like Old Testament Parallels., which has excerpts arranged by their possible similarity with the OT canon. For more comprehensive coverage, look at Outside the Bible (3 vols).

Heiser has his defenders on here, but from a historian's perspective my view is that his approach to those ancient texts has been unduly shaped by his theological agenda. You can compare his approach with the work of some others, including David Penchansky, Twilight of the Gods, Mark Smith, The Early History of God, Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan, Adam Kotsko's The Prince of This World, and Thomas Römer, The Invention of God.

On Enoch and the Apocalyptic tradition in particular, look at John Collins's The Apocalptic Imagination, and Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire.

Now that I type this out, these would make a kick-butt course syllabus. Hmmm...

u/Oadiew · 6 pointsr/atheism

An excellent book that covers the progression of the LDS and its fundamental strain is Under the Banner of Heaven.

u/remmycool · 6 pointsr/worldnews

I've met abusive families before, but this was different. This was two young girls, neither of whom would have weighed more than 110 pounds, independently telling me that they were afraid of what their father would do if they broke his rules. And I don't mean "My dad would get so mad if he knew I smoked," I mean "My dad would beat me with a belt if he knew I danced with boys." Serious shit.

I didn't have a problem with polygamy until I read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer, which is about fundamentalist Mormon polygamist families. The girls in those households are quite literally brainwashed from birth into believing that they are worth less than men and that a man owns his wife. They frequently get coerced into marrying men in their 40's or 50's as soon as they hit puberty. Although they technically make their own free decision to marry, they are told that they'll be excommunicated from the only community they've ever known if they refuse to marry the man they've been chosen by. It's fucking sick.

Cults sometimes do illegal things, but not always. More frequently, they legally build towards an illegal goal. That's not why we oppose them though. Cults are extremely manipulative and often get people to completely drop out of life and devote themselves to a charismatic leader. I've studied them before, they're very very bad things.

Anti-bullying campaigns are usually pretty dumb, but they do serve a point. Young people are very sensitive to peer pressure. Western girls get pressured into eating disorders to conform to their society's ideals. In the same way, Muslim girls get pressured into hiding themselves from the world. Although Muslim girls frequently get quoted saying "I choose this for myself," you can't deny the fact that their brothers and fathers are leaning on them. As I mentioned with the story of the girls I went to school with, a lot of Muslim women live in fear of the men in their life.

This is not a simple matter of free expression. It's not like they're banning Uggs or Crocs simply because they're ugly. The veil is a tool used to oppress women. It stands as a barrier between the woman and the outside world. It reminds me of the line from Shawshank Redemption about prison.

(quoted from memory, not perfect)
"These walls are kind of funny. First you hate them, then you get used to them. After a while you can't imagine living without them"

u/vinnycordeiro · 6 pointsr/financialindependence

> I will leave saving the world to you, Mother Teresa.

And even that is controversial given her attitudes while alive, if you can trust Christopher Hitchens' book about her. I've read it and it is terrifying.

u/droppingadeuce · 6 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Not just America. Italy and Ireland (half anyway) are devoutly Catholic.

A certain acerbic, recently deceased, political commentator suggested Mother Theresa should be tried as a war criminal for all her efforts to keep women pregnant and poor.

Christopher Hitchens and his book.

u/arachnophilia · 6 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

> Dr. Robert M. Price's book The Case Against The Case for Christ.

is this a bit like watching aquatic ape theorists argue against creationism?

u/uberpirate · 6 pointsr/exchristian

There's even a book about it.

u/stayhungrystayfree · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

It's actually really interesting that you state that location and time frame because that's probably where Christian communities had the least interaction after the Destruction of the Temple in 66 CE.

Diarmaidd MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is a great reference and a really easy read. It's a big ol' tome, but he sections it really well. His take is that during the first Jewish revolt in 66 the early Christian Jews fled Jerusalem since they didn't have as much of a stake in Jewish Nationalism. After that point they never really returned to Jerusalem until communities like St. Jerome's monastery moved in in the 4th century. (There was a small community there. Jerome's emigration from Rome to Jerusalem was seen as a major imposition by the then Bishop of Jerusalem.)

Anyways, back to the main question. Before around 40 CE the two communities were fairly indistinguishable. The Synagogues served as the locus of both Christian and Jewish religious life. This makes more sense if we think of the Synagogue less as a specific place with a specific congregation and more as a "community center." It was (like its name suggests) a gathering place for study and discussion. The book of Acts (which covers a timeframe from around 36-60 CE.) frequently shows this not going well. In Acts 7 Stephen (regarded by the Church as the first Martyr) preaches in the Synagogue of the Freedmen and almost immediately afterwards they stone him. We can't take that as a broad-spectrum statement on how relationships were across all communities, but it was certainly something that effected early Christian communities. Acts records Paul frequently speaking in Synagogues and it doesn't always end badly. Acts 17 is a microchosm of mixed responses, and that's probably a fair way to look at the whole situation, it was a mixed bag.

By the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 its pretty clear that we're talking about two separate communities doing two separate things with a general disregard for one another. By this point the Christian communities are starting to form distinctive forms of worship and self governance.

To see what Christians thought about Jews in the 2nd Century I'd highly recommend reading Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. Its written in the form of a classical dialogue with a straw-man interlocutor but its a fair assessment of what Christians thought of Jews in the 2nd century.

Hope that helps.

Edit: I should say that most of what I was talking about Geographically was happening in Asia Minor and Southern Greece. Also, I don't mean to give the impression of taking Scripture as purely historical fact, but I think its a fair way to get a feel for what early Christian Communities thought about the situation, which is more helpful for your question anyway.

I'm vaguely familiar with some references to early Christianity in the Talmud, I'd be really interested to hear about this from the perspective of a Diaspora Scholar.

u/Agrona · 6 pointsr/Christianity

>Any good places to get an unbiased look into the history of the world's largest religion?

If you're (really) serious about the broader scope of this question, Christianity: The First 3000 Years comes highly recommended. It's pretty hefty though. Like, don't drop it on pets or small children.

u/ohgobwhatisthis · 6 pointsr/badhistory
u/bitter_cynical_angry · 6 pointsr/science

Check out How the Irish Saved Civilization, about this very subject. Very interesting book.

u/PiePellicane · 6 pointsr/Christianity

> And we open our Bibles to three different passages on Sunday Mass to make one coherent message.

Actually, four! The first reading, the psalm, the second reading, and the Gospel.

And we actually open the Bible in other places too: the Lord's Prayer, "Behold the Lamb of God," Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts), "Lord I am not worthy ..." and so much more. Scott Hahn in the Lamb's Supper speaks about his first experience at Mass and how he thought he had wandered into the Book of Revelation.

Talk about a Bible Church. ;)

u/stepefrethCath · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

Before beginning, the Church doesn't have any stance on premill vs amill, so both are perfectly allowable. That being said, a very large number of the Church Fathers were amill, so it's definitely a good idea to become well-acquainted with it, at the very least.

I tend to lean more amill, so I'll try to give an overview of why I think so. Primarily, I am just generally weary of taking a strong stance on prophecy in the Book of Revelation. It's all highly symbolic, yet somehow grounded and real. I tend to believe most of it is describing actual historical events as well as future events at the same time, with the past events being types of the future events. For example, I generally think Babylon and its destruction correspond to Jerusalem, Rome, and a future event(s) all at once. The difficulty for me is distinguishing which details refer to which event. Certainly, the destruction of Babylon seems to match different details of the destruction of Rome and Jerusalem at the same time. Applied to the Millennium specifically, I generally think the thousand years is referring to the reign of the Church on Earth as the Body of Christ, as well as possibly to a future event of some sort. I'm quite weary of believing that it will be a literal 1000 year reign given how often 1000 years is used in less-than-literal comparisons in the rest of Scripture. Perhaps the Millennium is entirely the reign of the Church described from a spiritual perspective, which is why it appears so different from present reality. Like most things in the Book of Revelation, I honestly don't know and wouldn't bet money on anyone's guess.

Beyond historical vs. future events there is a further issue. The Church emphasizes a strong connection between the Book of Revelation and the Mass; for more details, The Lamb's Supper is a nice summary. With that additional perspective, events in Revelation may be describing things in the liturgy, things presently and perpetually going on. This particularly lends credence to amill for me.

To connect this back with your objection: The difference lies not simply in amill vs premill, but rather in whether one can discern a universal ordering/timeline in the Book of Revelation, or whether events being described are definitely in the past, present, or future. Once I began to believe that it could be all three all at once, I started to think that being premill or amill or even postmill to the exclusion of the other(s) was too strong of a position to take. For this reason, I am generally weary of arguing any point from the Book of Revelation that is not a bald statement of fact or has multiple likely interpretations.

Hope this helps! Let me know if there's anything I can clarify, or if you have any more questions.

u/OcioliMicca · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

Thank you for this! As a former protestant, I really hope there will come a day you are welcomed in the Catholic Church and receive Holy Communion! It'll be so worth your time to see how Catholics support their beliefs in the Real Presence and what the Mass is with Scripture and Early Christian writings.

u/Colts56 · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

> But where in scripture does it say that?

Your question may be better answered if you learned about the Mass itself and the origins in scripture and Tradition. Scott Hahn has a good book discussing this topic. Called The Lamb's Supper. See if your library has it. Give it a read.

u/mayordaily1 · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

I'm not a non-practicing Catholic, but rather a poorly catechized Catholic for whom, up until about two years ago, Mass felt arbitrary, pointless, and especially, boring. I kept going because my whole family did, and my family structure is such that the problems I'd face by not going would have canceled out any perks of sleeping in on Sundays.

Either way, the questions remained: Why am I doing this? What does this all mean? Is it really so hard for a parish to make a mass that's at least mildly fulfilling and entertaining?

I also felt pretty bad because there was a part of me that knew that the ideal was to want to go to Mass every Sunday, and although I considered myself a spiritual and good person, I just didn't.

The answer? I was simply ignorant of what the Mass truly was. And on a deeper level, I was unaware of the tremendous love God has for me. I think Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper is super insightful on both fronts. I implore you to check it out.

Here's where it gets less nice: you have put your soul in grave danger by missing Mass for no good reason. Please don't wait til judgement day to discover the consequences of it. While it's unexpected to overturn years of apathy in a few days, you might not have forever to figure it out.

Make a sincere confession (general and specific) and begin attending Mass on Sundays. Be honest with God when you're there. Tell Him you honestly don't enjoy being there and can he do anything about it? The God that died for us would definitely throw a little something our way to remind us He's there and He wants us.

Hope this helps, I'll pray for ya.

u/NDAugustine · 6 pointsr/Christianity

A helpful popular level book is Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper.

u/kingnemo · 6 pointsr/Christianity

Although it may seem wild at first, I subscribe to John Walton's cosmic temple inauguration explanation. He looked closely at ancient Near Eastern literature and the Hebrew text with emphasis on the Hebrew word for "create" (bara). He discusses two types of ontologies, one material and one functional. Material creation would be what we're most familiar with, like creating a table. An example of functional ontology would be creating a meeting.

Walton makes a convincing argument that Genesis 1 is an account of God's functional creation. He took one week of 24 hour days to inaugurate his material creation, which we can observe components of scientifically but don't have a scriptural description.

I believe Adam and Eve existed but were not the first homosapiens. They were the first to be created in God's image. I also believe (not scripturally, but from our best scientific theories) in the big bang and evolution.

A good analogy would be the creation of a university. The building could take years to build. Faculty and staff would need to be interviewed and hired. Class schedules would need to be designed. The university is functionally created on the first day of class when everyone shows up and fulfills the design.

If you're interested, here is The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

u/tom-dickson · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

For 5 I will ask: Do you understand celibacy for Jesus and for St Paul?

And as for 7, we believe in one baptism so there cannot be multiple - those validly baptized are baptized into the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Church currently graciously relieves some of the requirements that would otherwise bind those baptized outside the Catholic Church so as to reduce sin.

If you'd like more reading, Rome Sweet Home and No Price Too High are both great, and the second lets you make jokes about Deacon Alex Jones (they're turning the Protestants Catholic!).

u/OmegaPraetor · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

First of all, welcome back, brother. I am especially touched that your fiancée would even suggest to find a Catholic Church. (As an aside, you're not a convert; you're a revert since you're already baptized into the Church. I thought maybe you'd appreciate that factoid.)

​

>I am looking for information about your Church, whatever you think is important to know.

There is a lot to know and many here would recommend a million and one things to study, especially since it sounds like you enjoy a good intellectual pursuit. I'm not going to discount others' recommendations, but I do want to highlight one thing: learn more about Jesus first. Find out what He taught, who He is, what His disciples and closest friends said about Him, what the Old Testament said about Him, etc. To that end...

​

>I am looking for recommendations for a Catholic-approved version of the Bible, geared towards someone who appreciates philosophy and prefers something close to the original translations, or the most accepted by the Church.

First thing to note, all Catholic Bibles have 72 books. Protestants have 66. If you can't get a hold of a Catholic Bible, a Protestant one will do for now until you do get around to buying a Catholic one. Now, as for Catholic Bibles, if you speak/read Latin you can't go wrong with the Vulgate Bible. It's a Bible that was translated by St. Jerome who was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; he had the original manuscripts -- some of which are lost to us today -- so his translations are widely accepted as authentic and faithful.

There's also the English version of the Vulgate Bible known as the Douay-Rheims. It's an almost word-for-word translation of the Latin so the English will sound archaic to our modern ears. It's not as frustrating as, say, reading Shakespeare but it's pretty close. I personally prefer (and currently use) a Douay-Rheims Bible that has the Clementina Vulgata beside it. It's essentially Latin and English side by side. You can find one here.

If want one with plain English, the New American Bible Revised Edition would suffice. (If you use this website, let me know. I have a discount code from my last purchase.)

​

>I know nothing of the culture or norms of the Church, or what to expect as a new member.

One major rule to remember is that you can't receive Holy Communion until after you've gone to Confession. Given your situation, I would recommend setting up an appointment with a parish priest so he can give his full attention to you and your needs.

​

>I do not know how to introduce myself to the congregation

There's usually no need to introduce yourself to the congregation since parishes tend to be big. If you would like to formally introduce yourself, however, give the parish priest a call and set up a meeting with him. It would also be a great chance to speak with him about your situation and get some pastoral guidance.

​

>or tell a good Catholic church from a lesser one

Many here would recommend a more traditional parish. If that's not available, I'd say any Catholic church would do. If you're unsure about a particular church's standing, just give us the details on this sub. I'm sure someone here would be able to double check for you.

​

>I know nothing of the Saints or the miracles, or what has been confirmed by the Church and what hasn't.

These are things you can learn later on. Focus on Jesus first. Rebuild your relationship with Him. Start with the basics; if you don't, you might burn yourself out. There is A LOT to learn about the Faith. Some say it's a lifelong endeavour. :P

​

>I am also looking for a reading list to explore Catholic philosophy beyond those you typically encounter in standard philosophical reading, such as Aquinas or Pascal.

Hmmm... this depends on what sorts of things interest you. A good one that lightly touches on philosophy is Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft (anything by this guy is pretty good, by the way).

A book that may be more pressing to your current situation is Why Be Catholic? by Patrick Madrid and Abraham Skorka, Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn, as well as Why I am a Catholic by Brandon Vogt. (They might need to work on a more original title, though :P) Since you have an Evangelical background, Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray might be helpful (although it can be a bit dry; also, it mostly deals with the Church's teaching on Baptism and the Eucharist) as well as Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

You can never go wrong with classics such as a collection of C. S. Lewis' works, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, The Seven Story Mountain by Thomas Merton, and Confessions by St. Augustine.

If you want a historical examination of Jesus and the Early Church, a good place to start is The Case for Christ by Brant Pitre, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine by St. Eusebius, and The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. I'd like to thrown in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David J. Hess. This last one pertains to the Catholic claim regarding the papacy (and which I think is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Catholic Church being the original one that the Lord founded).

Finally, there are YouTube channels you can follow/binge watch such as Bishop Robert Barron and Ascension Presents. Also, an amazing video about the Catholic Faith is a series made by Bishop Barron when he was "just" a priest called Catholicism.

I'm sorry if that's overwhelming but you raised some good questions. :P Anyway, I imagine it may be a lot right now so take it slowly, don't dive in through all of it at once. Find a local Catholic church, call up the priest, set up a meeting, then take it from there. And remember, you can always pray; God's always willing to talk with you.

u/ShadowIBlade · 6 pointsr/personalfinance

This may look impossible to overcome, but it can be done. Good news is you have a great income. The only way out of this mess is to get yourself on a strict written budget, cut up every single credit card and never use them again, and increase your income even further with a second part time job. Pay the minimum on everything while putting all extra money on the smallest debt. Once you pay that off, move onto the next smallest debt. This will begin to add up and you will start to make progress if you stick with it, but it won't be easy. Bankruptcy is a last resort and ultimately won't solve your terrible spending habits. Not everyone on this subreddit agrees, but I think you should really read Dave Ramsey's The Total Money Makeover. Pick it up from your local library because you don't need to spend anything to read.

u/Diviertete1 · 6 pointsr/beyondthebump

I agree with everyone, sell the car and get a little reliable beater to drive until you get your feet underneath you. i am a huge Dave Ramsey fan, as in he completely got us out of debt and changed our lives. Listen to his podcast and read The Total Money Makeover. Dave would tell you to get rid of that car today!

u/LordByronXLVII · 6 pointsr/TraditionalCatholics

There's a really good book by Thomas E. Woods called How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. I believe his chapter on International Law briefly discusses Columbus. Once I get home this evening I'll check and see.

Edit: It turns out that Dr. Woods only uses Columbus as a way of introducing the topic of international law, and does not talk about Columbus himself.

So as a consolation prize, here's an article and video by Michael Knowles, with Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, arguing that Christopher Columbus was a good guy.

u/Happy_Pizza_ · 6 pointsr/Catholicism

This is a super rough outline of an argument but I hope that it puts you in the right direction. The Euryphro dilemma (which is a common argument atheists use against Christiantiy) might help you argue against polytheism.

Are the contents of the moral life what they are because the gods says so or because there is a necessary foundation for morality? If it's good because the gods say so, then the good is arbitrary. If there is a necessary foundation for morality, then, to live a moral life, one need not appeal to the gods.

This does not invalidate the Christian God because God is a necessary being. By necessary, we mean that it is a logical contradiction for God not to exist, or in other words, God must exist in all possible world.

We can demonstrate that a necessary being is responsible for the the world's existence because of arguments like the argument from contingency or the first cause argument. Because God is a necessary being, his properties, such as perfect goodness, are not arbitrary and thus a morality based on God's nature is also not arbitrary. However because polytheistic gods are often not logically necessary or can be shown to possibly exist without contradiction, they are vulnerable to this common atheist argument.

Jesus claims to be this God and ultimately we can demonstrate that through evidence for the resurrection, as well as the lives of the saints or the contributions Christiantiy has made to society.

u/terkla · 6 pointsr/childfree

For everyone of these comments suggesting domestic violence (oh, sorry, I mean "physical discipline"), congratulations. That's how you train up a child!

This woman is going through hell -- that's a valid reason to make it a "holy shit I'm extra not having kids now" sort of thing. Not a valid reason to advocate domestic violence.

Here's what happens when parents use violence against their children:

> The child knows that the pain originates from us, and is not a natural result of his actions.
>
> As a consequence, the child may end up learning the wrong lessons, including:
>

  • Hitting, slapping, and biting is a fun game that my parents play with me. Let me try playing it with them, and with others. A child may arrive at this conclusion when the pain is not delivered with enough force. Too much force, however, may result in fear aggression.
  • Mom's/Dad's hand or face coming toward me is a bad thing. I should run away from people, or be violent towards the thing that is a threat to me.
  • My parent, or any person, coming toward me means pain. I should stay away from people, or keep them away by being violent.

    What, was that some namby-pamby, spoil-your-child bullshit I just quoted? Nah, it's from a blog about taking care of your dog. I just changed the specifics to fit the current context. (Dog -> child, owner -> parent, biting/barking/clawing -> violence.)

    Children can be fucking monsters. That doesn't mean we get to treat them as subhuman, or worse. If your child or pet is reaching toward the hot eye on the stove, fine -- slap them away as fast as you can. If your child or pet has violent tendencies, well -- you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Responding with violence means you probably shouldn't be a parent or responsible for a pet.

    tl;dr:

    If you wouldn't use a certain kind of "discipline" on a pet, don't act like it's somehow okay to do it to a child.
u/puss_parkerswidow · 6 pointsr/raisedbynarcissists

Interestingly, a very high profile child abuse case in WA state that involved the death of a child due to starvation and hypothermia was connected to the parents' religious beliefs and a book they had called "How to Train Up a Child." Scary book- it was mostly about how to abuse a child and force them to submit.

Edit: http://www.ambaras.com/2014/12/12/adoptive-parents-ethiopian-girl-died-hypothermia-starvation-backyard-found-guilty-manslaughter/

Only click that if you can handle reading something extremely sad and rage-inducing.

Edit: here's the awful book- http://www.amazon.com/To-Train-Child-Michael-Pearl/dp/1892112000

u/gillish · 5 pointsr/personalfinance

I am just like you. Except that I didn’t come to this realization at 21. I finally woke up to my debt when I was 28 and by then had $20K in credit cards and $80K in student loans. Do not be like me.

You need two things:

  • Dave Ramsey’s Book
    This book has literally changed my life. If you call Dave Ramsey’s radio show and tell him your story he may send this book to you for free! I personally am not Christian so I skip the few religious references. (Bonus: r/DaveRamsey)

  • YNAB
    This software keeps me on budget with my expenses and debt repayment. It’s amazing and there are ton of free classes and resources. As a student you qualify for a discount. It pays for itself so don’t be put off my the money. Do the 34 day trial before paying for it. (Bonus: r/YNAB)
u/KekistanInfantry · 5 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

Christianity is the founding of all of western civilization. All of our morals come from it. I'm an atheist and I regard it as one of the most important things about our value structure.

Read: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500415987&sr=8-1&keywords=How+the+Catholic+Church+Built+Western+Civilization

Very important book.

Yes.. but if you look at countries such as Africa, India and china their immigration numbers doubled after the 1965 immigration act. Beginning to cause a shift in the demographics of America. Numbers from Europe have about halved while numbers from Africa have increased by 50 times what they were before 1965.

u/luvintheride · 5 pointsr/AskAChristian

> You need to show that the catholic god belief is actually somehow proven by history .

I was an extreme skeptic, so it took me over 10 years to sort out the history. That included reading dozens of books, and listening to hundreds of hours of debates and podcasts. If you are truly interested and are half as skeptical as me, I would recommend starting with the following :

This is a good overview: Why we're catholic by Trent Horn: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683570243

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization: https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280 .

That said, there are a million reasons why people choose not to believe, even with all the evidence in the world in front of their face. God made each person with free will, so no one can "give" you a conclusion. You have to weigh the evidence for yourself. As a convert, I would also point out that knowing God is also as much of a matter of the heart. If you have vice in your heart (self-entitlement, lust, envy, gluttony, etc), you won't be able to connect with God. Also, if you are more interested in the trappings of the world ( luxuries, entertainment, hedonism), that will bias you away from recognizing God.

> the gospels for example are rife with markers of myth as opposed to actual history.

The reason why some myths match the Christian story is because all of humanity comes from the same place (the Ark). Those myths actually help confirm that Christianity is true. If everyone really evolved in different areas, then they would have wildly different stories and ways of being. Instead, people from around the world have the very same sense of where we came from and where things are going.

> And I absolutely reject Kalam, the Ontological Argument and whatever else is probably on that list of arguments as they all require assertions to which you haven’t sufficient evidence to make.

I used to reject them too. No offense, but you have to look at them a lot more carefully. That took me years. They all add up and compliment each other. At the very bottom of reality is an eternal infinite mind. By definition, this also makes existence rational because there is a rational mind. Atheism/materialism/naturalism is literally non-sense by it's own definition.

Without God (an eternal all-knowing mind), there can be no such thing as objective truth, facts, or ethics. Otherwise, all knowledge is temporary and subjective.

u/KilroyLeges · 5 pointsr/atheism

He's the author of a decent selling parenting book.

http://www.amazon.com/Train-Up-Child-Michael-Pearl/dp/1892112000

It has been used by parents all over the US as justification to beat their kids on a regular basis at the behest of the bible. A few are now on trial for murder.

EDIT: I made that assumption on reading it before going further down the posts to see where the source of this text was. I stupidly misattributed this text. However, this same concept is in the book that I cited above. So both of these guys are d-bags who promote child abuse based on biblical teachings.

u/Mikesapien · 5 pointsr/AskReddit

To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl. It's essentially a child abuse handbook with detailed instructions on how to beat your children... for Christ!

u/schoofer · 5 pointsr/atheism

>As long as they don't hurt anyone with their ideas

Like a few million gay people? Like children who have died from lack of medical care in favor of prayer healing? Like children abused because their parents wanted to train them up? Like the idea (from Genesis) that global warming isn't real? Like how creation "science" is being injected into public classrooms?

Just because they aren't hurting you doesn't mean they aren't a real, tangible problem.

>I can't imagine why we would want to crush their beliefs

I want to know how you would crush someone's beliefs. I'm honestly curious, because I don't think that's how religious beliefs work. I don't think they can be "crushed."

>As long as we respect each others beliefs

I absolutely will not respect a belief if it is harmful, backwards, or otherwise malignant. Respect is earned.

u/gettheromacrust · 5 pointsr/atheism

I was venting to my boss about how my 3 year old is being a jerk about going to bed lately (my boss is Mennonite) he asked if we spank him. I said "I have only spanked him twice" usually I can sit with him and talk about what he is doing and we work through it"

He then told me to get the book "to train up your child" He said my son would test my limits the first few days, but if I used the spankings for love and discipline and not out of anger, his attitude would turn right around line his kids did.

I checked into the book on Amazon. It got 2 stars. Apparently it's written by some fundie couple who advocate the repeated beating of kids as young as 4 months old with a rod on the bare legs! WTF! And to hit them ten or more times, even if they squirm, cry, or beg you to stop. You are supposed to wait till they calm down, and continue the beating until you have literally beaten them into utter submission. She wife talks about beating a 14 month old over ten times for "not paying with a child she told her to play with"


This is the fuct up thing about how they view abuse. They believe that if they are doing it out of love and teaching you something, it's not abuse, it's discipline.

I hate my boss even more now because now I know this is what he has done to all 4 of his kids.

Edit: the book - http://www.amazon.com/Train-Up-Child-Michael-Pearl/product-reviews/1892112000/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&showViewpoints=0]

u/TheHoundsOFLove · 5 pointsr/philadelphia

Most of my knowledge of Mormons comes from Under The Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer which is a fascinating book, but yeah there is apparently some inherent racism in their (original) beliefs. Not that all modern Mormons are racists of course, but they've def. had some fucked up ideas about black people in the past...

u/ognits · 5 pointsr/SubredditDrama

I'm even fascinated by Mormons in particular, but what you're describing is just way too much for me. Have you ever read Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven? It's about a murder that two Mormon brothers commit (thinking they received the order to do so from God) while also diving in to the history of Mormonism as a whole and how it might have influenced the two into doing what they did, and it's fantastic. It's structured like narrative non-fiction along the lines of Capote's In Cold Blood or Larsson's Devil in the White City.

u/eyetalianstallion · 5 pointsr/IAmA

That's okay, Hitchens wasn't afraid to.

u/lgainor · 5 pointsr/librarians

Unauthorized biographies could be fun. I'm surprised this list doesn't include "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens

u/velvetstripes · 5 pointsr/Documentaries
u/dembones01 · 5 pointsr/atheism
u/Zomunieo · 5 pointsr/atheism

It's been done in book form, by Robert M Price, no less.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Christ-Testament-Reverend/dp/1578840058

u/Juniperus_virginiana · 5 pointsr/Christianity

I really am not sure what bait you are holding out, or for whom. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is a historical event and belongs in the realm of historians. Science has as much to do with the fact of Christ's resurrection as it does with the creation of an independent nation state in 1776, or with the question of the intrinsic rights of man, etc.

I am not a historian but I would love to refer you to Tim Keller's The Reason for God which has an in depth chapter discussing historical events proving the resurrection of Christ.

u/redsledletters · 5 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Monotheist arguments

u/Veritas-VosLiberabit · 5 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Hill makes a pretty good argument for the early establishment of the original canonical gospels from the forensic evidence of Egyptian papyri: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199551235/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I believe that Bauckham makes the case that the names recorded in the gospels statistically match with the general proportion of those names in the period, something that anyone inventing the gospels much later would have had a very hard time doing: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906

I’m not sure how Bauckham is received. Can anyone chime in with how his work has been reacted to?

u/MoreLikeFalloutChore · 5 pointsr/philosophy

You may find the ideas of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning helpful. I also grew up very Christian (I once went to a camp where the whole purpose was to go minister to people on the streets for a week. Yikes.) and am now atheist AF. It was a struggle for me as well. You may also be interested in the TedTalk and book by Michael Shermer - Why People Believe Weird Things.

The most helpful way for me to think about it is that most religious people didn't come to religion because of reasons. They came to it either by default (raised in it) or by emotional need (tragedy strikes, they need purpose / stability / sympathy / to know things will be okay / etc.) My dad's wife told me that she believed in God because she couldn't stand the thought of not seeing her father again in Heaven. I told her that wasn't really a good foundation for a religion, and she didn't much like that. The real answer is that people believe because they want to believe.

Also, let's not pretend people are rational in other aspects of their life. Once I got into the workforce, I saw that people believed all kinds of silly things to protect themselves (their ego, really). They'll claim that such-and-such method is really the path forward, when it's very clearly not, just because it was their idea. They'll blame other people for their own mistakes. They'll hold down their subordinates because they don't want their employee to outshine them. And on and on it goes. I guess people do act largely "rationally" in these cases, it's just that the goal isn't to be right, it's to feel like they're right. People also really, really, really, really, really hate to admit that they were wrong, especially about something as foundational as religion - but also about anything else. Like, they really hate it.

Finally, there's no punishment for being wrong about this. People believe much more insane things, in the sense that they can easily be proven false - Obama was a secret Muslim bent on enacting Sharia law in the US, the Earth is flat, the Queen of England is a lizard-person, etc. - and nothing bad happens. Sometimes they may air their insanity in public and get laughed at but they go back to the previous paragraph and distort things to protect their vision of the world and themselves. It's not like you'll be sent to prison or fined for believing silly things. So they get a lot out of it (self-affirmation) and nothing bad happens to them (no fines for stupidity) and they don't have to admit they were wrong. They're going to keep on keepin' on.

To me, this is more a psychology problem than a philosophical one. It's more about how people think than what they think and the sad truth is, people aren't great at rigorous thinking. Our ability to argue rewards those who win arguments, not necessarily the people who are right. I can't tell you how many times I've been discussing something contentious with someone and they bring out a 'gotcha' kind of statement - something that people don't hear often so it's unexpected.

For instance, some Jehovah's Witnesses asked me the other day if I trust science. I saw where they were going with this (trying to equate my belief that science works with their faith in religion.) I told them that science is no more a collection of facts than a stack of bricks and wood is a house and that science is a process - it's really a verb, not a noun. Every fact we have is subject to updating given appropriate evidence, and that is where the true strength of science lies. That we don't try to be eternally right, but just the most correct we can be right now given the available evidence. This had obviously worked well for them before, but they abandoned this line of 'reasoning' before they even got to the question, because I'd already explained how they are misunderstanding my position in order to make that argument.

That's my brief explanation for why I, a layman, think this kind of thing happens. I'm no expert, but this is something I've gone through myself, and it's a rough journey, especially with your family and most friends shitting on your new beliefs (I don't know your experience, but that happened to me for a long time.) If you want to chat more about it, feel free to message me or continue the thread and I'll help however I can.

u/astroNerf · 5 pointsr/evolution

We evolved incredible pattern-recognition heuristics, and there are evolutionary "bugs" in the way those heuristics work - that's where things like confirmation bias come from. We typically find a pattern and we then look for things that agree with that pattern. It's not in our nature to attempt to disprove that pattern. Science, as a process, is designed to enforce the sort of behaviour needed to recognise and weed-out false patterns.

Additionally, people define their identities based on their beliefs. When beliefs are challenged, such people feel threatened. It ends up being that people value how their beliefs make them feel more than they value their beliefs being true. Some have used the phrase "feels, not reals" to describe this tendency.

You might enjoy Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. It goes into more detail.

u/EarBucket · 5 pointsr/Christianity

I'd highly recommend John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One, Thom Stark's The Human Faces of God, and Pete Enns' The Evolution of Adam. It seems like you're using an extremely literal reading of Genesis, and it might help to look at the text in the context of its time and culture.

u/RyanTDaniels · 5 pointsr/Christianity

BioLogos.org deals head-on with this controversy in a polite and open manner. Seriously, they rock.

The Language of God, by Francis Collins, is a great starting point for the science-end of the issue.

The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton, is a great starting point for the Bible-end of the issue.

The Bible Project's podcast episode Science and Faith handles this issue wonderfully, as per the norm with Tim Mackie.

There are loads of other places you could go, but these are great starting points that can lead you to other sources of information. They were very helpful for me.

u/HastyDecisions · 5 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

Try this combination of books. The first is fantastic in terms of notes, references, etc., and is complete for Eastern Orthodoxy but not for Ethiopian, and has some material that the Ethiopians don't consider. The second should fill in the gaps with Ethiopian material - I don't know how good this version is and would have to rely on the reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594/

http://www.amazon.com/Apocrypha-Including-Books-Ethiopic-Bible/dp/1933580690/

There is one single version in English but it is expensive and gets poor reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethiopic-Containing-Testament-Apocrypha-considered/dp/B004R1BU3Y/

You might try following some of the links here to see if they can help, perhaps even contacting one of the Churches near you.

http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/links.html

Directory - not sure how good it is.

http://www.eotc.faithweb.com/dire.html

u/MEAT_PLOW · 5 pointsr/Christianity

http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Study-Bible-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345235510&sr=8-1&keywords=orthodox+study+bible this is the one I use. Out of all the Bibles I have had experience with this is my favorite. You may fond another Bible to be more helpful if you are not Orthodox however.

u/JJChowning · 5 pointsr/DebateReligion

I'm not sure where I land on this, but here are a few possibilities and resources I know of for looking into them a bit more in depth:

  1. A less literal take would be that the fall is not a historic event, but a description of the state of man [1],[2]. This opens up many questions as to why mankind, and the world before man, is "fallen".

  2. A more orthodox take would maintain that the fall is reflective of an event or events in early human history, and that the brokenness of the world is the result of this fall, a fallen world being a fitting home for a fallen humanity. How does this work with the fact that death, predation, and pain immensely predate humanity? I'm currently reading The End of Christianity which proposes that the effects of the fall were retroactively imposed. God in his foreknowledge created a world that would be the fitting home for a humanity that would fall.

  3. Some propose God allowed the devil to monkey with and pervert creation before man. I think C.S. Lewis presents this in The Problem of Pain, but I don't recall him being sold on it.

  4. Some propose that there is no answer from a human perspective. God created predation, pain and suffering, and as limited creatures we cannot understand why - you might get that theology from the book of Job.

  5. Some propose that God intentionally gives the creation over to un-ordered, indeterminate processes, and allows for the emergence of things like pain and suffering. This is somewhat like what is stated in Death Before the Fall.

    As I said i'm not sure what makes most sense. I think the problem of evil is the biggest intellectual difficulty for theism in general and Christianity in particular.
u/TrimetTribble · 5 pointsr/lotrmemes

Great post. If you think about it, those issues are all central to Christianity. Why does God allow shit to hit the fan? Why, if he's so powerful, did he send himself (in the form of Jesus) to essentially be a powerless Hobbit?
Heck, Lewis even has a book called The Problem of Pain.


u/devnull5475 · 5 pointsr/Christianity

> think of them?

That they were rejected for good reasons.

> changed your view of Christianity?

Well, together with other discussions of complexity of history of Christianity, the story of various rejected texts helps one appreciate that it's, well, a complicated history.

u/ApostleofRome · 5 pointsr/Catholicism

The mass is truly the most beautiful thing on earth. I’ve also really enjoyed this book, it might cover some of the same things but is really good, maybe consider picking this up also

https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591

u/Shatterpoint · 5 pointsr/Catholicism

I read Rome Sweet Home by Scott & Kimberly Hahn and I thought it was a very good tale of conversion. There's a bit of light apologetics throughout and it was compelling enough for me to finish it in a day. (I hardly read.)

Next up on my list are The Lamb's Supper by Hahn, The Love Chapter: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 13 by St. John Chrysostom, and An Exorcist Tells His Story by Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, exorcist of the Vatican.

If you know any young people, the YOUCAT is an invaluable resource if they don't want to sit through the entire Catechism. Of course you want to eventually point them to it but I find, at 22, it's more suited to me poor attention span.

Canticle for Leibowitz is my favourite Catholic fiction but that doesn't mean much because I haven't read anything else. If you're looking for a good Catholic writer, I hear Flannery O'Connor is one. Of course Tolkien is a giant as is Chesterton (literally).

u/LurkingSoul · 5 pointsr/Catholicism

Go to mass. Even if you think it is boring.

Did you know that at every single mass you are at the foot of the cross on Calvalry? Do you understand the implications of this?

Did you know that when one receives communion it is the flesh and blood of God one is consuming? Do you understand the implications of this?

When you know these things and more not only is mass less "boring", you start to want to attend mass every day and remain in a state of grace as much as possible so you can receive communion at every mass. I go to mass every day and it is the highlight of my day. I make great effort to attend mass daily even when I travel.

Consider reading The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn to get a better understanding of what the holy mass is. There is much more to be said than I have written! Be an active participant by offering up your works, joys and sufferings for the week. Go to mass, it is good!

https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591

u/pensivebadger · 5 pointsr/Reformed

I may reply more to you later, but as a quick reply, you may be interested in the work of a couple of professors, both of whom acknowledge evolution as the mechanism behind the creation of life.

One is C. John Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary. He believes in a literal Adam and Eve and his book is Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care.

The second is John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. He does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve and his book is The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.

u/angami · 5 pointsr/Christianity

A friend of mine just recommended this book to me yesterday! This is the book's description on Amazon:

In this astute mix of cultural critique and biblical studies, John H. Walton presents and defends twenty propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific understanding of origins. Ideal for students, professors, pastors and lay readers with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins.

It sounded quite interesting. Basically, the author compares the content from Genesis chapter one to other nations' writings on the origin of the world. He also writes that our modern thinking today views the creation story as the creation of the material world, but the original readers would have seen Genesis one as the creation of the functional world. More about organization and function of things, not origin of things.

Again, I have not read the book yet, but plan on it. It does use The Bible but compared with other theories and civilizations I believe. Just thought I'd share since I just found out about this book yesterday!

u/fuzzymumbochops · 5 pointsr/Reformed

Of course "six days" means "six days." The question is what does a "day" mean for the writer(s) of Genesis. Is it a period of 24 hours or not? All evidence from the surrounding passage suggests that the writer wouldn't have meant a literal 24 hour period.

I'll simplify it. What do I mean when I say to someone "I've been stuck in traffic for a year!"? Do I mean a literal period of 356 (and a third) days? No, I'd certainly hope not. How'd you know that? Context of what I was talking about. Now reread the rest Gen 1-12 with this in mind. But also read the scholarship of the people who get paid to investigate this sort of thing.

Also, as to my Hebrew qualifications, I'd rather this not become a fight about whether I'm more or less qualified than you. That's an illogical way of arguing (ad hominem). Instead, since you're well versed in Hebrew, let's also presume that you're well versed in Old Testament scholarship. So here's a better way to go about things: let's list some scholarship. I'll start. Here's a tenured Old Testament professor who's studied Hebrew for about 40 years professionally. He teaches at a fairly conservative Christian college in the United States which has a reputation for being the Harvard of the Christian education world. He's written a book called The Lost World of Genesis One which supports everything I've mentioned. But don't buy his theological position just because of his tremendous qualifications. Read the book because of that. Make up your own mind as to the success or failure of his argument. This is how intellectual discussions work.

u/frijoles_refritos · 5 pointsr/Catholicism

You might be interested in reading Rome Sweet Home by Protestant converts to Catholicism, Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

Here's an audio recording
of him talking about his conversion experience on YouTube, if you're interested.

I'm a convert from an atheist/agnostic background, so my struggles were different than yours, but a few of the (many)things that persuaded me of Catholicism as opposed to Protestant Christianity are:

  • Christ Himself refused to take back, soften, or explain as metaphorical His assertation that those who partake of His Flesh and Blood have eternal life. The Bible tells us that this claim scandalized people and many of His disciples left Him over it. Yet He did not reassure the uneasy that He was merely using poetic or metaphorical language. He did not call those who left back.
    He let them go. That seems like a powerful statement to me.

  • Purgatory makes sense in a way, if we take inventory of the facts that we do know. We know that life is short and we have only one life. We know we are weak and prone to sin and imperfection. We know that Heaven is only for those pure and holy enough to stand being in the radiant presence of God. Meanwhile, we know that hell is eternal. And rather confusingly, we also know that God is merciful. Umm... Pieces of puzzle not entirely fitting together. A state where those of us who are imperfect can still be purified and reach Heaven? Ahh. Starting to make sense. If you know what I mean.

  • Test of time. Catholic morality has maintained a high bar and beautiful resoluteness, and has not changed over the millennia, while almost all of the Protestant denominations have caved in to greater or lesser degrees to the demands and whims of modern culture for a more lax "morality" over the last several decades.
    Catholicism has remained one solid, constant, historical Church over the millennia, while Protestantism has
    been continually splintering and fragmenting into an ever more mind-boggling plethora of denominations, ever since the Reformation.


    Don't know if any of that will be at all helpful to you, but more than anything, I encourage you to keep asking your questions, to search and research boldly. I mean, dig deep, read a lot, and don't give up.
    Search for answers until you get them. The real Faith can stand up to scrutiny. It is reaffirmed, rather than threatened by it. And, of course, it is promised in Scripture that the one who searches will find.
    Will say a prayer for you.
    God bless.
u/Mynome · 4 pointsr/Reformed

[John Walton] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Walton) is an OT scholar and professor at Wheaton College. I just finished the [Lost World of Genesis One] (https://www.amazon.ca/Lost-World-Genesis-One/dp/0830837043/) this week and would highly recommend it.

He argues that the creation account concerns functional origins rather than material origins. To show this he considers a few Hebrew words in Genesis 1, specifically bara (translated as 'create') and tohu and bohu (translated as 'formless and void'). He contends that bara primarily concerns function-giving instead of material creation, and that tohu/bohu refer to an unproductive/nonfunctional state instead of an empty one. His analysis relies heavily on considering ancient near east culture and how they would have interpreted what's writtten in Gen. 1, claiming that a truly literal approach to reading the Bible is found through understanding what it meant in the world that it was first written.

Of course he goes into a lot more detail, and discusses a number of other topics related to the Gen. 1 debate. If you're like I was before reading it, these kinds of arguments will be pretty foreign to you, but I found them to be pretty persuasive and certainly worth a read.

u/r0lav · 4 pointsr/Christianity

I suggest you take a look at these two AMAs from this past year:

u/The_Mighty_Atom · 4 pointsr/exchristian

WARNING: Long post ahead!

I admire your desire to avoid confirmation bias and develop a stronger and more reasoned system of beliefs. I also appreciate your honesty in admitting that in some sense, you wish that Christianity could still be true. The pain you are experiencing from questioning long-held beliefs is very familiar to many folks on this sub.

You're not alone. And you should definitely not give up. :)

However:

>>I will follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I'll warn you up front that if you do this, you will probably be led away from any sort of belief in Christianity. Christianity is a religion whose truth or falsehood hinges upon specific historical claims. If Jesus either (1) did not exist, or (2) existed but was not divine and did not resurrect from the dead, then Christianity literally cannot be true. And having walked the same path you're on, I found that the evidence led me to abandoning Christianity. I'm an engineer myself, and eventually I had to accept that the historical evidence just doesn't support Christianity.

With that being said, I've been reading the other posts and discussions here thus far, and it sounds to me like you're stuck between two difficult options: (1) a genuine desire to be intellectually honest, no matter the cost, and (2) facing the difficulty of abandoning a belief system which has been a major part of your marriage and your family. If you want to walk the line between the two, I would recommend that you adopt a rationalistic form of classical Deism or Theism. Accepting a "minimalistic theism," as you put it, might be pragmatically very useful. It could help smooth out any potential conflicts you might have with your spouse and children. At this emotionally difficult time, that could be very beneficial to both you and them. It could also help your family start to look at religious belief in a more rational light, just as you do.

If you haven't already, take a look at some of the best Christian apologists out there --- John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Alvin Plantinga, and the like. I didn't find them convincing, but reading their arguments could probably help you develop a more intellectually rigorous belief system.

Also, take a look at some books written by theistic evolutionists, such as Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution by Denis Lamoureux, and The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton. These scholars have had no difficult reconciling science with theism, and they might help you in your quest to develop a minimalist theistic belief system.

Finally, this process can be long and painful, and you shouldn't rush yourself through it. Take your time.

And as always, please use this sub for questions and support when you need. If you have more questions, or want to discuss this further, let me know.

u/brtf4vre · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

Nice job getting this far on your own. Many protestants just automatically reject the authority of the Pope out of hand, but they have no good answer to this question: If Martin Luther and John Calvin disagree about something, how do you know who is right? What authority do you appeal to? How do you know you are the right type of protestant?

Well done, you have figured out Protestantism is truly the the 'man made' religion that is simply based on the authority of whoever happens to be interpreting the Bible. This is a good start

https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782

u/ampanmdagaba · 4 pointsr/Christianity

According to the patristic canon, Jesus rebuked Peter exactly because it's bad to hurt people, even when it comes to self-defense. Moreover, according to the eyewitness hypothesis, the name of the slave whose ear was cut (Malchus) is given in the Gospel (of John) because he survived the events, and thus could have been used as an eyewitness (there would be people reading the Gospels who would have known Malchus and his story, or at least would be able in principle to verity it). Which kind of changes the whole narrative: it is the fact that he was spared that allowed him to, indirectly, help to spread the Gospel.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus explicitly undid the harm Peter did. In other words, I don't think it sounds like a good argument.

u/sirspate · 4 pointsr/panelshow

On the question of people and their blind spots, I recommend going to the library and borrowing a copy of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. (I'd be remiss if I didn't specifically call out chapter 18, "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" in the revised edition.)

u/HarrisonArturus · 4 pointsr/DebateReligion

Genesis is not a Gospel. It's the first book of the Old Testament (and therefore the Bible). Beyond that, I don't know what a "a know-it-all/always right" is. It's certainly not something I'd write.

As for the things you quote: Genesis was written to a bronze iron age culture. That doesn't mean they were idiots. They could ask the exact same questions -- and certainly would have. They also had practical knowledge and common sense; they understood God wasn't telling them to eat poison berries. So Genesis is saying something else; it's not giving a play-by-play scientific description of the origins of material existence. It's very likely talking about God's establishing an order to creation and placing man in the divine economy.

John Walton has two books on this idea, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate and The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (with N.T. Wright). I've read both, and they're a good introduction to a better contextual understanding of Genesis and its purpose as Scripture. I personally prefer something with a little more theological and (modern) cosmological depth to it, but they're aimed at a general audience and in that respect I think they're worth reading.

EDIT: bronze -> iron.

u/rtsDie · 4 pointsr/Christianity

You should definitely stay in the faith. From what you've said you're the ideal person to be a Christian. Jesus came to save sinners, not the perfect. If you feel like you don't pray enough, remind yourself that there's no gold star for praying, and that God never says he'll punish anyone for not praying enough. You're right that being a Christian isn't always easy, but it really is worth it. And yes, it can be difficult, but it's also freedom and true life. I know personally that feeling like a hypocrite sucks, but it's worth staying with it. I went through about 5 years of flirting with atheism and feeling trapped but I'm so glad I stayed. There are answers to your doubts, very good ones. But it can take a bit of searching to find good ones.

Re. Reading the Bible, I think your instinct to be careful in your interpretation is really helpful, but that doesn't mean the only options you have is reading everything as 100% literal (as in, this is what I would've seen if someone was there with a camera) on the one hand, and 100% allegorical (as in, this is kind of like Lord of the Rings in that it makes a nice point but is really just fantasy) on the other.

If you're thinking of Genesis in particular, there's a long history of reading it as not necessarily referring to 6 literal 24hr days (for example St Augustine). [The lost world of Genesis 1] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830837043?ie=UTF8&tag=thebiofou06-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0830837043) by John Walton is a good place to start if you want to understand the way in which Genesis fits its Ancient Near Eastern context.

On the bigger topic of archaeology, slavery, what's the point of Genesis, why is the OT so wierd, is there a way between literalism and allegoricalism? etc. Inspiration and Incarnation
by Peter Enns is by far the most helpful thing I've read.


TL:DR
Keep going! Read Atheist Delusions, The Lost world of Genesis 1 and, Inspiration and Incarnation. Don't give up, there's plenty of really good answers out there. Christianity is life and freedom. You may not feel it now but the more you look into it, the more you'll see it. At least, that's my experience.

u/kodie131 · 4 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Well, there's this banned Mormon cartoon that was for kids explaining Mormonism. You'd have to be batshit to think any of it was "logical."

And then more seriously if you're looking to see the history of Mormonism, it's beliefs, history, etc., I can't suggest Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer enough. Although it does focus more on the FLDS, it's extremely fascinating and really dives into the religion.

Both religions are pretty crazy, but Mormonism is just considered slightly more for its very shady origins.

u/Dogzillas_Mom · 4 pointsr/JUSTNOMIL

>Last thing you need to know, the in-laws are VERY LDS (Mormons) and we are very not.

Ah. There it is. Fucking mormons with their ridiculous ideas about booze. One beer = falling down gutter drunk who has thrown their entire life away. It's insane.

I'm an exmo and I am so sorry about these people. They believe they are God's chosen people and truly, that they are better than you and everyone else. So therefore, they think they deserve to steal your child from you because a lifetime of religious cult brainwashing is better than if mom has one beer after the kid goes to bed at night. /s

Get a really good lawyer to defend yourselves, obvs. I'm sure that working with CPS and the Guardian ad litem is helping your case as they see y'all are working hard and are good parents.

Document the damages. The court costs, lawyer's fees, therapy, security measures taken around your home, any above-and-beyond hard expenses that you've incurred as a result of defending your family from religious cultists. Hell, I'd get a lawyer on board with Steve Hassan's work on exiting cults and start painting your in laws as Jim Jones type brainwashed cultists. Make THEM look like the unfit parents because they are.

Then find a personal injury attorney--they don't get paid unless you do, so initial consultations are free. If they think they can win your case, and you've collected sufficient evidence that their campaign to steal your children has traumatized you and your child(ren), they will take your case and go after them for every dime they can squeeze out.

There are two other books that can help you build a case that mormonism is actually a dangerous cult and your children are far safer with their own loving parents than these unhinged religious nutcases. (I know, I know, but mormons are soooo dang nice. I lived that shit and mormons are NOT nice behind closed doors. They are nice in public so people don't realize how terrible their cult actually is.)

One book, "Recovering Agency" is one of the best about exiting mormonism. The other one, is a story about a horrible murder, but the early chapters really lay out how mormons are mind controlled and where all their wonky doctrine comes from. Those books, plus Steve Hassan's BITE model regarding how to define a cult, could be super useful in laying a case that these mormon grandparents may very well be dangerous AF. You might also read Elizabeth Smart's book about her kidnapping because the people who kidnapped her were trying to start an offshoot cult of their own -- the kidnapper/rapist was an excommunicated mormon who thought the mormon church was too modern and liberal.

I strongly suggest doing some reading and making your attorney aware of relevant portions that might help you fight back ONCE the custody bullshit is resolved. Until then, document, document, document, and let your attorney do all the talking.

u/lemon_meringue · 4 pointsr/bestof

please consider reading this book, paying special attention to the chapters that discuss the history of the mormon organization:

Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith

u/wamsachel · 4 pointsr/atheism

I could be wrong, but I think most of us here have gotten our Mommy-T sources from Christopher Hitchens's writings

http://www.amazon.com/The-Missionary-Position-Mother-Practice/dp/1455523003

u/hedgeson119 · 4 pointsr/TrueAtheism

This is something that has become quite popular, I know Eric Hovind and Sye Ten Bruggencate love this apologetic, see Bruggencate's webpage.

This is also known by some theists as the "Road Runner Tactic" (as popularized in "I don't have enough Faith to be an atheist" by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler) it exists not so much to prove you wrong as to derail the conversation. As above you can pretty much say the same thing with with different words and it becomes logically valid.

For a review of the book and a deconstruction of it from an atheist's view check out this series.

u/AmaziaTheAmazing · 4 pointsr/mildlyinteresting

Hey, no need to be offensive now. I'm merely stating that this man is using weak and shallow analogies as proof that God exists. If you want some solid food for thought, look into the book I don't have enough faith to be an atheist it will really make you think.

u/fatkid1371 · 4 pointsr/Christianity

I would suggest I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It's kind of an all in one and a good place to start.

u/LevelOneTroll · 4 pointsr/personalfinance

Heh, I'm still just at level one, so I find myself being more helpful than not. :)

If you'd read enough of my comments, the following probably wouldn't come as much of a surprise. I would not use more debt to handle my current debt.

What you've outlined here is a plan to borrow what amounts to about half of your gross income... and it's mostly unsecured debt (not backed by collateral), which is why you need a cosigner. These are all huge red flags!

My advice would be to pretty much do the opposite. Keep paying minimums on the credit cards, but pay extra on the card with the smallest balance. Once it's paid off, throw your extra money at the next smallest balance, and so on. This is going to take planning and being intentional with your money. Start making monthly budgets if you're not doing that already.

I'm not being ugly here, please understand, but your income is on the low side. I would pick up an extra part-time job and kick all of its income over to paying off the cards even more quickly. You could probably get an extra $500/mo by just delivering pizzas on the weekends.

After the cards are paid off, then you get to save up some cash (you'll find that you've got more of that sticking around now that the credit cards are gone), and buy a computer. Save a little more and buy a desk and chair.

I recommend picking up this book: Total Money Makeover. It's pretty much the only thing that gave me traction with getting out of debt.

Best of luck!

u/34Mbit · 4 pointsr/UKPersonalFinance

I'd strongly recommend you follow Dave Ramsey's approach. Seven steps to financial security, with the debt-snowball method.

If you have an Amazon wishlist, I'd be happy to buy his book for you.

u/isestrex · 4 pointsr/personalfinance

Here's the book

/u/astupidfish, Dave Ramsey wrote this book exactly for people like you. I HIGHLY recommend you get a hold of it and devour it.

u/mattsepter · 4 pointsr/personalfinance

Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey
http://www.amazon.com/Total-Money-Makeover-Classic-Financial/dp/1595555277/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=
Trust me. You can like or not like the religious stuff, either way the money talk is spot on.

u/SteelSharpensSteel · 4 pointsr/marriedredpill

On What to Read


Here are some suggestions on books and websites:


The Millionaire Next Door by Stanley and Danko - https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Americas/dp/1589795474


If You Can by William Bernstein - http://efficientfrontier.com/ef/0adhoc/2books.htm


Free version is here - https://www.dropbox.com/s/5tj8480ji58j00f/If%20You%20Can.pdf?dl=0


The Investor's Manifesto. Preparing for Prosperity, Armageddon, and Everything in Between by William Bernstein - https://www.amazon.com/Investors-Manifesto-Prosperity-Armageddon-Everything/dp/1118073762


The Bogleheads Guide to Investing - https://www.amazon.com/Bogleheads-Guide-Investing-Taylor-Larimore/dp/1118921283


The Coffeehouse Investor - https://www.amazon.com/Coffeehouse-Investor-Wealth-Ignore-Street/dp/0976585707


The Bogleheads' Guide to Retirement Planning - https://www.amazon.com/Bogleheads-Guide-Retirement-Planning/dp/0470455578


The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio by William Bernstein - https://www.amazon.com/Four-Pillars-Investing-Building-Portfolio/dp/0071747052/


Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey - https://www.amazon.com/Total-Money-Makeover-Classic-Financial/dp/1595555277


Personal Finance for Dummies by Eric Tyson - https://www.amazon.com/Personal-Finance-Dummies-Eric-Tyson/dp/1118117859


Investing for Dummies by Eric Tyson - https://www.amazon.com/Investing-Dummies-Eric-Tyson/dp/1119320690/


The Millionaire Real Estate Investor per red-sfplus’s post (can confirm this is excellent) - https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Real-Estate-Investor/dp/0071446370/


For all the M.Ds on here and HNW individuals, you might want to check out https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/ and his blog – found it to be very useful.


https://www.irs.gov/ or your government’s tax page. If you’ve been reading, you know that millionaires know more than your average bear about the tax code.


https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7vohb3/money/


https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3hzcvn/financial_advice_from_a_financier/


https://www.artofmanliness.com/2017/09/22/4-money-tips-4-personal-finance-legends/


Personal Finance Flowchart from their wiki - https://i.imgur.com/lSoUQr2.png


Additional Lists of Books:


https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Books:_recommendations_and_reviews


https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/books-4/


Subreddits


https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/


https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/ - I would highly encourage you to spend a half hour browsing their wiki - https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/index and investing advice - https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/investing


https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/


https://www.reddit.com/r/SecurityAnalysis/


https://www.reddit.com/r/finance/


https://www.reddit.com/r/portfolios/


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/


MRP References


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/40whjy/finally_talked_to_my_wife_about_our_finances_it/


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/67nxdu/finances_with_a_sahm/


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/488pa0/60_dod_week_6_finances/ (original)


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/6a6712/60_dod_week_6_finances/ (year 2)


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/3xw015/how_to_prepare_for_a_talk_about_finances/


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/30z704/taking_back_the_finances/


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/2uzukg/married_redpill_finances_and_money/


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/3637q5/some_thoughts_on_mrp_and_finances/


https://www.reddit.com/r/askMRP/comments/8dwaqt/best_practices_for_finances_within_marriage/


https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/588e5o/gain_control_of_the_treasury/


Final Thoughts


There are already a lot of high net worth individuals on these subs (if you don’t believe me, look at the OYS for the past few months). This should be a review for most folks. The key points stay the same – have a plan, get out of the hole you are in, have a budget, do the right moves for wealth accumulation. Lead your family in your finances. Own it.


What are YOU doing to own your finances? Give some examples below.


u/Friend_of_Augustine · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization is a book that seems to be right up your alley.

As for philosophy and theology in that case, there is one book that comes to mind. However, I would suggest that before one go delving into that, you might wish to establish yourself firmly in Catholic philosophy and theology before going ahead. That said, the book is New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Fr. Rober Spitzer seems to be exactly what you're talking about.

u/serious_tea · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

Two different titles that might be along the lines of what you're looking for:

Catholicism, by Bishop Robert Barron

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas Woods

u/CatholicGuy · 4 pointsr/Christianity
u/cypressgreen · 4 pointsr/news

Then there's this evil bible inspired corporal punishment boo. Just read the reviews.

u/deuteros · 4 pointsr/Christianity

They wrote To Train Up a Child, a controversial book about disciplining children (called "training") which they claim is based on biblical principles. They heavily advocate spanking as a universal tool for disciplining children, including infants, for even minor infractions until they are "totally broken." They reject modern psychology and much of what they advocate borders on child abuse.

There's been several stories in the news lately about children who have died as a result of parents following their advice.

u/AngelOfLight · 4 pointsr/exjw

There are a number of Sumerian and Babylonian sacred texts here. In particular, the enuma elish has some interesting parallels to Genesis. One in particular - the creation of the world was the work of one god (marduk), but the creation of man was a joint effort between all the gods (the Sumerian creation myth is similar). Have a look at Genesis 1, and note where the text switches from singular to plural. Also - according to Mesopotamian mythology, humans were created to do the work that the gods were tired of doing. Thus they were expected to work the fields and engage in general labor. Have a look at Genesis 2:15 for a parallel.

I recommend these books for a deeper study:

Stories from Ancient Canaan

The Early History of God

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism

The Evolution of God

u/Bakeshot · 4 pointsr/Christianity

Thousands of innocent, young people die daily.

This is something Christians have to reconcile with their belief in God's sovereignty and holiness. Period. Otherwise, the worldview unravels and is certainly a belief worth losing.

I would recommend reading C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain in this time of mourning if you're looking for a Christian perspective on where we see God in times of confusing tragedy.

u/Angelusvero · 4 pointsr/Christianity

you're too quick to assume suffering is evil, and i'm not saying inflicting suffering on another is a good thing either hahaha. for a better answer, look into this http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5. And i think you should consider perspective as well. If the world were more perfect less dramatic things would seem worse. Sorta like ying and yang without darkness one could not understand light

u/playhimoffcat · 4 pointsr/Christianity

A bit of warning and advice to all who might ask this same question: don't ask hard questions if you won't accept hard answers.

Also: this question has been raised and dealt with so many times -- I would recommend the many books on that that will a) give a better explanation than I can and b) raise a better objection that you can.

Start with this: http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969

u/petitjacques · 4 pointsr/Christianity

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch is supposed to be very good - I haven't read it yet but plan to. The author is a Professor of History of the Church at Oxford.

There's also a DVD series narrated (and written?) by him on the same topic.

u/atheistcoffee · 4 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is an in depth look. Christopher Hitchens recommended it just before he died; and I own it... it's very good.

u/exjentric · 4 pointsr/IrishHistory

If you want some basic Medieval Irish history, How the Irish Saved Civilization is a great starting off point. Seamus MacManus' Story of the Irish Race is a tad dull, but it delves into the mythology, legends, and folktales.

u/fr-josh · 4 pointsr/Christianity
u/The_New_34 · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

If you're a book guy, Scott Hahn has a good book about it. It's what got me back into Mass. You never look at it the same way again. It's not just a bunch of people in a room talking about God for 45 minutes.

If you can't/don't want to drop the 13 bucks on the book, don't worry, there're a few articles on the Catholic Answers website. Here're a few:

The Mass is Profoundly Biblical

The Sacrifice of the Mass

The Institution of the Mass

The big question: Why Go to Mass??

The Mass is a wonderful thing once you know what it is. As a kid, I hated it with a burning passion. Now, I'm discerning the priesthood and have taken a liking to the pre-Vatican II mass, which is in Latin (pretty old school, I know, but it's beautiful. Doesn't appeal to everyone.)

Anyway, welcome home!! If you have any questions at all about Catholicism, feel free to ask here. We've got some pretty smart theologians on this sub

u/apeacefulworld · 4 pointsr/suggestmeabook

You might like The Sparrow


I found it really compelling and thought provoking (though very dark at times!). It was a good balance of scifi and theology/philosophy.

u/WideLight · 4 pointsr/Anthropology

Something similar, fictionally, is The Sparrow by Maria Doria Russell. She's an anthropologist, and the novel's contents are germane to your question (so as not to spoil anything). There's a sequel novel too but I haven't read it.

u/GregoryNonDiologist · 4 pointsr/Christianity

We do not have any complete manuscripts of the "original" Hebrew. The vast majority of English translations of the "Hebrew" Old Testament are not translations of the original Hebrew, but rather a translation of a form of Hebrew that was invented in the Middle Ages by a sect (largely anti-Christian) of Jews called the Masoretes.

So for the Old Testament your choices are to defer to translations of a post-Christian Hebrew text or to translations of the Old Testament in another language. The oldest complete version of the Old Testament in any language is the Greek Septuagint, which dates to the 2nd century BC.

In my opinion, the best place to go for a translation of the medieval Masoretic Hebrew text is probably the Oxford Jewish Study Bible, translated by and commented on by Jewish scholars.

The best place to go for a translation of the Greek Septuagint is probably the Orthodox Study Bible.

The advantage of a translation of the Septuagint is that it includes the entire Old Testament. Modern Jewish and Protestant translations omit a number of books.

In my opinion, the best English translation of the New Testament is the 2-volume Orthodox New Testament, but it's not terribly readable.

I agree with another suggestion that the RSV is perhaps the best overall version. If you opt for this, be sure to purchase a version with the so-called "Apocrypha" (actually called the Deuterocanon by the Church Fathers). The New Oxford Annotated Bible is a good choice. Definitely AVOID the NRSV - Get the RSV.

u/readercuthbert · 4 pointsr/Christianity

Check out the Orthodox Study Bible

u/not_irish_patrick · 4 pointsr/Christianity
u/DeadnamingMissDaisy · 3 pointsr/nottheonion

Well, since you've made a massive edit, allow me to correct your error.

Yes, there are numerous examples of the iron age bible lifting wholesale bits of poetry from bronze age Ba'al texts. One example is the famous "lift up your heads, oh gods" which became, nonsensically, "lift up your heads, oh gates" in Psalm 24:7. (Hint: gates don't have heads, at least not the ones in ancient west semitic cities)

This is clear example of outright theft by hebrew priests.

It doesn't mean that the Canaanite god Hadad was ever syncretized with Yahweh. We do know that El was, however.

Sources:

The Early History Of God by Mark S Smith

Stories from Ancient Canaan, Second Edition edited by by Michael D. Coogan and Mark S. Smith

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman

u/franks-and-beans · 3 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

Can you recommend a specific work by him? I'm particularly interested in the various gods worshiped in Palestine and and how they relate to YHWH. Like this one?

u/LewisTolkien · 3 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

I find study bibles to be the most helpful because they have very detailed notes at the bottom of each page as well as thorough introductions. That way, if you get hung up on something, there are references. Also, Bible Gateway allows you to type in a verse or book and see what other translations have for that verse. Very nice for comparison

Maybe Orthodox posters can provide a better opttion but on Amazon, this is the top Orthodox study bible

ESV study Bible is a favorite among a lot of r/Christianity posters

Good luck with your journey, brother

u/ryanrfrederick · 3 pointsr/freemasonry

You might go with The Orthodox Study Bible

u/Theo-philus · 3 pointsr/Christianity
u/lastnote · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Have you thought about reading any christian theology books? I find reading opposing perspectives and ideas helps to strengthen my own. If I can make a few recommendations...

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Jesus Among Other Gods - Ravi Zacharias

The End of Reason - Zacharias

Christian Apologetics - Norman Geisler

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

I would highly recommend everyone read Wayne Grudem's "Christian Beliefs". It's an abbreviated version of "Systematic Theology". Very short but concise overview of basic christian beliefs.

I can only recommend christian material as I haven't read a lot of other religious text. Christianity is the most relevant religion where I live, so understanding has been helpful in conversing with the religious folks around me.

u/seven_deus · 3 pointsr/personalfinance

All right; go to your local credit Union; apply for an unsecured personal loan(s) with your wife.

Be prepared, they will give you a very bad rate 14% or more for 5 years but within 2 to 3 months your credit will go backup and then you can refinance (sometime you have to refinance for a bigger amount $500 mini) with a 7%-10% interest rate (still bad but better than 14%).

Keep in mind that this is a quick fix that does not cure the disease …You guys are out of control. This will help no doubt, but this is just the beginning...now you have to get rid of that debt asap and avoid credit cards like the plague.

Edit: I went to my local credit union because I had 21k in cc debt, now I have 19K in unsecured loan (to pay off 3 credits cards) at 13.9% due to my stupidity, I'd leave at that...
My credit score in January was 620 after 2 months went to 720 and now I am at 780 and I am thinking of refinancing to get a much lower rate very soon. Since then I have been following Dave Ramsey common sense principals that somehow I lost.


I use/read/listen:

mint.com

Everydollar.com

/r/ynab/ ynab.com

/r/DaveRamsey/ - Dave Ramsey

u/jl1159 · 3 pointsr/DaveRamsey

This should give you tons of detail:
The Total Money Makeover: Classic Edition: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595555277/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_RX6QAbXS34QY9

u/return2ozma · 3 pointsr/WhitePeopleTwitter

Follow the easy steps in this book and you'll be set financially for life.

The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595555277/

u/jed313 · 3 pointsr/pics

It condemns sexual immorality, yes. Which includes all sorts of sex. Why is it people always say this, thus proving their own obsession with sex, while trying to condemn the institution for being “obsessed with sex”?

The Church (if we’re talking Catholic) has no problem with evolution.
You know the father of modern genetics was a monk, right? And a priest came up with the Big Bang? And the entire scientific revolution happened because of patronage from the Church early on (like, Galileo was being paid by the Church, for instance).

Think of the artistic achievements, too (paid for by the Church).

The whole idea of a “dark age” or “anti-science” Church was pretty much invented by Protestants, to discredit the Catholics, or anti-theists, again to discredit rather than advance truth.

Read How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization for a good look at history in one place. Start there, then branch out beyond Hitchens or Dawkins or whoever else you idolize. Try Feser, if you can.

Edit: grammar and spelling

u/jonnyvice · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

I think you would enjoy this book greatly: http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280

Most complaints from non-militant atheists (love these guys, they love deep philosophical conversation) I see are do to the so called dark ages brought about by the Church or religion in general. While members of the Catholic Church have never been perfect, the Church is responsible for some of the most progressive ideas ever to be born of man. The university system, science, it's all really fascinating to read about.

I've never been an atheist but I haven't always looked favorably on the Catholic church either (I wasn't born a Catholic and am still learning about it before making decisions). This book really helped me see what a tremendously positive force the Church has been throughout the ages. From making the western world a joy to live in to systematic helping of unfortunates.

Best of luck in any other books recommended here that you decide to read. In my experience, there's some warm and loving about the Church that I can't move away from now and I hope you find something similar or the same or at the very least feel good about continuing to learn more about a topic that interests you.

u/MoonChild02 · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

It's How the Scots Invented the Modern World. Similar titles include How the Irish Saved Civilization, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. None of them are by the same author, but they're all interesting historical books with similar titles (How some great culture did great things that built what we have now), none the less.

I would love to find similar titles about other countries, cultures, and civilizations. They're always so interesting!

u/boredoftheworld · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

For your own edification and sheer joy, read Triumph! by H W Crocker. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Tom Woods is excellent too.

u/pierzstyx · 3 pointsr/history

Here is a good one on the influence of the Catholic Church in Medieval Europe. https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280

u/PrisonerV · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

> Okay, and there's people much smarter than you or I who, after years of research, disagree with you. This shouldn't surprise you. Saying "Gospels are a complete mess" tells me you don't really know the other side very well. Probably still asking questions like "Well then who was at the tomb? One woman or three", yeah?

And there are a lot of smart people, smarter than you or I who say that the gospels have lots of historical problems for instance...

> A great recent addition to this discussion is Bauckman's "Jesus and the Eye Witnesses" - https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906

There were no eye witnesses to Jesus. The gospels were written at least two generations after his death and the verification for the life of Jesus is pitiful. Meanwhile, some of the verifiable events (earthquake, eclipse, Harod's actions, etc.) are shown to have not occurred.

Anyway, good luck with your appeals to authority.

u/exmo_hallelujah · 3 pointsr/exmormon

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

This has a great later chapter that explains why intelligent people are susceptible to superstition and religious dogma.

u/roger_van_zant · 3 pointsr/MarchForScience

Humans are imperfect animals and our senses often fail us. Even the smartest among us can have beliefs that are completely irrational. Everyone is susceptible of cognitive dissonance, regardless of political affiliation. Michael Shermer's book digs into this subject, if you're interested.

u/bayesianqueer · 3 pointsr/skeptic

You should read the chapter in Why People Believe Weird Things where Michael Shermer described how he was abducted by aliens. Then read the rest of the chapter and you will get your answer.

u/HerzogZwei2 · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan for general science.

Stuff by James Randi, Michael Shermer for general stuff about new age crap.

The Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin and Deadly Choices by Paul Offit on the Anti-Vaccination movement.

Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best and How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff (Also see How to Lie with Maps by Mark Monomonier for a similar subject) for questioning stats and graphics used in the news.

Is there anything specifically you're interested in?

u/Aesir1 · 3 pointsr/atheism

If you're looking for a good book on skepticism and critical thinking I suggest "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer.

u/Penroze · 3 pointsr/AskReddit
u/FaFaFoley · 3 pointsr/SubredditDrama

>(in this case uncovering the truths behind pizzagate)

The likelihood that there are any "truths" behind pizzagate is really, really, really low. Your evidence is waaaaay more easily explained as a classic case of a well-known psychological phenomena called apophenia.

If you're interested in learning about what's happening surrounding pizzagate (or any conspiracy theory), I'd suggest Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". It's not a rigidly academic book by any means, but it's a good one for us regular folk, and it's a fairly quick, entertaining read.

If you don't have time for that, you could just watch the Ted Talk, too.

This really cool dude also gave some good tips to avoid this kind of stuff in the future.

u/WatersLethe · 3 pointsr/atheism

There are numerous psychological reasons for her acting the way she did. Blaming herself for not being able to improve her boyfriend, seeking control by being able to push you away, clinging to the illusion of stability of having a boyfriend...

I don't know if any of those reasons are the same for why people defend God, but if some are I also think there are many other reasons that have to do with some of the things Michael Shermer brings up in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things".

u/dodgepong · 3 pointsr/Christianity

The problem here is that your co-worker will never acknowledge evolution's merits because he cannot say that the Bible is wrong or false in any way. Infallability and inerrancy are two core beliefs of fundamentalists about the Bible, and in his view, Genesis is very clear about what happened six thousand years ago.

If you want to convince him that it's OK to look to science for explanations of how the world came to be without giving up his beliefs about the Bible's inerrancy and infallibility, you'll have to tell him about a reasonable alternative explanation of Genesis 1 that still allows room for the reader to look to science for answers regarding the origin of the world.

Here's is a fantastic presentation by Dr. John Walton, a theologian, who interprets Genesis 1 in a different way than a lot of Christians are used to. Walton argues that the creation described in Genesis was not describing the material origins of the world, but rather the functional origins, which is more consistent with the way Ancient Israelites would have understood the concept of "creation" (he explains it all in the video). I heard John Walton talk about this in person (and read his book, The Lost World of Genesis One), and it was what finally made me more comfortable with evolution as a legitimate science, having come from a fundamentalist background myself.

It's from a Christian author and theologian who is sympathetic to the Christian view, and it's on YouTube, so it's free!

u/ND3I · 3 pointsr/Christianity

To understand the biblical creation account, you have to put it in its cultural context. God inspired the story to tell them that he, alone, was responsible for creation. He didn't give them a science textbook to explain how the cosmos worked; he gave them a story that aligned with their view of the cosmos, and their view was completely different than our view.

For example, the people in that area, at that time, saw the cosmos as: earth (the realm where we are, not a planet), with "waters" above and below. They put "waters" there because the seas they were familiar with represented the unknown and chaos.

If you want more (lots more) information about this, look for John Walton's talks and books:

An intro:
http://biologos.org/resources/videos/john-walton-on-understanding-genesis

A detailed talk—the whole thing is good, but here's where he talks about the cosmology:
https://youtu.be/3a5Fcyb9tD0?t=613

His popular book:
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043

And Google will return lots, lots more.

u/madcowbomber · 3 pointsr/Christianity

The resource I used was The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton.

u/pilgrimboy · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Well, that's the common idea among leading Hebrew scholars.

Here are a few other good articles.

No Contest - Why the Argument Over Genesis?

Book Review: Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One

Personally, I recommend the whole book. Walton is one of the leading, if not the foremost, Old Testament scholars of our time.

The Lost World of Genesis One

u/tiphphin · 3 pointsr/Christianity

The Lost World of Genesis One is a very interesting book written by a Bible-believing Christian for Bible-believing Christians that discusses the theology of Genesis 1.

It mentions evolution in passing, but primarily discusses what a 7 day creation week means from a scriptural/historical point of view.

It's a very readable and interesting book. I don't agree with all of it, but it is certainly a well argued view point.

u/hahaitsalex · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

Listen to Catholic Answers Live, they often have specific topics for the day "Why aren't you Catholic?" "Why are you a protestant?" etc. you can go back on the calendar and find those past shows as well.

Also would recommend The Protestant's Dilemma and Rome Sweet Home

u/DKowalsky2 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

As /u/seppi56210 mentioned, /r/Catholicism is a great resource. Definitely check it out.

As for books outlining this journey, with you coming from a Lutheran background, I'd recommend Scott Hahn's Rome Sweet Home, Devin Rose's Navigating The Tiber, Trent Horn's Why We're Catholic and Deacon Alex Jones' No Price Too High.

As far as books dealing, historically, with the Reformation and Great Schism, that may depend on exactly how academic you want to get. What sort of historical context are you looking for? I'll see how I can help.

And, lastly, as for that Rosary... keep learning to pray it, and stick with it, even when it seems dry or mundane. I recommend the following reflections as starting points for meditations as you go through each decade:

The Joyful Mysteries

The Luminous Mysteries

The Sorrowful Mysteries

The Glorious Mysteries

I'll say an extra prayer for your journey today, and feel free to reach out via PM with any other questions or if you need any other guidance.

Peace to you!

DK

u/edvol44 · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

Welcome! I am a convert myself. Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton is a wonderful amazing book that will be good to read for that and also just good for any Christian to read. It is about $5 on amazon and also probably in your local library or bookstore. Chesterton was CS Lewis's and J R R Tolkien's mentor. The American Chesterton Society is a really really great resource, and if you ever get a chance to hear Dale Alquist speak, so it, he is amazing to hear. He came to my University and about 20 people showed up; by the end there were like 200 from everyone texting their friends to come because the guy slings truth and eloquence like Tupac slung rhymes. Chesterton made Lewis look like a baby writer or something, according to Lewis himself. Chesterton is like a cross between a saint and the wit of Oscar Wilde. He could write something on paper and dictate something else at the same time, and they would both be awesome. His quotes are amazing. That is a short list of them. "Rome sweet home" by Scott Hahn is good. $3 on Amazon. It is well worth reading and is a great crash course in Catholicism for someone in just your situation. He came from a very similar background I think.

Edit: I love this one on that facebook meme page. It pretty much sums up what spirred me to look at Catholicism. When the priest literally called down the Holy Spirit on me when I got confirmed, it was awesome. If you can get to an Easter vigil mass (saturday night before Easter), it is my favorite. I wish they could all be that way. If you can find a church that has a lot of converts that year, it will be even better.

u/rowaway232065 · 3 pointsr/Suomi

Ehkä hän olikin jotain ihan muuta?

Kirjan saa vielä jussiksi kätösiinsä täältä. Kuitenkin sataa.

u/workerbeee · 3 pointsr/DrugNerds

Check out this book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Also, try out a Google Image search on "Mushrooms Adam Eve Biblical Art" and variations of that. Pretty interesting.

u/baviddowie300 · 3 pointsr/Psychonaut

You should read “the sacred mushroom and the cross”

The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982556276/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_SLopDbSFRKVEA

u/workaccountoftoday · 3 pointsr/Psychonaut

Well if you really believe it to be true, why are you posting about it on reddit asking people to refute you rather than asking people where you can go to get the paper peer reviewed and published accordingly?

Convincing a subreddit of people who take LSD isn't going to get the work recognized by the majority of the world.

I mean this guy's theory over the beginning of religion has tons of evidence, and people still don't believe it's true or accepted. Of course it's a matter of history, that which can not be proved with our current sciences. But still, until you can prove it true it doesn't make it true.

u/KakaPooPooPeePeePant · 3 pointsr/skyrim

Have you by chance read anything by John m allegro? He throws some really fascinating ideas around regarding amanita muscaria and religion/Christmas. Very interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276

u/wishiwascooltoo · 3 pointsr/news
u/MoonPoint · 3 pointsr/science

Some speculate that Norse berserkers used "magic mushrooms".

>Berserkers (or berserks) were Norse warriors who are reported in the Old Norse literature to have fought in a nearly uncontrollable, trance-like fury, a characteristic which later gave rise to the English word berserk. Berserkers are attested in numerous Old Norse sources. Most historians believe that berserkers worked themselves into a rage before battle, but some think that they might have consumed drugged foods.
>
> . . .
>
>Modern scholars believe certain examples of berserker rage to have been induced voluntarily by the consumption of drugs such as the hallucinogenic mushroom Amanita muscaria, commonly known as the fly agaric or fly Amanita, or massive amounts of alcohol. While such practices would fit in with ritual usages, other explanations for the berserker's madness have been put forward, including self-induced hysteria, epilepsy, mental illness or genetic flaws

The notion that A. muscaria was used to produce their berserker rages was first suggested by the Swedish professor Samuel Ödman, who based his theories on reports about the use of fly agaric among Siberian shamans, in 1784, though there is nothing in the old sagas suggesting that was the source for their battle frenzy, so many dispute the idea.

In The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East, the author, John Allegro, speculates that Christianity was founded on a secret Jewish mushroom cult. John Charles King disputes that assertion in A Christian View of the Mushroom Myth.

There's also Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy in which the
author, Clark Heinrich, states ancient cultures used them in rituals meant to bring them into direct contact with the divine and links them to to the symbols of ancient Judaism, Christianity, and the Grail myths. He argues that miraculous stories such as the burning bush of Moses and the raising of Lazarus from the dead can be attributed to the use of such mushrooms.

u/jpoRS · 3 pointsr/Outdoors
  • Deeper/Further/(Eventually)Higher - If I can't be out riding, might as well watch people riding things I never could.
  • Anything by Jon Krakauer. Into the Wild is an obvious choice, but Eiger Dreams and Under the Banner of Heaven are great as well.
  • Ride the Divide is a good flick as well, and available on Netflix last I checked.
  • 3point5. Pro-deal pricing can be addicting.Plus being in the top 5% for snowboarding, camping, and running have to count for something, right?!
u/Morgan_Sparlock · 3 pointsr/exjw
u/AntediluvianEmpire · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

This book is worth reading; it gives a pretty solid history and context for Mormonism.

u/bellingman · 3 pointsr/todayilearned

Read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer (author of "Into Thin Air")

u/Girl_with_the_Curl · 3 pointsr/Broadway

The show will basically tell you everything you need to know, but in a nutshell: gold plates, Utah, Joseph Smith, mission, magic underwear. On a serious note, if you'd like to read up on the history of Mormonism in America, I'd recommend borrowing [Under the Banner of Heaven] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400032806/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_gzNczbGTWMEVV) by Jon Krakauer from the library. He's one of my favorite non-fiction writers and even if you don't read the entire book (which deals mostly with Mormon fundamentalists, i.e. polygamists), there are several early chapters that will tell you more than you need to know about how Mormonism developed as a religion and what Mormons believe.

u/blokaycupid · 3 pointsr/books

My mom has a lot of good things to say about Under the Banner of Heaven. It's about the fundamental polygamist communities in Utah and Arizona.

u/slackjaw79 · 3 pointsr/exmormon

You should also read this book.

u/DickTaiter · 3 pointsr/vancouver

Too lazy to complete their thoughts. Anyways, she took the money that was donated and poured it into the convent amongst other things. American intellectual Christopher Hitchens wrote a book about her.

https://www.amazon.com/The-Missionary-Position-Mother-Practice/dp/1455523003

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

u/0r1g1na1 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Out of interest, have you read The Case Against The Case For Christ?

Quite a scathing comment in the Amazon comments (not that I pay much attention to that without reading the book myself):

>You see when Lee Strobel wrote his book, "The Case for Christ" it was a feel good book that was short on facts and long on fluff. It was easy to digest because there wasn't much there for your brain to do. It was rather a lot like watching a Saturday morning cartoon.


My interest is piqued enough to have quick look at both books though.

I've always felt as though the evidence for the biblical Jesus isn't sufficient for me, but I've always been on the look out for new information that makes me change my mind.

=-==========-=



Edit - I've been reading the book. Had to get to page 28 before any testable claim was made:

>Acts ends apparently unfinished-Paul is a central figure of the book, and he's under house arrest in Rome. With that the book abruptly halts. What happens to Paul? We don't find out from Acts, probably because the book
was written before Paul was put to death." Blomberg was getting more wound up as he went. "That means Acts cannot be dated any later than A.D. 62. Having established that, we can then move backward from there. Since Acts is the second of a two-part work, we know the first part-the gospel of Luke-must have been written earlier than that. And since Luke incorporates parts of the gospel of Mark, that means Mark is even earlier. "If you allow maybe a year for each of those, you end up with Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, maybe even the late 50s. If Jesus was put to death in A.D. 30 or 33, we're talking about a maximum gap of thirty years or so." He sat back in his chair with an air of triumph. "Historically speaking, especially compared with Alexander the Great," he said, "that's like a news flash!" Indeed, that was impressive, closing the gap between the events of Jesus' life and the writing of the gospels to the point where it was negligible by historical standards.

The author is declaring "case closed" on the timeline of the early bible based on the fact that the book of Acts remains unfinished? An assumption about why the book remained unfinished is followed by assumption after assumption. Scrolling through the rest of the book, the logic is just as weak throughout.

He is not looking at this from an evidence-based perspective, he is writing a story about a journey from unbelief to belief while skipping over the many leaps of faith it required for him to get there.

I wanted this to be a good book, but I partly agree with the quote in the Amazon review, this is a feel-good book written for Christians who are already convinced and are merely wanting some apologetics to go with it.

Just putting my thoughts out there.

u/geophagus · 3 pointsr/atheism
u/WoollyMittens · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

That's literally an argument I've seen made, I think in "Not enough faith to be an Atheist."

u/ioinc · 3 pointsr/atheism

I actually read the book..

u/Anenome5 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Here's a good start: [I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist](
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615).

I too was raised Lutheran, and I too am a man of science, logic, fact. I've been convinced by the evidence and do not struggle with trust in God.

There is hard evidence out there, ie: Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"

And in the philosophic and scientific origins cases in the first book I linked. What also compels me is the case against biogenesis. I have never been able to accept the agnostic argument for how life arises from non-life. Most accept it on the basis of materialism, but materialism is an unproved assertion. And knowing something about chemistry and the function of even the simplest cells, there's no way life can come from the primordial soup they want to imagine it came from.

I also recommend Classic Christianity to escape many of the doctrinal errors you, like me, were likely raised in via Lutheranism (ie: in and out of fellowship via sin, etc.).

Anyway, good luck with your quest for truth. You'll find answers.

u/reformedscot · 3 pointsr/Reformed

I prefer Stott over Lewis, but want to add to your troubles by adding a third option, The Reason for God

u/firebreather27 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Your questions are legitimate and ignoring it is not the way to go. I constantly questions religion and try to learn more, its the only way to stay true to who you are because sometimes belief is NOT a choice. Tell me to believe in unicorns and I just can't Try reading The Reason for God, I'm currently reading stand really like it. Maybe it can answer some questions for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324620669&sr=8-1

u/Righteous_Dude · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I just started reading his book "The Reason For God - Belief In An Age Of Skepticism.".

It seems well-written but I can't comment on the quality of his reasoning yet.

I don't know what you mean by "too fundamental".

u/irresolute_essayist · 3 pointsr/funny

There's full books on apologetics. Honestly some of them are bad. Some good. Same with websites. When I speak of Christian philosophy I mean folks ranging (and ranging in answers!) from Augustine to Aquinas to Kierkegaard. Getting a book on basic historical theology like this one by Alister McGrath (a former atheist with a PHd in both Theology and Biochemistry who has also written apologetic books) would be a good place to start.

I found reading historical theology, and finding how much of what I took granted for what faith was being really modern, to be one of the most helpful things.

The website Seedbed and Reknew have good resources as well with varying answers.

Here's some on the problem of evil.

Article: seedbed--the problem of natural evil

Video: 7 minute seminary--the problem of evil

Alvin Platinga, philosopher Notre Dame, might have somethings you're interested in

But, well, for me, I started reading Christian existentialists like the Kierkegaardian Catholic novelist Walker Percy (which is pretty obtuse of a thing to say). He presents more questions than answers, and I'm a literary guy so you might not be into that.

I will say G.K. Chesterton's Chapter in Orthodoxy "The Ethics of Elfland" was also something which awakened my theological imagination.

And I also think Greg Boyd, one of the only megachurch pastors I can stand to listen to, also has some great resources. His popularization of "Open Theism" theology (that God is subject to time just was we are and knows all possible realities rather than knowing a single determined reality) has been a more popular "theodicy" (answer to how there can be a good God over a world of evil) recently. Here's his website.

Tim Keller's "The Reason for God" is a popular level book which uses everything from New Testament scholarship (like N.T. Wright--who is very good) to evolution's compatibility with Christianity (cf. Francis Collins, a Christian and director of the Human Genome project) to create a popular-level explanation of Christian faith. Each chapter takes a different common question. I don't agree with his take on everything but it's a good place to start.

Over the past 3 years I've also found good conversation on /r/christianity. You may want to search for old posts there and see what folks have to say. You'll find a variety of answers.

u/Verapamil123 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I honestly found The Reason for God to be a good read. It's well written and the author writes with much humility.

u/gragoon · 3 pointsr/Christianity

I would recommend Timothy Keller's "The Reason for God" as the author is very good at explaining how Christianity is not a pie in the sky thing. The book is geared to a public that likes logic and is very fact based as Timothy Keller started a rather successful church in NYC that seems to cater mostly to lawyers, doctors and finance people.

u/Kidnapped_David_Bal4 · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Are some of your family members Christian? You could talk to them (certainly if it's your immediate family like mom and dad or siblings). It'd be harder if it's like a cousin or uncle or grandmother, but you probably want someone to talk to who you trust. Do you have friends who are Christian? Maybe just ask them- if this is a big decision in your life, they should hopefully have your back. You might find out that some of your friends are Christian and you didn't even know because they were too intimidated to tell you that and now you made the first move so it's find to talk about it.

If you really want to read something, you could try reading one of the gospels. Maybe Mark? I also think you'd benefit by reading something a little less formal, a little more geared right at you (the gospels have a lot of context and history and previous knowledge that they expect readers to be working with, so either accept that there's stuff that's going over your head and read them anyway or get a study Bible to help). A lot of people recommend Mere Christianity or The Reason for God or others by Tim Keller. I think that's the sort of thing you're looking for.

u/GunnerMcGrath · 3 pointsr/Christianity

First of all, I applaud your courage to seek the truth even if it leads you to a place that requires humility. God loves you and is clearly drawing you to himself! The word "faith" in the New Testament means "to be pursuaded by God." He is the one creating the desire and belief in you even as it develops, how cool is that?

Now, in reply to your comment, a lot of people have differing opinions of exactly what a "literal" interpretation even means. My best explanation would be to say that everything that the Bible says happened, actually happened, exactly as it says... regardless of whether the author of the passage actually meant for it to be taken literally.

A simple example:

Most of Jesus' teaching is through parables, or stories that have representative meaning. Sometimes he begins them "Suppose a woman has ten silver coins..." but sometimes he begins them like "There was a man who had two sons." Now, in my view, a literal interpretation of Jesus' teaching would be that this man and his sons actually existed, because of how he phrases it. But there is good reason to believe Jesus is making up this story to illustrate a point, and this would be generally understood by his audience, much like beginning a story "once upon a time" indicates that this is fiction, even though your literal words are saying that this story happened. Think about most fiction you read; rarely if ever does it explicitly state that it is fiction -- usually it just says this stuff happened and you are supposed to understand that it didn't.

So... there are parts of the Bible that are believed by many Bible scholars to have been written with the intent of teaching a principle but not to be a literal, historical record of fact. There are MORE parts of the Bible that are certainly standard written histories, and many of these stories have fantastic and miraculous elements. So I am not saying that you can't take the Bible at face value, because most of it is absolutely meant to be read that way.

But there are parts that are written about the beginning of the world, and for reasons I won't get into explaining here (you can research if you're interested), many who know this stuff better than you or I ever will are convinced that they were written to illustrate the truth that God is the creator of everything, but not written to describe exactly what his specific method and timeline was for creating. Similarly, there are visions people have of their future which are written in an extremely metaphorical way, much like dreams represent true ideas but not literal ones. When I dream of my teeth falling out, it means I'm stressed about something, but not specifically about my teeth falling out. So many of these predictions were not thought to be literal representations even by the people who had the visions or made the predictions.

The good news for you, as a person investigating faith, is that these interpretations do not really have to have significant impact on your journey at the moment. Your focus should be on the love of God for humanity, and the (historically factual/literal) accounts of Jesus' life in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Get to know God and spend time reading the Bible, with the Holy Spirit guiding you, before you draw your line in the sand about what kind of interpretation you insist on being correct. That would be like me placing a million dollar bet on a baseball team to win the world series before I'd ever even seen a baseball game.

You have been given some good book recommendations already. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is an extraordinary book that spends a fair amount of time just pondering logically the likelihood that God exists at all. It gets more specifically into Christianity later in the book.

There are also two books by pastor Timothy Keller that you may enjoy: Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical and The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. These again are more about the arguments for and against God's existence which you may or may not need at this point in your journey.

But of course, the most important of all is simply the Bible. The Gospel of Mark may be a good place to start because it is a historical record of Jesus' life written for the Romans, and therefore explains a lot about the Jewish customs that they would not have understood. But any of the four gospels are a wonderful place to begin.

Enjoy your journey, and I encourage you to take that leap of faith and ask God to show you the truth, even if you are not yet sure he even exists. I would pray such a prayer every day, or every time you begin reading anything about God. He is already drawing you to himself but prayer is a practice that brings our wills into alignment with his, and so when we pray for things that he already wants to do, he tends to show up even more significantly so your faith will grow.

u/rookiebatman · 3 pointsr/TheFacebookDelusion

> If it's a celeb it's fair game.

I didn't see anything specifically about that in the sidebar, and I recently got frustrated about a post being removed in another sub (r/politicaldiscussion) due to vague and counter-intuitive rules (and the mods not being helpful at all in explaining why), so I didn't want to risk it. It's Tim Keller, the author of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

u/nerdybunhead · 3 pointsr/girlsgonewired

Good question. Thanks for asking! What do you mean when you say
>the requirement of unquestioning faith?

As far as I've been able to tell, the crucial things about Christianity - the resurrection of Jesus and the reliability of the Bible - are historically well attested. For me, that's the most compelling thing about Christianity, actually - that it makes sense in light of what I see in the observable world. I think some people have maybe an inaccurate perception of what Christianity's about, and that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication when we talk about "science and religion" (which, by the way, I think is somewhat of a false dichotomy).

That was kind of rambly, but I hope it at least began to answer your question. By nature, I'm a fairly analytical (read: doubting Thomas) kind of person, so I appreciate your asking about this.

If you're interested, Tim Keller's The Reason for God has been a helpful book for me as I've thought through these things.

u/mediainfidel · 3 pointsr/DebateAChristian

>> “Elyon”, translated “the Most High”, is probably a separate god from “Yahweh”
>
> Why?

You act as if Basilides has simply pulled all this out of thin air, as if no biblical scholar in their right mind would think Yahweh was originally one of many sons of El in the ancient pantheon. But this theory is not as off-the-wall as some believers might think.

While such an idea might seem outrageous to you as a believer, try to withold your contempt based on unwarranted certainty. There's a whole world out there beyond the believers perspective. Embrace it.

u/Erra-Epiri · 3 pointsr/pagan

Šulmu, /u/KlingonLinux! I gotchoo on "Canaanite" and Israelite (they were more or less the "same" people religio-culturally for most of Antiquity, and definitely genetically/ethnically) and Punic/Phoenician (Iron Age Levantine ["Canaanite" and Israelite peoples and so on] peoples abroad throughout the Mediterranean as far West as Southern Spain/the island of Ibiza and North Africa) sources, awīlu.

Some necessary clarification : I routinely put "Canaanite" in scare-quotes, because there was no definitive, proto-national much less national identity for so-called "Canaanites" in the way that Israelites and Judahites eventually had by the 1st millennium BCE, and the people of Syro-Palestine during the Middle to Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age would overwhelmingly identify and operate by clan, by tribe, or by city-state before calling themselves and operating as Knaʿni (Ugaritic, meaning "people of Canaan"). "Canaanite" religious forms consonantly varied quite noticeably by city-state, in ways that, say, Egyptian ones did not, even taking into account "alternative" (but not competing) Egyptian local theologies and so on. Speaking in perhaps excessively general terms, there was a State religion overarching the regional ones in Egypt which, in effect, bound them together as a cooperative dynamic unit. "Canaan" as such had no such large-scale, cohesive "religious infrastructure" of Egypt's much less Mesopotamian Kingdoms' and Empires' like, and it didn't "help" that the exceptionally powerful Egyptian Empire of the Late Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom Periods and contemporaneous Mesopotamian and Hittite Empires were constantly vying for control of the North Sinai and Syro-Palestine. The economic centers of "Canaan" were, indeed, frequently subservient to Egypt throughout Bronze Age history, with Egyptian Kings investing governors and mayors of its own throughout "Canaanite" territories following the Thutmosid Conquest, much to the personal danger of said governors and mayors (who were neither particularly liked nor trusted by their Levantine subjects nor by Egyptian officials) and much to the cantankerous chagrin of the Levantine peoples living under Egyptian Imperial rule. Which is to say nothing of Egyptian-mandated relocations of restive Levantine people and so forth.

Furthermore, Hebrew Biblical literature intensely confuses what "Canaanite" even means in a religio-cultural sense, using the term simply to inveigh against religious beliefs and conventions, regardless of actual origin, Deuteronomic Jews did not wish to see carry over from their ancestral religion(s)/culture(s) and from neighboring religions/cultures (e.g., Mesopotamian and Egyptian religions/cultures. See Leviticus 18, Deuteronomy 7, and Ezekiel 23 as but three illustrations of the aforementioned) into newly-minted Judaism and what had then become the Israelite-Judahite "national" identities (primarily in politically-motivated defiance, it should be noted, of their later Master, the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which had made of the internally-fractured Kingdoms of Israel and Judah satellite states through rigorous opportunistic military conquest and serious economic and political strong-arming, beginning with the great and cunning King Tukultī-apil-Ešarra/"Tiglath-Pileser" III). A few scholars and especially many would-be Revivalists not academically-trained frequently, unwittingly hang their understanding of "Canaanite" upon all this confusion -- and the latter not in anything like a Jewish context nor through a Jewish hermeneutic, either, while still treating iffy Jewish accounts embedded in Scripture entirely too literally, which makes it an even more weird and defunct confusion.

Now, it's very important to form a baseline understanding of the historical circumstances of the Near East concerning "Canaan," what came out of it, its influential neighbors, and religio-cultural receptors. I know it feels like unnecessary drudgery to many people, but the religious tidbits don't make much sense and their use in/continued relevance to Modernity can't be adequately evaluated without learning and understanding their historical contexts, which is where a lot of would-be Revivalists go very wrong, in my opinion -- especially since "Canaanite" and other non-Kemetic ANE religious Revivals are still very much in their formative stages and aren't being led by people with necessary, thorough backgrounds in Ancient Near Eastern Studies. For this, I recommend beginning with Donald B. Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Marc Van De Mieroop's A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000 to 323 BC, Amanda H. Podany's Brotherhood of Kings: How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East, and Mark Woolmer's Ancient Phoenicia: An Introduction. They're not short texts, apart from Woolmer's that is, but they will give you a decent, fairly comprehensive understanding of the circumstances of the ANE.

Concerning "Canaanite" and Israelite, etc., religious details and developments, just about anything by Mark S. Smith, Rainer Albertz (namely, this massive text he co-authored with Rüdiger Schmitt), Daniel E. Fleming, and Dennis Pardee are quite sound.

Stories from Ancient Canaan, 2nd Edition edited by Mark S. Smith and Michael D. Coogan is probably where you're looking to start vis-a-vis "Canaanite" religion(s), as most people like to get at the mythic material first and foremost. After that, I would definitely recommend picking up The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Biblical Resource Series), along with Pardee's Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (Writings from the Ancient World) and Nicolas Wyatt's Religious Texts from Ugarit -- there should be a free PDF of the latter still floating around the nets somewhere.

While William Foxwell Albright has since become outdated in areas, his works are nevertheless necessary, now "classic" reads. Of particular use and importance is his Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths

Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day and the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition are handy, but relatively scarce and expensive.

Tryggve N. D. Mettinger is a much-beloved scholar of mine, though be aware that in The Riddle of the Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East -- one of the very few decent and comprehensive texts in ANE "comparative religious studies" -- wherein he addresses a few major Levantine Gods like Ba'l-Hadad, he unfortunately demonstrates a very poor comprehension of Greek, so if you ever pick that title up please do remember to take his interpretations in the chapter concerning the Phoenician God Melqart with a metric ton of salt.

Aaron J. Brody's Each Man Cried Out to His God: The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers was a short, widely-accessible, and enjoyable volume; he covers quite a few lesser-known and under-explored elements of Levantine religions therein.

It sounds like a lot, I'm sure, and there's so much more to read and discuss beyond all these, but hopefully this will provide a decent springboard for you into the crazy, wonderful world of Levantine religions.

I hope this helped, and if you need anything else on this, or concerning Mesopotamia and Egypt, feel free to ask anytime.

u/thesouthpaw · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Jesus Among Other Gods

and

Problem of Pain

are two that come to my mind. I think both are great reads for non-believers who were raised Christian or have a solid understanding of Christianity.

u/learnmathq · 3 pointsr/facepalm

If you're interested in this topic, you should read CS Lewis's "The Problem of Pain."

u/e_t_ · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Lots of people have asked this question. It's a subset of the problem of evil.

For a specifically Christian answer (not necessarily the answer), check out C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain.

u/FA1R_ENOUGH · 3 pointsr/Christianity
  1. This is known as the Problem of Evil. If you'd like to see discussion on this topic, please check out our . The attempt to answer this question is known as theodicy. There are two major theodicies that I'll briefly summarize, but in order to fully grasp the weight of these ideas, you're going to have to consult a lot of philosophical material. There's a reason why people can take many classes just on this problem. The first defense is called the Free Will Defense. In a nutshell, it says that God created creatures with free will - the ability to choose good or to choose evil. Unfortunately, some free creatures made poor decisions, and evil came into our world. The presence of this freely chosen evil is the reason for the pain and suffering we see today. Augustine is credited with one of the earliest formulations of this defense. Alvin Plantinga has published a more recent free will defense which very many people believe has refuted the Problem of Evil. The second theodicy is called the soul-making theodicy. Essentially, it says that God has a morally justified reason for allowing evil, and it is to create mature beings. Although this is obviously not a perfect world, it may be the best way to a perfect world. This theodicy asserts that evil allows for mature, perfected beings, and that without evil, people could not have been optimally perfect. John Hick is well-known for this theodicy.

  2. I don't see why that would be the case. However, I am unconvinced of a Young Earth. If you meant to imply YEC, then I'm the wrong person to talk to.

  3. This is the Problem of Hell. Again, many good discussions on this topic will be found in the FAQ. Personally, I do not believe that someone will find themselves in Hell because they believed wrongly. Salvation is not dependent upon a theology exam! I think that those in Hell have actively rejected God's grace and forgiveness. C. S. Lewis presents a compelling view of Hell in a chapter in The Problem of Pain. He says that Hell is a special prison where the lock and key are on the inside of the cell. Those in Hell will not allow themselves to be forgiven. The Great Divorce also gives an interesting look into what the heart of someone in Hell is like. All that being said, I firmly believe that salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone. It is the rejection of God, who is the source of what is good, that causes a person to damn himself.

  4. This is a restatement of the Problem of Evil, which I discussed above.
u/ceramic_pillow · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

Alrightyyyyyyy. Let's get to it. By no means take my word to be truth, but I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. If anyone sees where I've messed up, call me out on it.
First off, I am incredibly glad to see your enthusiasm! As someone only slightly older than you, it really makes me happy to see someone even slightly interested in the Faith.

  1. Church teaching on homosexuality is also something I struggle with. The CCC shows us through [ccc 2357-2359] that we are called to respect and love homosexuals just like any other person. That does not mean we should condone them living in sin or turning away from God's teachings. Here is an interesting article about homosexuals living a chaste, religious life. Ultimately, the writer concludes that he is happy with the grace God has given him and has learned to live the Church's teaching on homosexuality despite his own desires.

  2. From my understanding, the Church has not made any official statement on belief in evolution. As far as I can tell, it comes down to your own personal beliefs. Now as to why God would allow so much pain to happen through creation is beyond me. You may want to check out "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. [ccc 403] indicates that our human suffering comes from Adam's pride leading to Original Sin. By turning our back to God, we destined ourselves to a life of misery. Perhaps through this mechanism, natural selection has caused so much pain...? Grasping at straws here.

  3. Though I think the view of how people go to Hell is pleasant, I do not believe it meshes with Catholic teaching. [ccc 1021] shows us that Man is judged by his acts while alive. Not his post-mortem decisions. And Hell is not what modern-culture tells us. It is not Satan's kingdom where he rules with impunity and punishes the wicked. He too is punished there. Hell's pain is caused by an absence of God's love, not punishment by demons. When those in Hell chose to turn their backs to God's teachings, they chose to alienate themselves from God's love. Dante's description of Hell is allegorical and by no means Church Cannon.

    I hope I have helped even slightly with your questions and hopefully other users will be able to offer a different insight into this for you. Feel free to ask any questions. Best of luck!
u/rmkelly1 · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

Christianity: The First 3,000 Years has a lot to say on this topic. The text is scrupulously footnoted and written by an academic but it is intended for general readership.

u/tbown · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is very good, I think it's considered a classic.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is very good, heavily footnoted with references on where to read more.

Frances M. Young's From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background I've heard is good, although it may be more geared more towards scholars than you'd like.

Also heard Ramsay MacMullen's Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400 is good.

u/Flocculencio · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

Reza Aslan's Zealot gives a good overview of this, or for a (much) longer read Diarmaid McCullogh's Christianity. The short answer is that the difference between the proto-Christians and the other followers of Messianic Jewish preachers was that the Christians had Paul who reworked the message to be inclusive of Gentiles. This changed Christianity from just another wild Jewish fringe sect to a contender for the hearts and minds of people who perhaps were not quite fulfilled by the existing social structure (for example, women- it's quite notable just how many women actually are referred to in Acts of the Apostles cited as prominent members of the early church, considering that this was a society in which women were almost totally sidelined from the mainstream)

u/Rage_Blackout · 3 pointsr/PoliticalHumor

Early Christianity was still pretty focused on egalitarian and communitarian principles. Once the Roman elite began adopting it, however, they had to find loopholes that allowed for Christians to be rich while their neighbors were poor. They made all manner of justifications (e.g. rich people are stewards of the poor like Adam was to the animals in the Garden of Eden, or the poor are necessary because they allow for others to act charitably and thus express their Christianity). Their mental gymnastics are pretty mind-boggling.

Source: Diarmid McCulloch's Christianity: The First 3000 Years.

u/XenophonRex · 3 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First 3000 Years was pretty thorough and well written imho.

It starts with the understood origins of the Jewish faith to show its evolution into Christianity, thus the 3000 years.

Amazon link

The 1 star reviews are pretty wonderful if you have a moment to read some of them.

u/madman1969 · 3 pointsr/politics
u/MaxChaplin · 3 pointsr/RedditDayOf

Though the day is over, here's some of the folklore in the film. (source: TV Tropes)

  • Pangur Bán is named after the oldest surviving poem in the Irish language. Written by... a young monk in the margins of his study, about his pet cat.
  • "Aisling" (pronounced like "Ashley", which is a modernized version) is an Irish girl's name meaning "dream" or "vision", but it's also the name of a genre of Irish poetry. In these poems, a woman appears as the Anthropomorphic Personification of Ireland and speaks about the country's troubles, followed by a prediction of a better future. The writers for the movie decided to play with the concept by making the female figure a mischievous little girl instead of a serious older woman.
  • Aisling's opening monologue is based on another very old Irish poem called "The Song of Tuan Mac Cairill", one of the Tuatha De Danann who survived among humans by taking on the forms of a salmon, a deer and a wolf, rather like we see Aisling doing.
  • Aisling didn't enter the tower on herself because, according to old folk stories, fairies, demons and other ungodly beings are unable to enter churches.
  • The presence of the international monks in Kells might be an allusion to the hypothesis that the Irish have saved civilization in the middle ages.
u/LegalAction · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

You're thinking of this book, How the Irish Saved Civilization? I read it a long time ago, and while I liked it then (I was going through my Irish American phase), I'm not thrilled with it now. It's very Western centered.

First of all, plenty of people following Peter Brown challenge the notion of a collapse of the Western Empire. The "barbarian" states often had strong connections to the Emperor in Constantinople (the Vandals in N. Africa are a good example, minting coins in the name of the emperor - of course this was probably a convenient fiction for both sides, but still, plenty of Roman culture continued on for quite a while)

Second, they did a terrible job of saving a lot of it. Greek became almost extinct in the west. I think the first school of Greek in Italy popped up only in the 1300s? And a lot of Greek texts were preserved in Constantinople. I don't think they had any Plato in the west, and only Aristotle through Arabic translations done in Spain. As for Latin, there were important libraries in the Vatican, Paris... I just grabbed my edition of Livy and I see manuscripts from Verona, Oxford, Rome, Leiden. Admittedly many of these are 9th and 10th century copies, but even if the archetype did only survive in Ireland, a lot of people in Europe after just a couple hundred years were interested in collecting ancient texts, had the ability on some level to read them, and the technical skill to copy them.

u/brokenearth02 · 3 pointsr/history

Link to Cahill's book, from which this is taken: [Here](http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493 "I enjoyed it.")

u/thelukinat0r · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

For your talk, I highly recommend taking a canonical approach. That means going through scripture and talking about the typology of the old testament in reference to the Eucharist. Some suggestions:

  • The Tree of Life from the Garden of Eden
  • The Passover Lamb (had to be eaten with unleavened bread)
  • The Manna/Quail in the Wilderness
  • Eating with God and Covenant Making Ritual of Exodus 24
  • The Bread/Wine of the Presence
  • OT Tabernacle/Temple Sacrifices
  • 1 Kings 17
  • 1 Kings 19:4-8
  • Solomon's Banquet (Song of Songs)
  • Eschatological Banquet Expectations (Isaiah 25:6-9, Isa 49:9-12, Isa 55, Isa 65:13-16, Zech 9:9-17) Also check out this article

    Here's a great book to get you started on some of these topics.

    Here's a couple NT passages to get you started as well:

  • John 6
  • Luke 24
  • Acts 2:42 and 20:7
  • 1 Cor 11:17-34
  • Revelation: the whole thing is one big mass
u/AnglicanPrayerMan · 3 pointsr/Anglicanism

The Roman Catholic theologian Scott Hann deals with this concept in his book "The Lamb's Supper."

https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591

I'm sure the book is well-written and theologically sound given Hann's reputation. There might be some ideas contained in his book that are not shared by Protestants, but Anglicans may find themselves agreeing more with Hann then our Protestant sisters and brothers.

I've not read the book, but this seems along the same lines you're talking about. I'm sure there are a plethora of ideas and books written about the Mass being an expectation or foretaste of things to come.

My first post on r/Anglicanism, I believe, was actually this picture which I think speaks to what my interpretation of Mass is when I go to church on Sundays.

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Traditional-Latin-Mass.jpg

I still love this picture.

u/treoncrayon · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

I recommend this book. The Book of Revelation references the Mass many times throughout. It is truly amazing and non-coincidentally one of the books Martin Luther wanted removed. I guess it was too Catholic for him.

u/amigocesar · 3 pointsr/Catholicism

The Lambs Supper is an awesome book about the mass and how heaven is on earth during mass, regardless of how shitty the choir is. I'm only a couple of chapters in and I'm loving it.

u/5spoke_sportrims · 3 pointsr/DestinyTheGame

If I may add an extra layer to your observation: This book is about a group of people who find themselves in a first contact scenario based on a signal received at the Arecibo array. The book's title? The Sparrow.

I highly, highly recommend it - some of the most emotional sci-fi I've ever read.

u/jamestream · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

Well . . . if you're looking at a book simply as a collection of text, I too have never feared a line of text. What books allow, is a slow building of fear that require quite a bit of character development. I don't read horror novels waiting to be frightened, and truthfully read very little horror. The fear just happens. To be honest, it's a different type of fear - more of an uneasy feeling really. Certainly, a book can't have, what my son calls, "The scary jump out scenes". But if we exchange the term fear with edgy, here are a list of my favorite books with an "Edge":

[The Passage] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Passage-Novel-Book-Trilogy/dp/0345528174)
[The Terror] (http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Novel-Dan-Simmons/dp/0316008079/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404481514&sr=1-1&keywords=terror)
The Stand
Carrion Comfort
Desperation
I am Legend
The Sparrow
Night
Frankenstein
All Quite on the Western Front
Hunger
Blood Meridian
Watchers
The Minus Man

In no particular order - Not the usual suggestions either. Hope it helps, and happy reading!


u/gadgetguy22 · 3 pointsr/scifi

First think that came to mind for me was Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow. Really quality stuff.

From Amazon (SPOILER ALERT): In 2019, humanity finally finds proof of extraterrestrial life when a listening post in Puerto Rico picks up exquisite singing from a planet which will come to be known as Rakhat. While United Nations diplomats endlessly debate a possible first contact mission, the Society of Jesus quietly organizes an eight-person scientific expedition of its own. What the Jesuits find is a world so beyond comprehension that it will lead them to question the meaning of being "human." When the lone survivor of the expedition, Emilio Sandoz, returns to Earth in 2059, he will try to explain what went wrong... Words like "provocative" and "compelling" will come to mind as you read this shocking novel about first contact with a race that creates music akin to both poetry and prayer.

u/OvidNaso · 3 pointsr/printSF

The Sparrow. Possibly my favorite book of all time. There is a sequel as well, Children of God.

u/TsaristMustache · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Take a look at the book The Sparrow

u/Centinul · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions
u/geardownlandings · 3 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

The Orthodox Study Bible has extensive footnotes full of great explanation placing Scripture within the context of Holy Tradition, often citing and quoting from the Church Fathers. There are color prints of icons interspersed throughout the text!

u/durdyg · 3 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

I'm fairly sure the Orthodox Study Bible is the Septuagint translation of the OT and Psalms.

u/Jademists · 3 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

Here’s the link the above poster recommended Orthodox Study Bible

u/UnitedMethodistMan · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

>Unnecessary suffering, and some of it is absolutely horrific.

Here is a book written by a far smarter guy than me about the Problem with Pain and Suffering. http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Pain-C-Lewis/dp/0060652969

> I don't want to suffer, but that choice is taken out of my hands. I don't want to go to hell, but the only criteria I have to make that determination is ridiculous old stories from various religions and denominations. That is God's fault.

You have a choice in how you deal with every situation. Things happen to us that are out of our control, which is an aspect of a free world. Just because you didn't choose for something to happen doesn't mean you have a choice in how you react to it, for good or for ill. You don't want to go to hell, but you have the choice to either believe that hell is real or it isn't, and to live your life accordingly. You might be totally right, or you could be terribly wrong. But you have the choice to decide if it's real or not.

>You missed my point. Or, more precisely, the rest of that paragraph. "The child has a choice! At some predetermined date that is unknown to the child, if the child has not decided to worship the parent beating him, then the child will be beaten without mercy until the end of time. All the child has to do is truly love the parent..."

Sorry for not addressing this. While it is the popular belief of many Christians that hell is a place of eternal suffering, well, read this and see that some doctrine's have been kind of made up on the subject.

http://www.godsplanforall.com/mistranslationstomeanhell

>YES. That is exactly what it means. Parents are responsible for keeping their children out of harm's way, and they do everything possible to keep their child safe while allowing their child to learn how to operate in the reality that he lives in. Unlike parents, however, God isn't stuck in our reality, with extremely limited means to teach young people how to not hurt themselves.

You are saying that a parent should hover over their child constantly, 24/7, right over their shoulder, to make sure that no harm comes to them? Do you have kids? To do something like that would be smothering them! It wouldn't allow them to grow, and if you were there to punish them every single time they did something wrong, they would resent you. Eventually you need to let your kids make their own decisions. If the child was 12 and he was running through the house, is it still the parents fault? That child knows better by that point.

> So I cannot believe in God. So if God did have a presence in this world, and I still didn't believe in him, should I be tortured forever? And if I fought against that injustice, would you think that I was wrong to do so?

If I believed that God would torture you forever if you didn't believe him, then yes you wouldn't be wrong to fight against that. However, like the article above, I don't think God sends people to Hell forever. That was a question I struggled with when my friend (who was a non-believer), was killed in an accident. I just don't see how a just God could send someone to hell for eternity for a finite lifetime of actions, especially one cut so short.

u/oxygencube · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I have wrestled with anxiety and panic attacks for 10+ years. My faith has helped me so much. Anxiety and fear can often point us to things that we idolize or elevate above God. I too had horrible withdrawls and will never go back to meds. Writing in a journal really helps, especially when things are going well. It's important to remember that God always brings you through to the other side.

I have three books to suggest:

Running Scared: Fear, Worry, and the God of Rest
http://www.amazon.com/Running-Scared-Fear-Worry-Rest/dp/0978556755

The Anxiety Cure
http://www.amazon.com/Anxiety-Cure-Archibald-Hart/dp/0849942969/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449213728&sr=1-1&keywords=anxiety+cure

The Problem of Pain
http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449213760&sr=1-1&keywords=c.s.+lewis+problem+of+pain

All the best.

u/ofd1197 · 2 pointsr/ems

Don't be "desensitized." You have to develop a thick skin but keep a soft heart. I know that sounds like a paradox, and it's the hardest thing to do in this field. You will see unimaginable human suffering, but you are there to help when others can not. There is a book by C.S. Lewis called "The Problem of Pain." It's not really an EMS book...but it helped me a little. Here's a link for it on amazon http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0060652969

u/Schmitty422 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I've yet to read it, but Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch has been on my list for awhile. I read his book on the Reformation and thoroughly enjoyed it.

u/extispicy · 2 pointsr/AcademicBiblical

I'm a novice myself, and I'll admit to not having read the entire book, but "Christianity: The First 3000 Years" might have what you are looking for.

>A product of electrifying scholarship conveyed with commanding skill, Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity goes back to the origins of the Hebrew Bible and encompasses the globe. It captures the major turning points in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox history and fills in often neglected accounts of conversion and confrontation in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. MacCulloch introduces us to monks and crusaders, heretics and reformers, popes and abolitionists, and discover Christianity's essential role in shaping human history and the intimate lives of men and women. And he uncovers the roots of the faith that galvanized America, charting the surprising beliefs of the founding fathers, the rise of the Evangelical movement and of Pentecostalism, and the recent crises within the Catholic Church. Bursting with original insights and a great pleasure to read, this monumental religious history will not soon be surpassed.

While searching for it just now, I notice they have done a video called "History of Christianity", which is also available on Netflix.

u/MotherfuckingGandhi · 2 pointsr/Christianity

You might want to read more about Eastern Orthodoxy and the Middle Eastern traditions, especially their monastic traditions. I grew up among Baptists too, and also used to think of Christianity almost entirely in terms of the narrow worldview I was raised with, which was something along the lines of "Apostolic era, martyrs, evil Catholic church, yay Protestant Reformation hurray Baptists"...

If you're interested in more info about these churches, here are their Wikipedia articles:

Eastern Orthodox

Oriental Orthodox

Church of the East

Also, if you are still interested in learning more about Christian history, I'd really recommend picking up a copy of this book from Amazon. Even though I'm not really a believer anymore, I've gained tons of understanding and respect for the depth of Christian traditions, largely as a result of this book and research I've done online.

u/wedgeomatic · 2 pointsr/Christianity

A combination of the fact that I'm a historian working on medieval Christian thought, so reading this stuff is quite literally my job, and that I'm just interested so I read a lot of stuff on the side. There are a ton of books out there, I've heard that this is very good.

u/Nicolaus_ · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Two books that I can personally vouch for:

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 2 pointsr/TMBR

Highly unlikely. There's not even good evidence most of the apostles were martyred. Furthermore, the beauty and utility of marterdom was also a core idea of Second Temple Judaism, and despite people trying to get themselves martyred, it happened much less than you probably think. There's only about 5 named individuals we're confident in, and, for example, one of the most preminant scholars of early Christianity (Rodney Stark) estimates the total at less than 100.

Also, we have records of exactly nobody claiming to have seen Jesus in the flesh, only people claiming many years later that other people claimed to have seen him, and Paul claiming a spiritual vision.

I highly recommend picking up one of Stark's books to get a sympathetic but rigerous view of the actual history of early Christianity and why it grew, which will help you understand your religion quite a bit more. Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity, The First Three Thousand Years is another good history, though IMHO not quite as informative as it doesn't follow the sociological factors quite as closely. Those are both solid books by excellent historians who are more positive toward Christianity than average for experts in the field, and I think you'd find them useful.

u/she-stocks-the-night · 2 pointsr/news

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143118692?pc_redir=1397182538&robot_redir=1

http://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/zealot-reza-aslan/1114795531?ean=9781400069224

Do you...not understand how history works? Are you...twelve years old?

Jesus the man's existence is fact among scholars. You gonna tell me the dinosaurs don't exist next?

u/nufosmatic · 2 pointsr/The_Donald

The Irish fiercely defended their island against all invaders. Then Saint Patrick appeared on the scene and pacified the island. And then the same people who are being conquered by the Muslim invasion today took over their little island.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493

u/Girfex · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

My favorite birthday, my lovely wife took me home back to Ireland and we spent two weeks there. It was amazing.

item linky!

Happy Birthday!

u/silouan · 2 pointsr/scifi

Wasn't it the Christian monks that preserved the tradition of literacy, languages, classics and philosophy? Details: How the Irish Saved Civilization

u/YesYesLibertarians · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> Don't tell me what I believe, thanks.

That's not a contradiction or refutation. I take it then that you consider the statement accurate? I guess I'm just confused why you would be so hesitant to admit to the exclusivity of Christian theology. In my opinion this exclusivity is an asset, not a liability.

> Go back to the OT and try to tell me that OT wasn't just as if not more fucking brutal than Islam.

Torah applies itself to a particular ethnic group and geographic area. Christian tradition says that virtually all of it is subsumed by the teachings of Christ, which are the exact opposite of brutal. If there is an equivalent in Muslim theology that mitigates the imperative to unconditional world conquest, please enlighten me.

This rising anger you feel could be a sign that somewhere in your mind you know that your position has an extremely poor defense, but you've invested too much in it to allow yourself to admit to any errors.

> I already [differentiate between a religion and a state populated by their adherents], thank you.

Yet you lay every atrocity of the Middle Ages at the feet of "Christianity" and not the various human institutions that ordered them. This is inconsistent. Besides, these guardians of civilization you speak of were responsible for possibly the bloodiest killing spree in history. We're talking "mountains made out of skulls" here, without such labor saving devices as machine guns or nerve gas. I don't think you appreciate what role Christian Irish monks had in preserving civilization. It's not as though Europe reawakened speaking Arabic and praying to Allah.

I'll ask you again to look at what fruit is borne by civilizations informed by the two religions, even assuming that the bloodlust of states is totally separate from religious motivations for both sides. Why is it that predominantly Christian nations were first to project themselves across the globe, bless humanity with industrialization, and put men on the Moon? I get that the modern middle east would not be nearly the mess it is without chaos raining down from the heavens in the form of American bombs, and yet in US-allied, prosperous and comparatively safe Saudi Arabia, they still publicly stone adulteresses.

u/eoinnll · 2 pointsr/Gunners

Here you go. It was a BBC documentary. That documentary took a lot from the RTE radio series. There is a great book on the same subject.

The documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfWiigAoDfs There are 2 parts an hour each.

The radio series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upY54ZtgNsM there are 12 parts half hour each.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493 The book. All highly recommended. I love a bit of history me. Makes me pissed off I did economics first time round, but we follow the money!

u/petesmybrother · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385496591/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_tnZYAbRXDH0DN

u/Akzum · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Depends on what section of the Church she wants to discover. Just off the top of my head:

The Lamb's supper is widely recommended, I haven't read it but any word of it highly praises the way it explains and appreciates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I enjoyed Francis Cardinal Arinze's book on Mary, and how it relates perfectly to scripture.

Has she seen Bishop Barron's Catholicism series in general?

u/sariaru · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Hi there, and welcome to the biggest party on Earth.

As far as knowing "what to do" during Mass - your parish should have a missalette located either in your pew or at the back of the church to pick up with your hymnal and whatnot. They usually look like this or something similar. Say the black, do the red, the priest says the bold. But at the same time, don't worry - it's okay if you don't say everything just right; for many hundreds of years, the laity didn't have any verbal participation, and your spiritual participation (ie adding your prayers and intentions to that of the Holy Sacrifice) is plenty.

On a deeper note, if you want to learn about the history and the theology behind the Mass, I really strongly recommend Scott Hahn's excellent book, The Lamb's Supper as it goes into the Jewish roots of much of the Mass. It really helped me understand not only what was going on from a sensory perspective, but also from a theological perspective.

As far as kneeling: You are more than welcome to remain seated if you can't kneel without pain. You're also welcome to kneel anyway and offer that pain as a sacrifice, but sitting is okay, too!

u/netsettler · 2 pointsr/scifi

It always surprises me how The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell has slipped under the radar of many. It's intense in places but extraordinarily well-written. It has a sequel that's not nearly as good (probably due to a publisher urging a rush job), but overall this is an amazing book. It's my number one favorite book, not just sci-fi book, for a variety of reasons. Very thoughtful, very vivid characters, very interesting descriptive detail. So realistic in places it almost doesn't feel like sci-fi.

I enjoyed Ascent by Jed Mercurio a lot. The opening chapter is more violent than I wish. I almost stopped reading, worrying the whole book would be that way, but it lightens up. The first chapter can, frankly, pretty much be skipped by anyone who doesn't like that kind of thing. The rest of the story was much more even and interesting. I have a feeling when I see the upcoming Apollo 18, if I even bother (I'm expecting bad reviews), I'm going to wish it was this story instead.

u/bbx4 · 2 pointsr/AskReddit
u/jsep · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Serious answer, if you're interested in a fictional exploration of that idea from a Catholic writer, I highly recommend The Sparrow. It's basically about First Contact from the lense of a Jesuit, and I found it extremely thought provoking.

u/seeing_the_light · 2 pointsr/Christianity

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594

As far as I know, this is the newest English translation of the Septuagint.

u/outsider · 2 pointsr/Christianity

It's called the Orthodox Study Bible. For the NT it uses, or used anyways, the NKJV but the OT is a fresh translation. The Old Testament is translated from Greek sources (hence the LXX) which are around 1000 years older than the Hebraic texts most Old Testaments are translated from.

u/herman_the_vermin · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Orthodox Study Bible it has great commentary, with only like one spot I can remember where I was like "ehhh"

But it does explain the use of the Septuagint, and explain some theology, and a glossary to different commentary. It may be a little pricey, but I really enjoy the commentary and am on my 2nd read through. It also includes the lectionary, or rather what the Church has every one reading on the same day of through the year =) hope that helps!
Met. Kallistos Ware has a few books "The Orthodox Church" and "The Orthodox Way" which are good primers of theology, life in the church, and differences between East and West

u/mattb93 · 2 pointsr/Reformed

John Walton's the Lost World of Genesis One seems to be what you're looking for. He argues that Genesis 1 needs to be understood culturally rather than literally.

If I remember correctly, Keller's view on Genesis was influenced by Meredith Kline so reading him could be helpful. Kline helped popularize the [Framework interpretation of Genesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

u/micahnotmika20 · 2 pointsr/DebateEvolution

Chapters 1-11 sorry.

“If the creation account was meant to be taken literally(which I think is more likely) then I believe it's incorrect.”

That’s the million dollar question, how did the original author of genesis intend readers to understand genesis 1. One book(or books) I would recommend on this subject is The Lost World Series by John Walton where he writes about interpreting Genesis in the Ancient Near Eastern context.


The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830837043/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_etO6CbG3VQCRK

u/BobbyBobbie · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

>Yes, there should be no there. Why would a benevolent god shield a few animals in a garden while the rest were susceptible to diseases and cancers and genetic disorders. Not to mentions the necessity of ending the life of another animal to eat is pretty miserable too. Both living things want to keep living but neither have sinned to warrant their own deaths.

I think you're kind of feeding into OP's assumption here, that suffering = result of sin. I'm arguing that isn't the case.

What Genesis 2-3 could be referring to is that time when God started revealing Himself to creation in a direct way, at a time when it was deemed humans were ready to respond. A fascinating part of the book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton was that some parts of the story seems to indicate that the adam (literally , "the human") was given priestly tasks. Perhaps it was the role of these first pair to start dishing out information on God, and people would come to Eden to meet with God. Certainly we get that impression from the rest of the Bible: that God isn't content with only a few knowing about Him, but that the whole world should come to worship (and of course, this kind of finds its climax in Christ, in the story of the Bible).

> Advice recall, In Genesis it implies God doesn't want them to live forever if they know the secrets of the world. So are you saying had they not eaten the first fruit they would have lived forever?

I would rather say, if they continued eating the second fruit. But eating the first fruit (from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) disqualified them from access to the second.

Now whatever that first tree represented is still up in the air. There's a number of good guesses. My personal favourite is that it's an idiom for "wisdom without reference to God". Kind of like how we might say "we searched high and low". We don't mean there's only two places we looked - it's everything inbetween. So too this first tree might be a metaphor for living without God, and instituting moral decisions without God's authority. It was, in effect, a mutiny.

u/ggchappell · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Interesting looking book. Here's a U.S. Amazon link, for all you 'muricans out there.

u/stebrepar · 2 pointsr/TrueChristian

I've heard good things about this book, which may help.

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043

u/jmikola · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Regarding your second question, some would argue (rightly, I believe) that a literal interpretation requires analyzing the text as it would have been understood for its contemporary audience. This requires translating culture along with the obvious language translation. The ancient cultures (not just Jews, but Akkadians, Sumerians, Egyptians, etc.) were much more concerned with existence/creation from a functional perspective (something exists because it has purpose), in contrast to modern thoughts that they deal with the material nature.

I'm presently reading The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton, and would definitely recommend getting your hands on it if this topic interests you. While you can take this with a grain of salt, Walton doesn't appear be using an escapist argument to avoid disagreement between other "literal" (e.g. 6,000 year old earth) interpretations of Genesis and modern science. He makes a compelling case for his form of literal interpretation, and the Christian/genome-scientist Francis Collins has come out in support of it.

u/feminaprovita · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Do you want modern personalities, too? Because I found Jennifer Fulwiler's Something Other Than God to be quite nice, and even Scott and Kimberly Hahn's Rome Sweet Home was pretty good.

These are the only Catholic memoirs by living persons I've read (not typically my genre), but each was enjoyable in its own way. (If you're only picking one, I vote Fulwiler.)

My prayers for your search! Enjoy the reading. :)

EDIT: Duh! GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy is not exactly a conversion story, but it kind of is, and it's pretty great, too.

u/xruroken · 2 pointsr/CatholicBookClub

Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn.

u/redmonkey19 · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

You're welcome, I'm glad I could be of help! Same here, books and reading are extremely important to me, and have been a huge influence in my life. Also, if I can make another recommendation, I haven't read it, but I've heard good things about Rome Sweet Home. It might be worth reading as you explore Catholicism.

Also, if you have any questions about Catholicism or Christianity, you're more than welcome to ask them on this subreddit. God bless! :)

Edit:formatting

u/StatCrux · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism by former protestants Scott Hahn and Kimberly Hahn.

u/soylantgr33n · 2 pointsr/trees

https://www.erowid.org/

Should have anything you need, not exactly sure what you mean by "cool facts or figures"?

Also might want to check out Food of the Gods by Terence McKenna for some insight about the history of most psychoactive plants.
Hope that helps.

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Gods-Original-Knowledge-Evolution/dp/0553371304

PS: Sacred Mushroom and the Cross is also worth checking out.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276

u/Aquareon · 2 pointsr/Drugs

You could've just told me to read this. No need though, I'm aware. Your views and mine are very much aligned on this matter. Although I think Jesus was a real person, as I know of very few end of the world cults that were started by nobody.

u/ravage037 · 2 pointsr/Drugs

Many people think the forbidden fruit is the Amanita muscaria, Id suggest reading the book [The sacred mushroom and the cross] ( https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-fertility/dp/0982556276) by John M. Allegro if you find it interesting he spent 14 years of his life deciphering one the dead sea scrolls and went on to write this book. Oh and heres a pic of [the tree of knowledge] (https://www.google.ca/search?q=the+plaincourault+fresco&rlz=1C1GIWA_enCA680CA680&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF6cm4g-_aAhUGiIMKHd4eBgwQ_AUICigB&biw=1542&bih=954#imgrc=QwQPllz5Pw0uZM:) from 12th century France you tell me what it looks like

u/bark_wahlberg · 2 pointsr/Psychonaut

I haven't read this book yet but I've hear about it on the Joe Rogan Experience:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0982556276

u/IRedditbe4 · 2 pointsr/Christianity

We all have doubts. It's part of being human and being a Christian. As you mentioned you are still looking for truth and are open to the idea of theism. I would just recommend a few books for reading that are great intellectual reading about the subject. That being: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
as well as anything by CS Lewis notably [Mere Christianity] (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425281260&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity+cs+lewis) and Screwtape Letters.

All the best in finding truth friend, and although you may doubt Him (even as Apostles, greatest evangelists, martyrs, missionaries also did) I would not advise ruling out Christ just yet.

u/upcboy · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

I highly Suggest The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey

u/philziegs · 2 pointsr/PersonalFinanceCanada

it all depends on the bank and individual, every bank has both good and bad financial planners, unfortunately the only way to find out is trial and error.....FP's quite often also wont take customers that dont have investment money, their main purpose in the banks is to deal with higher dollar value clients and help them come up with a plan for retirement and other major life events like kids college, starting a business, purchasing a vacation home etc....they are supposed to look at your entire financial situation and help you develop your financial strategy as it were.....typically every financial planner I have ever known in the bank (myself included) didnt work with beating debt for clients....reguar financial advisor (account manager or whatever they are called at your FI) should be able to do this for you, unfortunately the quality of a lot of them is even worse than the FPs.....if you want to try a financial officer go ask the receptionist to book an appointment, try to find who is booking the furthest in advance because they are most likely going to be the most experienced/longest tenured officer there and going to know more (assuming they are willing to help)......

 

I would highly highly recommend you check you a guy named Dave Ramsey he is one of the best resources I have ever seen and he lives for helping people get out of debt and build wealth the smart way....he is pretty extreme in some of his strategies but they do work! and if you dont want to follow exactly to the letter it just takes a little longer (eg. he says no going out to eat until you are outta debt, but my wife and I did while we were climbing out, we just made sure we budgeted for it elsewhere and it just made it a little longer getting out, but not by much if you stick to the budget)

 

This is the link for one of his best selling books, the link is amazon but you can get an e-version as well, its cheap and pretty entertaining and a great read cuz it walks you through the "baby steps" of getting out of debt and building wealth....he also does a daily radio show/podcast that is excellent to listen to and its free!

<https://www.amazon.ca/Total-Money-Makeover-Classic-Financial/dp/1595555277/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469806019&sr=8-1&keywords=the+total+money+makeover>

this is the hardcover and its only 20 bucks, i think the softcover is a little less...they carry his books in chapters and any major bookstore

u/completedumpsterfire · 2 pointsr/gis

You have a job and you haven't been there that long. Keep at it another year and it may or may not lead to another position at that same company. In the meantime, here is how you make sure that one year from now you can land any entry-level GIS job you want:

  1. Read this book, then start attacking your student loan with the power of 1000 suns.
  2. Keep working on SQL and python as well as HTML/CSS/JS as much as possible.
  3. Keep yourself unmarried, unpregnant, undogowning, and generally as responsibility-free as possible.
  4. Keep an eye on https://gisjobsmap.com/us and see what sorts of jobs pop up around the country while thinking about possible relocations, more than just Texas.
  5. Keep your chin up, if you put in the effort it definitely gets better!
u/Artheon · 2 pointsr/personalfinance

I'm confused, because you say rent is $850 but he lives with you so really your rent is only $425 out of your $1400 take-home... which isn't as bad as I thought since your rent and utilities is 1/2 your income instead of 90%.


r/YNAB will help regarding using YNAB.


Nick True's YNAB tutorial:
https://youtu.be/xPVEB759gkU


Dave Ramseys YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DaveRamseyShow

Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1595555277/ref=mw_dp_olp?ie=UTF8&condition=all

u/IvyRaider · 2 pointsr/CFB

Here you go. This, and Total Money Makeover changed my life (just don't listen to Ramsey's advice on mutual funds and stick with indexing per Bogle). Also, use YNAB to budget every cent that you come across.

TLDR:

  • save $1000 cash

  • snowball your debts

  • go back and save up to 6 months of bills (some suggest 12 months in this economy)

  • max your retirement. /r/personalfinance suggests the following

    a. contribute to your 401k up until company match

    b. contribute to your Roth until max

    c. go back to your 401k until you hit the limit

    d. now you can play with individual stocks

  • pay cash for everything. If you can't afford it, save.
u/auryn0151 · 2 pointsr/changemyview

> Does this take into account history, if not, why? Furthermore, can you prove this to be true, if so I'd love a study.

You can actually show the opposite to what OP says is true

u/meszkinis · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

>Loads. Christians tried to destroy classical culture,

Again. Got any proof? On the contrary- countless monks worked in scriptoriums to preserve the knowledge.

>Muslims translated Aristotle and we got it from them.

It's true that the monks also took arabic translations of classic texts and translated them to latin and some of the ancient works reached us via muslims.

>Christians were murdning and tortuirng people for anthing resembeling science

Care to provide some proof perhaps?

>We got the basis for maths and science from them. You can see the geometric designes in their old archecture.

You mean there was no math or geometry in ancient Greece or Rome? If you're talking about our current numerical system then I'm sorry to inform you- it is actually Indian, no Arab.

>https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/28/the-darkening-age-the-christian-destruction-of-the-classical-world-by-catherine-nixey

And who is this Catherine Nixey that I should care to waste my time reading her book? Sorry, but I'd rather trust a real historiam historian Thomas Woods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods ( https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280 )

​

All that being said: The OP is talking specifically about Scientific Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), not math, geometry or philosophy. And the scientific method was only developed in 17th century - a few hundred years after an Islamic Golden Age.

u/amdgph · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Alright here are some of the best resources I know as a Catholic. Hope they help!

Edward Feser's blog as well as his The Last Superstition and 5 Proofs of the Existence of God

Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

Francis Collin's The Language of God

Anthony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Thomas Wood's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Brant Pitre's The Case For Jesus

Tim O Neill on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair

Jenny Hawkins on Jesus and God, early Christianity and form criticism

Al Moritz on the Fine Tuning Argument

>There is a reason someone should believe in the supernatural and mystical aspects of Christianity. This is a large issue for me. Solely based on supernatural and mystical ideas, from an outsider perspective, Christianity is no different than animism or Buddhism. I can't have faith alone.

Well when you look at the world's religions, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles/mystical department. Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and the spiritual gifts and religious experiences of countless Christian saints -- men and women of great virtue whose admirable character only add to the credibility of their testimony. Examples of these include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi, Faustina Kowalska and Padre Pio. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. I'll also throw in Catholic exorcisms.

And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today.

What do Buddhism and animism have in comparison?

>Anything that discusses and argues against some common tropes from atheists such as Mother Teresa being a vile, sadistic person.

Honestly, I'm quite stunned at the portrait atheists have painted of her. At worst, she wasn't perfect and made mistakes. She cannot be a vile monster like Hitchens claims she was, that's ridiculous. Here are some articles that defend Mother Teresa -- here, here, here and here.

Check out any of Mother Teresa's personal writings (e.g. No Greater Love, A Simple Path, Come Be Thy Light) to see what she believed in, what she valued and how she saw the world. Check out books written by people who actually knew her such as that of Malcolm Muggeridge, an agnostic BBC reporter who ended up converting to Catholicism because of Teresa and ended up becoming a lifelong friend of hers. Or that of her priest, friend and confessor, Leo Maasburg, who was able to recall 50 inspiring stories of Mother Teresa. Or that of Conroy, a person who actually worked with her. Or any biography of hers. Find out what she was like according to the people around her. Then afterwards, determine for yourself if she resembles Hitchen's "monster" or the Catholic Church's "saint".

u/Anen-o-me · 2 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

> Catholicism has done society a lot of harm.

And even more good.

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9htVDONoFBg

Not a Catholic myself but the monks contributions to keeping society going during the middle ages are nothing short of legendary. Europe likely wouldn't exist anything like present day, the entire modern world might not even exist.

u/JustSomeSmallQs · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

>Unlike your anthropomorphic sky creature.

Straw man, straw man, swimming through the ocean, causing a commotion, because it’s so fallacious...We don’t believe in a dude with a beard in the sky. You realize those depictions are just for ease of viewing, right? Otherwise we would literally not be able to depict the moment of creation, which would make for very unentertaining images.

>And some non spatial/temporal-ether (for lack of a better descriptive term) is an entirely possible, even likely explanation of observable facts.

Mmmmmhmmmm. It’s weird that you guys are all “hurr durr magic sky fairy,” and in order to keep any semblance of self-consistent philosophy you have to resort to untestable universes that spontaneously generated out of nothing. You literally read more like a caricature of Christian beliefs than I do. “It just happened! It popped out of space juice!”

Which one of us is high, again?

Also, note that God is also a perfectly consistent explanation. But sure, magic sky multiverses. Whatever.

>Please read ACTUAL theories and research.

Did you read the research behind the book you linked? I too read pop science. I’m reading an ancient Brian Greene book called Fabric of the Cosmos right now. I would encourage you to look up the critical reviews for the book you linked, as well. Here’s one I found (admittedly on Wikipedia), that I thought was interesting:

>Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."

Weird.

>Sorry I won't read your bronze age myths anymore than I have.

Okay? We’ll see who’s right when we die, I guess.

>Equivocate if you wish.

Thank you for your generosity.

>Religion gave us sacrificial goats.

Science gave us Hiroshima and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, but I’m not railing at science, am I?

>Science (an actual, demonstrable understanding of reality) gave us engines, planes, computers...

Catholicism gave us the university system, Western civilization, the Big Bang Theory, tons of advances in modern medicine, a modern legal system, and, what do you know, according to this, modern science. Weird, huh?

>Probability is temporal, so even the most unlikely things are bound to happen in a multiverse, btw...

Who are you to decide how probability does or does not apply in a multiverse that you don’t even know exists?

>if you'll leave me to take advantage of the life I actually know I'll get.

Yes, please, continue leading your meaningful life trolling Catholic forums.

u/mawkishdave · 2 pointsr/atheism

Look at the reviews

u/burnerzero · 2 pointsr/atheism

tell them you looked deep into the bible and decided to follow this book for its authentic representation of biblical child-rearing

u/Anon_is_a_Meme · 2 pointsr/politics

I'm guessing Judge Adams owns this book.

u/dr_jan_itor · 2 pointsr/atheism

FUCKED UP BASTARDS.

and you know who else is a FUCKED UP BASTARD? this guy.

u/manureddit · 2 pointsr/JusticePorn

It appears they followed the educational advice of Michael and Debi Pearl

Link to their book "To Train Up a Child"

u/remembertosmilebot · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!

Here are your smile-ified links:

https://smile.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1

---

^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot

u/thephotoman · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I am a consensus reader across text traditions. Therefore, one Bible doesn't cut it for me.

  • My own Church publishes the Orthodox Study Bible ($50), but Amazon has it for cheaper. What's unique about it is that it is a mostly Septuagint translation. The psalms follow our numbering instead of Vulgate numbering (and you get Psalm 151).
  • I would recommend a more purely Vulgate translation--New Jerusalem ($30, typically available from Catholic bookstores, as it is their translation) is actually pretty solid in that regard.
  • And then, I'd recommend something out of the Masoretic Text tradition: This one, specifically. While I have problems with the NRSV (and its psalter in particular), this particular publication of it is quite fair. The price has come down since I bought my copy, too.
  • Get yourself a King James (not NKJV, just KJV) for the purposes of literary study. There are places that distribute them for free. Ask at church. (This is perhaps the best Bible for your phone or e-reader: it can be had in digital format for less than $1.)
  • A paraphrase can be helpful when you need a fresh look at the Scriptures, or if you're new to them. My mom really liked The Message (depending on the publication, it runs in the $15-$30 range) as a paraphrase, but I'll be frank: I've not used paraphrases for my own purposes. I tend to be good with written languages.

    If you're really apathetic about which version you get, as long as you get a Bible, ask at church. They will have Bibles for the asking.

    No, there are no referrer tags in my Amazon links. I do not do that.
u/rommelsjackson · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

I like this one and this one and find that comparing the footnotes in the two as well as the differences between the text makes for a pretty enjoyable experience.

u/Uncanevale · 2 pointsr/atheism

Read the OT, along with some history of the region before starting the NT.

A couple of good source books are "The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel" and "Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times" They cover the back story of the bible so you can understand the context better. Don't know if either are available for free though.

u/OnceAndFutureMustang · 2 pointsr/Christianity

The only Bible to have all the books Orthodox Christians generally consider Scripture is the Orthodox Study Bible, unless you're Georgian Orthodox, in which case it is missing 4 Maccabees.

But the Prayer of Manasseh isn't a separate book in Orthodox Bibles - it's appended right at the end of 2 Chronicles (after chapter 36).

Here's what I find ironic: there is no Georgian Orthodox Church in Georgia (state), not even in Atlanta. Wrong Georgia I know but it's weird to say "There's no Georgian Church in Georgia."

u/JavidanOfTheWest · 2 pointsr/OrthodoxChristianity

> The OSB's Old Testament is either based on the NKJV text with corrections from the Septuagint or a fresh translation from the Septuagint, depending on who you ask or perhaps on which book.

Every septuagint I've seen uses the combination of 167, 969, 188, 600, and I'm actually looking for a Septuagint that has an other combination. Many Biblical names translate to something that defines their life. Methuselah translates to the idea that the flood will come when he dies. In the Masoretic Text, Methuselah dies the exact year of the flood. The problem with the numbers of every Septuagint I've come across so far is that Methuselah doesn't just not die in the year of the flood, but he actually lives 14 years past the flood even though he wasn't on the Ark and should have drowned, which makes me believe that it was a translation error or a sign of from God that the septuagint has been corrupted.

> The numbers there are: 187, 969, 188, 600.

> I suspect they might have missed updating the first one (187), as the Septuagint says 167.

I've never seen the combination of numbers that you mentioned, and that makes me very curious. I don't think they missed it if that is true, because it means that Methuselah dies 6 years before the flood instead of surviving it. I read that the Eastern Bibles rely on different manuscripts than the West; that was the reason I started this discussion.

Is this the Orthodox Study Bible that you use?

u/holaguapisimos · 2 pointsr/NoFapChristians

Orthodox Study bible includes teachings from the church father's in the footnotes and explains the significance behind many biblical events (in particular does a great job of explaining and connecting OT and NT) .
Also has exactly what your looking for before each book explains author and context of the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495418923&sr=8-1&keywords=orthodox+study+bible

u/john_lollard · 2 pointsr/Christianity

>For those of you who have looked in to biblical historicity, on any level,

I guess this technically qualifies me?

>how do you reconcile potential errors and inconsistencies

Such as?

>as well as the concepts that stories of YHWH and Jesus could have been co-opted from other faiths

By asking for primary source evidence for these claims.

>Are there any books or websites you could recommend?

Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by Kenneth Bailey

Evidence for Christianity by John McDowell

The King Jams Only Controversy by James White (this is actually a book about textual criticism and manuscript transmission).

Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses by Richard Baukham.

The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Mike Licona.

This book series by NT Wright.

u/chan_showa · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

There is one Anglican scholar who is well-versed in biblical historical studies: Richard Bauckham.

He has one book which challenges the consensus of the academia that the gospels are a redaction based on witnesses only in a derivative way.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

This is not just a popular book. This is an academic book, targeted not only towards the populace but the academia as well.

u/TheIceCreamPirate · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

>Wikipedia does not seem to agree with your authoritative stance on these issues.

When wikipedia becomes the goto for scholarship, let me know.

>Why wouldn't you mention this evidence, or give the sources about it?

Because the evidence is in entire books that you have to read through in order to understand it. Look into the authorship of the gospels and the research that various scholars have done... a lot of it is available online, I am sure, but I am not interested in doing the research for you. There are all sorts of things in the gospels that raise huge red flags as to who actually wrote them, like geographical errors, the fact that Jesus and his disciples spoke aramaic and not greek, errors in jewish custom, etc.

>Many first hand accounts are not written in the first person, and many first hand account include parts that the author was not present, but was informed about later. You are jumping to conclusion in the extreme.

I'm jumping to conclusions? You have a piece of writing that is completely anonymous. It doesn't claim to be an eye witness account. It has numerous scenes that could not have been witnessed by anyone, and numerous other scenes that when considered together make it obvious that no one person could have been the source. That doesn't even take into account the other research I am talking about. Even based on just this, the most obvious conclusion is that it was not written by an eye witness. There is literally no evidence that points to that conclusion. Yet you say I am the one jumping to conclusions? Right.

>A few, but one of the main reasons many weren't added, was because they doubted the authorship. It's good to know that they were vetting out the letters for authenticity, even in the very early church, wasn't it?

Actually there were dozens. And the way they determined if something was authentic was basically whether the writings matched their current beliefs or not. For example, at the council of Nicea, any gospels that portrayed Jesus as being more divine than human were left out. It wasn't about determining which document had the most credibility. They didn't have forensic investigatory methods to determine that stuff. It was almost exclusively about whether the document was heretic or not. The only reason that the gospels even have the names they do is because Papias gave them those names to make them more credible (things were seen as more credible if they had an apostle's name on it... such was the state of their credibility checks). The claim at that time was that Mark was a follower of Peter, not Jesus, and that he was not an eyewitness. Iraneus was the first to suggest that more than one gospel should be followed... before him, it would have been very unusual to follow the teachings of more than one.

>To say that the apostle John did not write John, simply because it was not written in the first person, and he probably didn't see absolutely everything he wrote about personally, is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, but we know with almost absolute certainty that none of the disciples wrote John. The vast majority of modern scholars believe (and teach in schools all across the world) that John was written later having been passed orally to different communities.

Here is a book by Christian scholar Richard Bauckham that tries to make the case that the gospels are based on eye witness testimony.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1295405950&sr=8-3

In fact, he only asserts that a single one of the Gospels was written direct by an eyewitness: the Gospel of John. However, he does not think he was a disciple, but instead just an unnamed follower. Credibility kind of goes out the window when you've narrowed it down to "an unnamed follower." As I said, he doesn't actually argue that the other three gospels are based on first or even second hand eye witness testimony, and he admits that most scholars won't agree with his view on John.

I can assure you that this is taught in seminaries around the world, and is accepted by scholars all over the world, christian or not.

u/everestmntntop · 2 pointsr/de

Nein das habe ich nicht geschrieben. Mir gefällt die Idee aber gut und ich kann nur jedem empfehlen dem historischen Gehalt der entsprechenden Quellen mal gründlich auf den Zahn zu fühlen und sich nicht allein von populären, auf den ersten Blick überzeugenden Meinungen leiten zu lassen (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

u/TektonMinistries · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

Brant is outstanding. I was able to take his class one summer when he was just a young professor visiting Notre Dame (Indiana). One of the books we used in his class was "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham. Another outstanding book on this topic.

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906

u/adamshell · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

It's interesting to me because when I talk to people and how they come to their faith, it's all kinds of different stuff that actually ends up being the "straw that breaks the camels back." Why don't I tell you what convinces me and then give you some recommendations in various directions.

Now, I was raised a Christian. That's important because I'm not sure that I would be a Christian now if I wasn't raised as one. I make that admission not because I think it's a weakness to my case, but because I want you to understand that I understand the difficulty in believing something like this seemingly ridiculous story.

Many of my friends, very few of whom are Christians, actually call me the "most open-minded person" they know or at least one of the most. One of my best friends (an agnostic Jewish girl) says that I would make a terrific atheist if it weren't for that whole "believing in God thing."

Though I have always identified as a Christian, I did go through a time when I decided to weigh the evidence.

I'll consider any evidence and look for its flaws. I like science, but I don't like the double standard that exists between science and faith. In the opinion of many atheists, if ANYTHING appears to be incompatible with their perception of faith, it's automatically proved incorrect and any effort of a person of faith to answer why it may not be incompatible is met with deaf ears. Conversely, if ANYTHING appears to be incompatible with science, that's "fascinating!" or "interesting!" or "a great opportunity to arrive at a greater truth."

With that being said, I think there are quite a few things that we (as a society) take for granted that may or may not be true. For example, we all believe that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. But the reason we arrived at that conclusion was not because it was the only possible answer, but because it was the simplest answer. (By the way, I believe that the earth revolves around the sun, this is just an example). Another example is gravity. It behaves so steadily that we even label it with a gravitational constant. But we know it does funky things at the quantum level and at the cosmological level (like near the event horizon of a black hole). We have no idea why.

This thinking brought me to the realization that I might not understand nearly as much as I thought I did. It felt lacking and EVERYTHING felt like faith at that time. Because of that, I decided that I would look for internal consistencies or inconsistencies in the Bible. The one that really stood out to me was Noah's flood. I had always heard that there was varying evidence for or against a global flood, but the vast majority of the arguments didn't seem to be asking the right questions. IF there WAS a global flood, it would certainly be an unprecedented event-- something that we had never observed in our time... so how would we know what to look for? The Bible itself records that water came up out of the earth-- that's not indicative of most floods.

But even that wasn't the most interesting part of that story to me. The Bible is actually a very valuable historical resource. Archaeologists rely on many of its dates and locations to find out more about sites in the middle east. That's why the flood account is so fascinating to me. No one believes that the flood account was written down for HUNDREDS of years after it is supposed to have happened. Yet, according to that account people before the flood were living for hundreds of years (up to 969). Then, for seemingly no reason, the author of the account picks the flood as the dividing point where lives are considerably shortened. I have yet to hear a good explanation for why someone over 1000 years later, yet still over 3000 years ago, would randomly decide to put that kind of change in there. Because of that, I thought, "Hm, maybe the earth drastically changed at that point." I can't prove that, just so you know. It's just an interesting thought that I had.

Now, beyond all that, I look at the historical record of the gospels and the few hundred years of church tradition immediately after that. The thing that always stands out to me there is that, regardless of the evidence of Jesus' resurrection, we do have pretty reliable reasons to believe that prominent apostles chose to die rather than go back on their claims that Christ raised from the dead. I just couldn't wrap my head around why 12 prominent guys, plus Paul, would choose to die for something they would have known to be a lie. I could understand people today who died for blind faith, but this isn't blind faith. It's not cultish (doesn't fit the psychology). It doesn't appear to be hallucinatory (doesn't fit the current medical understanding). The only thing that I could think is that it was either an incredibly elaborate lie that hundreds of people were willing to die for, or it was the truth.

When you take that into consideration with the actual gospel accounts of the resurrection, things get really interesting. I think a lot of people read those accounts (or, trust people who have read them) without considering that they may have actually happened exactly as recorded. They're certainly not written as ridiculous accounts of mad men. They don't protect the reputations of those surrounding the events. If the gospels claimed Jesus had made a roast beef sandwich rather than resurrecting, I'd bet that most people would arrive at the conclusion that they actually happened.

That's just a few reasons in addition to the ideas that resurrection was not exactly smiled upon in that culture, that the church had to survive persecution from the very beginning that the odds of Christianity actually taking hold was so unlikely it might as well have been impossible, etc. etc. As I said, none of these thoughts are exactly original.

Now as to why you should believe, I don't know what it would take to convince you. If you're wondering why I believe in Christianity over a multitude of religions, it's actually extremely original (yes, even in light of the Horus myth). No other surviving system says, "Humanity is despicable, wicked, and evil. There is literally nothing you can do to save yourselves." Yet Christianity is viewed primarily as a religion of hope and redemption. And it has convinced millions of people.

As for your comment about "superstitious goat herders" the book I like best to explain that these guys and their accounts are actually a lot more reliable than they seem is Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. It's not perfect, but it's very very thought provoking and fairly readable.

As I alluded to a number of times, I think most people tend to just treat the stories in the Bible as "impossible" without actually reading them and considering them. To a point, I don't blame them. It does seem unbelievable. But some really rational and reasonable people have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that it might not be as totally crazy as they once thought. Will it convince you? I don't know, I pray that it would, but ultimately that's up to you. If there's ever any question you have, I encourage you to come to me with it. I do this kind of thing a lot, speaking of which, here's another conversation I had with some other people on this subreddit. That conversation even caused /u/superwinner, a pretty frequent regular on this part of the site (this very thread, no less), to say, "Thats it, I'm friending the shit out of you." That's pretty much my crowning achievement on this subreddit.

I have much compassion for other members of this human race regardless of religious stance, and the same goes for you. I'm quite pleased that you seem willing to at least engage me on this issue and I thank you for doing it so honestly and respectfully. I hope that you find my response at least considerate and worth YOUR consideration. One final thought though-- it's not going to be ME or anything I say that convinces you one way or another. It'll be your own decision, perhaps in tandem with God, perhaps not (depending on what you choose). Either way, feel free to always consider me as a resource, even if you don't end up believing and you just want to understand why a Christian might believe something-- like why they choose one God over all the others. Good question, OP.

u/cyprinidae · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

I suggest you have a look at the book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. There might be a little more evidence of the Resurrection than previously thought.

u/skyflashings · 2 pointsr/Reformed

Nice! Just picked up another on my wish list, Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

u/Athegnostistian · 2 pointsr/atheism

A brief search on Amazon brought up these:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=pd_cp_b_2

What do you think?

And I must say, I like your approach: First teach him critical thinking, and then, if necessary, point out to him that religion is one of the fields where he should apply the rules of scepticism. If he's not too deluded (which I'd expect since he wasn't indoctrinated as a child), he will probably come to the only reasonable conclusion.

u/LadyAtheist · 2 pointsr/atheism

Bart Ehrman's books & videos are a great start for the accuracy of the Bible. He is very clear especially considering he's an academic. Forged would be the best one specifically about the accuracy of the Bible. His books are linked at his website: http://www.bartdehrman.com/books.htm

There are no historical documents of Jesus' life, only a few references to Christians from later documents. Nobody disputes that people believed in Jesus, so those don't really prove anything. It's clear that people believed in Thor and Zeus too. That doesn't mean a thing.

Whether faith is helpful or good, can't help you there. I think it's totally useless except to control sociopaths with low IQs.

For morality, check out Good without God: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Without-God-Billion-Nonreligious/dp/006167012X

or Sam Harris The Moral Landscape: http://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape

Science vs religion: that's kind of apples & oranges despite what believers keep saying. Science is a method of investigating hunches. Religion is subservience to an unproven deity.

How about the science of religion? Try Michael Shermer: The Science of Good and Evil: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805077693/ or The Believing Brain: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1250008808/ or Why We Believe Weird Things: http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/

Thanks for visiting. An unexamined belief system is not worth believing!

u/DerInselaffe · 2 pointsr/flatearth

Maybe this one …?

u/utahgimp · 2 pointsr/atheism
u/fauxromanou · 2 pointsr/skeptic

His book (Link to Amazon) by the same name is really good.

u/awkward_armadillo · 2 pointsr/atheism

A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:

​

u/Fuzzy_Thoughts · 2 pointsr/mormon

The book list just keeps growing in so many different directions that it's hard to identify which I want to tackle next (I also have a tendency to take meticulous notes while I read and that slows the process down even further!). Some of the topics I intend to read about once I'm done with the books mentioned:

u/Bruce_Lilly · 2 pointsr/atheism

Did you know that the sidebar contains a link to recommended reading? https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/recommended/reading There are a couple of good Bertrand Russell books listed there, though the titles are a bit obvious. Nevertheless, they're easy to read (Russell was the recipient of the 1950 Nobel Prize for Literature).

​

You didn't state anything about creationism vs. evolution; Nathan Lents' Human Errors pretty much demolishes any idea about so-called "intelligent design". Adam Rutherford's A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived is another one. Both are available via Amazon Prime Reading.

​

As far as MAGA, etc., there are the classic "George Orwell" (pseudonym for Eric Arthur Blair) books 1984 and Animal Farm. A combined volume is also available on Amazon Prime Reading.

​

A. C. Grayling has a number of books: some with obvious titles, some not so obvious.

​

You can also find a plethora of books on critical thinking, which isn't directly related to religion or politics, but which can lead people away from blind allegiance to religious dogma and political rhetoric. A good easy-to-read classic is Schick and Vaughn's How to Think About Weird Things, but it can be pricey unless you can find a used edition or older edition in good condition. [And you could underline passages and annotate them with the word THINK :-)] A similar sounding, less expensive but lighter-on-principles book is Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things.

​

Addendum:

>Google is of no help, it mostly suggests pro-Christian books (and the big names like Harris/Dawkins/Nietzsche).

You need to train Google: start with https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=critical+thinking and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=debunking+christianity (Andrew Seidel's The Founding Myth should show up there) and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=humanism. Follow lots of relevant links, and after a while Goggle will start showing more relevant suggestions.

u/Bcteagirl · 2 pointsr/conspiratard

Why People Believe Weird Things is up next on my reading list.

"Why People Believe Weird Things" debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing."


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-People-Believe-Weird-Things/dp/0805070893

u/swight74 · 2 pointsr/funny

Humans have a talent for self deception. Yeah, there are a lot of phonies out there who want to make money. But the only reason they get any attention are the regular joes who believe or are open to the idea (almost believe) in the subject.

I know way too many people that honestly believe in ghosts, astrology, and UFOs, that are hilariously deluded. They think they are keeping an open mind. I think their mind is so open it fell on the ground.

Edit: There's a great book ["Why People Believe Weird Things"](http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342445382&sr=8-
1&keywords=why+people+believe+weird+things)

You should check it out.

u/rhomphaia · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

Depends on what you mean by "literal." I'm partial to John Walton's approach. He argues that Genesis one is describing the assigning of functions in the temple opening ceremony of the cosmos, NOT the material creation of the universe. If that is so, and with the insights pointed out by mynuname regarding the logic behind the structure of the assignments, there is no scientific problem. This reading is "literal," but it is with an awareness of the historical context in which Genesis was written. For more on this see: http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-World-Genesis-One/dp/0830837043

u/imnotverycr8ive · 2 pointsr/atheism

I'm not here to support Christianity, but I would rather there be more Christians supporting science education in our schools and with their families. You can point out that there are many Christians that have found ways to reconcile their faith with science. Try redirecting him to the BioLogos Foundation or this book where the Christian author argues that Genesis isn't intended to provide a historical creation account.

Christians feel safer learning from other Christians. This might get him to open up his mind a little bit.

u/xaogypsie · 2 pointsr/IAmA

A lot of this comes from a fairly accessible book called "The Lost World of Genesis 1" by John Walton. You can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314164889&sr=8-1

It's a great read.

u/otakuman · 2 pointsr/AskHistorians

Argh! I came too late for this!

Anyway, the reason for worshipping other gods so frequently is that the Israelites really never believed in only one God, until the exile in Babylon.

Rather, it was the OTHER way around: In brief periods of time before the exile, the Israelites (or should I say Judahites?) were forbidden from worshipping various gods - or even worshipping Yahweh outside the "official way" - due to the religious reforms of Hezekiah (around 715 BCE) and later, Josiah (around 622 BCE).

Archaeologist William G. Dever explains in his book "Did God have a wife?" how evidence of polytheistic cult have been found in various Iron Age sites, e.g. statues of Asherah, 8th century BCE pieces of pottery with written texts saying "Yahweh and his Asherah", the one from Kuntillet Ajrud being the most famous.

Your interpretation of Israel falling in sin over and over because they were "very stubborn" is the consequence of a clever retcon done by the writers of Deuteronomy and the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings. In other words, they rewrote the past. You can notice this when you read the second book of Kings, the parts where some king "did do what was wrong in the Eyes of the Lord" simply meant "allowed worship of other gods". With a little wit, you'll understand that these passages were written by a prophet of Yahweh and obviously had a bias to them.

If you wish to know a more detailed account on how Israel went monotheistic, you can read "The Early History of God" by Mark S. Smith (warning: Very difficult read), where he details how the various gods of Canaan merged and differentiated until Yahweh became the dominant deity.

EDIT: For example, the passages where Yahweh is depicted as standing on a cloud are adaptations (perhaps we should say plagiarisms) of Baal as "rider of clouds". Take a look at Psalm 29, where the imagery to describe God is of storms and thunder. Canaanite Baal was always known as the god of storms. And God speaking on the top of a mountain also parallels with Baal.

u/jeremy3am · 2 pointsr/IAmA
u/Juanitoelgringo · 2 pointsr/MorbidReality

These guys may have Utah's polygamist child molesters beat out for the title of World's Sickest.

This book has more info on our perverts.

u/Smileylol · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

If you're interested check out Under the Banner of Heaven

It's a book about religious extremism (and Mormonism specifically) and does a fantastic job opening a window into the minds of these people. It's not as much about the average mormon but does go into your question quite a bit.

u/DontHalfACow · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Have you read Under the Banner of Heaven?

It's a great read, but it feels like he sensationalizes some stories about the church as well as puts forward a generally negative portrayal of the Mormonism in general. Then again, from some of the history he presents the criticism feels merited. I'd be curious what your thoughts were on it from an LDS perspective.

u/gblancag · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

I'm not a huge non-fiction reader but I really loved Under the Banner of Heaven and Freakonomics

u/RL_Quincy · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

Christopher Hitchens put her on blast a while ago in his book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

u/meltingdiamond · 2 pointsr/DecidingToBeBetter

This book and if you google the title you can find shorter essays that cover the salient points. Mother Teresa was a cunt.

u/shelaconic · 2 pointsr/atheism

Mother Teresa wasn't so great The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice https://www.amazon.com/dp/1455523003/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_I3YvDbPT1R5RD

u/uhlanpolski · 2 pointsr/StLouis

I think your observation is correct. I wish there was a local journalist willing to do a long-form deep investigation similar to what Hitchens did for Mother Teresa... (looking at you, RFT).

u/storm_detach · 2 pointsr/atheism

Ah, I see. No worries - you see why it sounded a bit, uh, uncool. :P

As for actually answering your question though, this thread has lots of varying levels of TL;DR in it that should work, and beyond that, there's the Wikipedia page (also linked in this thread).

If you want the exact opposite of a TL;DR, Christopher Hitchens wrote a short book called The Missionary Position (cheeky bugger) about how much he dislikes Mother Theresa.

u/shadowsweep · 2 pointsr/aznidentity

Same material in book format.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/1455523003/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-JjaAh0NeU and MT are one and the same to me.

u/mrandish · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion
u/a_c_munson · 2 pointsr/atheism

The information Mother Theresa can be corroborated by Christopher Hitchens book about her.

u/FeChaff · 2 pointsr/exchristian

Since you know about Richard Carrier I would assume you already have read some of the well known Anti-religionists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Stenger, etc. If you are talking about secular biblical scholarship and historical analysis there isn't anyone who keeps me interested as much as Carrier, but I haven't read much in that subject. Some others include Robert Price and Bart Erhman.

There are several good essay compilations by John Loftus which are more generally directed at Christianity. They include essays by Carrier and Robert Price and a number of other secular thinkers. The Christian Delusion I think is the first in that series. Hitchens's The Portable Atheist is another good collection which includes older writing aimed at all religion. Bertrand Russell is a great, too.

u/eyenot · 2 pointsr/atheism

> She's asked me to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I told her I would.

Be sure to follow it up with "The Case Against the Case for Christ".

u/NewbombTurk · 2 pointsr/agnostic

Honestly, that's a truly awful book. Even by apologetics standards. Here is a good book that takes Strobel's points chapter by chapter. Strobel, like most apologists, is speaking to an audience of believers, attempting to give them some reason to think their faith is rational.

BTW, have an upvote to cancel out the person who downvoted. I might not agree with you, but it seems you posted that in good faith.

u/Iswitt · 2 pointsr/atheism

You could try this book that is refuting this book. Although I haven't read either.

u/ascra · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Hi there! I’ll answer the ones that I feel like I can speak into. All of your questions are great, and a lot of the topics are highly debated still in the Christian community. I’ve just answered the ones that I feel confident I have some knowledge about.

1.) How do we know Christianity is true? There are literally an uncountable number of faiths and religious beliefs, so how do we know we are correct?

I’ve struggled with these kinds of doubts too, and found that there is actually a lot of evidence that the Bible is true. I would highly recommend this book, which presents Christianity in a scientific, historical, logical, philosophical, and moral light. It has way more to say on the subject than I can.

The biggest things for me, though?

  • I believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead. There are enough historical accounts for me to be satisfied by this. And if he rose from the dead, then everything that he said while he was alive is true, which means that Christianity is true. Did you know that Jesus’s life and death and resurrection are more scrupulously and heavily documented than the life and doings of the Roman emperor at the time? And yet we don’t bat an eye when someone talks about what the emperor did.
  • Jesus’s life, and many, many events in history were predicted by Scripture hundreds/thousands of years before they happened. That is proof enough for me that the Bible is true, meaning that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
  • Personal experience. This is definitely something that you should continue to ask God for. I’ve seen God work in my life in undeniable ways, that there’s nothing that could possibly convince me that he isn’t real.

    2.) How do we know what sect of Christianity is correct? They all focus on God/Jesus in one way or another, but no two are exactly alike. Due to their differences, they cannot possibly all be correct, so who is 'right' and who is 'wrong,' and on what basis?

    I believe that the “sect” that is correct is the one that follows Scriptures. That’s why it’s so important to study the Bible for yourself, and fact-check everything that any Christian author or pastor, or even friend claims. I can’t trust the claims of fellow men, but I do trust the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. I’ll align my beliefs with whoever is aligning their beliefs with the Bible.

    6.) What is ACTUAL sin? I am confused on what sin actually is...

    The Greek word for “sin” in the New Testament was originally actually an archery term. It means “missing the mark,” not hitting the bull’s eye. Likewise, our spiritual sin is missing the mark. God has a standard for us. That standard is perfection by complete obedience to his commands. Anything that “misses the mark” for this standard is a sin. For example, Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. If I don’t do this entirely, it is a sin. Thus, I’m sinning a whole lot more than I realize I am.

    That’s what makes Jesus’s sacrifice so necessary. I can’t possibly be perfect, much less be perfect all of the time. But he was, and through faith, his righteousness is counted towards us.

    7.) (related to #6) Why is sin so bad? It seems to me that sin such as masturbation/lust is not on the same level as murder. In society, lust isn't punishable by law, but murder is. In Christianity, both are considered on the same plane of wrongdoing. Can you help clear this up for me?

    There are certainly different degrees of sin. While all sin leads to death, some sins are worse than others.

    In [John 19:11], Jesus calls one sin “greater” than another. In [Luke 12:47-48], the master in a parable punishes his wicked servants differently, according to their degree of wrongdoing. [James 3:1] talks about different strictness of judgment for teachers. On the other hand, Scripture talks about different rewards for different acts of obedience and righteousness. So while all sin is bad, murder is definitely not viewed by God as the same as telling a lie.

    As for why sin is bad at all, that’s really difficult to answer. The only thing that I can think of is that God defines perfection, and falling short of that perfection (sin) separates us from God.

    8.) What is your personal 'proof' of God? I am not trying to start an 'atheism' debate here, I am just curious. I am struggling to believe SO much right now, and hearing why YOU personally believe in God would be a big help to me.

    I can share more about my own life beyond what I answered in question 1 if you are interested. Shoot me a PM if you’d like to hear more. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'd love to talk to you more about this if you want.

    There is absolutely no shame in searching for answers and looking for truth. Keep at it, friend!
u/Inyourtaco · 2 pointsr/Christians

I've had similar struggles for a while now. I would recommend you read the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Dr. Norman Geisler. It contains a collection of many of the most popular arguments for Christianity and packages them in a very comprehensible, beginner friendly way.

u/ThereAreNoMoreNames · 2 pointsr/Christianity

Hello! Your post has already gotten quite a bit of response, but I'll throw my two cents in as someone who chose to become a Christian. I'll try to keep it brief. What stood out to me was that you said you don't believe 1) That Christianity is the one true religion, 2) the bible is infallible, 3) and the Earth is less than billions of years old. Personally, I believe that all of these are false too.

3) This is the easiest. I would hope that any mildly educated Christian does not actually believe that the Earth is only as old as humanity. Christians loove science. It's great! It's the study of the world around us, the world that God created for us. So, anyone who insists that the world is only a bit over 2000 years...well...don't let them represent your view on the rest of Christianity. Here is a GREAT lecture on the book of Genesis. It tells you why we can not take it literally, and how our actual story on creation came about based on the culture of the time. (Skip about the first 20 mins, this is a college class and he's going over the syllabus)

2) The Bible is NOT infallible. It was written by men. Men who are not perfect. Most of these books were written decades after the events that transpired. Imagine you were in a crowded room and suddenly a large group of people come in there and start break dancing. Then, a year later, you are asked to write everything you remember about the occasion, as was every other person in the room. There will be incredible discrepancies based on how the experience personally affected everyone, and what things they remember. Now does this make the Bible unreliable compared to other historical texts? Well, how do you think we gathered information about other events in history? The bible is one of the most accurate and sound historical texts we have, but due to its controversial nature, people are more likely to point out faults, exaggerations, discrepancies, etc. The Bible is not perfect, especially when not read in the correct way. There is history, poetry, stories, and many other types of literature within this one book, and to take a metaphorical poem to be literal would be very misleading and incorrect.

  1. This is the one that I will probably get the most disagreements over. I do not believe that Christianity is the ONLY correct religion. I believe it is A correct way to recognize the God who created us. I believe there is only one God, and many religions that follow this multi-faceted God in different ways. What gives me conviction in Christianity is Jesus Christ. I believe there is enough reason to believe that he died and rose again, and as far as I'm aware, there are no other major religions that have as much historical backing in a figure who claimed to be the son of God, predicted his own death and return, and then actually did it. Lastly, I do not believe that it is within my power or knowledge to tell others that their religion is wrong. How in the world am I supposed to know that?? I don't. I don't have the omniscience to tell anyone that their beleifs are wrong; I just believe that mine are right.

    Two things to read that I think would really help you: Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. This is light, insightful, and inspiring reading and would definitely help you out in your current situation. I know a lot of people have suggested this to you. Do it! The second one is I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. This is heavier reading, but makes a great scientific argument as to why God is the most reasonable and rational answer to many different aspects of science.

    The last thing I want to leave you with is this: It's okay to have doubts. It's okay and completely understandable that you would have this period of disenchantment after leaving the bubble. Focus on the love of God, and use your doubts to strengthen your faith. Know there is not an answer for everything, and be okay with that. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to know as long as it doesn't tear you away from Him. Good luck, and God Bless!
u/dblthnk · 2 pointsr/atheism

The one star reviews of his book should give you some good ammunition.

However, he apparently believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. There are so many tricky questions you could ask him relating to this. Here is a good place to get started but remember, he will probably have standard rebuttals for many of these. Try looking here to anticipate his responses and trip him up. Take the cud chewing rabbits rebuttal for example. The way they reinterpret the Hebrew word for "cud" and "bring up" makes the eating of any feces fit the definition even though they try to make the soft pellets that rabbits produce the only feces that fits. The fact is, all feces contains some degree of partially digested food and more nutrients can be absorbed from it. Pigs eat feces and have a cloven hoof but are called unclean so they solve the rabbit issue but create another. Also, the Coney also mentioned in the verse in question is almost certainly the Hyrax and this animal does not chew the cud or engage in refection.

u/dweb98789 · 2 pointsr/exchristian

> What'd you find on NT?

Unfortunately, almost all that I have read has been from books that I have in person but I'll link some of them:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels - Craig L. Blomberg

The Reason for God - Timothy Keller

Making the Case for Christianity - Korey Maas, Adam Francisco

The Resurrection Fact - John Bombaro, Adam Francisco


I've also had Dr. Daniel Wallace recommended to me, although I haven't gotten to look into his work much. I know he has some videos scattered on YouTube that can be watched, here is one.

I'd also recommend anything by John Warwick Montgomery!

> Yeah, sure thing. Really, the most damning thing to me is that he only interviewed apologists; the skeptics that he mentions in the book did not have the opportunity to defend themselves there. But here are some sources that I found interesting:

Thank you!


EDIT: Formatting

u/DronedAgain · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I suggest a combination of reading:


The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

by Timothy Keller

Luke (NRSV translation)

Read both with an open mind, see what happens.

u/jrgarciafw · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I highly recommend Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. It sounds like just the thing you are looking for. I would also recommend Tim Keller's Reason for God.

u/dahackne · 2 pointsr/Christianity

I came here to mention The Reason for God.

u/chipfoxx · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

I am not discriminating against Christians by describing what the followers do. I am not denying them services, freedoms, or liberties. If I tried to do that, it would deny the liberties that I enjoy as well. There are major Christian organizations (AFA, AIG, FocusOnTheFamily, LivingWaters, Pat Robertson, etc...) that are perfect examples of what I'm describing. Yes it's obvious that not all Christians do this but I am upset by those that do because they believe it's in Yahweh's best interests.

Anthropologists and archaeologists generally believe the Israelites were once part of the Canaanites and often continued sharing culture and beliefs. There is a lot written on the subject in ancient anthropology in books that can present the findings better than me. I had assumed you already had heard about where Yahweh likely originated, just like the borrowed Sumerian & Babylonian flood and creation myths in the Bible, [Yahweh in the bible also has origins elsewhere.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33hIs38-NPE) There are resources explaining the [deities of Canaan and their origins.] (http://amzn.com/080283972X) These might be a little more advanced for armchair anthropologists, but they are informative.

u/Hraesvelg7 · 1 pointr/news
u/trwayblahblah · 1 pointr/exjw

Wikipedia yahweh has some info. This book has references to his historical info sources. : http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/080283972X?pc_redir=1411222551&robot_redir=1

u/Derbedeu · 1 pointr/atheism

>Well, have you actually read War and Peace in Russian? Then your argument just fell fell apart. The nuance in good literature can have vastly different meanings, depending on the reader.

Whether someone reads it in English or Russian, the story is the same and so are the themes. They don't change just because the language is different.

>Let’s review a few reasons why that’s ridiculous! At least 194 Jews and people of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize,1 accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2015.

How many grew up in a shtetl? How many were religious? Why don't you have any Jewish Nobel Prize winners coming out of the pale of settlement?

Religion literally has nothing to do with intelligence, unless it is to retard it. You also seem to have an obsession with race/ethnicity, two concepts that literally don't make any sense biologically. We're all homo sapiens sapiens As Richard Feynman put it, "To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory."

>Shabbat, a day of rest – origin – yes, the Jews.

?

People today get the weekend off (i.e. two days off), weekend being a British concept. Even that has been found to be insufficient though, as 50 hour work weeks are deemed to be too much by many psychologists and sociologists and lead to a decrease in productivity.

But what does that have to do with anything though? Also, where do you see a culture that hasn't had some sort of impact one way or another? All cultures do, because that's how cultures work, they're effusive.

>Washing hands to avoid disease – a practice started a long, long time ago.

The Celts practiced the same thing, using soap. Again though, what does hygiene have to do with anything? Especially as hygiene practices varied worldwide back then.

>Biblehub is a Christian site, btw.

With translations from numerous publications that are translated by numerous philologists in turn. Besides, the other two aren't and lo and behold, their translations are the same.

>And to liken Judaism to a cult? I have no problem with what you think about Scientology and the Mormons, but you have some huge problem in your cerebral connections to associate Judaism with a cult.

How is Judaism NOT a cult? It literally started off as a cult of Yahweh. Here are some books and papers you can read on the matter:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic/dp/0195167686/ref=la_B001H6IMK6_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1339523114&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Religions-Ancient-Israel-Parallactic-Approaches/dp/0826463398/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339523840&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/The-Religion-Ancient-Israel-Library/dp/066423237X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339523840&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339523372&sr=1-1

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/BBRMonotheism.pdf

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=pomona_theses

This isn't even mentioning that Judaism today exhibits many cult characteristics. There are elitist tendencies (chosen ones); proscribed and identifiable clothing; barring of intermarriages with those outside of the group; kashrut laws encouraging members to only mingle with other in-group members; an elite class charged with authority and leadership within the group (rabbis); demands of immoral actions such as genital mutilation; a closed social system that frowns upon any deviation; end-time revelation; concept of mesirah; etc.

Judaism is a cult just as every other religion is.

>Oh, by the way, don’t bother to reply, I tire of your weak,
wandering responses,

ok

u/agnosgnosia · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Maybe they weren't united politically, but that's not the only way people can have a connection. Roman Catholics in Rome answer to a different political leader than Roman Catholics in the U.S., but that doesn't mean there is no connection between those people.

Check this book out if you think there aren't any connections between them.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X

u/SpecificTale · 1 pointr/Bible

Orthodox Study Bible.

"Apocrypha" is a Greek word that means something like "hidden". Early Greek Christians never referred to these books as "apocrypha", but rather as the "deuterocanon" (2nd canon).

The original KJV contained the deuterocanon, as did even the Geneva Bible. Cambridge publishes the complete KJV (i.e. without the deuterocanon taken out). Someone else has suggested the RSV, but you need to purchase one with the "Apocrypha" (Oxford publishes one).

u/infinityball · 1 pointr/mormon

The two best things:

  1. Read the NT with an excellent commentary. My favorite is the Orthodox Study Bible, and it will give you a much more traditional perspective on NT passages.
  2. Read The Apostolic Fathers. These are the writings of the earliest Christians right after the NT: so something like 70 CE - 150 CE. These are the people who would have known the apostles. It's fascinating what Christianity looks like from their perspective. (Hint: at least to my mind, not Mormonism.) What I see is a sort of proto-Orthodoxy or proto-Catholicism. And some of the letters are just lovely. (Some are strange.)

    I"m planning to read some other history book soon, happy to update when I decide on which ones.
u/edric_o · 1 pointr/OrthodoxChristianity

There are several Orthodox English translations, although only one that covers the entire Bible - this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/

Several other (arguably better) Orthodox translations also exist, but only covering parts of the Bible - usually the New Testament. Here is a good one for example:

https://www.amazon.com/EOB-Orthodox-Testament-Patriarchal-extensive/dp/148191765X/

u/thechivster · 1 pointr/Christianity

I read both these side by side. The translations are similar and the commentaries complement each other. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Orthodox Study Bible with Ancient Christian Commentary: http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425621764&sr=8-1&keywords=orthodox+study+bible

Catholic Study Bible by Catholic Author and Apologist Scott Hahn:
http://www.amazon.com/Ignatius-Catholic-Study-Bible-Testament/dp/1586172506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425621787&sr=8-1&keywords=scott+hahn+bible

u/ThreeEyedGoat · 1 pointr/OrthodoxChristianity

Here is some information about bible versions:

(1) http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2014/08/11/7-reasons-that-reading-the-bible-tradition/

(2) http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/translations.htm

(3) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Guide_to_Bible_translations

I recently bought a new bible myself, because I was unsure which would be the best version to use. However, I don't think anyone can go wrong by reading The Orthodox Study Bible

Having grown up in the faith, throughout Sunday School and other various learning opportunities, we never talked about the Apocrypha. It wasn't until later on in life (via a college classmate that asked me about it) that I found out about it.
Giziti says some good stuff. Although I haven't finished Tobit, what I have read is quite interesting!

I also believe that some of the traditions taught in church comes from the Apocrypha. Such as: When Christ descends into Hades, he raises up Adam and all the prophets from their graves. I chatted to one of my protestant friends and they never heard of this, I think it is because it is in the Apocrypha and they do not include that in their bibles.

u/NotADialogist · 1 pointr/Bible

Start with the Orthodox Study Bible, which contains all of the canonical Old Testament books.

Get a set of Theophylact's commentaries and begin with the Gospels: first Matthew and Luke, then Mark and John. Perhaps read through Matthew and Luke several times. Actually everything we need to know for our salvation is contained in the Gospels.

u/socrates155 · 1 pointr/Christianity

Jesus established only one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. If you're serious about getting saved, I'd recommend reading [this.] (https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502329145&sr=8-1&keywords=orthodox+study+bible)

u/haploid-20 · 1 pointr/Christianity

Hap hap hello there! I am a bot and you linked to Amazon.

This comment contains 1 pricing graph(s)

____

Product 1: The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (0830837043)

Imgur pricing graph

||Amazon|3P New|Used|
|--:|:--|:--|:--|
|Cur|$16.15|$6.03|$5.79|
|Hi|$16.15|$46.32|$48.68|
|Lo|$8.22|$4.05|$1.72|
|Avg|$9.44|$7.59|$5.03|

_____

^^I'm ^^a ^^bot. ^^Please ^^PM ^^any ^^bugs

u/ITzNybble · 1 pointr/Bible

Well said, I read a book on Genesis 1 recently that went into the other early far eastern text and how they speak to creation and all the books were more focused on the functionality or purpose of the creations not the actual creation itself. I.E. They didn't seem to care how the trees were made, it was more important to know whom made them and what they purpose was for, in this sense science is helping reveal to us more the why and how.

​

link to the book just to source it. I obviously paraphrased the entire book in one sentence which does not do it justice

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0830837043

u/thescroggy · 1 pointr/Christianity

I would encourage you to read “The Lost World of Genesis One” by Walton.

it’s worth it.

u/bravereviews · 1 pointr/Christianity

You made me think of this book ... http://amzn.to/1tiQWlZ (John Walton)

u/SaladAndEggs · 1 pointr/Catholicism

I haven't been lurking here long so I don't know the subreddit's general consensus on the book (or the author), but in my opinion you should check out Rome Sweet Home. It's a quick read and really hits on a lot of the issues you will probably face.

u/crowjar · 1 pointr/Catholicism

Well, it would depend on what you feel your soul is looking for right now.

You say you're agnostic, there are books for people who want to get a sense of the existence of God, like Jacob's Ladder: Ten Steps to Truth. Peter Kreeft, the author of the book, has a handy section on his website going over various perspectives on the verification of God's existence.

There are books for people who want to get to know Catholic faith a little better before committing, like Waking Up Catholic: A Guide to Catholic Beliefs for Converts, Reverts, and Anyone Becoming Catholic.

There are books for people who want to get to know the Catholic faith more in depth, and have some hurdles to overcome, particularly from the protestant objections, like Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism, from an anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister whose battle against the faith pulled him into it.

There are people who come to the Church by reading on the lives of saints, others by reading on the history of the church and how it built western civilization, and others just by reading the news. It's not just a purely intelectual exercise, this is a spiritual quest and as such you have to give your soul what it yearns for.

u/Tirrikindir · 1 pointr/Catholicism

You might read stories from former protestants that converted to Catholicism that explain why they had a change of heart; the example that's coming to mind is Scott and Kimberly Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home. The Hahns in particular learned theology as protestants (Presbyterian), so their conversion involved an deepening exploration of theology.

Edit: another convert: Albert Little is a convert to Catholicism from an evangelical protestant background, so that's a somewhat different perspective.

u/AmericanInRome · 1 pointr/Catholicism
u/jokester4079 · 1 pointr/Reformed

I really liked it. Actually a book that was even closer for me was Rome Sweet Home as the writer was a Presbyterian pastor who graduated from Gordon-Conwell.

u/Eskimolatte · 1 pointr/NoFap

We don't know. Nobody knows. And to say that we don't know is less shameful than pretending that we actually know, which is something some religious people tend to do. Religions generally tend to give us this message of universal oneness, but sadly people tend to take all the rest far to literally. The old aramaic scriptures are barely comprehensible and the translations heavily rely on interpretation, which means that there are several ways to understand the bible. The sacred mushroom and the cross is a good read about some other perspectives. All in all, I think that spritiuality is good for you . But religion and spirituality are two different things. By being strictly religious, you are following a dogma that someone else thought of. By being spiritual, you are forming your own picture of the world with the things you find out and know, which is healthier in a lot of perspectives because it makes you think for yourself. Sapere aude! Sometimes, I get the impression that religion is an attempt to bring spirituality to those who aren't privileged enough to spend time on forming an own world view. But in this day and age, everyone can afford to think for himself and still many people don't.

u/PresidentInSnowFlake · 1 pointr/exjw

Quoting Revelation for anything is almost always stretched out bullshit. Most of the scriptures could mean anything, while at the same time meaning nothing. It's the perfect book to quote when you're spreading bullshit.

Not even joking, I'm convinced the writer(s) of Revelation were on drugs. I know psychedelic mushrooms grew wild in the area, I'd image other naturally occurring hallucinogens were as well.

Fun note, I'm about to start reading this book

u/filipmartinka · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

I like John Marco Allegro's theory better... (He was one of the world's foremost scholars, and the only translator on the Dead Sea Scrolls who wasn't religious).

http://www.amazon.de/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276

u/Tepoztecatl · 1 pointr/mexico

>1.- Digamos que yo siento que todos tenemos un motivo por el cual estamos aqui, todos y cada uno.

Mi pregunta es si sientes que el hecho de no tener un motivo es algo negativo. Crees que una persona que no cree en un plan divino a fuerza no sabe qué onda con su vida? O que piensan que sólo están de paso y que no vale la pena hacer nada? Hay muchos, pero muchos, ejemplos de lo contrario. La gente religiosa tiende a ser conformista, después de todo su razón de existir es complacer a Dios, y la Biblia no menciona nada de empujar el conocimiento y la ciencia hacia adelante.

>Ya no soy una unidad generica humana, y de eso se trata lo que dejo Jesus, de ir a ayudar a los demas, y a dar de gracia lo que de gracia recibimos que son las bendiciones y la salvacion, uno simplemente no puede quedarse con las bendiciones porque el agua tiene que fluir, si no, se estanca y se apesta.

Esto no entra en conflicto con tu idea de que la gente es pobre porque quiere? No estás usando una alegoría de bendiciones que también puede ser aplicada para la repartición de riqueza a nivel mundial? O tu idea es que el gobierno no debe ayudar a los que más necesitan, sino que deben esperar ayuda de Jesús?

>3.- Jajajaja, de donde sacaste esa teoria? La verdad no la habia escuchado, se ve interesante.

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-fertility/dp/0982556276

u/COSMICEYEFUCKOWL · 1 pointr/Drugs

I'm not into organized religion myself, however, if you like both psychedelics and Christianity, you might find this book very interesting- https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity-fertility/dp/0982556276

The author, John Allegro, was a fairly brilliant linguist and I believe a Jesuit (though I may be misrembering), who had access to the Vatican archives and dead sea scrolls. He determined that Christianity originally started out as a sort of mushroom cult. Now Jesus was not a historical person, but a sort of collection of allegorical tales intended to teach moral behavior which was drawn from diverse mythologies that would have been known to those in Judea and the Roman Empire more generally at the time, such as the trials of Hercules (also the son of God/Zeus, begotten of mortal woman, and required to undergo various trials of the flesh in order to eventually attain apotheosis) and the resurrection of Osiris. And originally it wasn't a prudish belief system at all, it was in many ways a fertility cult.

While there is certainly a lot of nonsense that got tacked onto the collection of verbal traditions which became the Bible (New Testament, Old Testament is basically some Jewish texts that got tacked on), if one takes the more liberal/hippyish interpretations of it, it is rather reminiscent of the state one enters on psylocybin, no? John Allegro thought the mushroom (God's flesh as the early Christians conceived of it) was amanita muscaria (also featured in the color theme and a lot of early imagery involving Santa Claus, strangely, and Siberian shamans have reindeers eat amanitas and then drink the reindeer urine for a supposedly better, more concentrated effect)- which is common in shamanic traditions in much of Eurasia. I personally see the effects of psylocybin as much more likely to lead to a Jesusesque point of view, however; we are all one, forgiveness, a lessening of ego, pride, greed, and wrath, empathy, ect. Though psylocybin was widely used in Aztec rites and well, the Aztecs... so I guess societal reactions can vary- though to be fair, the Aztecs viewed their sacrifices as ultimately for the good as that was all that was keeping the dark ones from swallowing the Sun.

Also "St. Anthony's Fire", a manic state in which, according to the beliefs of the time (middle ages), the holy spirit would fill men and women, was caused by ergolines growing on grain. LSD was developed from compounds having to do with ergot, as you might know (those compounds are vasoconstricters and, in low doses, can be useful in the treatment of certain headaches).

Psychedelics, whether ayahuasca in the Amazon, various mushrooms in pretty much every hunter-gatherer society, the mysterious psychoactive vapors of the Delphic Oracle, cannabis in Hinduism and historically amongst the Scythians, peyote amongst certain Native Americans, and practices which can lead to psychedelic states such as fasting in the desert, meditation, yoga, solitude, vision quests, walkabouts, ect. are the original religion/spirituality. I did not believe that "sacred" was even a real feeling that actually existed until I experienced 4-aco-dmt. The spice must flow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTLSF_h1fjg

u/supermonkeypie · 1 pointr/Drugs

The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross is an interesting read, you might like it.

u/deaddonkey · 1 pointr/trees

Someone might be interested in this book on the topic.

Not a perfect text, but there's some compelling and thought provoking evidence. There are other resources too, but that's the original 'famous' book on the matter.

There's actually a pretty deep rabbit hole to go down on this subject.

u/nok0000 · 1 pointr/Christianity

I know of a somewhat related book - The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross. The author makes some pretty huge leaps but it could be somewhat useful in your research if you have not heard of it before.

u/ConanTheSpenglerian · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

I'm going with the interpretation in Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Jesus was an euphemism for a cult of shroomheads, and his resurrection is the shrooms regrowing after you eat them. Actually, I don't really think this is the full accurate story, but it's the most amusing possibility. And since Peterson does talk about the spiritual experiences of psilocybin, I hope that he talks about this interpretation.

u/dopamingo · 1 pointr/Drugs

I think psychedelics have great influence on many of our major religions. An example of mushrooms and early Christianity is talked about in John Marco Allegro's novel, The sacred mushroom and the cross. He talks about early fertility cults taking mushrooms and eventually turning into Christianity. Pretty interesting stuff.

u/k3nnyd · 1 pointr/funny

Well, it's mainly from a book that has been heavily scrutinized but I would think is still much more credible than random Reddit comments. It's not like Redditors spend years doing historical research before posting.

The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross

u/romario77 · 1 pointr/atheism

Right, sorry, I read a book a while ago:
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806 , didn't remember the name right.

u/Nessie · 1 pointr/exmuslim

https://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806

>Jon Krakauer’s literary reputation rests on insightful chronicles of lives conducted at the outer limits. He now shifts his focus from extremes of physical adventure to extremes of religious belief within our own borders, taking readers inside isolated American communities where some 40,000 Mormon Fundamentalists still practice polygamy. Defying both civil authorities and the Mormon establishment in Salt Lake City, the renegade leaders of these Taliban-like theocracies are zealots who answer only to God.

>At the core of Krakauer’s book are brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty, who insist they received a commandment from God to kill a blameless woman and her baby girl. Beginning with a meticulously researched account of this appalling double murder, Krakauer constructs a multi-layered, bone-chilling narrative of messianic delusion, polygamy, savage violence, and unyielding faith. Along the way he uncovers a shadowy offshoot of America’s fastest growing religion, and raises provocative questions about the nature of religious belief.

u/MojoPin83 · 1 pointr/Christianity

The Problem of Suffering and the Goodness of God - Ravi Zacharias at Johns Hopkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7-gP1gC8gM&app=desktop

Why Series | Why Suffering: Suffering and Jesus | Nabeel Qureshi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psrvQZj68h4&app=desktop

Nabeel Qureshi on Suffering, Death, and the Cross: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv3KruwUDWk&app=desktop

Dr Nabeel Qureshi's Response to a Lady Suffering With Multiple Sclerosis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Q2VJnHIFE&app=desktop

Rethinking Life After Death (NT Wright): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZC6tbgpsl4&app=desktop

C.S. Lewis on Heaven and the New Earth: God's Eternal Remedy to the Problem of Evil and Suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs5VzPK8rw0&app=desktop

C.S. Lewis - The Problem of Pain: https://www.amazon.ca/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969

Why Suffering?: Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn't Make Sense by Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Suffering-Finding-Meaning-Comfort/dp/145554969X

Heaven by Randy Alcorn: https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Randy-Alcorn/dp/0842379428/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2KI1OVDBGB8J6&keywords=randy+alcorn+heaven+book&qid=1566624191&s=books&sprefix=Randy+Alcorn+heaven%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C150&sr=1-1

u/northstardim · 1 pointr/Christianity

So what are your goals? Do you insist on being like everybody else?? That aint going to happen sorry.

Do you get frustrated by the condition and project that onto other people? (Attitude)

Are you completely cynical about life and doubt everybody's honesty? (attitude)

Do you take so many medications that you're numb to everything? (Attitude)

There is a range of choices even you have towards life, whether or not you believe it.

In my own life I deal with neuropathy in my feet and hands. It is so variable and haphazard it is hard to know ahead of time whether I can walk due to this pain, whether I can open a jar or tune in my radio. It varies in intensity from barely there to incredibly hard to deal with from moment to moment.

I cant know your pain because I am not you, but everyone has their own burdens, in your case it insulates you from so much of life which is far more complex than physical pain. I can also guess it also closes your world down to some small place like a bedroom.

If you can read a Bible go back to the book of Job and reread what happens to him and his reaction to it. Compare the other characters reaction to Job's problems

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1&version=KJV

Might also want to read CS Lewis book "The problem of Pain"

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969

You mention "privilege" yes of course I am privileged I know and love God and I am confident that there will be a better place for me after death. Because God promised me this. Because of this I can do whatever I can do, and don't worry about the stuff I cant do.

In your case there are people who you interact with daily, are you good to them? Do you even know them and their lives, their wants, their dreams? Because of your condition you are in a unique position to share with them. yes there is some responsibility (probably not a huge one) you have towards them. No amount of pain on your part will eliminate that responsibility. If nothing else you can show them how they too can deal with their own pain when it comes and we all have pain. You CAN be a blessing to everyone around you by choosing that right attitude.

u/whichpaul · 1 pointr/Reformed

Very sorry to hear this, honestly can't imagine.

C.S. Lewis wrote an excellent book called, "The Problem of Pain", I believe he wrote it after losing his wife to cancer or something.
https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969

Also here's some verses that spring to mind:

"... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith" Romans 3:23-25

God does not take revenge on those who have faith in his redemptive act.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort." 2 Corinthians 1:3-7

This life is filled suffering but God can both comfort us and uses any suffering for our good, that of others and his glory, as he has already suffered as fully human for us and promises us an eternal cure for suffering and sin; as challenging as it might seem right now.

u/rickiibeta · 1 pointr/atheism

sorry, i am a busy man. i am not forgetting to respond... this question is raised and answered in the book The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis... the punchline is:

>"His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible."

i.e. creating a free creature without the possibility of evil is nonsense just as 'can god build a rock so heavy not even he can lift'.

>"Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them he two words 'God can'"

both quotes are taken from chapter 2: Divine Omnipotence; page 18. i suggest reading the entire book (especially the chess game metaphor on page 25 near the end of the same chapter), or at least chapter two which concerns your current rationale. or, you could not read it and go along presenting this evidence as proof God does not exist and be as dogmatic as many the religious folks you talk rotten about.

u/fessus_intellectiva · 1 pointr/Christianity

Have you read The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis? He tackles that issue pretty well regarding evil in the world. Not trying to push anything on you, I'm just saying - he's a smart guy and it's a good read. As for how could God reach out to you if you don't worship Him: haven't you ever loved someone who didn't love you back? I have; Megan Fox still won't return any of my phone calls or emails. And yes, there are some really oblivious Christians out there. Sorry about them; there's not much I can do. However, there are some others out there that understand the evil in the world far better that you and me. Did you know there are more Christian martyrs in the world now then there were when the Romans were feeding them to the lions?

u/debatemethrowaway · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

A very good response to God allowing suffering to occur can be found in The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis. I suggest reading the book in its entirety, but this is a pretty good summary of the book. It is a compelling read and gives an answer to this question.

u/umpteenth_ · 1 pointr/askgaybros

>I can NOT stop believing in God and yet I can't see how I can worship Him with the evil in this world.

This is an age-old question. It's called "the problem of evil." And the attempt to resolve this question has a name, too: theodicy. C. S. Lewis wrote a book on the subject, called "The Problem of Pain." I haven't read it yet, but it's in my "To read" list. The most common rebuttal to the question of how a loving God can allow all the evil in the world is the concept of free will. I cannot do a good job of explaining it thoroughly, but one of the clearest explanations was in an evangelical magazine I once read. I think there's an online copy, but I'll have to find it.

I don't consider myself Christian anymore, but I still turn to the Bible for comfort. How I personally get through trying times is by remembering Romans 8:28, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Even when I might not see how at the moment, I choose to believe that I will be able to look back and make sense of any present suffering. That does not make it any less difficult, though.

u/kumachaaan · 1 pointr/Christianity
u/abeachsomewhere1 · 1 pointr/worldnews

While not an easy question to respond in a good way to a child, the answer is very well explained in important Christian books such as:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Pain-C-Lewis/dp/0060652969

“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain


u/brznks · 1 pointr/atheism

hahah now you've got to be trolling me. You haven't listened to a word I've written, and you keep repeating the same exact things I provide you with good arguments against. If this is an honest effort at debating, you are awful at it. You have to realize when a point I make defeats a point you made, so you either have to abandon it or defend it. But you cannot simply repeat it and have that be a legitimate argument. In case you're not trolling, here are some responses.

> No it doesn't [have a unified theology]. Nothing based on the bible can.

That is ridiculous. I could come up with a theology. If millions of people agreed with me, we would have a unified theology. To say that having a unified theology is impossible does not make any sense.

> Is it the word of god or not?

Christians believe the Bible was written by humans. Many believe it was "inspired" by God, but not so far as dictation. It's a more abstract "inspiring" like how love can "inspire" a love poem.

> You said that but clearly you lack the ability to perceive reality or you are mentally insane. You are not in union with god on earth. You are separated from god while you are on earth.

You seem utterly incapable of philosophical thought. Either that or you're just not reading what I'm writing. Let me lay it out for you:

  • Heaven: complete union with God
  • Hell: complete separation from God
  • Earth: Some interaction with God. Not complete union, not complete separation.

    People cannot interact with God via prayer when in hell because they are completely separated from God.

    > So he is 100% responsible for all the good things (things you approve of) and bears no responsibility at all for any bad thing.

    This is, to your credit, the one good theological question you bring up. It is a difficult question with many answers over the years (from Augustine to C.S. Lewis). One answer is that like darkness is simply the absence of light, evil is simply the absence of goodness. By that mechanism, God could provide the goodness without providing any evil. Another answer is that all evil in the world arises from free will, and that if no one chose evil there would be no evil, only good. This answer tends to rely on true evil being "second-order," such as hatred and malice, not "first-order," like physical pain. In any case, if you want to give this topic any more than a cursory consideration, I suggest you read the linked books above.

    > You don't know and you don't care because you don't ask the question.

    And now you go back to being obtuse. I do care, and I asked the question in my very comment. I even ventured a guess at an answer! (That our lives are happier and more meaningful as mortals.)

    > You said there had to be consequences for choosing wrong or it made no sense to have free will. Now you are saying there are no consequences to choosing wrong because you can sin and still go to heaven. So much for your complete and unified catholic theology.

    And, here you go back to seeing things in black-and-white when they are grey, just like with the separation from God issue. Let me break it down for you again:

  • Person never sins (does not happen): Go to heaven
  • Person commits horrendous sins and completely rejects God in full knowledge of what God is: Probably go to hell
  • Person has some moderate sins, and/or does not fully believe in God: Depends on the severity, but they could probably go to purgatory and then to heaven.

    > Not any more. The catholic church has changed their minds about purgatory.

    Factually, verifiably false. You're probably thinking of limbo. See sections 1031, 1472, and 1475 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

    > No they don't. God chooses to send them to hell because they do things god does not approve of.

    Here is where you completely ignore what I said (that people choose hell, and the existence of a hell is a necessary consequence of free will) and simply repeat your claim. Not an effective tactic.

    > How? They made the wrong choice, they exercised their free will in a way god does not approve of. There has to be a consequence for doing something god does not approve of and that consequence is hell.

    See section on what happens to people with different levels of sins.

    > That's the most evil thing I can think of. What a repugnant religion catholicism is.

    You provide absolutely no argument for why what I described is "evil" or "repugnant." Name-calling, too, makes for an ineffective argument.

    I didn't want this to escalate to where I had to be a dick about it, but you pretty much asked for it.
u/rabidmonkey1 · 1 pointr/Christianity

The idea, I believe, with execution, is that a person's crimes are too great and therefore must be sent to God for immediate judgment. I don't endorse this philosophy, especially given past abuse on those who clearly didn't deserve death - think victims of war.

The larger idea that you're tackling here is pain; the existence of pain in the world. Why would a loving God allow pain to exist?

Please read C.S. Lewis's (He was an Atheist at one point too, you know!) The Problem of Pain. He explains and addresses all this in much greater depth and with much greater skill than I could at the moment.

http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256693843&sr=8-1

u/pottsnpans · 1 pointr/Catholicism

I strongly recommend The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis: http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969/

I just finished it recently and it helped my understanding of these questions immensely. I'm not a theologian, but as far as I could tell it was pretty much in line with the teachings of the Church. I would be interested in hearing if I am wrong about that.

u/theluppijackal · 1 pointr/Christianity

http://smile.amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427661998&sr=8-1&keywords=the+problem+of+pain

“Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

u/JorusC · 1 pointr/worldnews

Dude, why anything? Have you considered that God knows something you don't, and that your extremely limited grasp of the situation has not considered whole slew of factors that, on the eternal time scale, take major precedence?

You're asking about the nature of evil. It's a hard question. I think C.S. Lewis wrote some good stuff on it in The Problem of Pain. Seriously, I couldn't come close to explaining it as well as he does. Here's a Youtube reading, but it's 4 hours.

u/True_Whit · 1 pointr/Christianity

I think the book that you're looking for is A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch. Slightly intimidating (it's over 1100 pages!) but it's very well written, very thorough, and written in an academic style rather than from that of a believer.
http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-Years/dp/0143118692

u/EleisonJoy · 1 pointr/exmormon

The late great Christopher Hitchens recommends, "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years," by Diarmaid MacCulloch. I absolutely adore this book.

you can find it here

u/Doisha · 1 pointr/ImGoingToHellForThis

If you go by the bible, which is literally the only source you can go by for this topic (Roman/Jewish historians only offhandedly mention Jesus's existence and execution, obviously don't talk about the theology of the situation), then Jesus did fulfill the prophecies.

So far, I've explained to you that early Christianity was literally made entirely of Jews that accepted Jesus as the messiah; they followed Jewish law, kept kosher, etc. I've also explained that, in spite of the fact that being a Christian could get you killed, so converting to Christianity was dangerous to your health, it became the dominant religion in the region, and later the empire. But here's another thing: Jews had a special status for religions in the Roman empire. They did not have to bow to the emperor or acknowledge him as a god, as all other religions did, because the Romans respected that the Jewish tradition went back more than a thousand years and was older than the Roman faith. When a Jew converted to Christianity, they lost that status; Christianity had no tradition, the Romans had no respect for it. When a Christian refused to bow, they were killed. Christians were accused of being witches, cannibals, cowards, and just generally dishonorable scum.

Of course, I'm assuming you didn't read that far into the comment because no matter what I say you just repost the exact the same sentence.

Its literally impossible to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy and I can't even begin to try because the only source is the Bible and I am much more of a religious historian than a theologian. But what I have told you (and you've chosen to ignore) is that Christianity went from being a small group of Jews that accepted Jesus as messiah, to a large group of Jews, to a large and persecuted minority within the Roman empire, to the largest religion in the world. The number of people that accepted Jesus as the messiah has outnumbered those that don't for around 1900 years. The Bible, which is the only source you can go by for religious information, says that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies. So the core of your argument is basically "The Bible is a giant lie" and there's not really a way that I can dispute that, nor am I going to try to.

Sorry that it took me a day to respond to you; I'm sure you were holding your breath. My phone died when I just as I finished typing this yesterday and I finally got bored enough to type it again.

Here are some sources, in case you actually are interested in the history that I've been talking about:

Diarmaid MacCulloch, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

Any primary sources references in that book will be found in: John W. Coakley and Andrea Sterk, Readings in World Christian History, Volume 1: Earliest Christianity to 1453

Free online Bible, in many different versions including audio book

u/anathemas · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

Not OP, but audible might have Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels. Some of her other books touch on Gnosticism as well.

If you like podcasts, The Secret History of Western Esotericism, has a few episodes on Gnosticism, although the whole podcast is really interesting. History of the Papacy also discusses Gnosticism in the context of the church's history. In Our Time also has an episode. Links for the others in my academic podcast/free uni class list.

You might also ask for recommendations in r/AskBibleScholars or r/academicbiblical.

Edit: just noticed you were looking for old sects in general. In that case, you'll find a lot in the list I linked — it's what got me interested in the historical criticism of Christianity in the first place. :) I'd also suggest Christianity: The First 3,000 Years. It's pretty popular, so there might be an audiobook. Iirc there's also a documentary.

u/Parivill501 · 1 pointr/AskHistory

This is a huge topic that I can't (nor can anyone) rightly do justice to in a reddit post. There's a huge amount that the Church (sometimes particular churches, sometimes the whole of Christianity) has done throughout the ages, both good and bad, though you're right in saying that the modern narrative is quite heavily weighted against it. To give a few examples of the good however:

  • Here is a list of Catholic sceintists and their contributions to the body of scientific work. It's a modernist myth to say that the Church is anti science and largely stems from a misunderstanding of the Galileo Trial and Alfred Dickson White's, totally fraudulent, Conflict Thesis. See here for r/AskHistorians FAQ on Christianity and Science.

  • The Crusades, like all of human history, are a great deal more complicated than Hollywood makes them out to be. Initially the Crusades were largely reactions to Muslim aggression in the Balkans, and while later crusades admittedly got off track (the sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade for example) their digression was largely the result of political and economic issues, not theological. In fact, less than 7% of all wars and less than 2% of all wartime casulties are the result of religon. Again, it's a myth that most (or even many) conflicts are religiously driven affairs.

  • The so-called Dark Ages, a term which, for good reason, is almost never used by historians anymore, is also largely a myth. Great advances were being made in philosophy (The Scholastic Traditions which built upon Aristotle and Plato, re-imported to the West from Muslim lands after the Crusades), legal theory, jurisprudence, social theory, and science (see link above). Seeing the Medieval period as a stagnation or regression is, again, the result of modernist interpretations of the past and a great deal of revisionary history.

  • In more modern times the Catholic Church was one of the few opponents to eugenic movements across Europe and the United States. This stems from the fundamental importance placed on the human person in Christian theology. During WWII Pope Pius XII or "Hitler's Pope" was actually involved in a massive effort to undercut Nazi power and save Jewish people from Hitler's pogroms. I can't find it right now but I'll keep looking for a documentary on Pope Pius XII during the war.

    If you're really interested in Church history, here are a few recommendations I can offer:

  • Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart. Perhaps the most apologetic work here but DBH does a fair job going through the various myths perpetrated by modern society against the Church throughout history.

  • Christianity: The First 3000 Years by Diarmond McCulloch. A fantastic single volume history of the Christian religion.

  • The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalaz. A slightly more Evangelical work to accompany McCulloch's work. In two volumes.
u/MetaphoricallyHitler · 1 pointr/Christianity

If history's your thing, this is a good broad-scoped history of Christianity.

If you're less ambitious and just want to check out the history of the early church, this book is quite a bit shorter and very readable.

u/crudkin · 1 pointr/atheism

Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. It's a real beast, but worth every minute. It's readable and yet very well-researched. And you don't have to read it all at once if you don't want. I read it in theological school, and it helped me understand the false foundations of Christianity. On Amazon.

u/contractor_scum · 1 pointr/atheism

I think you would enjoy this book Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

Your professor probably taught a lot of what is in here, but I found it to be a fascinating read.

u/CSpilot · 1 pointr/Reformed

I haven't found anything yet that is a good in-depth narrative of the split. At a high-level, it happened over several centuries and was driven by geographic separation, linguistic and cultural differences (Greek vs. Latin), the Pope's claim to primacy, the rise of icons in the eastern church, and the western church's addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene creed. Honestly, Wikipedia has some good stuff (search for "The Great Schism" and "Filioque") for an introduction to the issues.

The Orthodox Church touches on the issues from an eastern perspective and is a great introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years is a great single-volume work covering many aspects of church history. It's a large book, but a great place to start if you're a history buff.

u/Qwill2 · 1 pointr/HistoryofIdeas

Temporarily unavailable... Are you familiar with Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, by Diarmaid MacCullogh?

u/NukesForGary · 1 pointr/Reformed

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch

Don't let the fact that the author is a Gay, former Christian scare you. This book is one of the best books I have read in church history. It reads very nicely.

u/vinterstum · 1 pointr/Christianity

"Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch
http://amzn.com/0143118692

This is the definitive history of the Christianity. As unbiased and authoritative as you're going to find.

u/boomboomroom · 1 pointr/politics

Actually you have to thank the Irish.

u/DanielMcLaury · 1 pointr/news

Please tell me you're kidding.

If not, let's start you out here:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493

u/SanFransicko · 1 pointr/AskReddit

I'm Irish, and although my family strongly identifies with our Irish roots, I've always been a bit embarrassed by the way we celebrate our alcoholism. I like my drinks too, but jokes like,
"Why did God invent whiskey?"
"So the Irish wouldn't rule the world"

It's always embarrassed me a bit. Then I read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" and it made me proud to know that the Irish really had a big role in saving western civilization from losing more of our accumulated knowledge than we already had at the end of the dark ages.

Now I love the joke:
"Do you know what I'd be if I wasn't Irish?"
"Bloody ashamed of me-self."

u/ModusMan · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Actually, according the the book "How the Irish Saved Civilisation" he was an exiled/kidnapped Welsh Prince. http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493

u/ThisIsDave · 1 pointr/politics

In response to the headline, I thought I'd note that it's not the first time, at least according to this guy

>In this delightful and illuminating look into a crucial but little-known "hinge" of history, Thomas Cahill takes us to the "island of saints and scholars," the Ireland of St. Patrick and the Book of Kells. Here, far from the barbarian despoliation of the continent, monks and scribes laboriously, lovingly, even playfully preserved the West's written treasury. When stability returned in Europe, these Irish scholars were instrumental in spreading learning, becoming not only the conservators of civilization, but also the shapers of the medieval mind, putting their unique stamp on Western culture.

I've heard it's actually a very good book, but I haven't read it and don't know enough history to judge one way or the other.

u/Doparoo · 1 pointr/pics

There's a fun book called "How The Irish Saved Civilization" https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385418493

I wonder if this is placeable in the book.

u/SporkOfThor · 1 pointr/atheism

This is a good read on how Irish monasteries kept and copied books after the fall of Rome, to be later introduced. Keep in mind many civilizations suppressed information and destroyed knowledge and the knowledgeable for political and religious reasons both, including the Chinese emperor and the Cambodians. The main goal of any society which wants to advance learning should be to not inhibit free expression, no matter how offensive, ignorant, politically incorrect, unpopular, irreligious, blasphemous, unscientific, etc. The only restraint being practices dangerous to others.

u/pentad67 · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

Not everyone agrees with Goffart, his methodology or his conclusions, but everyone has to take them into account. I personally think he is great (and I think most historians fall on the positive side), but even if I disagreed, his book would still be on my "must-read" list.

Being able to distinguish a real history book from one for a general audience is something too many academics take for granted and we forget that it's really not an obvious distinction to many people. General guidelines, definitely not to be followed 100%: is the author a working academic or is he more of a journalist looking for a good story? If not an academic, has he or she written on this area before or do they write on topics all over the map? Is the press known for academic books or popular books? (Sadly) is the book very expensive or is it actually affordable?! Mention it to an actual academic and see if he turns his nose up at it and sneers condescendingly (I'm waiting for someone to ask me about this book so I can give that response. I've been practicing my sneer in the mirror). Or, better yet, ask reddit!

u/CedarWolf · 1 pointr/AskReddit
u/Nabiiy · 1 pointr/languagelearning

>lyric poetry 30% (mainly symbolism)
art history 25% (mainly Renaissance and symbolism)
Russian literature 15%
epic poetry 10%
philosophy 10% (mainly Greeks, Spinoza, Camus, etc.)
linguistics 5%
religions 5% (mainly Christianity)

I know you didn't express any interest in it in your post, but I'm going to give my case for Irish Gaelic.

It has a solid quantity of lyric poetry, epic poetry, symbolic art history, and historical Christian documents. I believe it would engage a full 75% of your interests.

How the Irish Saved Civilisation by Thomas Cahill is a book about the Christian monks of 5th-11th century Ireland. These monks are hailed as having maintained a beacon of literacy in Dark Age Europe with their religious and historical writings.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Irish-Saved-Civilization-Irelands/dp/0385418493

Gaelic is also super interesting linguistically. Mordern Irish is nearly mutually intelligable with Old Irish. Far from being archaic or traditional, Gaelic is a punk rocker on the linguistics scene. It doesn't fit into your language's rat race of 'patterns', and 'rules'. Gaelic is simultaneously a graffiti language and an instrument of poetry. Ireland's poetic tradition is long and in both English and Irish.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_poetry

Celtic art has quite a rich and ancient tradition. It's not the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel, but prehistoric through dark age Irish/Pictish art has many subtle secrets to appreciate. We didn't really understand the knotwork until the 20th century. The symbolic meaning of carvings in pre-historic Scotland are still shrouded in mystery today.

https://www.amazon.com/Celtic-Art-Methods-Construction-Instruction/dp/0486229238/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2NIOFHDXK0R0P&keywords=george+bain+celtic+art&qid=1554692813&s=gateway&sprefix=george+bain&sr=8-1

Irish is in a revival, Ireland is beautiful, and most importantly, Irish is on Duolingo.

u/KindaRight · 1 pointr/bestof

Relevant: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0385418493
I read a bit of it once, seemed a little...exaggerated, but it was interesting.

u/Sergio_56 · 1 pointr/Catholicism

I haven't read it, but The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn is supposed to be a great book for would-be converts with the standard theological apprehensions for conversion. I think it addresses the Marian doctrines, but I'm not sure about the amount of depth it goes into.

u/improbablesalad · 1 pointr/Catholicism

I agree with JMJF1209.

There are a few things that can help with boredom:

You could go to Mass a few minutes early and spend the extra time asking Jesus to make you more aware of his presence. He is the Word of God, so he is present in a special way when people are reading the readings out loud, which can make the readings feel more "alive" to us because we are hearing them instead of seeing them. He is present in the tabernacle where there are consecrated hosts. He is present where two or three are gathered in his name (we can guarantee that there will be at least two people at Mass since you're not the priest). Also he will be present on the altar partway through Mass and then people will receive him; you should not, if you have not been to confession after time away; but you can think about what is going on in the other people (usually when we eat food, we turn the food into "us"; but like the "in Soviet Russia" jokes, when we eat Jesus, he turns us a little bit more into him. Practice being more open to the idea of that happening to you, in the future.)

You can learn more about the Mass. There is a Scott Hahn book https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591 for example (fair warning, I have to ignore his sub-headings within a chapter because they are usually puns; and I like puns (as much as the next person who read the then-entire Xanth series in her misspent youth) but they are kind of really jarring to me in this sort of a book.)

You can invest a little bit of time in your relationship with God ("how is your prayer life?") outside of Mass. If we play an instrument at school, we are supposed to practice it every day at home; otherwise we are not going to get much out of a concert; at home, we can sometimes mess around and have fun with it (though yes sometimes it is a tedious-but-necessary slog), and in the concert we all play the same piece together which is (if you are competent) also fun but a different kind of fun; if we never practice, and at the same time we expect the concert to feel like the playing-on-my-own kind of fun, then we are going to be doubly disappointed because we will not really experience either kind of fun. Get a good basic book on prayer such as https://www.amazon.com/God-You-Prayer-Personal-Relationship/dp/0809129353 or https://www.amazon.com/Time-God-Jacques-Philippe/dp/1594170665 (both are short, take a look and pick whichever one appeals to you.)

u/eghhge · 1 pointr/atheistvids

Check out the scifi novel "the Sparrow" by Mary Russell, tackles the religion in space dilemma, pretty good read too.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sparrow-Ballantine-Readers-Circle/dp/0449912558

u/fosterwallacejr · 1 pointr/ifyoulikeblank

The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russel

u/theriverrat · 1 pointr/Christianity

Just a side note, this theme is explored in Russel's novel, The Sparrow. The crew sent to the planet found with intelligent life include Jesuits.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sparrow-Ballantine-Readers-Circle/dp/0449912558

u/mattculbreth · 1 pointr/scifi

The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell goes into first contact material like Contact does, but (IMHO) it's much deeper and more thought provoking.

u/Cdresden · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

A Case of Conscience by James Blish and The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell.

u/gotcatstyle · 1 pointr/ifyoulikeblank

I really loved The Poisonwood Bible. And she wrote The Invention of Wings too, right?

Check out The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It's science fiction, but written beautifully and the focus is on humanity and characterization, not "beep boop robots aliens" haha. This book really stuck with me after reading it, in the same way the Kingsolver novels did.

Also check out The Hummingbird's Daughter by Luis Alberto Urrea. It's a semi-fictionalized account of the life of Teresita Urrea, and is also absolutely wonderful and will stick with you.

u/elucify · 1 pointr/IAmA

Does the name "Trappist" have anything to do with the science fiction novel "The Sparrow"? https://www.amazon.com/Sparrow-Novel-Ballantine-Readers-Circle/dp/0449912558

u/Sometimes_Lies · 1 pointr/civ

Welcome :)

Can't legally link the full book, but I'm sure your library has (or can get) a copy. I believe the book was The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell.

The story you talked about sounds pretty interesting. Sometimes I'm tempted to read OSC's fiction that people observe(/complain) is just thinly veiled Mormon cosmology, because it sounds interesting, but I don't think I can stomach reading any of his books anymore now that I know a bit more about him as a person. Kind of sad.

u/Eko_Mister · 1 pointr/books

Forever Peace - Haldeman

Book of The New Sun/Book of the Long Sun - Wolfe (this is a very rewarding story, but it requires commitment)

Never Let Me Go - Ishiguro

The Sparrow - Russell

Please be aware that these are all fairly dark. Maybe I'm soft, but The Sparrow was one of the roughest books I've read, from a psychological perspective.

u/tinlo · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

If you liked the Ender universe, try the offshoot series for Ender and Bean. Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide and Children of the Mind are more philosophical and deal with Ender coming to terms with killing all the Formics. Everything after Ender's Shadow follows Bean and the other Battle School kids as the world superpowers try to achieve global domination after the Formic War, it's more about military and political strategy. They're both great, but very different.

For something new, check out Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow and its sequel, Children of God. Here's the Publishers Weekly description of The Sparrow:

An enigma wrapped inside a mystery sets up expectations that prove difficult to fulfill in Russell's first novel, which is about first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. The enigma is Father Emilio Sandoz, a Jesuit linguist whose messianic virtues hide his occasional doubt about his calling. The mystery is the climactic turn of events that has left him the sole survivor of a secret Jesuit expedition to the planet Rakhat and, upon his return, made him a disgrace to his faith. Suspense escalates as the narrative ping-pongs between the years 2016, when Sandoz begins assembling the team that first detects signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life, and 2060, when a Vatican inquest is convened to coax an explanation from the physically mutilated and emotionally devastated priest. A vibrant cast of characters who come to life through their intense scientific and philosophical debates help distract attention from the space-opera elements necessary to get them off the Earth.

Oh, and I almost forget, the A Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin is so freaking amazing. If you want a new fictional universe to explore, this is it. Well written, ridiculous plot twists, tons of interesting and unique characters that you hate with a passion until you read the chapter written from their point of view, then you fall in love with them. I watched the first two episodes of Game of Thrones before deciding I wanted to read the books first. I stayed up way later than I planned to because I just had to read the next chapter, then the next, then the next book, until I'd read all five in no time and might read them again because I'm addicted to the characters and universe. It's just such rich content that you'll find yourself flipping back and forth to re-read different parts. You won't regret it.

u/ovnem · 1 pointr/WritersGroup

The Sparrow. I loathed this book. Jesuits in space. However, I think it would be funny for those who got it.

u/the-bicycle-thief · 1 pointr/atheism

check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Sparrow-Mary-Doria-Russell/dp/0449912558/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341599508&sr=8-1&keywords=the+sparrow+russell

it's fiction, but the author does a good job of considering this question philosophically via empathy (the title ends up adding depth to a cliche christian sentiment in a way that was probably not intended, but is true nonetheless).

u/carbonetc · 1 pointr/DebateAnAtheist

My favorite religiously-themed fiction book: The Sparrow

u/Gingerblossom88 · 1 pointr/The100

Yikes I reeeeeeally hope they are not going the [hover for spoiler](/spoiler alien) route.... that's a big nope for me :/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_(novel)

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/0449912558/R1VLVTYCBFUYI/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/0449912558/R346EEJCNWLWYG/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_7?ie=UTF8&cursor=7

Edit: ok well I can't figure out how to properly hide what I am talking about but those who look up the plot of the book should know what I'm talking about.... going in that particular direction would really feel like jumping the shark for me and I'm not here for it :/

u/PhilthePenguin · 1 pointr/Christianity

You can try this one out.

u/suxer · 1 pointr/atheism

You should switch too, or maybe go for two books.

I recommend Tim Keller's The Reason for God.

u/justtolearn · 1 pointr/atheism

This book is a lot better than A Case for Christ http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493 , however if you read the god delusion then I would assume you know you can only be agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You cant just be agnostic, however personally I am an atheist because the concept of a soul seems dumb to me.

u/cosmicservant · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

Please don't base such important views on reddit comments. Talk to a pastor, just search church in Google maps and go talk to one. or read books by them Reasons for God by Timothy Keller would be a good read [amazon.com] andor his podcasts [itunes.apple.com] [podbay.fm]

u/MinutesOnAScreen · 1 pointr/personalfinance

You've already gotten a lot of good advice. But I wanted to say that filling for bankruptcy is not going to help you if you make less than you spend. It will screw up your credit and you will still be living off credit cards. Once you cut your expenses and gain more income, start working at paying off the highest rate CC first. You might want to consider getting a book like The Total Money Makeover: Classic Edition: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness"

Also, since she is staying home with your son, maybe she could take in another child to watch.

u/thedoc617 · 1 pointr/ADHD

Dave Ramsey!

What he teaches REALLY helped me. Cut up my credit cards and do cash only things or debit card, and did the debt snowball to pay down the lowest ones first (regardless of interest).

What are you passionate about? Hobbies? I bounced around in 4 different majors before I found Theatre Arts, got a degree and then decided to become a professional pet stylist. (dog groomer). At least I do it with flair!

I'm not particularly religious, but there is a class that is offered in many Christian churches that you have other like minded individuals also trying to get out of debt. (He does reference the bible and some religious teachings, but it's not littered in it)

u/AnOddOtter · 1 pointr/IWantToLearn

I can recommend a couple resources to get you started. One is the subreddit /r/personalfinance. There is all kinds of useful information on there that can help you. The other is the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey. It is quick read. If you do the audiobook it is less than 4 hours. You can almost certainly get it from your local library for free, maybe even as an ebook or digital audiobook.

A very very brief simplistic explanation is that it uses a snowball approach to your finances when in debt. List out all of your monthly expenses from lowest to highest, establish a small emergency fund, then pay off the debts from lowest to highest. When you pay off the lowest one, start applying that now freed up expense to the next lowest. I know that saying to establish an emergency fund is /r/restofthefuckingowl material for this question, but I'm just giving a summary of the ideas.

An example is if you have two debts. One for $200 that you have a minimum paying of $10/month on. Second is for $1000 that you have a minimum paying of $50 on. Each month you pay the $50 minimum on the 2nd and as much as you can on the first one, we will say $25 for this. In 8 months you pay off the first loan, so in the 9th month you roll that $25 into the second loan, and start paying $75/month on it

That's the gist of Total Money Makeover, but I can give you another tip that has helped from my personal experience. It sounds like a discipline problem of spending money when you know you shouldn't. Open a savings account and use direct deposit to automatically put $10, 20, or whatever is appropriate for your paycheck into that savings account. Since it will never hit your checking account you just pretend it doesn't exist.

u/r4d4r_3n5 · 1 pointr/technology

> Anyone have any idea how inefficient school and education are. People are spending 30 years of their lives in school, just to get ready for a job. 30 years. And that number isnt exactly getting smaller. When suddenly you have to be able to work multiple fields.

First, I don't know anyone that works 30 years in school. perhaps you mean that one is in school continually until they're thirty years old, which I also think is unlikely.

Second, I think that 'having to be able to work in multiple fields' is nothing new and not something to be avoided: My grandfather worked two jobs to support his family, landscaping during the day and working in the rail yard at night. Even in retirement, he practiced woodworking (wintertime) and small-scale farming (rest of the year). He performed pretty much all the repairs on his property himself (automotive maintenance to welding, drilling his own well, etc...) I myself have done analog and RF circuit design, programming, outside sales and product training, and that's just my current job.

>Not to mention the cost of living has gone up since the industrial revolution. There isnt exactly a lot of space in many countries, where you live in the city or you dont have any place to live. and its freaking expensive to live in the big city.

Not a lot of space in many countries? In the United States, a country of almost 314 million people, the average population density is less than 83 people per square mile. Denmark, on the other hand has an average population density of almost 337 people per square mile. Canada may be your best bet; it's only got one-tenth of the US population, and only 9 people per square mile on average.

You're on Reddit, so I assume you've got a technical background. Have you considered not living in a "freaking expensive" city? For example, Melbourne, Florida and the surrounding area has many technical companies, is very close to Kennedy Space Center, and has a reasonable cost of living. (Florida also has no state income tax, unlike my native Georgia.) I assume that as part of living in the EU, it wouldn't be too hard to go to another, lower-cost area and still find employment

> Someone on reddit once posted something about older generations being able to buy a house for was it one months salary i think. Yeah goodluck with that today, takes 20years salary to buy a house, if you take the average salary.

I've never seen this. All the references I've been able to find say the historical price for (new) houses is about three times the median annual salary for the country, and that is apparently true across most countries.


We live a fabulously wealthy world. When we have a guy with a pencil sharpening business, and people apparently pay him to sharpen their pencils for them, they can't be all that poor, can they?

I know he's from Tennessee, but would you consider looking at Dave Ramsey's The Total Money Makeover? I'm sure that you won't find it 100% applicable as I'm sure things in the EU work differently than in the United States, but his philosophy of money and wealth are universal.

u/chocolate_soymilk · 1 pointr/personalfinance

I don't have a great answer to that question. I would definitely try a private sale first. If in a couple months you don't get a bite (deal local and in person on craigslist, please), then try to sell it to a dealership or carmax, etc.

You two are great candidate for Dave Ramsey's plan - check out his book Total Money Makeover. It's a step by step plan to get out of debt, and it works well if you commit to it. It's very no-nonsense, and it has an enormous support community around the country and online.

u/mphouli · 1 pointr/NoStupidQuestions

10 year ago I was in the similar situation, the book below change my life. My family is now completely debt free including our home.

The Total Money Makeover: Classic Edition: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595555277/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_J1OJBb1KGMDHM

u/attackuwiththenorth · 1 pointr/personalfinance

I was in much of the same position you are. My dad made plenty of money and paid my way through college, etc.

The best thing the man did for me was force me to take Dave Ramsey’s class on money management. It changed my life and view on money. I learned how to tell my money where to go instead of just wondering where it went. Because the whole class is kind of expensive, I suggest you just read his book “Total Money Makeover.” Here’s a link if you so desire.

u/BillWeld · 1 pointr/algotrading

Check out this book and stay away from the stock market until you know what you are doing.

u/JohnnyKonig · 1 pointr/books

Here is my list, they are mostly books which have helped me to live a better life, so not so much suited for a bucket-list as books which should be read early in life:

u/Whit3y · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Read this. Skip over the Jesus freak parts but I can't recommend this book enough.

The Total Money Makeover: Classic Edition: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595555277/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_HyaSub1BN0K8R

u/Eyimanewpizzaguy · 1 pointr/DaveRamsey

Heres what you want https://www.amazon.com/Total-Money-Makeover-Classic-Financial/dp/1595555277/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S6DQH80441684GWGFX7P

You can be ultra Dave and pick it up at the library for free!

Or, consider FPU. Its $129 but you get a lot of bang for the buck. Its meant to be done as a couple. I was just fine reading the book but I pay for Every Dollar which is $100/yr (paid version). I might as well have done FPU. You can do the classes online if you dont want to go in person.
https://www.daveramsey.com/fpu#in-progress=0

u/Trugy · 1 pointr/personalfinance

The best ones are of course free, and both this subreddit and bogelheads have a wealth of knowledge. I try and watch a tutorial or read a story a few times a week on both


For how to create and stick to a budget as a young professional, I like Dave Ramsey. He has tons of good rules of thumb and pitfalls to avoid that will be useful for the rest of your life. He's a bit conservative though, and I don't necessarily agree with his cash only, no debt strategies.


https://www.amazon.com/Total-Money-Makeover-Classic-Financial/dp/1595555277/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480449960&sr=8-1&keywords=dave+ramsey


Suze Orman is another great author for younger people, especially when tackling big things for the 1st time like home ownership and loans


https://www.amazon.com/Money-Book-Young-Fabulous-Broke/dp/1594482241/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480450023&sr=8-1&keywords=suze+orman


My top suggestion though is Rich Dad, Poor Dad. It's not as direct as many other personal finance books, as its more general advice on how to steer your financial life, but itss an incredible book


https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Dad-Poor-Teach-Middle/dp/1612680011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480450131&sr=8-1&keywords=rich+dad+poor+dad

u/jerpois1970 · 1 pointr/personalfinance

I’d like to suggest a book to you. I actually prefer the audiobook version because the author is the one reading the audiobook version and adds some additional unscripted info.
It’s the simplest plan to reset your finances and get to a solid foundation to build wealth from. There are more complicated/ sexy/ advanced ways available. The thing that they lack is the simplicity. You can add complexity later.

The Total Money Makeover: Classic Edition: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595555277/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_KLiXDbKVBH0Y2

u/harbinger06 · 1 pointr/personalfinance

I was in about that much debt, though am single with no kids, but also earned a bit less. I discovered Dave Ramsey’s Total Money Makeover and it really helped me bust through my own bullshit attitude of “I should have these things I can not afford.” It was normal to have a $200/month cable bundle. It was normal to eat out daily. Well as Dave says, “being in debt is normal!”

I was lucky to have an extra job land in my lap, and I earned about an extra $10,000 in 8 months. All of that went to paying down debt. Getting a good chunk paid down helped reduce the monthly payments all round, as well as asking sure everything got paid on time. I didn’t realize how much I was wasting every month on late payments, not to mention the damage to my credit score.

You’ve probably already considered this, but weigh your wife’s future income against what childcare will cost. No sense in working just to pay childcare. And perhaps if she stays home with the children she can find a way to earn money online and contribute that way.

Consider whether it would be beneficial to sell and move to a smaller/cheaper house. Your wife’s car being leased will probably be tricky to get out of, but may be possible. Just seriously examine each monthly expense (including subscription services) and decide “do I need this, or is it a luxury?”

Examine your bank statements for what you spend on other luxuries than sneak in, like coffee or fast food. You’ve listed your bills, but what other things might you be spending money on that you don’t even notice?

I got rid of cable, tightened up on shopping and fast food. It’s taken about 4 years but I’m almost debt free. And I’ll admit, I could have been stricter and gotten it done faster.

u/thesteadydrop · 1 pointr/StudentLoans

As a follow up on the my and SilentKnightOfOld's comments, I have to admit that there is an emotional aspect to owing almost 300K of student loan debt. I have 135k and am going for PSLF (3.5 years in), and it still bothers me sometimes when I see my balance changing very little. However, I have gone through the decision process many times and keep coming back to PSLF.

Here's an article about dealing with the emotions of student loan debt.

Ramit Sethi talks about psychology and the "invisible scripts" we have in our lives in his book. Basically, they are lies that we taught from childhood, and we should really analyze them to see if they are true. One of the most common: "debt is bad".

Dave Ramsey extols the "debt is bad" line in his book. He also realizes some simple elements about the psychology of money, in that paying off the smaller debt (snowball), regardless of interest, is a better path for most people since they get a bigger emotional win from seeing that one line item of debt eliminated rather than just seeing the interest calculations proving they are saving money from paying the higher interest debt (avalanche).

While I like the PSLF program, I realize that it is not for everyone. Some people just want to slash every expense, pay off the debt, and be done. Kudos to them. But their tool is hammer, and not everyone's money problems are a nail.

Have a frank conversation with yourself, then choose the best repayment option.

u/karlsmission · 1 pointr/phoenix

Buy yourself this book, https://amzn.to/2ILu90D. It will help you learn to budget, it even has forms in the back. As far as a/c make sure you figure out how to set times, and as others have said, let it get 80+ during the day when you are not there, and drop down after you get home. My largest bill last year was ~$350 on a 2600 sq/ft house with 6 people and my crypto miners running (lots of power/heat) you should be able to beat that easily.

Good luck.

u/ayoayo123 · 1 pointr/personalfinance

For beginners in finance, I like the Dave Ramsey show because he helps show you get out of debt quickly:

​

https://www.youtube.com/thedaveramseyshow?sub_confirmation=1

​

Check out his book The Total Money Makeover : https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595555277/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0?fbclid=IwAR3x5-Psjr8-Djy0FVEXkoBgcH4Hzl99Zk6szjCn1hSXnUXmphkcVUslMmI

​

​

​

​

u/moxiousmissy · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Duuuuuuuuuuuuude! Epic! I want your book, I hope you meet your goal =)

This did not happen today, but I paid off my car the other day and I'm still feeling good about it.

While I don't 100% agree on everything this dude says, I'm hoping to work through this plan with my hubby. =)

MCubb may be just a tad bit excited today!"

u/scrager4 · 1 pointr/ynab

Certainly don't try to boil the ocean and attack all debt at this point. Step one is to get current and stay current.

If you can buy it or find it at a library, I would recommend a read of Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover. http://amzn.com/1595555277 It talks a lot about how to get started and the vision of where you want to get to. One of the main points is to imagine a life without payments. Imagine what you could do with your money if you were spending todays money instead of tomorrow's money, because right now your payments are a result of spending tomorrows money for a long time.

You'll get there, but it may take some hard choices and tough decisions about lifestyle and needs vs wants.

u/futuredepth · 1 pointr/occult